Register of advice

The list below is a record of advice the Planning Inspectorate has provided in respect of the Planning Act 2008 process.

There is a statutory duty under section 51 of the Planning Act 2008 to record the advice that is given in relation to an application or a potential application and to make this publicly available. Advice we have provided is recorded below together with the name of the person or organisation who asked for the advice and the project it relates to. The privacy of any other personal information will be protected in accordance with our Information Charter which you should view before sending information to the Planning Inspectorate.

Note that after a project page has been created for a particular application, any advice provided that relates to it will also be published under the ‘s51 advice’ tab on the relevant project page.

Advice given between between 1 October 2009 and 14 April 2015 has been archived. View the archived advice.

PreviewProject
Enquiry received via email
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

05 March 2024
Flotation Energy and EnBW/bp - anon.
Morgan and Morecambe Offshore Wind Farms Transmission Assets
Enquiry received via email
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

05 March 2024
Flotation Energy and EnBW/bp - anon.
General
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please see attached.
Please see attached.

04 March 2024
Professor Alex D Rogers
Botley West Solar Farm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Advice given in regards of targeted s42 consultation and the Book of Reference
Please see attached

01 March 2024
Five Estuaries Offshore Wind Farm Ltd - anon.
Five Estuaries Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting.
Please see attached.

20 February 2024
Cory Environmental Holdings (CEHL) - anon.
Cory Decarbonisation Project
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Inception Meeting
Please see attached

07 February 2024
Teesside Flexible Regas Port Ltd - anon.
Teesside Flexible Regas Port
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
See Attached

06 February 2024
National Highways - anon.
M60/M62/M66 Simister Island
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

06 February 2024
Five Estuaries Offshore Wind Farm Ltd - anon.
Five Estuaries Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Draft Document Review
Please see attached

05 February 2024
JBM Solar - anon.
Byers Gill Solar
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Inception Meeting
Please see attached

05 February 2024
Green Hill Solar Farm Limited - anon.
Green Hill Solar Farm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
EAP Components Advice
Please see attached

02 February 2024
JBM Solar - anon.
Byers Gill Solar
Enquiry received via email
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.”

31 January 2024
Jonathan Dean
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

30 January 2024
Ridge Clean Energy Ltd - anon.
Temple Oaks Renewable Energy Park
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

30 January 2024
Flotation Energy and EnBW/bp - anon.
Morgan and Morecambe Offshore Wind Farms Transmission Assets
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached

25 January 2024
Southern Water - anon.
Hampshire Water Transfer and Water Recycling Project
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting.
Please see attached.

25 January 2024
North Falls Offshore Wind Farm Ltd - anon.
North Falls Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached.

24 January 2024
Photovolt Development Partners (PVDP) on behalf of - anon.
Botley West Solar Farm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Draft document review and project update meeting
Please see attached

24 January 2024
Morecambe Offshore Windfarm Ltd - anon.
Morecambe Offshore Windfarm Generation Assets
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
See Attached

23 January 2024
bp EnBW - anon.
Morgan Offshore Wind Farm Generation Assets
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
EAP Components Advice.
Please see attached.

19 January 2024
Total Energies and Corio Generation - anon.
Outer Dowsing Offshore Wind (Generating Station)
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

15 January 2024
Xlinks 1 Limited - anon.
Xlinks Morocco-UK Power Project
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
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.

12 January 2024
The Mineral Planning Group Ltd - anon.
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

11 January 2024
RWE - anon.
Peartree Hill Solar Farm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

10 January 2024
FVS Dean Moor - anon.
Dean Moor Solar Farm
Enquiry received via email
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.

10 January 2024
Helen Barr
Botley West Solar Farm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please see attached.
Please see attached.

10 January 2024
The Campaign to Protect Rural England - anon.
Botley West Solar Farm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Weston Parish Council comments Solar Farm in Newark & Sherwood Notts - 18 December 2023
Please see attached

18 December 2023
Weston Parish Council - anon.
Great North Road Solar Park
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Various representations about the merits of the Proposed Development received by the Planning Inspectorate during the Applicant’s statutory consultation.
Please see attached.

15 December 2023
Various enquirers - anon.
Botley West Solar Farm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Comments on Draft Documents.
Please see attached.

15 December 2023
Total Energies and Corio Generation - anon.
Outer Dowsing Offshore Wind (Generating Station)
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

14 December 2023
Five Estuaries Offshore Wind Farm Ltd - anon.
Five Estuaries Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting.
Please see attached meeting note.

13 December 2023
Thames Water - anon.
Teddington Direct River Abstraction (TDRA)
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting.
Please see attached meeting note.

13 December 2023
Thames Water - anon.
South East Strategic Reservoir Option (SESRO)
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Inception Meeting
Please see attached

13 December 2023
Connah's Quay Low Carbon Power (CQLCP) Project - anon.
Connah’s Quay Low Carbon Power Project
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Nodyn cyfarfod sefydlu - Inception meeting note
Gweler yr atodiad - Please see attached

13 December 2023
Uniper - anon.
Connah’s Quay Low Carbon Power Project
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
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

12 December 2023
Tillbridge Solar Limited - anon.
Tillbridge Solar Project
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Feedback on the Applicants draft Policy Compliance Document.
Please see attached.

08 December 2023
Five Estuaries Offshore Wind Farm Ltd - anon.
Five Estuaries Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

06 December 2023
Cory Environmental Holdings Limited (CEHL) - anon.
Cory Decarbonisation Project
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
See Attached

06 December 2023
RWE Renewables UK Ltd - anon.
Dogger Bank South Offshore Wind Farms
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

05 December 2023
National Highways - anon.
A46 Newark Bypass
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

01 December 2023
EPL 001 Limited - anon.
Stonestreet Green Solar
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

30 November 2023
Low Carbon - anon.
Beacon Fen Energy Park
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

29 November 2023
National Highways - anon.
M60/M62/M66 Simister Island
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Inception Meeting.
Please see attached.

23 November 2023
RWE Generation UK plc - anon.
Stallingborough Combined Cycle Gas Turbine (CCGT) generating plant and Carbon Capture Plant (CCP)
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
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.

23 November 2023
Gloucestershire County Council - anon.
M5 Junction 10 Improvements Scheme
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Draft Documents Feedback.
Please see attached.

23 November 2023
National Highways - anon.
M60/M62/M66 Simister Island
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

15 November 2023
Five Estuaries Offshore Wind Farm - anon.
Five Estuaries Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

15 November 2023
Morecambe Offshore Windfarm Ltd - anon.
Morecambe Offshore Windfarm Generation Assets
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update meeting.
Please see attached.

14 November 2023
H2Teesside Limited - anon.
H2Teesside
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting.
Please see attached.

09 November 2023
North Falls Offshore Wind Farm Ltd - anon.
North Falls Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

09 November 2023
Ridge Clean Energy Ltd. - anon.
Temple Oaks Renewable Energy Park
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Resourcing update.
Please see attached.

08 November 2023
Gatwick Officers Group - anon.
Gatwick Airport Northern Runway
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached

07 November 2023
Springwell Energy Farm Limited - anon.
Springwell Solar Farm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Inception Meeting Note.
Please see attached.

06 November 2023
Xlinks 1 Limited - anon.
Xlinks Morocco-UK Power Project
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Relevant Representation process.
Please see attached.

06 November 2023
Gatwick Airport Limited - anon.
Gatwick Airport Northern Runway
response has attachments
Documents for review.
Please see attached.

02 November 2023
East Yorkshire Solar Farm Limited - anon.
East Yorkshire Solar Farm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

01 November 2023
Lighthouse Green Fuels Limited - anon.
Lighthouse Green Fuels Project
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Early Adopter Programme Draft Documents Response
Please see attached

26 October 2023
Total Energies and Corio Generation - anon.
Outer Dowsing Offshore Wind (Generating Station)
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Inception meeting note
Please see attached

23 October 2023
Thames Water - anon.
South East Strategic Reservoir Option (SESRO)
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Inception meeting note
Please see attached

23 October 2023
Thames Water - anon.
Teddington Direct River Abstraction (TDRA)
response has attachments
Draft docs feedback table - FINAL
See attached

20 October 2023
Indaver Rivenhall Ltd - anon.
Rivenhall IWMF and Energy Centre
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project inception meeting
Please see attached meeting note.

18 October 2023
National Grid Electricity Transmission (NGET) - anon.
Grimsby to Walpole
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

18 October 2023
Equinor New Energy Limited - anon.
Aldbrough Hydrogen Storage
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

17 October 2023
Five Estuaries Ltd - anon.
Five Estuaries Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
The Inspectorate attended an online Steering Group for the Morgan Generation Assets and Mona Offshore Wind Projects.
Please see attached.

17 October 2023
Morgan and Mona Steering Group - anon.
Morgan Offshore Wind Farm Generation Assets
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Gweler yr atodiad - Please see attached
Gweler yr atodiad - Please see attached

17 October 2023
The Planning Inspectorate - anon.
Mona Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

16 October 2023
Applicant - anon.
Dogger Bank South Offshore Wind Farms
response has attachments
Draft Documents for review
Please see attached

13 October 2023
Oaklands Solar Farm Limited - anon.
Oaklands Farm Solar Park
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

12 October 2023
FVS Dean Moor - anon.
Dean Moor Solar Farm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

11 October 2023
Fenwick Solar Project Limited - anon.
Fenwick Solar Farm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Cyfarfod Diweddaru ynglyn â’r Prosiect - Project Update Meeting
Gweler yr atodiad - Please see attached

10 October 2023
Mona Offshore Wind Limited - anon.
Mona Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
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,

09 October 2023
Protect Coastal Sussex - anon.
Rampion 2 Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Resourcing update.
Please see attached.

06 October 2023
Crawley Borough Council - anon.
Gatwick Airport Northern Runway
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

05 October 2023
National Grid Electricity Transmission (NGET) - anon.
Sea Link
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Meeting Note
Please see attached.

04 October 2023
JBM Solar Ltd - anon.
Peartree Hill Solar Farm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Cyfarfod Cyn-Cwmpasu - Pre-Scoping Meeting
Gweler y Atodiad - See Attached

04 October 2023
Lightsource bp - anon.
Maen Hir Solar and Energy Storage Project
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
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,

02 October 2023
Protect Coastal Sussex - anon.
Rampion 2 Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

02 October 2023
Ridge Clean Energy Ltd - anon.
Temple Oaks Renewable Energy Park
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Advice to the applicant on the Health Impact Assessment.
Please see attached

27 September 2023
Tritax Symmetry (Hinckley) Limited - anon.
Hinckley National Rail Freight Interchange
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Inception Meeting.
Please see attached.

27 September 2023
Meridian Solar Farm Ltd. - anon.
Meridian Solar Farm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting note - 26 September 2023
Please see attached

26 September 2023
National Highways - anon.
A46 Coventry Junctions (Walsgrave)
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

26 September 2023
Cory Environmental Holdings Limited (CEHL) - anon.
Cory Decarbonisation Project
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Meeting Note
Please see atttached

26 September 2023
Hampshire Water Transfer & Water Recycling Project - anon.
Hampshire Water Transfer and Water Recycling Project
Enquiry received via meeting
Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

25 September 2023
National Highways - anon.
M60/M62/M66 Simister Island
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please see attached.
Please see attached.

22 September 2023
David Rogers
Botley West Solar Farm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please see attached.
Please see attached.

22 September 2023
David Rogers
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update and draft documents feedback review
Please see attached

21 September 2023
National Highways - anon.
A358 Taunton to Southfields
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update and draft documents feedback review.
Please see attached.

21 September 2023
National Highways - anon.
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

21 September 2023
RNA CAMBSBED1 Ltd - anon.
East Park Energy
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting.
Pleas see attached.

19 September 2023
Cadent Gas Limited - anon.
Hynet North West Hydrogen Pipeline
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Log of Advice provided to Representatives of JBM Solar at Project Update Meetings between 10 February 2022 and 18 September 2023.
Please see attached.

18 September 2023
JBM Solar - anon.
Byers Gill Solar
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

18 September 2023
East West Railway Company Limited - anon.
East West Rail - Bedford to Cambridge and Western improvements
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
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.

15 September 2023
East Yorkshire Solar Farm Limited - anon.
East Yorkshire Solar Farm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Meeting Note
Please see attached.

14 September 2023
Five Estuaries Offshore Wind Farm Ltd - anon.
Five Estuaries Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Draft Documents feedback.
Please see attached.

13 September 2023
Chrysaor Production (UK) Limited - anon.
Viking CCS Pipeline
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting.
Please see attached.

13 September 2023
Photovolt Development Partners - SolarFive Ltd - anon.
Botley West Solar Farm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

06 September 2023
Fosse Green Energy Limited - anon.
Fosse Green Energy
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

06 September 2023
National Grid Electricity Transmission - anon.
Norwich to Tilbury
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

05 September 2023
Gloucestershire County Council - anon.
M5 Junction 10 Improvements Scheme
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please see attached.
Please see attached.

05 September 2023
Russ Tucker
General
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please see attached.
Please see attached.

05 September 2023
Russ Tucker
Botley West Solar Farm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
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

29 August 2023
The Dutch Ministry of IWM - anon.
Dogger Bank South Offshore Wind Farms
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

29 August 2023
EPL 001 Limited - anon.
Stonestreet Green Solar
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

22 August 2023
Associated British Ports - anon.
Immingham Green Energy Terminal
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please see attached.
Please see attached.

17 August 2023
Stop Botley West - anon.
Botley West Solar Farm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please see attached.
Please see attached.

17 August 2023
Stop Botley West - anon.
General
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

16 August 2023
Friends of Crossness Nature Reserve - anon.
Cory Decarbonisation Project
Enquiry received via email
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.

16 August 2023
Aldham Parish council - anon.
General
Enquiry received via email
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.

16 August 2023
Aldham Parish council - anon.
Norwich to Tilbury
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please see attached
Please see attached

15 August 2023
West Bergholt Parish Council - anon.
Norwich to Tilbury
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please see attached
Please see attached

15 August 2023
West Bergholt Parish Council - anon.
General
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Queries on Component 5 and Component 6 of the Policy Compliance Document (PCD)
Please see attached.

15 August 2023
Five Estuaries Offshore Wind Farm Ltd - anon.
Five Estuaries Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
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.

14 August 2023
Various enquirers - anon.
Botley West Solar Farm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
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.

14 August 2023
Various enquirers - anon.
General
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please see attached.
Please see attached.

14 August 2023
David Rogers
General
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please see attached.
Please see attached.

14 August 2023
David Rogers
Botley West Solar Farm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please see attached.
Please see attached.

14 August 2023
Nigel Pearce
Botley West Solar Farm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please see attached.
Please see attached.

14 August 2023
Nigel Pearce
General
Enquiry received via email
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.

14 August 2023
Ridge Clean Energy - anon.
Temple Oaks Renewable Energy Park
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
See attached

14 August 2023
Indaver Rivenhall Ltd - anon.
Rivenhall IWMF and Energy Centre
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

10 August 2023
Springwell Energy Farm Limited - anon.
Springwell Solar Farm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Inception Meeting.
Please see attached.

09 August 2023
EDF Renewables - anon.
Rosefield Solar Farm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting.
Please see attached.

08 August 2023
Ridge Clean Energy Ltd - anon.
Temple Oaks Renewable Energy Park
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

07 August 2023
Associated British Ports - anon.
Immingham Green Energy Terminal
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Advice on production of Design Approach Document.
Please see attached.

04 August 2023
JBM Solar - anon.
Byers Gill Solar
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
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.

04 August 2023
Outer Dowsing Offshore Wind - Beth Travis
Outer Dowsing Offshore Wind (Generating Station)
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Advice following issue of decision to accept the application for examination.
Please see attached.

03 August 2023
Gatwick Airport Limited - anon.
Gatwick Airport Northern Runway
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

28 July 2023
National Highways - anon.
M60/M62/M66 Simister Island
response has attachments
Inception meeting
Please see attached

27 July 2023
JBM Solar Ltd
Peartree Hill Solar Farm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
See attached

27 July 2023
Flotation Energy - anon.
Morecambe Offshore Windfarm Generation Assets
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached

25 July 2023
EDF - anon.
Hinkley Point C New Nuclear Power Station Material Change 1
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting - Please see attached
Please see attached

24 July 2023
bp/EnBW - anon.
Morgan Offshore Wind Farm Generation Assets
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Inception Meeting.
Please see attached.

18 July 2023
PS Renewables (PSR) - anon.
One Earth Solar Farm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
See attached

18 July 2023
Oaklands Farm Solar Limited - anon.
Oaklands Farm Solar Park
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached.

17 July 2023
Rampion Extension Development Limited - anon.
Rampion 2 Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Update Meeting
Please see attached

17 July 2023
Cory Environmental Holdings Limited (CEHL) - anon.
Cory Decarbonisation Project
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Outreach to discuss the DCO Process
Please see attached

13 July 2023
MPs and stakeholders - anon.
Hinckley National Rail Freight Interchange
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting between applicant and pins.
See attached.

13 July 2023
National Highways - anon.
A358 Taunton to Southfields
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please see attached.
Please see attached.

13 July 2023
John Webley
General
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please see attached.
Please see attached.

13 July 2023
John Webley
Botley West Solar Farm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
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.

12 July 2023
James Freeman
General
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
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.

12 July 2023
Alex Maidment
General
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
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.

12 July 2023
Alex Maidment
Gatwick Airport Northern Runway
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
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.

12 July 2023
James Freeman
Gatwick Airport Northern Runway
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
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]

12 July 2023
Gatroben Developments 2 Limited - anon.
Dogger Bank D Wind Farm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
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]

12 July 2023
Gatroben Developments 2 Limited - anon.
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

11 July 2023
East Yorkshire Solar Farm Limited - anon.
East Yorkshire Solar Farm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting - 11 July 2023
Please see attached.

11 July 2023
Tillbridge Solar Limited - anon.
Tillbridge Solar Project
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please see attached.
Please see attached.

11 July 2023
Hannah Rogers
Fenwick Solar Farm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

11 July 2023
Five Estuaries Offshore Wind Farm Ltd - anon.
Five Estuaries Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting.
Please see attached.

11 July 2023
Southern Water - anon.
Hampshire Water Transfer and Water Recycling Project
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
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

10 July 2023
Bilsby & Farlesthorpe Parish Council - Madeleine Hoard
Outer Dowsing Offshore Wind (Generating Station)
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

06 July 2023
Total Energies and Corio Generation - anon.
Outer Dowsing Offshore Wind (Generating Station)
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
See attached
See attached

05 July 2023
Associated British Ports - anon.
Immingham Green Energy Terminal
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

05 July 2023
Total Energies and Corio Generation - anon.
Outer Dowsing Offshore Wind (Generating Station)
Enquiry received via email
“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.”

04 July 2023
West Sussex County Council - anon.
Gatwick Airport Northern Runway
Enquiry received via email
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.

04 July 2023
West Sussex County Council - anon.
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting.
Please see attached.

04 July 2023
Cadent Gas Limited - anon.
Hynet North West Hydrogen Pipeline
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

03 July 2023
Gloucestershire County Council - anon.
M5 Junction 10 Improvements Scheme
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting / Update on the Early Adopters Programme
See attached

03 July 2023
Byers Gill Solar - anon.
Byers Gill Solar
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

03 July 2023
Associated British Ports - anon.
Immingham Green Energy Terminal
Enquiry received via meeting
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.

29 June 2023
Morgan and Mona Steering Group - anon.
Morgan Offshore Wind Farm Generation Assets
Enquiry received via email
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

28 June 2023
Cowfold Parish Council - anon.
Rampion 2 Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Lower Thames Crossing Draft Site Inspections Itinerary. Please see attached.
Please see attached.

26 June 2023
The Planning Inspectorate - anon.
Lower Thames Crossing
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

26 June 2023
Flotation Energy and EnBW/bp - anon.
Morgan and Morecambe Offshore Wind Farms Transmission Assets
Enquiry received via email
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.

20 June 2023
Merton Council - anon.
General
Enquiry received via email
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.

20 June 2023
Merton Council - anon.
Gatwick Airport Northern Runway
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

20 June 2023
Dean Moor Solar Farm Limited - anon.
Dean Moor Solar Farm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer expressed an intention to register as an Interested Party in respect of the scheme, and requested further details.
Please see attached.

19 June 2023
Communities Against Gatwick Noise and Emissions - anon.
General
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer expressed an intention to register as an Interested Party in respect of the scheme, and requested further details.
Please see attached.

19 June 2023
Communities Against Gatwick Noise and Emissions - anon.
Gatwick Airport Northern Runway
response has attachments
Cyfarfod Sefydlu - Inception Meeting
Gweler y Atodiad - See Attached

16 June 2023
Lightsource BP - anon.
Maen Hir Solar and Energy Storage Project
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting - 15 June 2023
See attached

15 June 2023
Chrysaor Production (UK) Limited - anon.
Viking CCS Pipeline
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

14 June 2023
H2 Teesside Limited - anon.
H2Teesside
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

12 June 2023
Lighthouse Green Fuels Limited - anon.
Lighthouse Green Fuels Project
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached.

08 June 2023
National Grid Electricity Transmission (NGET) - anon.
Sea Link
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Inception Meeting note - 8 June 2023
Please see attached

08 June 2023
National Highways - anon.
A46 Coventry Junctions (Walsgrave)
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Draft Document Feedback
Please see attached

05 June 2023
Rampion Extension Development Limited - anon.
Rampion 2 Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting 05 June 2023
See Attached

05 June 2023
Immingham Green Energy Terminal - anon.
Immingham Green Energy Terminal
Enquiry received via phone
response has attachments
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]

02 June 2023
Nathan Wacey
A12 Chelmsford to A120 Widening Scheme
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
See attached

26 May 2023
EPL 001 Limited - anon.
Stonestreet Green Solar
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
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.

25 May 2023
John Pennington
Morecambe Offshore Windfarm Generation Assets
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
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.

25 May 2023
John Pennington
Mona Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
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.

25 May 2023
John Pennington
Morgan Offshore Wind Farm Generation Assets
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
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.

25 May 2023
John Pennington
Morgan and Morecambe Offshore Wind Farms Transmission Assets
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
See attached

23 May 2023
Springwell Solar Farm - anon.
Springwell Solar Farm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Inception Meeting.
Please see attached.

23 May 2023
Boom Power - anon.
Fenwick Solar Farm
response has attachments
See attached

22 May 2023
Fosse Green Energy Limited - anon.
Fosse Green Energy
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
See attached

19 May 2023
Gatwick Airport Limited - anon.
Gatwick Airport Northern Runway
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
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

18 May 2023
Various enquirers
Norwich to Tilbury
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
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

18 May 2023
Various enquirers
Norwich to Tilbury
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
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

18 May 2023
Various enquirers
General
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
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

18 May 2023
Various enquirers
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Cyfarfod Cychwynnol - Inception Meeting
Gweler yr atodiad - Please see attached

18 May 2023
Bute Energy & Green GEN Cymru - anon.
Green Gen Vyrnwy Frankton
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Inception Meeting
Please see attached Meeting Note

16 May 2023
National Grid Electricity Transmission (NGET)
North Humber to High Marnham
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
See attached

12 May 2023
National Highways - anon.
M60/M62/M66 Simister Island
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.

12 May 2023
Panos Konidaris
General
Enquiry received via email
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

12 May 2023
Panos Konidaris
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
See attached

10 May 2023
Prologis UK Ltd - anon.
Daventry International Rail Freight Terminal Expansion
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
PEIR update Meeting.
Please see attached.

10 May 2023
North Falls Offshore Wind Farm Ltd - anon.
North Falls Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached.

09 May 2023
Anglian Water Limited - anon.
Fens Reservoir
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached.

09 May 2023
Anglian Water Limited - anon.
Lincolnshire Reservoir
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
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.

05 May 2023
Robert Burrough
A358 Taunton to Southfields
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting 3 May 2023
See attached

03 May 2023
Tillbridge Solar Limited - anon.
Tillbridge Solar Project
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting.
Please see attached.

03 May 2023
Associated British Ports - anon.
Immingham Green Energy Terminal
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
See Attached
See Attached

28 April 2023
Oaklands Solar Farm Limited - anon.
Oaklands Farm Solar Park
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
See attached

28 April 2023
EPL 001 Limited - anon.
Stonestreet Green Solar
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please see attached.
Please see attached.

27 April 2023
SASES - Michael Mahony
Nautilus Interconnector
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please see attached.
Please see attached.

27 April 2023
SASES - Michael Mahony
LionLink Multi-Purpose Interconnector
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please see attached.
Please see attached.

27 April 2023
SASES - Michael Mahony
General
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please see attached.
Please see attached.

27 April 2023
SASES - Michael Mahony
Sea Link
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

27 April 2023
Enso Green Holdings D Limited - anon.
Helios Renewable Energy Project
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Inception Meeting Note - 27 April 2023
Please see attached

27 April 2023
Elements Green Trent Ltd - anon.
Great North Road Solar Park
response has attachments
Please see attached
Please see attached

25 April 2023
Marc Vlessing
LionLink Multi-Purpose Interconnector
response has attachments
Please see attached
Please see attached

25 April 2023
Marc Vlessing
Nautilus Interconnector
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please see attached
Please see attached

25 April 2023
Marc Vlessing
Sea Link
response has attachments
Please see attached
Please see attached

25 April 2023
Marc vlessing
General
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Project update meeting.
Please see attached.

24 April 2023
EDF Energy - anon.
Hinkley Point C New Nuclear Power Station Material Change 1
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

24 April 2023
RWE - anon.
Tween Bridge Solar Farm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Inception Meeting.
Please see attached.

24 April 2023
Elgin Energy and Pegasus Group - anon.
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Inception Meeting.
Please see attached.

24 April 2023
Elgin Energy and Pegasus Group - anon.
General
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Draft Document Feedback
Please see attached

21 April 2023
Rampion Extension Development Limited - anon.
Rampion 2 Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

19 April 2023
National Grid Interconnector Holdings Limited - anon.
LionLink Multi-Purpose Interconnector
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
See attached

18 April 2023
Outer Dowsing Offshore Wind Farm - anon.
Outer Dowsing Offshore Wind (Generating Station)
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Advice following issue of decision to accept the application for examination.
Please see attached.

13 April 2023
Tritax Symmetry (Hinckley) Limited - anon.
Hinckley National Rail Freight Interchange
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please see attached
Please see attached

06 April 2023
BDB Pitmans LLP on behalf of DFDS - anon.
Immingham Eastern Ro-Ro Terminal
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

06 April 2023
Office for Health Improvement and Disparities at t - anon.
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

04 April 2023
Equinor / SSE / ERM - anon.
Aldbrough Hydrogen Storage
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting.
Please see attached.

03 April 2023
Associated British Ports - anon.
Immingham Green Energy Terminal
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
See attached

31 March 2023
Michael Mahony SASES - anon.
Sea Link
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please see attached

31 March 2023
Michael Mahony, SASES - anon.
LionLink Multi-Purpose Interconnector
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please see attached

31 March 2023
Michael Mahony SASES - anon.
General
response has attachments
Please see attached

31 March 2023
Michael Mahony SASES - anon.
Nautilus Interconnector
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting.
Please see attached.

31 March 2023
Cadent Gas Limited - anon.
Hynet North West Hydrogen Pipeline
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
See attached

31 March 2023
EPL 001 Limited - anon.
Stonestreet Green Solar
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

28 March 2023
East West Railway Company Limited - anon.
East West Rail - Bedford to Cambridge and Western improvements
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Advice following issue of decision to accept the application for examination.
Please see attached.

27 March 2023
The Planning Inspectorate - anon.
London Luton Airport Expansion
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

27 March 2023
Gatwick Airport Limited - anon.
Gatwick Airport Northern Runway
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
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.

22 March 2023
Department for Levelling, Housing and Communities - Lee Rowley MP
General
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
New Environmental Information.
Please see attached.

21 March 2023
National Grid Electricity Transmission (NGET) - anon.
Yorkshire GREEN
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached.

21 March 2023
Chrysaor Production (U.K.) Limited - anon.
Viking CCS Pipeline
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
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.

20 March 2023
Various Enquiries
Rampion 2 Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project inception meeting
Please see attached.

16 March 2023
Low Carbon - anon.
Beacon Fen Energy Park
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached.

16 March 2023
Southern Water Services Limited - anon.
Hampshire Water Transfer and Water Recycling Project
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update Meeting
See attached

13 March 2023
Gatroben Developments 2 Limited - anon.
Dogger Bank D Wind Farm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
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.

09 March 2023
Anonymous - anon.
Humber Low Carbon Pipelines
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached

09 March 2023
Applicant & Anglian Water - anon.
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Meeting held to provide document feedback on documents received on 31 January 2023
Please see attached.

09 March 2023
Anglian Water - anon.
Cambridge Waste Water Treatment Plant Relocation
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting regarding consultation.
Please see attached.

08 March 2023
National Highways - anon.
A46 Newark Bypass
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting - 8 March 2023
See attached

08 March 2023
Five Estuaries Offshore Wind Farm Ltd - anon.
Five Estuaries Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Planning Inspectorate's advice following the Applicants withdrawal of the Application.
Please see attached.

07 March 2023
Tritax Symmetry (Hinckley) Limited - anon.
Hinckley National Rail Freight Interchange
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

07 March 2023
Indaver, Essex County Council and Braintree Distri - anon.
Rivenhall IWMF and Energy Centre
response has attachments
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.

06 March 2023
Associated British Ports - anon.
Immingham Eastern Ro-Ro Terminal
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Please see attached.
Please see attached.

06 March 2023
Associated British Ports - anon.
Immingham Green Energy Terminal
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
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

02 March 2023
Lincolnshire County Council - Neil McBride
Cottam Solar Project
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
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

02 March 2023
Lincolnshire County Council - Neil McBride
West Burton Solar Project
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
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

02 March 2023
Lincolshire County Council - Neil McBride
Gate Burton Energy Park
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
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

02 March 2023
Lincolnshire County Council - Neil McBride
Heckington Fen Solar Park
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting - 1 March 2023
Please see attached

01 March 2023
Tillbridge Solar Limited - anon.
Tillbridge Solar Project
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
See attached Meeting Note
See attached Meeting Note

01 March 2023
North Falls Offshore Wind Farm Ltd - anon.
North Falls Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

27 February 2023
National Grid Electricity Transmission (NGET) - anon.
Sea Link
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting.
Please see attached.

24 February 2023
Oaklands Farm Solar Ltd - anon.
Oaklands Farm Solar Park
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Inception Meeting
Please see attached

21 February 2023
Frodsham Solar Limited - anon.
Frodsham Solar Project
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Meeting requested by the Planning Inspectorate.
Please see attached meeting note.

20 February 2023
Anglian Water Services Limited - anon.
Cambridge Waste Water Treatment Plant Relocation
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

16 February 2023
Gatroben Developments 2 Limited - anon.
Dogger Bank D Wind Farm
Enquiry received via meeting
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.

14 February 2023
Morgan and Mona Steering Group - anon.
Morgan Offshore Wind Farm Generation Assets
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
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.

14 February 2023
The Planning Inspectorate - anon.
Mona Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
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.

13 February 2023
Thurrock Council - Colin Black
General
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
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.

13 February 2023
Thurrock Council - Colin Black
Lower Thames Crossing
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

13 February 2023
O.C.O Technology Limited - anon.
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting.
Please see attached.

10 February 2023
Gatwick Airport Limited - anon.
Gatwick Airport Northern Runway
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
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.

09 February 2023
Jonathan Dean
Norwich to Tilbury
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Inception Meeting
Please see attached.

09 February 2023
Firma Energy Ltd and Ib Vogt UK Ltd - anon.
Dean Moor Solar Farm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting.
Please see attached.

07 February 2023
London Luton Airport Ltd - anon.
London Luton Airport Expansion
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

07 February 2023
Flotation Energy - anon.
Morecambe Offshore Windfarm Generation Assets
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Guidance on Relevant Representations
Please see attached

03 February 2023
General - anon.
Lower Thames Crossing
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Guidance on Relevant Representations
Please see attached

03 February 2023
General - anon.
Lower Thames Crossing
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

03 February 2023
National Highways - anon.
M60/M62/M66 Simister Island
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

03 February 2023
Rampion Extension Development Limited - anon.
Rampion 2 Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting.
Please see attached.

02 February 2023
National Grid Electricity Transmission (NGET) - anon.
Bramford to Twinstead
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
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.

01 February 2023
Various Enquiries
Rampion 2 Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

31 January 2023
National Grid Electricity Transmission (NGET) - anon.
Sea Link
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
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].

31 January 2023
Jonathan Dean
Norwich to Tilbury
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

30 January 2023
National Grid Electricity Transmission (NGET) - anon.
Norwich to Tilbury
response has attachments
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

27 January 2023
Mr King
Stonestreet Green Solar
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

27 January 2023
EPL 001 Limited - anon.
Stonestreet Green Solar
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting.
Please see attached.

27 January 2023
Oaklands Farm Solar Ltd - anon.
Oaklands Farm Solar Park
response has attachments
Draft Document Feedback
Please see attached

25 January 2023
Ecotricity (Heck Fen Solar) Limited - anon.
Heckington Fen Solar Park
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting.
Please see attached.

25 January 2023
East Yorkshire Solar Farm Limited - anon.
East Yorkshire Solar Farm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Inception Meeting
Please see attached.

24 January 2023
EDF Renewables - anon.
Springwell Solar Farm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
See attached

19 January 2023
Gloucestershire County Council - anon.
M5 Junction 10 Improvements Scheme
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Planning Inspectorate Draft Document Response
See Attached

19 January 2023
Gloucestershire County Council - anon.
M5 Junction 10 Improvements Scheme
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Local authority out-reach meeting.
Please see attached.

17 January 2023
Gatwick Officer Group - anon.
Gatwick Airport Northern Runway
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

16 January 2023
Indaver Rivenhall Ltd - anon.
Rivenhall IWMF and Energy Centre
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
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.

12 January 2023
Ecotricity (Heck Fen Solar) Limited - anon.
Heckington Fen Solar Park
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached.

11 January 2023
Ecotricity (Heck Fen Solar) Limited - anon.
Heckington Fen Solar Park
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

10 January 2023
BP/EnBW - anon.
Morgan Offshore Wind Farm Generation Assets
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Chyfarfod diweddaru'r prosiect - Project update meeting.
Gweler yr atodiad - Please see attached.

10 January 2023
BP/EnBW - anon.
Mona Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
The Applicants request for further advice and PINS Response to queries
Please see attached.

22 December 2022
Boom Power - anon.
East Yorkshire Solar Farm
response has attachments
Please see attached
Please see attached

19 December 2022
RWE - anon.
Tween Bridge Solar Farm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached

14 December 2022
Anglian Water - anon.
Cambridge Waste Water Treatment Plant Relocation
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting.
Please see attached.

13 December 2022
RWE Renewables UK Ltd - anon.
Dogger Bank South Offshore Wind Farms
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

13 December 2022
The Environment Agency and Surrey County Council - anon.
River Thames Scheme
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting.
Please see attached.

12 December 2022
JBM Solar - anon.
Byers Gill Solar
Enquiry received via email
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).

09 December 2022
John Pennington
Morecambe Offshore Windfarm Generation Assets
Enquiry received via email
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).

09 December 2022
John Pennington
Morgan Offshore Wind Farm Generation Assets
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

25 November 2022
Oaklands Solar Farm Limited - anon.
Oaklands Farm Solar Park
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Council Advice Meeting.
Please see attached.

23 November 2022
Somerset County Council - anon.
A358 Taunton to Southfields
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
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.

21 November 2022
Essex, Suffolk, Norfolk Pylons - anon.
General
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
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.

21 November 2022
Essex, Suffolk, Norfolk Pylons - anon.
Norwich to Tilbury
Enquiry received via meeting
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.

18 November 2022
Gatwick Officers Group - anon.
General
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
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.

18 November 2022
Gatwick Officers Group - anon.
Gatwick Airport Northern Runway
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project inception meeting.
Please see attached.

17 November 2022
Equinor New Energy Limited - anon.
Aldbrough Hydrogen Storage
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

15 November 2022
Enso Green Holdings D Limited - anon.
Helios Renewable Energy Project
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached.

15 November 2022
Southern Water Services Limited - anon.
Hampshire Water Transfer and Water Recycling Project
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Inception Meeting - 15 November 2022
Please see attached

15 November 2022
H2Teesside Project - anon.
H2Teesside
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Please see attached.
Please see attached.

14 November 2022
Cottam Solar Project Limited - anon.
Cottam Solar Project
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached.

11 November 2022
Boom Power - anon.
East Yorkshire Solar Farm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

10 November 2022
Associated British Ports - anon.
Immingham Eastern Ro-Ro Terminal
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

10 November 2022
Five Estuaries Ltd - anon.
Five Estuaries Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
See Attached

10 November 2022
National Highways - anon.
A46 Newark Bypass
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

07 November 2022
Gloucestershire County Council - anon.
M5 Junction 10 Improvements Scheme
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

07 November 2022
O.C.O Technology Limited - anon.
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

02 November 2022
Gate Burton Energy Park Ltd - anon.
Gate Burton Energy Park
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Draft document review.
Please see attached.

01 November 2022
London Luton Airport Limited - anon.
London Luton Airport Expansion
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
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]

31 October 2022
Dr M G Little
Medworth Energy from Waste Combined Heat and Power Facility
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Section 51 advice to the Applicant. Please see attached.
Please see attached.

31 October 2022
The Planning Inspectorate - anon.
HyNet Carbon Dioxide Pipeline
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
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.

31 October 2022
Burton by Lincoln Parish Council - anon.
Tillbridge Solar Project
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
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.

31 October 2022
Burton by Lincoln Parish Council - anon.
Gate Burton Energy Park
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
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.

31 October 2022
Burton by Lincoln Parish Council - anon.
Cottam Solar Project
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
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.

31 October 2022
Burton by Lincoln Parish Council - anon.
West Burton Solar Project
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting.
Please see attached.

31 October 2022
Associated British Ports - anon.
Immingham Green Energy Terminal
Enquiry received via phone
General discussion on submission following previous discussion in October 2020.

24 October 2022
Thames Crossing Action Group - anon.
Lower Thames Crossing
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting - Draft document feedback
Please see attached.

24 October 2022
Tritax Symmetry (Hinckley) Limited - anon.
Hinckley National Rail Freight Interchange
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting.
Please see attached.

21 October 2022
East West Railway Company Limited - anon.
East West Rail - Bedford to Cambridge and Western improvements
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached.

21 October 2022
Chrysaor Production (U.K.) Limited - anon.
Viking CCS Pipeline
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting.
Please see attached.

20 October 2022
National Grid Electricity Transmission (NGET) - anon.
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting.
Please see attached.

20 October 2022
National Grid Electricity Transmission (NGET) - anon.
Sea Link
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Inception Meeting
See attached meeting note

19 October 2022
Photovolt Development Partners (PVDP) - anon.
Botley West Solar Farm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Meeting - Educational Session on the NSIP Process. Please see attached.
Please see attached.

12 October 2022
Parish and District Councils - anon.
Hinckley National Rail Freight Interchange
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting.
Please see attached.

11 October 2022
National Grid Electricity Transmission (NGET) - anon.
Norwich to Tilbury
Enquiry received via email
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.

10 October 2022
Maritime and Coastguard Agency - anon.
Morgan Offshore Wind Farm Generation Assets
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

07 October 2022
National Grid Carbon (NGC) - anon.
Humber Low Carbon Pipelines
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Inception Meeting - 05 October 2022.
Please see attached.

05 October 2022
Anglian Water Limited - anon.
Fens Reservoir
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Inception Meeting - 05 October 2022.
Please see attached.

05 October 2022
Anglian Water Limited - anon.
Lincolnshire Reservoir
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Meeting note including comments and advice regarding draft Application documents
Please see attached.

04 October 2022
National Highways - anon.
A358 Taunton to Southfields
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Please see attached.
Please see attached.

03 October 2022
National Highways - anon.
M3 Junction 9 Improvement
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting.
Please see attached.

30 September 2022
National Grid Electricity Transmission (NGET) - anon.
Bramford to Twinstead
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached Meeting Note

30 September 2022
Tritax Symmetry (Hinckley) Limited
Hinckley National Rail Freight Interchange
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting - 30 September 2022.
Please see attached.

30 September 2022
Low Carbon, Island Green Power, and Tribus Energy - anon.
West Burton Solar Project
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting - 30 September 2022.
Please see attached.

30 September 2022
Low Carbon, Island Green Power and Tribus Energy - anon.
Gate Burton Energy Park
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting - 30 September 2023.
Please see attached.

30 September 2022
Low Carbon, Island Green Power and Tribus Energy - anon.
Tillbridge Solar Project
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting - 30 September 2022.
Please see attached.

30 September 2022
Low Carbon, Island Green Power, and Tribus Energy - anon.
Cottam Solar Project
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Meeting Note
Please see attached

29 September 2022
Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council and Kent Cou - anon.
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Meeting Note
Please see attached

29 September 2022
Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council and Kent Cou - anon.
Lower Thames Crossing
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Please see attached.
Please see attached.

29 September 2022
National Highways - anon.
Lower Thames Crossing
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting and comments on draft documents
Please see attached.

22 September 2022
Anglian Water Services Limited - anon.
Cambridge Waste Water Treatment Plant Relocation
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Tripartite Meeting Part Two.
Please see attached.

22 September 2022
National Highways and some Local Authorities - anon.
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Tripartite Meeting Part One.
Please see attached.

22 September 2022
Some Local Authorities impacted by the scheme - anon.
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Tripartite Meeting Part Two
Please see attached.

22 September 2022
National Highways and some Local Authorities - anon.
Lower Thames Crossing
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Tripartite Meeting Part One.
Please see attached.

22 September 2022
Some Local Authorities impacted by the scheme - anon.
Lower Thames Crossing
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Please see attached
Please see attached

21 September 2022
O.C.O Technology Limited
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached Meeting Note

20 September 2022
Associated British Ports (ABP)
Immingham Eastern Ro-Ro Terminal
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

16 September 2022
Gatwick Airport Limited (GAL) - anon.
Gatwick Airport Northern Runway
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
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

16 September 2022
Gatwick Airport Limited - anon.
Gatwick Airport Northern Runway
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting including Draft Documents feedback.
Please see attached.

15 September 2022
SSE Slough Multifuel Limited - anon.
Slough Multifuel Extension Project
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Inception Meeting.
Please see attached.

15 September 2022
National Grid Ventures - anon.
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

15 September 2022
National Grid Interconnector Holdings Limited - anon.
LionLink Multi-Purpose Interconnector
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Draft document review and project update meeting.
Please see attached.

13 September 2022
National Grid Electricity Transmission (NGET) - anon.
Yorkshire GREEN
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Please see attached.
Please see attached.

13 September 2022
National Highways - anon.
Lower Thames Crossing
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Please see attached.
Please see attached.

09 September 2022
West Burton Solar Project Limited & Cottam Solar Project Limited
Cottam Solar Project
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Please see attached.
Please see attached.

09 September 2022
West Burton Solar Project Limited & Cottam Solar Project Limited
West Burton Solar Project
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting.
Please see attached.

08 September 2022
Five Estuaries Ltd - anon.
Five Estuaries Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Inception Meeting
Please see attached

07 September 2022
National Highways - anon.
A46 Newark Bypass
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
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.

06 September 2022
WisWIN - Wisbech Without Incineration - Tom Howlett
Medworth Energy from Waste Combined Heat and Power Facility
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting.
Please see attached.

06 September 2022
Southern Water - anon.
Hampshire Water Transfer and Water Recycling Project
Enquiry received via phone
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.

05 September 2022
Stantec on behalf of the applicant - Ben Lewis
Helios Renewable Energy Project
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting for Morgan and Morecambe Offshore Wind Farms
Please see attached.

31 August 2022
Flotation Energy, Cobra, bp, EnBW - anon.
Morgan Offshore Wind Farm Generation Assets
Enquiry received via meeting
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.

31 August 2022
Ecotricity - anon.
Heckington Fen Solar Park
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

31 August 2022
Ecotricity - anon.
Heckington Fen Solar Park
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached.

31 August 2022
National Grid - anon.
Morecambe Offshore Windfarm Generation Assets
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
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]

26 August 2022
Borough Council of King’s Lynn and West Norfolk
Medworth Energy from Waste Combined Heat and Power Facility
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Please see attached.
Please see attached.

25 August 2022
National Highways - anon.
Lower Thames Crossing
Enquiry received via post
response has attachments
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.

24 August 2022
on behalf of Fountain Frozen Limited - Fraser Dawbarns LLP
Medworth Energy from Waste Combined Heat and Power Facility
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Meeting with BDB Pitmans & DFDS
Please see note and presentation attached.

24 August 2022
BDB Pitmans on behalf of DFDS
Immingham Eastern Ro-Ro Terminal
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Diweddariad ar y Prosiect - Project Update Meeting
Gweler ynghlwm - Please see attached

23 August 2022
Liverpool Bay CCS Limited - anon.
HyNet Carbon Dioxide Pipeline
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
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.

22 August 2022
Hertfordshire County Council - Christopher Stanek
Medworth Energy from Waste Combined Heat and Power Facility
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Submission Received from Stephen Barclay MP during the Acceptance Period
Please see The Inspectorate's response attached

19 August 2022
Rt Hon Stephen Barclay MP
Medworth Energy from Waste Combined Heat and Power Facility
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
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.

18 August 2022
Tom Howlett
Medworth Energy from Waste Combined Heat and Power Facility
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
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.

18 August 2022
Borough Council of King’s Lynn and West Norfolk and West Norfolk
Medworth Energy from Waste Combined Heat and Power Facility
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Developer Introduction and Project Inception Meeting.
Please see attached.

18 August 2022
JBM Solar - anon.
Byers Gill Solar
Enquiry received via phone
response has attachments
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.

16 August 2022
WisWIN - Wisbech Without Incineration - Virginia Bucknor
Medworth Energy from Waste Combined Heat and Power Facility
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached meeting note

16 August 2022
Environment Agency and Surrey County Council
River Thames Scheme
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Comments on the draft Statement of Community Consultation
Please see attached

15 August 2022
Total Energies and Corio Generation - anon.
Outer Dowsing Offshore Wind (Generating Station)
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
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.

12 August 2022
BDB Pitmans on behalf of DFDS
Immingham Eastern Ro-Ro Terminal
Enquiry received via email
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.

10 August 2022
Newark and Sherwood District Council - anon.
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

10 August 2022
Mallard Pass Solar Farm Limited - anon.
Mallard Pass Solar Project
response has attachments
Log of Advice provided to Representatives of the host Local Authorities through Meetings between 10 September 2021 and 5 May 2022.
Please see attached.

09 August 2022
Local Authorities - anon.
A66 Northern Trans-Pennine Project
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
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.

05 August 2022
Office of the Rt. Hon Elizabeth Truss MP - Liz Truss
Medworth Energy from Waste Combined Heat and Power Facility
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Inception Meeting
Please see attached.

05 August 2022
Gatroben Developments 2 Limited - anon.
Dogger Bank D Wind Farm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Please see attached.
Please see attached.

04 August 2022
SSE Slough Multifuel Limited - anon.
Slough Multifuel Extension Project
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Log of Advice provided to Applicant (National Highways) through Project Meetings between 17 September 2020 and 31 May 2022.
Please see attached

29 July 2022
National Highways
A66 Northern Trans-Pennine Project
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Please see attached.
Please see attached.

28 July 2022
West Burton Solar Project Limited & Cottam Solar Project Limited
West Burton Solar Project
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Please see attached.
Please see attached.

28 July 2022
West Burton Solar Project Limited & Cottam Solar Project Limited
Cottam Solar Project
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached.

25 July 2022
London Resort Company Holdings - anon.
The London Resort
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Inception Meeting Note
Please see attached

21 July 2022
Prologis, Lichfields - anon.
Daventry International Rail Freight Terminal Expansion
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached.

20 July 2022
National Grid Electricity Transmission (NGET) - anon.
Yorkshire GREEN
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Inception Meeting
Please see attached.

20 July 2022
Boom Power - anon.
East Yorkshire Solar Farm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

20 July 2022
Oxfordshire Rail freight Ltd - anon.
Oxfordshire Strategic Rail Freight Interchange
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
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

19 July 2022
Peter Hammond
A27 Arundel Bypass
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Please see attached.
Please see attached.

19 July 2022
Equinor - anon.
Sheringham and Dudgeon Extension Projects
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached.

15 July 2022
National Highways - anon.
A27 Arundel Bypass
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Inception Meeting.
Please see attached.

14 July 2022
Alfanar Energy Limited - anon.
Lighthouse Green Fuels Project
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Inception Meeting.
Please see attached.

14 July 2022
Alfanar Energy Limited - anon.
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting.
Please see attached.

13 July 2022
Highways England - anon.
M3 Junction 9 Improvement
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting.
Please see attached.

13 July 2022
Highways England - anon.
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Please see attached.
Please see attached.

12 July 2022
Associated British Ports (ABP) - anon.
Immingham Green Energy Terminal
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
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.

11 July 2022
Messing and Inworth Action Group Limited - Andrew Harding
A12 Chelmsford to A120 Widening Scheme
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Inception Meeting.
Please see attached.

11 July 2022
Tillbridge Solar Limited - anon.
Tillbridge Solar Project
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Inception Meeting.
Please see attached.

11 July 2022
RNA Energy - anon.
East Park Energy
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Report on the condition of surrounding roads.
Please see attached.

07 July 2022
Messing Action Group - Andrew Harding
A12 Chelmsford to A120 Widening Scheme
response has attachments
Response from Messing-Cum-Inworth Parish Council to the virtual meeting and the Supplementary Consultation.
Please see attached.

07 July 2022
Mary Lindsay
A12 Chelmsford to A120 Widening Scheme
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
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.

06 July 2022
WisWIN - Wisbech Without Incineration - Virginia Bucknor
Medworth Energy from Waste Combined Heat and Power Facility
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached meeting note

05 July 2022
London Luton Airport Limited
London Luton Airport Expansion
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
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.

04 July 2022
Cambridgeshire County Council
Medworth Energy from Waste Combined Heat and Power Facility
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
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,

04 July 2022
7000 Acres - anon.
General
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
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,

04 July 2022
7000 Acres - anon.
West Burton Solar Project
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
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,

04 July 2022
7000 Acres - anon.
Cottam Solar Project
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
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,

04 July 2022
7000 Acres - anon.
Gate Burton Energy Park
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

04 July 2022
National Grid Electricity Transmission (NGET) - anon.
Norwich to Tilbury
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting.
Please see attached.

30 June 2022
Corio Generation and Tota lEnergies - anon.
Outer Dowsing Offshore Wind (Generating Station)
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting.
Please see attached.

29 June 2022
Anglian Water Services Limited - anon.
Cambridge Waste Water Treatment Plant Relocation
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting.
Please see attached .

28 June 2022
Tritax Symmetry (Hinckley) Limited - anon.
Hinckley National Rail Freight Interchange
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Please see attached.
Please see attached.

28 June 2022
National Highways - anon.
Lower Thames Crossing
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Advice following issue of decision to accept the application for examination
Please see attached

27 June 2022
The North Lincolnshire Green Energy Park Limited - anon.
North Lincolnshire Green Energy Park
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Please see attached.
Please see attached.

23 June 2022
David Jarvis Associates, OCO Technology Limited and SECNewgate
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Please see attached.
Please see attached.

22 June 2022
National Grid Carbon (NGC) - anon.
Humber Low Carbon Pipelines
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Advice following issue of decision to accept the application for examination.
Please see attached.

20 June 2022
Drax Power Limited - anon.
Drax Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage Project
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Please see attached.
Please see attached.

20 June 2022
National Grid Electricity Transmission - anon.
Sea Link
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Please see attached.
Please see attached.

20 June 2022
National Grid Ventures (NGV) - anon.
Nautilus Interconnector
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

20 June 2022
HyNet North West Hydrogen Pipeline - anon.
Hynet North West Hydrogen Pipeline
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Adolygiad o'r ddogfennau ddrafft a chyfarfod diweddaru'r prosiect – Draft documents review and project update meeting
Gweler yr atodiad - Please see attached

17 June 2022
Liverpool Bay CCS Limited - anon.
HyNet Carbon Dioxide Pipeline
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached.

17 June 2022
National Highways - anon.
A27 Arundel Bypass
Enquiry received via phone
General discussion of the application and re-submission

16 June 2022
Kent County Council - anon.
Lower Thames Crossing
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Draft Documents Feedback and Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

15 June 2022
Equinor - anon.
Sheringham and Dudgeon Extension Projects
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached.

14 June 2022
Southern Water Services Limited - anon.
Hampshire Water Transfer and Water Recycling Project
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Please see attached.
Please see attached.

10 June 2022
Associated British Ports (ABP) - anon.
Immingham Green Energy Terminal
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Discussion on Trial Trenching Requirements
Please see attached.

09 June 2022
Island Green Power and Low Carbon - anon.
Gate Burton Energy Park
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Discussion on Trial Trenching Requirements
Please see attached.

09 June 2022
Island Green Power and Low Carbon - anon.
West Burton Solar Project
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Discussion on Trial Trenching Requirements
Please see attached.

09 June 2022
Island Green Power and Low Carbon - anon.
Cottam Solar Project
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting.
Please see attached.

08 June 2022
BP/EnBW - anon.
Morgan Offshore Wind Farm Generation Assets
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

08 June 2022
Ecotricity - anon.
Heckington Fen Solar Park
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Please see attached.
Please see attached.

08 June 2022
National Highways - anon.
Lower Thames Crossing
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Update Meeting on Costs Applications.
Please see Attached.

07 June 2022
Wellers Law Group - anon.
The London Resort
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

07 June 2022
National Highways - anon.
A358 Taunton to Southfields
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please see the letter attached.
Thank you for your email. The Rule 6 Letter, including the draft examination timetable, will be issued in due course and will give at least 21 days’ notice of the date of the Preliminary Meeting (PM). The PM will be an opportunity to discuss the draft timetable and how the application will be examined. The ExA intends to allow sufficient time in the Examination for representations to be made on any changes that may be accepted, including at an Open Floor Hearing (if requested). As the proposed changes to the application have not yet been formally submitted to the ExA, no decision on whether or not to accept the proposed changes has yet been made. If you have any further questions please contact us.

06 June 2022
Say No To Sunnica Action Group Ltd - Andrew Munro
Sunnica Energy Farm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting.
Please see attached.

31 May 2022
West Burton Solar Project Limited and Cottam Solar - anon.
Cottam Solar Project
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting.
Please see attached.

31 May 2022
West Burton Solar Project Limited and Cottam Solar - anon.
West Burton Solar Project
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Secretary of State Direction.
Please see attached.

31 May 2022
Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs - anon.
Hampshire Water Transfer and Water Recycling Project
Enquiry received via email
Can you tell me if, as a statutory consultee we are limited to 500 words, according to File Note 8.2, there is no limit to words in submission, and according to another File Note, there is a limit to 1500 words. If we use the Registration process we are limited to 500 words. Can you tell me which is correct. Also where can I see the Terling documents already submitted to you. The Longfield page only shows Longfield dox and late submissions, so it looks as if we haven't submitted anything which we have. Your website is confusing, misleading and very difficult to understand.
Dear Frankie, Thank you for your email and your time on the phone earlier. I note the feedback you have given about the website and the clarity of information provided. In the past our guidance has suggested that parties should aim to limit their representation to no more than 500 words, but the online form will allow a successful submission of up to around 10,000 words. As stated in paragraph 6.6 of Advice Note 8.2 there is no limit on how many words may be used a representation. I can confirm that it is possible to provide the headlines of your representation on the form and indicate that this will be supported by a further document sent under separate cover, which you can submit to the project mailbox: [email protected] before 2 June 2022. Please note that the two submissions would then be published as one document on the project webpage of the National Infrastructure Planning website in due course. As you may be aware, the submission of a valid Relevant Representation will ensure that you are registered as an Interested Party and as such you will be able to participate in the Examination. You will be able to 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. Responses provided during the consultation period at the Scoping Stage are included in the Scoping Opinion, which is published on the National Infrastructure Planning website. I can see that information was provided by your Parish Council and is included in that document alongside the information submitted by other consultees. Kind regards, Simon

27 May 2022
Terling and Fairstead Parish Council - anon.
Longfield Solar Farm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Please see attached.
Please see attached.

26 May 2022
Flotation Energy - anon.
Morecambe Offshore Windfarm Generation Assets
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached.

24 May 2022
Gloucestershire County Council - anon.
M5 Junction 10 Improvements Scheme
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached.

24 May 2022
Gate Burton Energy Park Ltd - anon.
Gate Burton Energy Park
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Meeting Note
Please see attached.

24 May 2022
London Borough of Havering - anon.
Lower Thames Crossing
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Meeting Note.
Please see attached.

24 May 2022
Gravesham Borough Council - anon.
Lower Thames Crossing
Enquiry received via email
I refer to your letter dated 12th May 2022 regarding the above. Providing that the application is submitted by 7th June 2022, we will be taking an urgent item to Planning Committee on 15th June. I will need to explain to Members why the Consultation Report may not be in the public domain and must not be shared with Third Parties. Please can you advise the reasoning behind that approach?
Thank you for providing the contact details for your Local Authority in regard to the Medworth Energy from Waste Combined Heat and Power Facility Nationally Significant Infrastructure project (NSIP). In response to your query, as to why the Consultation Report may not be in the public domain 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: 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 on whether they agree to this, so they may decide to have the application documents published only if the Application is accepted for Examination. 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 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 the Borough Council of King’s Lynn and West Norfolk within 14 calendar days of the request. Please note that a local authorities positive view about 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 and Frequently Asked Questions I hope you find the above information helpful to explain to your council’s members.

23 May 2022
Borough Council of King’s Lynn and West Norfolk - Hannah Wood-Handy
Medworth Energy from Waste Combined Heat and Power Facility
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I would appreciate your clarification as soon as possible. The above proposal is on the outskirts of Wisbech on the borders of Norfolk and Cambridgeshire. We have had recent meetings with the Leader of Cambridgeshire County Council and King's Lynn Borough Council together with their planning officers. At a public council meeting of Norfolk County Council yesterday it was stated that they were a Primary Consultee. This is also the view of Cambridgeshire County Council and Kings Lynn Borough Council. However this was challenged by a professional with experience of incinerator planning who believes that only Fenland District Council are Primary Consultees. As MVV-Medworth have stated that they plan to submit their application around the the 23rd May, I would appreciate your urgent clarification.
Thank you for your enquiry in regard to the Medworth Energy from Waste Combined Heat and Power Facility Nationally Significant Infrastructure project. Please note the following information which confirms the status of the Local Authorities under Section 43 (Planning Act 2008): Cambridgeshire County Council and Norfolk County Council: Host Authority (C) Fenland District Council and King's Lynn Borough Council: Host Authority (B) You may wish to view our Advice Note Two for further definition of the Host Authorities. [attachment 1] Please be informed that the Application is likely to be submitted late June now. I hope you find the above information useful.

23 May 2022
WisWIN - Wisbech Without Incineration - Virginia Bucknor
Medworth Energy from Waste Combined Heat and Power Facility
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached.

23 May 2022
National Grid Carbon (NGC) - anon.
Humber Low Carbon Pipelines
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting - Draft Documents Feedback
Please see attached.

20 May 2022
National Highways - anon.
A12 Chelmsford to A120 Widening Scheme
response has attachments
Project update Meeting
Please see attached

20 May 2022
National Highways - anon.
A27 Arundel Bypass
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Cyngor ar ôl cyhoeddi penderfyniad i dderbyn y cais i’w archwilio/ Advice following issue of decision to accept the application for examination
Gweler yr atodiad - Please see attached

18 May 2022
Awel y Môr Offshore Wind Farm Limited - anon.
Awel y Môr Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Please see attached.
Please see attached.

18 May 2022
NNB Generation Company HPC Limited - anon.
Hinkley Point C New Nuclear Power Station Material Change 1
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting by telecon
Please see attached meeting note

17 May 2022
Rampion Extension Development Limited - anon.
Rampion 2 Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting.
Please see attached.

12 May 2022
National Highways - anon.
M3 Junction 9 Improvement
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Meeting Note.
Please see attached.

11 May 2022
Thurrock Council - anon.
Lower Thames Crossing
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please see attached - Applicant requesting progress Letter.
Please see attached.

06 May 2022
O.C.O Technology Limited - anon.
General
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please see attached from Essex County Council, Braintree District Council and Chelmsford City Council.
Please see attached.

06 May 2022
Essex County Council, Braintree District Council - anon.
Longfield Solar Farm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please see attached
Dear Emma Thank you for your email and the attached report. Where you feel that consultation has been inadequately carried out, you should make your comments to the Applicant in the first instance. Any concerns should be raised promptly during or immediately following the consultation to enable the Applicant to address the issues if appropriate. We will however keep your correspondence on file and make it available during the Acceptance process. Please read Advice Note 8.1: Responding to the developer’s Pre-application consultation and see the government’s Planning Act 2008: guidance on the Pre-application process and our Community Consultation FAQ for further information. Kind regards

04 May 2022
Stop the Arundel Bypass Alliance (SAB Alliance). - anon.
A27 Arundel Bypass
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached Meeting Note

04 May 2022
Associated British Ports (ABP)
Immingham Eastern Ro-Ro Terminal
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached.

03 May 2022
National Grid Electricity Transmission (NGET) - anon.
Bramford to Twinstead
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
See attached

29 April 2022
Gate Burton Energy Park Ltd - anon.
Gate Burton Energy Park
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

29 April 2022
National Highways - anon.
A27 Arundel Bypass
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
GATCOM Meeting
Please see attached link to the Planning Inspectorate’s presentation to the GATCOM meeting on 28 April 2022. Please note that the presentation was not intended to cover all aspects of the overarching Planning Act 2008 process. [attachment 1]

28 April 2022
Gatwick Airport Consultative Committee (GATCOM) - anon.
Gatwick Airport Northern Runway
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

28 April 2022
Highways England - anon.
Lower Thames Crossing
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached meeting note

25 April 2022
London Luton Airport Limited
London Luton Airport Expansion
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
An Inception Meeting took place on 25th April 2022
Please see the attached.

25 April 2022
National Grid Ventures - anon.
Continental Link Multi-Purpose Interconnector
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Please see attached.
Please see attached.

21 April 2022
Anglian Water - anon.
Cambridge Waste Water Treatment Plant Relocation
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached.

21 April 2022
Anglian Water - anon.
Cambridge Waste Water Treatment Plant Relocation
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
With regard to your response regarding the submission from MVV Medworth, whilst the company have amended the date when they propose to submit their application several times, I understand this has now moved from the “1st quarter 2022” to Easter. Given that the Planning Inspectorate are required to respond within 28 days, I suspect that MVV may submit to you on the 14th April, ie, just before Good Friday and the Easter Holidays for many families and your response time will therefore be squeezed (as MVV did during their submission in December 2019). Can you please advise whether, during that 28 day period, (whenever the submission occurs), you be visiting Wisbech to see for yourselves the impact this will have on the area? Your advice appreciated. 09/01/2022 May I have your advice please. MVV-Medworth plan to submit their application to you in this first quarter 2022. On your site, link below, it shows the current status and of the approximately 200 objections sent to MVV and copied to yourselves, only a few are shown. [attachment 1] Can you clarify please as your stated link in July (8.1) is not currently working. Any further advice would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you for your emails. I apologise for the delay in responding. Firstly, please note that we only reply to correspondence that is sent direct ‘to’ us. Correspondence that is copied (‘cc’) to us we keep on file. When we reply to correspondence sent directly to us there is a statutory duty, under section 51 of the Planning Act 2008, to record the advice that is given in relation to an application or a potential application, including the name of the person who requested the advice, and to make this publicly available on the relevant project page of the National Infrastructure Planning website. As you are aware the proposed Medworth Energy from Waste Combined Heat and Power Facility application 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 2] For your information, the Application is due to be submitted towards the end of May 2022. The process consists of six stages: Pre-application, Acceptance, Pre-examination, Examination, Recommendation and Decision and Post-decision. Upon receipt of an application for development consent, the Planning Inspectorate has 28 days to decide whether or not to accept it for Examination. 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.? If an application is accepted, there is a flexible period, the Pre-examination stage, which usually lasting about three months. All parties should use this stage to prepare for the Examination stage. An Examining Authority then has up to six months to examine an application and three months to make their recommendation to the relevant Secretary of State. 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 3] I hope you find the above information useful.

20 April 2022
WisWIN - Wisbech Without Incineration - Virginia Bucknor
Medworth Energy from Waste Combined Heat and Power Facility
Enquiry received via email
We note that paragraph 31 of 'Award of costs: examination of applications for development consent orders' Guidance (the Guidance) refers to an application for an award of costs needing to be received by the Inspectorate at its main address. Is it acceptable for us to submit a costs application by email only to this address? Would that then be treated as having been received by the Inspectorate at its main address?
The Planning Inspectorate is aware that the 2013 advice in relation to costs states that applications should be made in writing to Temple Quay House. The Planning Inspectorate confirms that costs applications sent by email are acceptable.

19 April 2022
Dentons UK and Middle East LLP
The London Resort
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Our Three Questions to PINS Q1. Do community organisations in host communities and other Interested and Affected Parties of proposed NSIP Projects, in this case the Rampion 2 coastal wind farm proposal, have access to Terms of Reference for Local Impact Reports that local authorities are invited to prepare; recognising that PINS Advice is that Councils should start the LIR work during the pre-application stage and we wish to provide inputs. If Councils feel no urgency or obligation to share these TOR (as in our case) can PINS help encourage them to do so in the interest of transparency and rigour in the consent process? Or does PINS advise we must use an FOI Request - a last resort. Q2. When is the Applicant’s Report on the pre-application Consultation released to Councils and made available to Interested Parties and the general Public? Are we correct in assuming the Applicant's Consultation Report will only be made public if /when the Application is accepted for Examination by PINS? Q3. What are the accepted Adequacy of Consultation criteria and how can interested and affected parties offer input on how they are applied? And would any adequacy of consultation statements giving reasons and evidence prepared by CSOs and other interested and affected parties be entertained by PINS, if they followed the PINS guidance to local authorities on preparing such adequacy statements?
Thank you for your email of 12 February 2022. Please accept our apologies for the delay in replying. The Rampion 2 Offshore Wind Farm project is currently at the ‘Pre-application’ stage of the process and is due to be submitted to the Inspectorate in Quarter 3 2022. The Pre-application consultation process is entirely led by the Applicant, Rampion Extension Development Limited, who are responsible for ensuring that they comply with the legislative requirements surrounding consultation which are set out in s49(2) of the Planning Act 2008. The Applicant carried out statutory consultation between 14 July and 16 September 2021 and has also reopened formal consultation between the 7 February to 11 April 2022. Information on this and the documents can be found on the consultation section on the Applicant’s website. In response to your question (Q1), Local authorities should set out clearly their Terms of Reference (TOR) for the Local Impact Report (LIR). The LIR should be used by local authorities as the means by which their existing body of local knowledge and evidence on local issues can be fully and robustly reported to the Examining Authority. Please note that the TOR is entirely the Council’s responsibility and not something that the Inspectorate gets involved in so please continue to communicate with the Councils regarding their LIR. In regard to your question (Q2), in accordance with section 37 of PA2008, the Applicant must submit a Consultation Report with the application. This Consultation Report should set out the Applicant’s Pre-application consultation processes, a summary of the relevant responses to its consultation and how it has taken account of responses received in developing the application. Provided the Applicant agrees, the Planning Inspectorate will publish the 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). In the Acceptance period (i.e the 28 days following the formal submission of an application) the Planning Inspectorate will review the application documents, including the evidence provided in the Consultation Report, against the statutory tests set out in s55 of the PA2008. In response to question (Q3), as soon as we receive the Application, the Planning Inspectorate will invite the host and neighbouring local authorities to review the Applicant’s the Consultation Report and submit an ‘Adequacy of Consultation Representation’. This Adequacy of Consultation Representation means a representation about whether the Applicant has complied, in relation to the proposed application, with its duties under sections 42, 47 and 48 of PA2008 relating to consultation and publicity. I would advise you that, during the pre-application period, you continue make your comments directly to the developer. Please note that the Inspectorate is unable to consider representations about the merits of any application until it is accepted for Examination. If you feel your comments are not being taken into account by the Applicant, may I advise you to write to the relevant local authority, West Sussex County Council/ Arun District Council, and set out why you think the Applicant is failing to conduct its consultation properly. Your comments should be taken into account when the local authority sends the Inspectorate its comments on whether the Applicant has fulfilled its statutory consultation duties. If you have any further queries about the National Infrastructure process there are suite of informative Advice Notes [attachment 1] on the National Infrastructure website and the Frequently asked questions page. You may also wish to sign up for case updates on the National Infrastructure project page for Rampion 2 Offshore Wind Farm as whenever anything is published or update on the page, such as an update on the submission date or notes of project update meetings we have with the Applicant you will receive a notification email.

14 April 2022
Mr Haas
Rampion 2 Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
We note that Reg 5(3) of the APFP Regulations requests that: (3) Any plans, drawings or sections required to be provided by paragraph (2) shall be no larger than A0 size, shall be drawn to an identified scale (not smaller than 1:2500) and, in the case of plans, shall show the direction of North. Does this apply to all plans/ drawings submitted with the application (such as those to be included within the Environmental Statement) or is it only the specific Plans specified in paragraph (2) of the Regulations? We consider that certain plans within the ES would be better to be presented on a single plan at a scale larger than 1:2500 (i.e. a departure from the 1:2500 scale at A0 referenced above). Please can you advise whether this is acceptable?
Regarding your query about the appropriate presentation of plans submitted with the application, the requirements of Regulation 5(3) of the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009 should generally be taken to apply to any plans/ drawings submitted with the application; however, there is a degree of flexibility in terms of the plans submitted as part of the Environmental Statement, in that referenced plans may be presented at an appropriate scale to convey the information clearly. Further advice in relation to the presentation of figures and plans in the Environmental Statement can be found in the Planning Inspectorate’s Advice Note Seven: Environmental Impact Assessment: Process, Preliminary Environmental Information and Environmental Statements [attachment 1].

12 April 2022
Drax Power Limited - anon.
Drax Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage Project
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
We note that Reg 5(3) of the APFP Regulations requests that: (3) Any plans, drawings or sections required to be provided by paragraph (2) shall be no larger than A0 size, shall be drawn to an identified scale (not smaller than 1:2500) and, in the case of plans, shall show the direction of North. Does this apply to all plans/ drawings submitted with the application (such as those to be included within the Environmental Statement) or is it only the specific Plans specified in paragraph (2) of the Regulations? We consider that certain plans within the ES would be better to be presented on a single plan at a scale larger than 1:2500 (i.e. a departure from the 1:2500 scale at A0 referenced above). Please can you advise whether this is acceptable?
Regarding your query about the appropriate presentation of plans submitted with the application, the requirements of Regulation 5(3) of the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009 should generally be taken to apply to any plans/ drawings submitted with the application; however, there is a degree of flexibility in terms of the plans submitted as part of the Environmental Statement, in that referenced plans may be presented at an appropriate scale to convey the information clearly. Further advice in relation to the presentation of figures and plans in the Environmental Statement can be found in the Planning Inspectorate’s Advice Note Seven: Environmental Impact Assessment: Process, Preliminary Environmental Information and Environmental Statements [attachment 1].

12 April 2022
Drax Power Limited - anon.
General
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached.

12 April 2022
National Grid - anon.
Yorkshire GREEN
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Comments by the Planning Inspectorate on the Environmental Statement (ES)
Please see attached

12 April 2022
North Lincolnshire Green Energy Park Limited Limited
North Lincolnshire Green Energy Park
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached.

08 April 2022
National Grid Ventures (NGV) - anon.
Nautilus Interconnector
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached.

08 April 2022
National Grid Electricity Transmission - anon.
Sea Link
Enquiry received via meeting
Diweddariad ar y Prosiect - Project Update Meeting
Gweler ynghlwm - Please see attached

07 April 2022
Liverpool Bay CCS Limited - anon.
HyNet Carbon Dioxide Pipeline
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Diweddariad ar y Prosiect - Project Update Meeting
Gweler ynghlwm - Please see attached

07 April 2022
Liverpool Bay CCS Limited - anon.
HyNet Carbon Dioxide Pipeline
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please see attached meeting note

05 April 2022
London Resort Company Holdings
The London Resort
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Chyfarfod diweddaru'r prosiect - Project update meeting
Gweler yr atodiad - Please see attached

05 April 2022
BP/ EnBW - anon.
Mona Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting for Morgan and Mona Offshore Wind Farms
Please see attached

05 April 2022
BP/ EnBW - anon.
Morgan Offshore Wind Farm Generation Assets
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Could I please ask for confirmation as the whether or not Littlehampton Town Council is already registered as an Interest Party please. We believe we are classed a host or at the very least a neighbouring authority but urgently require confirmation on this point. Thank you and I look forward to hearing from you.
In response to your query please note that, in relation to the Rampion 2 Offshore Wind Farm project, Littlehampton Town Council/Littlehampton Parish Council is considered a Prescribed Consultation Body, as set out in Schedule 1 of The Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009. The Applicant has a duty to consult you as prescribed under section 42 of the Planning Act 2008. The Application is expected to be submitted to the Planning Inspectorate Q3 2022. If the Application is subsequently accepted for Examination, parties are able to register as an Interested Party by making a Relevant Representation for the appointed Examining Authority to consider. Please read the Planning Inspectorate’s advice note on How to Register to participate in an Examination [attachment 1] for further information. 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. I hope this information is of assistance.

04 April 2022
Littlehampton Town Council - Juliet Harris
Rampion 2 Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Inception Meeting
Please see attached.

04 April 2022
National Grid Electricity Transmission (NGET) - anon.
Norwich to Tilbury
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached

01 April 2022
SSE Slough Multifuel Limited - anon.
Slough Multifuel Extension Project
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Please see attached.
Please see attached.

31 March 2022
National Highways - anon.
Lower Thames Crossing
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

31 March 2022
Mallard Pass Solar Farm Limited - anon.
Mallard Pass Solar Project
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached.

31 March 2022
National Highways - anon.
A358 Taunton to Southfields
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Draft Document Feedback
Please see attached draft document feedback table.

29 March 2022
Drax Power Limited - anon.
Drax Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage Project
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
We are anxiously awaiting MVV submission concerning their EfW proposal for Algores Way, Wisbech. Cambs. As part of the planning process the submission enters a phase called Pre-application, where the said proposal is considered for acceptance. The time scale for this process is stated as 28 days. Could you confirm if this process is purely a box tick phase, or internal consideration, or does anybody visit Wisbech from planning dept.? Thanks for your comments.
Thank you for your email and please accept my apologies for the delay in replying. In response to your query regarding the Acceptance of Medworth Energy from Waste Combined Heat and Power Facility, a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project, I would like to draw your attention to the following information. To help decision-making on whether or not applications are of a satisfactory standard to be accepted for examination, the Planning Inspectorate has produced an ‘Acceptance of Applications Checklist’ based upon the criteria set out in s55 of the Planning Act 2008. A copy of the checklist is provided at Appendix 3 of Advice Note 6. Please note that the completion of this checklist by the Applicant should not however be seen as a guarantee that the application will be accepted as this is a matter for the Planning Inspectorate to consider on behalf of the Secretary of State. For further information please follow the links below; [attachment 1] [attachment 2] I hope you find the above information useful.

25 March 2022
WisWIN - Tom Howlett
Medworth Energy from Waste Combined Heat and Power Facility
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Inception Meeting
Please see attached

25 March 2022
Enso Energy - anon.
Helios Renewable Energy Project
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

24 March 2022
West Burton Solar Project Limited and Cottam Solar - anon.
Cottam Solar Project
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

24 March 2022
West Burton Solar Project Limited and Cottam Solar - anon.
West Burton Solar Project
Enquiry received via meeting
Test
Test

23 March 2022
Test - Test Test
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached.

23 March 2022
Southern Water Services Limited - anon.
Hampshire Water Transfer and Water Recycling Project
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I note you have mentioned raising concerns at the AoC stage. As GATCOM is not a Local Authority, does this apply?
Please see attached.

22 March 2022
Gatwick Airport Consultative Committee (GATCOM) - anon.
Gatwick Airport Northern Runway
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I have another matter on which I wish to seek advice about the DCO process. Having read the Inspectorate’s guidance it is not clear what remedies are available to interested parties to raise issues where it is believed the pre-application consultation material was inaccurate and misleading which could affect the views expressed at the pre-application consultation stage and therefore skew the results of the consultation exercise. There is growing concern amongst some GATCOM members about the supporting evidence that Gatwick Airport Limited provided in relation to the carbon cost values used to demonstrate the economic benefits of the Northern Runway Scheme. Gatwick’s calculations were based on the Government’s old carbon cost values and not the new cost values issued a few days prior to the launch of Gatwick’s consultation. I fully appreciate that you are not in a position to comment on the evidence provided to date and I accept that it is not unusual over the course of preparing a submission of an application, particularly for complex/large scale development projects, for circumstances and evidence to change. Attached is a recent letter the Chairman wrote to a GATCOM member in response to concerns they had raised as way of background to my advice request from the Inspectorate. The GATCOM Chairman has since been asked by a few members to have an opportunity to discuss this matter at a GATCOM meeting to help build an understanding of the process and of the remedies available to correct information/evidence and seek views on changed circumstances prior to the submission of the application. We have an item on the agenda for the GATCOM meeting on 28 April 2022 for members to share their concerns. It would be helpful therefore if you could provide advice on the mechanisms available for stakeholders and the public, and at what stage in the process, where concerns of this nature can be raised and addressed.
Please see attached.

18 March 2022
Gatwick Airport Consultative Committee (GATCOM) - anon.
Gatwick Airport Northern Runway
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I wonder if you could shed some light on a matter related to Gatwick’s preparation of its DCO application please? Gatwick Airport Limited (GAL) published as part of its pre-application consultation a proposed noise envelope. This was the first time that interested parties had been advised of the proposal and there had not been any engagement with local authorities or other community interests on the proposal development of the noise envelope design. GAL’s proposal for a noise envelope is a strategically important moment for dealing with noise in and around Gatwick Airport. It is not yet known whether GAL intends to seek further engagement on the evolving design or whether it will just submit the final design taking into account pre-application consultation feedback as part of the application submission. The Chair of GATCOM and the Chair of Gatwick’s Noise Management Executive Board have a meeting with GAL next Monday (7 March) to discuss a way forward on how GAL can achieve an appropriately inclusive process, further engagement on, and development of, the noise envelope before GAL’s submission of the DCO application. This is an issue of great concern to many interested parties as the CAA’s guidance on noise envelope preparation and design in CAP 1129 sets out a series of consultation requirements for noise envelope design and changes which have not been observed to date. GATCOM hopes that GAL will, once it has considered pre-application consultation feedback, look to observe the noise envelope design process set out in the CAA’s guidance. However, we do not wish to press for this if the further engagement required as part of that process would not be in accordance with or bring into question the requirements of the DCO process. Please can you advise? Does the DCO process override the CAA’s guidance or is there still scope to have further engagement with interested parties, including communities?
Please see attached.

18 March 2022
Gatwick Airport Consultative Committee (GATCOM) - anon.
Gatwick Airport Northern Runway
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

18 March 2022
National Highways - anon.
A27 Arundel Bypass
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please See Attached.
Good afternoon, Thank you for your letter of 2 March 2022, regarding A358 Taunton to Southfields scheme. The Planning Inspectorate has not yet received an application from National Highways regarding the scheme. We have been notified by the applicant that they are intending to submit an application in summer 2022. Please see our website for information received about the project. [attachment 1] The Planning Inspectorate is unable to consider representations about the merits of any application until the application has been submitted and accepted for Examination, therefore, you may wish to address your concerns to your local authority or National Highways directly. If the application is accepted to be examined, 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 if the application is accepted. 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’ [attachment 2] Information about the process is also available on our website: [attachment 3] 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 find a link to this on our website. Please contact us if you need any further information, an email does reach us more quickly than a letter particularly now we are in the office less frequently as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic. Yours sincerely, Deborah Allen Case Manager

10 March 2022
Hatch Beauchamp Parish Council - anon.
A358 Taunton to Southfields
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting - 8 March 2022
Please see attached

08 March 2022
Gloucestershire County Council - anon.
M5 Junction 10 Improvements Scheme
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached.

08 March 2022
Ecotricity (Heck Fen Solar) Limited - anon.
Heckington Fen Solar Park
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached.

03 March 2022
National Highways - anon.
M3 Junction 9 Improvement
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

03 March 2022
Gate Burton Energy Park Ltd - anon.
Gate Burton Energy Park
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Adolygiad o'r ddogfennau ddrafft a chyfarfod diweddaru'r prosiect – Draft documents review and project update meeting
Gweler yr atodiad - Please see attached

02 March 2022
Awel y Môr Offshore Wind Farm Limited - anon.
Awel y Môr Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

02 March 2022
National Highways - anon.
A12 Chelmsford to A120 Widening Scheme
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached Meeting Note

28 February 2022
Associated British Ports (ABP)
Immingham Eastern Ro-Ro Terminal
Enquiry received via phone
Where can I find further information of the procedural matters in relation to the Preliminary Meeting?
The Preliminary Meeting is a procedural meeting that helps inform how the application will be Examined. It is not an opportunity for interested parties to put forward their views about the proposed development. Further information on Preliminary Meetings can be found in Advice Note 8.3. The Preliminary Meeting for the London Resort project will commence on 29 March 2022. Participation in the virtual Preliminary Meeting relies on the Planning Inspectorate providing you with a joining link or telephone number in advance. If you intend to participate you must register by 15 March 2022. Please see the Rule 6 Letter for further details.

24 February 2022
Natural England - Patrick McKernan
The London Resort
Enquiry received via phone
Where can I find further information of the procedural matters in relation to the Preliminary Meeting?
The Preliminary Meeting is a procedural meeting that helps inform how the application will be Examined. It is not an opportunity for interested parties to put forward their views about the proposed development. Further information on Preliminary Meetings can be found in Advice Note 8.3. The Preliminary Meeting for the London Resort project will commence on 29 March 2022. Participation in the virtual Preliminary Meeting relies on the Planning Inspectorate providing you with a joining link or telephone number in advance. If you intend to participate you must register by 15 March 2022. Please see the Rule 6 Letter for further details.

24 February 2022
Quod - Matthew Sharpe
The London Resort
Enquiry received via phone
response has attachments
Where can I find further information of the procedural matters in relation to data protection and s102a of the Planning Act 2008?
Further information on the Planning Inspectorate's data protection policy can be found within the Customer Privacy Notice which can be accessed by the following link: [attachment 1]. Further information on s102a can be found in the 'What Happens Next' section of the overview tab on the project web page for The London Resort.

24 February 2022
Wellers Law Group - Teresa Johnston
The London Resort
Enquiry received via phone
Where can I find further information of the procedural matters in relation to the Preliminary Meeting?
The Preliminary Meeting is a procedural meeting that helps inform how the application will be Examined. It is not an opportunity for interested parties to put forward their views about the proposed development. Further information on Preliminary Meetings can be found in Advice Note 8.3. The Preliminary Meeting for the London Resort project will commence on 29 March 2022. Participation in the virtual Preliminary Meeting relies on the Planning Inspectorate providing you with a joining link or telephone number in advance. If you intend to participate you must register by 15 March 2022. Please see the Rule 6 Letter for further details.

24 February 2022
Gravesham Borough Council - Tony Chadwick
The London Resort
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

22 February 2022
National Highways - anon.
A27 Arundel Bypass
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Inception Meeting
Please see attached

17 February 2022
O.C.O Technology Limited - anon.
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Please see attached.
Please see attached.

17 February 2022
National Highways - anon.
Lower Thames Crossing
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached

14 February 2022
National Grid Carbon - anon.
Humber Low Carbon Pipelines
Enquiry received via email
Dear Planning Inspectorate, Pre-Application Case Reference EN010117:- Application by RWE Rampion 2 for Development Control Order 'DCO' acceptance imminently to be lodged with the Planning Inspectorate PINS We understand detailed Plans will be submitted to yourselves shortly by RWE/Rampion 2 for adjudication on whether the application meets the required standards for Development Control Order 'DCO' Acceptance/Approval 1. We submit that the RWE/Rampion 2 Consultation that closed on the 16th September 2021 does not comply with the 'Adequacy of Consultation Statement' and request for it to be declared 'Flawed' and therefore 'Void' and consequently inadmissible for DCO Adjudication, at least until this matter has been properly addressed by RWE/Rampion 2 to the satisfaction of all parties concerned and particularly of those disenfranchised' by the Consultation Process. The evidence provided in the paragraphs below demonstrates clearly RWE/Rampion 2 failed to carry out their obligations to provide all people and groups with property in the Coastal Area (Zone 3) by mail of the formal community consultation and how people could have their say as prescribed in the Applicant's statutory Community Consultation' (SoCC) requirements that states: "Those persons or groups whose property is within 100 meters of the Sussex Coast line between Beachy Head and Selsey Bill, and eastern coastline of the Isle of Wight between Seaview and Ventnor will be consulted". Please find below evidence in support of our claims mentioned above:- Attached, Press article as appeared in the Middleton on Sea Parish Council Magazine 'Middleton News' of Autumn 2021 that sets out the 'Parish Councils reasons for OBJECTING to Rampion 2 Wind Farm Proposals. Specifically, refer to the last three paragraphs on page 3 of this attachment under heading RAMPION 2 - 'Formal Consultation Document Issues' . This is clear and self-explanatory. For quick reference from the 3 paragraphs we note the salient information:- "It would appear that a large number of households who would be included under Zone 3 have not received any information from RWE in respect of Rampion 2 and therefore the consultation has not met its requirements and the formal consultation deadline of the 16th September 2021 needs to be extended for a further 6 weeks to enable these householders to review the proposals for Rampion 2 and to decide if they wish to support or object to the project". Further details regarding the Flawed Consultation. RWE/Rampion 2 failed to organise a single Public 'face to face' event giving fair consultation time, where the attendees could seriously engage with Rampion 2 Personnel to be able to explore in depth the Rampion 2 'broad brush' proposals and express their views on an informed basis. Instead a Public meeting had to be convened by the Middleton on Sea Parish Council (MOSPC) that was held on the 25th August 2021 just 21 days before the Consultation closing date of 16 September 2021, where the majority of Residents present, angrily publicly complained to Rampion 2 managers present by agreement by video link they had only just learnt about Rampion 2 Proposals from the notices they had seen regarding the Public meeting and their failure to distribute consultation leaflets in the Zone 3 Coastal Area to all properties entitled to be consulted. As such a significant number of affected Residents were unaware and prevented from having the opportunity to have a say on an informed basis on the RWE/Rampion 2 proposal. As a consequence of pressure from the public, RWE/Rampion 2, by Video link, stated they would have Royal Mail investigate. Very significantly despite repeated requests from the Middleton on Sea Parish Council and others there has been no response to date. The same applies to the provision of CGI images from shore at Middleton on Sea and Elmer Beach looking directly at the horizon and therefore at the Turbines/Wind Farm. RWE/Rampion 2 has now replied to MOSPC on the latter over 4 months after the original request by Cllr J Pendleton and a further 5 requests by them. Their answer is cursory and implies in their view the request is not worthy of such expenditure. The Consultation Process was started during full lockdown on the 14th of July to run only to 16th September 2021. Without reasonable access the publicity of the public survey was poor and by the time local public meetings, Littlehampton and Middleton on Sea, were arranged the time was short to engage with the project and ‘get to grips’ with the survey. These were organised by the Parish Councils not RWE/Rampion2 to give the public access to RWE/Rampion 2 through a zoom discussion. The Consultation was not inclusive. It did not allow for sight impaired residents taking part, nor written letters being accepted as official survey comments. We have proof of residents who have not received replies by RWE/Rampion 2 even sending a recorded delivery document with covering letter for confirmation that their survey (sight impaired) had been received and therefore requesting it recorded as part of the process. No such reply received. Surveys were required to be filled in online which, in area of older residents, made the number of replies less likely. Those surveys had to be double-confirmed as proof of identity which was not made clear in the document – we have confirmed information of residents who failed to confirm their survey. Difficulties speaking to Rampion 2 on the phone about filling in the survey were many including replies of ‘we are EON and have no knowledge of the detail of the windfarm project’ – we have proof of this. The survey process was repetitive, over technical it appeared to deter completion particularly as there was little time to check or query – we have proof of this. Difficulties and delays contacting RWE/Rampion 2 on the number given in the Consultation Document about filling in the survey were many, including replies of ‘we are EON and have no knowledge of the detail of the windfarm project’ – we have proof of this 2. The outcome of a recent survey of a sample of 25 Households along Sea Way Middleton-on -Sea, evidenced that 21 Households spectacularly confirmed that they had not received any documentation from Rampion 2 with information on the proposed Rampion project or the consultation. Of the remaining 4 households- 2 did not respond and 2 were New Residents. Please find attached a copy of email requests sent to the 25 households requesting their confirmation by email. Consequently we have in our possession their responses that we would be happy to share with you at the appropriate time. This survey was undertaken due to the amount of complaints made by residents at the MOSPC Public meeting of 1st September 2021 that they had not been informed by Rampion of the Rampion 2 proposal, nor had any of the promises Rampion made at the meeting been honoured, despite repeated requests by MOSPC. (i.e. for Royal Mail investigations and provision of CGI images). Subsequently based on our researched information The Chief Executives of Arun, Horsham , Mid Sussex and West Sussex County Councils that 'signed off' the statement of Community Consultation as published by Rampion 2 were notified that the consultation conducted by RWE/Rampion 2 was 'flawed' by Protect Coastal Sussex. Our research was distributed with permission granted to Protect Coastal Sussex and other similar organisations to publish. The above communication was copied to Nick Gibb MP for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton; Andrew Griffith MP for Arundel and South Downs; and Sir Peter Bottomley MP for Worthing West (who have all expressed concerns over the location for the Rampion 2). In addition the following were all copied into the complaint: Gillian Keegan MP for Chichester; Henry Smith MP for Crawley; Tim Loughton MP for East Worthing & Shoreham; Jeremy Quin MP for Horsham; Mims Davies MP for Mid Sussex and Hefin Jones, Planning Inspectorate. Please acknowledge receipt of this Communication and let us know should you require any additional proof of information or clarifications. Yours sincerely, Melanie Jones Middleton-on- Sea Coastal Alliance 'MOSCA'
Dear Melanie Jones (on behalf of Middleton-on- Sea Coastal Alliance 'MOSCA') Thank you for your email of 31 January 2022. The application you refer to has not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate (Inspectorate). It is currently at the ‘Pre-application’ stage of the process and is due to be submitted to the Inspectorate in Quarter 3 2022. The Pre-application consultation process is entirely led by the Applicant, Rampion Extension Development Limited, who are responsible for ensuring that they comply with the legislative requirements surrounding consultation which are set out in s49(2) of the Planning Act 2008. When an application is formally submitted to the Inspectorate for Examination, an assessment is made on whether it 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. In order to help make an informed decision on this matter the Inspectorate writes to all relevant local authorities for their views on the adequacy of the consultation carried out by the Applicant. 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. The Applicant carried out statutory consultation between 14 July and 16 September 2021 and as explained above is under a duty to have regard any relevant responses received under s49(2) of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) and this should be demonstrated in their Consultation Report which will form part of the application documents for Development Consent. The Applicant has also recently re-opened formal consultation which runs from 7 February to 11 April 2022. Information on this and the documents can be found on the consultation section on the Applicants website. I would advise, if you have not already done so, that it is important that you make your comments directly to the developer. Please note that the Inspectorate is unable to consider representations about the merits of any application until it is accepted for Examination. The Inspectorate also does not have the power to intervene in an Applicant’s pre-application programme. The process for applying for a Development Consent Order (DCO) is set out in the PA2008 and the timing of an application’s pre-application programme is at the discretion of the Applicant. If you feel your comments are not being taken into account by the Applicant, may I advise you to write to the relevant local authority, West Sussex County Council/ Arun District Council, and set out why you think the Applicant is failing to conduct its consultation properly. Your comments should be taken into account when the local authority sends the Inspectorate its comments on whether the Applicant has fulfilled its statutory consultation duties. The local authority’s comments on the Applicant’s consultation will be taken into account when the Acceptance Inspector makes their decision on whether to accept the application for Examination. In order to assist parties in understanding the Planning Act 2008 process, the Planning Inspectorate has prepared a suite of Advice Notes. In particular, Advice Note 8 of the series provides an overview for members of the public of the Examination of Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects. If you have any further queries about the National Infrastructure process please do not hesitate to contact me and the Inspectorate’s Rampion 2 Case team.

11 February 2022
Middleton-on- Sea Coastal Alliance 'MOSCA' - Melanie Jones
Rampion 2 Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

11 February 2022
Gatwick Airport Limited (GAL) - anon.
Gatwick Airport Northern Runway
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached Meeting Note

10 February 2022
Medworth CHP Limited
Medworth Energy from Waste Combined Heat and Power Facility
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update meeting.
Please see attached.

09 February 2022
Oxfordshire Railfreight Limited - anon.
Oxfordshire Strategic Rail Freight Interchange
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

08 February 2022
Cobra Instalaciones y Servicios S.A. and Flotation - anon.
Morecambe Offshore Windfarm Generation Assets
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

07 February 2022
Longfield Solar Energy Farm Limited - anon.
Longfield Solar Farm
Phone call with Thurrock Council
General discussion of matters relating to LTC, including: • Upcoming consultation • Effect on local road network • Tilbury link road

01 February 2022
Thurrock Council
Lower Thames Crossing
Enquiry received via phone
Phone call with Thurrock Council
General discussion of matters relating to LTC, including: • Upcoming consultation • Effect on local road network • Tilbury link road

01 February 2022
Thurrock Council
General
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
1. In relation to local authorities, and I’m thinking here specifically of Crawley Borough Council, please can you confirm where the roles are specified? 2. Under section 42 – the duty to consult about the proposed application – does this include the PEIR stage or is it one of the later stages? 3. Under s46 of the Planning Act 2008 should the applicant have provided the Secretary of State with a full copy of the PEIR? 4. Under examination, do you only consider matters where there is contention between the promoter and someone giving evidence; or will you actively review all the application? I am wondering what would happen if no-one commented on the proposal despite the consultation.
1. Whilst local authorities play a vital role participating in the pre application process, once an application is submitted, you will have multiple roles depending on the stage the application is at and if development consent is granted, you are likely to become responsible for discharging requirements (akin to planning conditions) and monitoring and enforcing many of the DCO provisions and requirements associated with the NSIP. Further details about the role of local authorities can be found in Advice Note two: the role of local authorities in the development consent process: [attachment 1]. 2. As part of their pre-application consultation duties, Applicants are required to prepare a Statement of Community Consultation (SoCC). This sets out how the local community will be consulted about the Proposed Development, in accordance with section 47 of the PA2008. The SoCC must state whether the Proposed Development is EIA development and, if it is, how the Applicant intends to publicise and consult on PEI (Regulation 12 of the EIA Regulations 2017). Whilst the Inspectorate encourages Applicants to provide PEI to enable the statutory consultees (technical and non technical) to understand the environmental effects of the development and to inform the consultation, the approach to the PEI (and statutory consultation) as a whole are matters for the Applicant as they are not required to provide a PEIR when undertaking formal consultation. Therefore, it is for them to decide at what stage in the pre-application process this will be most effective. 3. When notifying the Planning Inspectorate of a proposed application for an order granting development consent for the purposes of section 46 of the PA2008, the Applicant is required to provide the same information as supplied for consultation under section 42. In relation to the Gatwick Airport NSIP, the Applicant provided the Inspectorate with a full copy of its PEIR on 6 September 2021. 4. During Pre Examination, an appointed examining authority in compliance with s88(1) of the PA2008 is under duty to make an initial assessment of Principal Issues which will be prepared following its reading of the application documents, the relevant representations received in respect of the application and its consideration of any other important and relevant matters. Whilst this will not be a comprehensive or exclusive list of all the issues, the ExA will have regard to all important and relevant matters during Examination and when its writes its Recommendation report to the Secretary of state.

28 January 2022
Crawley Borough Council - anon.
Gatwick Airport Northern Runway
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

28 January 2022
Drax Power Limited - anon.
Drax Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage Project
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached meeting note

27 January 2022
Green Investment Group and Total Energies - anon.
Outer Dowsing Offshore Wind (Generating Station)
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

27 January 2022
Highways England - anon.
Lower Thames Crossing
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached meeting note

24 January 2022
London Luton Airport Limited
London Luton Airport Expansion
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please see attached.
Dear Mr Morgan, Thank you for your recent e-mail in relation to the proposed Bramford to Twinstead project, which is currently in the pre-Application stage. An Application is expected to be submitted to the Planning Inspectorate in Quarter 4, 2022. Please note that the Pre-Application consultation process is led by the developer, and the Planning Inspectorate’s role is to provide procedural advice, which we publish. The developer is responsible for ensuring that it complies with the legislative requirements surrounding consultation, which are set out in the Planning Act 2008. 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 its consultation. 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. We understand that the Applicant’s statutory consultation is due to launch later in January and advise you to monitor the developer’s website for the consultation documents and information on how the consultation is going to be carried out. You can make general enquiries about this with the developer or register for their project updates via the following contact details: Phone: 0808 196 1515 Opening hours: 9:00am – 5:30pm Freepost: B TO T REINFORCEMENT Landowner contact: Email or call 01452 889000. Information about the Planning Inspectorate’s remit once the Application is submitted When an application is formally submitted to the Planning Inspectorate for Examination, an assessment is made on whether it 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. 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 the consultation. 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 has been accepted for Examination, you will be able to register as an Interested Party and make Relevant Representation; Please read our advice note 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, which will contribute to their 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 Bramford to Twinstead scheme where documents received and issued during the course of the Examination will be published to this page. Hopefully this e-mail is of assistance but if you require any further information please do not hesitate to contact us.

21 January 2022
Nigel Morgan
Bramford to Twinstead
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
See attached Document

21 January 2022
National Highways - anon.
A27 Arundel Bypass
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Meeting Note
Please see attached.

21 January 2022
Chrysaor Production (UK) Limited - anon.
Viking CCS Pipeline
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Morecambe and Morgan consent strategy - Update meeting
Please see attached

20 January 2022
Cobra Instalaciones Servicios, S.A. and Flotation - anon.
Morecambe Offshore Windfarm Generation Assets
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Please see attached

20 January 2022
Equinor - anon.
Sheringham and Dudgeon Extension Projects
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Morecambe and Morgan consent strategy - Update meeting
Please see attached

20 January 2022
Flotation Energy, Cobra, bp, EnBW - anon.
Morgan Offshore Wind Farm Generation Assets
Enquiry received via email
Dear Sir/Madam I’m extremely disappointed that I feel the need to contact you at such an early stage in this project because I’ve never felt the need on previous major east coast projects. I wish to raise the following points after their recent survey has concluded. Ive waited quite some time before sending our complaint as I hoped there may be some improvement in communication but sadly that hasn't happened. The developer representatives decided early on not to go down the route of a commercial fishing working group as all other well managed projects have done, which in our members opinion has created major communication issues and put the local fishing community at a unfair disadvantage. Our concern is that all the limited discussion has implied a negative direction which may be continued during the future planning process and the duration of the project, if approved??? The very short notice of the project and lack of information has put quite a lot of pressure on the local fishing fleet. Prime fishing area and vital time of the year seemed to be disregarded by their main representative/FLO and the apparent lack of empathy of impact of their project on our members. Since the start the survey project is has been one of limited information and total inconsistencies, some of our selected members received reasonable communication, some very little and some nothing at all leaving the fisher in a limbo, “do I fish there or not”. This is totally unacceptable and the poor communication need to be recorded in the planning process and considered by the planners. One members stated he just wanted to continue fishing as he has for previous years and was threatening with a high court injunction, “if you get in the way of their survey vessel” there is a word for that but I’ll leave my thoughts as my thoughts. I have personally been involved in numerous other major off shore projects on the east coast and I have never experienced such poor performance from the developers RWE, SSE and their FLO and I am fearful for the future co existence if the project get approval. The establishment and existence of a productive CFWG must be a part of the planning application, with the developers agreeing to fully engage with. No CFWG no approval! This is not about money and we as our association will be objecting to the project but we are realists and know its probably going ahead because sustainable energy is vital for all our future, but it shouldn’t be for the benefit of multi million pound organisation and detrimental to the small self employed person trying to pay his mortgage in some difficult financial times and additional regulation. I will be registering as an interested person as soon as the planning process is instigated and will welcome the opportunity to speak at the forthcoming hearings. As you can see I’ve copied in the relative government marine agencies and CEOs of the developers and I welcome their comments on this issue, after all they control the finances, future earning potential, regulate and enforcement the local off shore area and our members legal commercial activities. Yours sincerely Trevor Armstrong Secretary Harwich Harbour Fishermen’s Association
Dear Mr Armstrong, Thank you for your recent e-mail in relation to the proposed North Falls Offshore Wind Farm project, which is currently in the Pre-Application stage. An Application is expected to be submitted to the Planning Inspectorate during the Summer of 2023. Please note that the Pre-Application consultation process is led by the developer, and the Planning Inspectorate’s role is to provide procedural advice, which we publish. The developer is responsible for ensuring that it complies with the legislative requirements surrounding consultation, which are set out in the Planning Act 2008. 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-mail provides your comments on the merits of the Proposed Development and adequacy of its consultation. As such, if you have not already done so, it is important that you make these comments directly to the developer. If you are not satisfied that the developer is taking these into account, you should raise this with the Local Authority also. 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. According to the developer's website, an informal community consultation was completed in 2021 and there will be an opportunity to provide further feedback during its statutory consultation, which is due to take place later this year. You can make general enquiries about this with the developer or register for their project updates via the following contact details: Phone: 0800 254 5340 Email: [email protected] Web enquiry form Information about the Planning Inspectorate’s remit once the Application is submitted: When an application is formally submitted to the Planning Inspectorate for Examination, an assessment is made on whether it 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. 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 the consultation. 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 has been accepted for Examination, you will be able to register as an Interested Party and make Relevant Representation; and I note your email advises of your intention to register, and engage with the Examination. Please read our Advice Note 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, which will contribute to their 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 North Falls scheme where documents received and issued during the course of the Examination will be published. In advance of the application being submitted you can register for updates by entering your email address in the "Email updates" section of the project page. You will then receive an email notification when any new information is published on the project page. Such as notes of meetings we have with the Applicant at pre-application stage; any procedural advice we issue; and notification when the Application is submitted, along with the application documents and information about submitting a relevant representation if the Application is accepted for examination. Hopefully this e-mail is of assistance but if you require any further information please do not hesitate to contact us.

19 January 2022
Harwich Harbour Fishermen’s Association - Trevor Armstrong
North Falls Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Inception Meeting Note
See attached

13 January 2022
Cadent Gas - anon.
Hynet North West Hydrogen Pipeline
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Please see attached

11 January 2022
West Burton Solar Project Limited and Cottam Solar - anon.
West Burton Solar Project
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update meeting, 11 January 2022
Please see attached

11 January 2022
West Burton Solar Project Limited and Cottam Solar - anon.
Cottam Solar Project
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached Meeting Note

06 January 2022
Tritax Symmetry (Hinckley) Limited
Hinckley National Rail Freight Interchange
Enquiry received via email
As noted, the statutory consultation for the Hinckley project begins on 12 January 2022 and face-to-face consultation events in the form of a touring public exhibition are due to commence on 19 January. The Applicant is concerned that COVID19 restrictions might compel it to cancel the exhibitions and rely on webinars and on-line communications. Fortunately the SoCC acknowledges that this might be a possibility, but the Applicant is concerned to avoid a situation in which a late change to its statutory consultation arrangements raises adequacy of consultation concerns at the DCO acceptance stage. Please can the Planning Inspectorate provide any reassurance that the circumstances of such a change would be acknowledged sympathetically at the acceptance stage? Can you offer any guidance on how PINS would expect to see a late and forced change in consultation arrangements announced? We are meeting representatives of the local authorities tomorrow morning and will alert them to the issue.
In response to your query we can’t prejudge how we will view an application during Acceptance. However, I would advise you provide a clear narrative in the Consultation Report of the reasons for any late changes, what you have done to avoid the risk of any party or group being excluded from virtual consultation and how you have continued to consult in line with the Statement of Community Consultation. Further to this I would suggest that you get prior agreement with the local authorities on what circumstance will lead to the cancellation of exhibitions. In regard to announcement of the change I would suggest that the local authorities would be best placed to offer advice on this but, again would advise that the announcement is reasonable, proportionate and avoids risk of excluding anyone.

29 December 2021
Tritax Symmetry (Hinckley) Limited - anon.
Hinckley National Rail Freight Interchange
Enquiry received via email
Dear Sir/Madam, I work for a UK based offshore wind energy consultancy called BVG Associates and am currently trying to understand the permitting requirements across the UK. Can you please help answer the below? Across England and Wales: 1) What size offshore wind project qualify as NSIPs? Is it different between the nations? 2) Do developers need to secure development consent orders? Is there a different consent needed in Wales? 3) Who do developers need to apply to for the appropriate consent? 4) Who grants or refuses the appropriate consents? 5) How long does in take from application to decision? In addition, who are the appropriate authorities in Scotland and N. Ireland to issue equivalent consents?
Thank you for your e-mail. I will answer your questions in the order you have raised them and have focussed solely on offshore wind, rather than other types of developments: 1) Section (s) 14 of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) sets out the different types of projects that could qualify as NSIPs. For energy generating stations in England and Wales, the thresholds are set out in s15; 2) For developments that appear to meet the criteria to be considered as NSIPs, Applicants are required to make an application for a Development Consent Order (DCO) under s37 of PA2008. For developments in Wales below the threshold set out in s15, the application may need to follow the Developments of National Significance consenting regime; 3 & 4) For energy NSIPs, the relevant Secretary of State (Sos) is the Secretary of State for Business Energy and Industrial Strategy. The application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, on behalf of the SoS. If accepted, the application is examined by an independent Examining Authority (ExA) and a Recommendation Report is provided to the SoS; the SoS will decide whether or not a DCO should be granted; 5) The Inspectorate has a suite of Advice Notes and information about the DCO process on its website. There is a video which sets out the 6 stages of the development consent regime. The 6 stages are: • Pre-application: this stage is run by the Applicant and there are no fixed timescales for this. The pre-application guidance sets out the key tasks the Applicant is required to undertake during this period. • Acceptance: following the submission of the application, the Inspectorate has a period of 28 days in which decide whether the application is of a satisfactory standard to proceed to examination; • Pre-examination: if the application is accepted, the public will have the opportunity to register as an Interested Party by making a Relevant Representation and for the ExA to prepare for the examination. Although there are no set timescales for this stage, it typically takes 3-4 months, ending following the close of the Preliminary Meeting (PM); • Examination: the ExA must complete its examination of the application within 6 months of the PM; • Recommendation and Decision: the ExA must submit its Recommendation Report to the SoS within 3 months of the close of the Examination. The SoS then has 3 months in which to decide the application; • Post decision: There is a six week period in which the SoS’ decision can be challenged in the High Court by way of a Judicial Review. As set out above, the PA2008 only applies to England and Wales; it does not apply to Scotland or Northern Ireland. As such you may wish to seek your own advice on consenting regimes for those countries. I hope this is of assistance.

21 December 2021
Offshore Wind - anon.
General
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
1. As the County Councillor for King’s Lynn South, I wish to reiterate my concern that MVV Energie did not consult with residents in my Division, whose health and wellbeing would be greatly affected by their facility and so MVV’s consultation is therefore invalid. I submitted a response in the consultation period, via the Borough Council. during the statutory consultation period 28 June- 13 August. 2. The study spatial domain is 15 km from stack emissions but MVV only consulted within a 2-mile radius, missing out thousands of human receptors in King’s Lynn, the third largest urban area in Norfolk, and an area of considerable deprivation. 3. As the prevailing wind is towards Lynn, with winds around the Rive Ouse to the North Sea being particularly tempestuous, turbulence could carry the plume from MVV’s incinerator down to ground level in King’s Lynn. 4. But MVV “ scoped out” the need to assess the impact on air quality in Lynn. This was a glaring and negligent omission. 5. MVV’s statutory consultation is therefore invalid and HM Planning Inspectorate cannot reasonably allow MVV to proceed to a planning application. 6. There is a national oversupply of incinerators. The Secretary of State and the High Court recently refused permission for an incinerator in Kent, on the grounds there is no need for it, the energy generated is partially renewable at best, and would lead to the burning of resources that should be recycled. 7. There is no need for an incinerator in the Fens, a key farming area. MVV’s facility would put at risk the fertility of the soil, through acidification. 8. MVV plan to deliver waste from a 2hr travelling radius, which would include London, is clearly against the proximity principle.
Thank you for your email of 28 November 2021 expressing concerns about the proposed Medworth Energy from Waste Combined Heat and Power Facility. The proposed application by Medworth CHP Ltd (the Applicant) is at the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) process. Therefore, the Planning Inspectorate is unable to consider representations about the merits of any application until it is accepted for Examination. The Planning Inspectorate also does not have the power to intervene in an Applicant’s pre-application programme. The process for applying for a Development Consent Order (DCO) is set out in the PA2008. The timing of the application’s programme is at the discretion of the Applicant. The Applicant has a statutory duty to have regard to all consultation responses received and this should be demonstrated in the Consultation Report which will form part of its DCO application. As soon as possible after receipt of the application, the Planning Inspectorate will invite the host and neighbouring local authorities to submit an adequacy of consultation representation. 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 for Examination. Further details can be found in Advice Note two: The role of local authorities in the development consent process Should the DCO application be accepted by the Inspectorate for examination, the applicant has a duty to notify the local community when providing information on how to register as an Interested Party for the purpose of the process. The process under the PA2008 has been designed to allow members of the public and statutory stakeholders to participate in examination of all DCO applications so that anyone interested in the proposed developments, their potential impacts and any relevant matters can be fully engaged in the examination process. Once the examination begins, the Examining Authority will assess all information submitted in the application documents and will consider whether the Applicant has provided the necessary level of information. The Planning Inspectorate has produced several Advice Notes to help provide an overview of the PA2008 process and the opportunities to get involved. They are available at the following link: [attachment 1] The following are 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’. Please be assured that anyone interested in the proposed developments, their potential impacts and any planning matters can be fully engaged in the examination process. A copy of your correspondence has been placed on our records and will be presented to the Inspector at acceptance together with the application documents and Local Authorities’ comments on the Applicant’s consultation. We have also published a Frequently Asked Questions document regarding Pre-application consultation and this can be viewed on our website here: [attachment 2]

21 December 2021
Clenchwarton and King’s Lynn South - Cllr Alexandra Kemp
Medworth Energy from Waste Combined Heat and Power Facility
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
We are writing to you on behalf of a Community of Parishes that encompasses 13 Parish Councils and Ilminster Town Council. We represent local communities through which the A358 scheme passes. The Minutes of a project update meeting held on 29th September between National Highways and the Planning Inspectorate grossly misrepresents our efforts in providing proposals to mitigate the adverse impacts the scheme will have on our communities. This is one example of how our participation is being suppressed in order to avoid proper scrutiny of the scheme. The attached letter A358 Scheme_Suppression of Concerns describes our concerns and details our engagement with National Highways and local authorities. We ask that you take appropriate measures to ensure that National Highways is honest and transparent in its development and presentation of the scheme, and the Community of Parishes is fully involved throughout the DCO process. Please acknowledge receipt. Yours sincerely Robert Burrough and Peter Gregory On behalf of: Stoke St Mary Parish Council West Hatch Parish Council Hatch Beauchamp Parish Council Beercrocombe Parish Council Curry Mallet Parish Council Ashill Parish Council Broadway Parish Council Ilton Parish Council Horton Parish Council Donyatt Parish Council Pitminster Parish Council Combe St. Nicholas Parish Council Corfe Parish Council Ilminster Town Council
Thank you for your email and attachment. You may be aware that 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] In respect of your concerns about the developer’s pre-application consultation you should contact National Highways in the first instance to enable them to address the issues. In respect of your concerns about the about the merits of the application, The Planning Inspectorate is unable to consider representations until it is accepted for Examination. Further information about the process can be found in the link below to the National Infrastructure Planning website: [attachment 1] 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. As 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 3] The Planning Inspectorate has published a series of Advice Notes about the Planning Act 2008 process. ‘Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others’ 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. I hope this helps.

20 December 2021
Robert Burrough and Peter Gregory - anon.
A358 Taunton to Southfields
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached

16 December 2021
National Grid Electricity Transmission (NGET) - anon.
Bramford to Twinstead
Enquiry received via phone
Phone call with Thurrock Council
General discussion of matters relating to LTC, namely: • Tilbury Fields, relationship with Tilbury/Thames Freeport Proposals and the delivery of Tilbury Link Road • key traffic modelling • use of s106 agreements in DCO process • progress on issues • progress on Hatch Report Recommendations • Approach to carbon

15 December 2021
Thurrock Council – anon - anon.
Lower Thames Crossing
Enquiry received via phone
Phone call with Thurrock Council
General discussion of matters relating to LTC, namely: • Tilbury Fields, relationship with Tilbury/Thames Freeport Proposals and the delivery of Tilbury Link Road • key traffic modelling • use of s106 agreements in DCO process • progress on issues • progress on Hatch Report Recommendations • Approach to carbon

15 December 2021
Thurrock Council – anon - anon.
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached

15 December 2021
National Grid Carbon - anon.
Humber Low Carbon Pipelines
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached.

14 December 2021
Mallard Pass Solar Farm Limited - anon.
Mallard Pass Solar Project
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Section 51 Meeting Note 14 December 2021
Please see attached

14 December 2021
National Highways - anon.
M60/M62/M66 Simister Island
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

09 December 2021
Anglian Water - anon.
Cambridge Waste Water Treatment Plant Relocation
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Section 51 advice regarding draft application documents submitted by Longfield Solar Energy Farm Limited.
Please see attached.

08 December 2021
Longfield Solar Energy Farm Limited - anon.
Longfield Solar Farm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached.

08 December 2021
Ecotricity (Heck Fen Solar) Limited - anon.
Heckington Fen Solar Park
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Draft Document review - Please see attached
Please see attached

08 December 2021
National Highways - anon.
M3 Junction 9 Improvement
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting - Diweddariad ar y Prosiect
Please see attached - Gweler ynghlwm

07 December 2021
Liverpool Bay CCS Limited - anon.
HyNet Carbon Dioxide Pipeline
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

07 December 2021
Highways England - anon.
Lower Thames Crossing
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Inception Meeting
Please see attached.

06 December 2021
GL Hearn - Neil Chester
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Update Meeting
Please see attached.

06 December 2021
Five Estuaries Offshore Wind Farm Ltd - anon.
Five Estuaries Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Inception Meeting
Please see attached meeting note

06 December 2021
Environment Agency and Surrey County Council
River Thames Scheme
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached.

03 December 2021
National Highways - anon.
A27 Arundel Bypass
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

02 December 2021
Highways England - anon.
Lower Thames Crossing
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached.

30 November 2021
North Falls Offshore Wind Farm Ltd - anon.
North Falls Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Inception meeting
Please see attached.

29 November 2021
National Grid Electricity Transmission - anon.
Sea Link
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached.

25 November 2021
Southern Water Services Limited - anon.
Hampshire Water Transfer and Water Recycling Project
Enquiry received via post
response has attachments
Enquiry received for Rt Hon Grant Shapps MP, the Secretary of State for Transport. Please see attached for details.
Please see attached

16 November 2021
Charles March
Oikos Marine & South Side Development
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Inception Meeting.
Please see attached.

16 November 2021
Evolution Power Ltd - anon.
Stonestreet Green Solar
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update meeting.
Please see attached.

16 November 2021
Oxfordshire Railfreight Limited - anon.
Oxfordshire Strategic Rail Freight Interchange
Enquiry received via post
response has attachments
in relation to Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIPS) in the Norfolk County Council area
Thank you for your letter dated 13 October 2021 in relation to Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIPS) in the Norfolk County Council area; the contents of which are noted. Firstly, during the examination of an NSIP, it is open to Interested Parties (IP) to submit any information that they consider relevant. As such, if you have registered as an IP for the applications that are currently in examination, you may submit information on the relevance of the Norfolk Vanguard Judgement to that project, by the deadlines set out in the examination timetables, if you consider it relevant to the application that is being examined. If you have not previously registered as an IP you may still make a submission for the relevant cases before the examination closes; you may do so by e-mail to the relevant project mailbox, the details for which are available on the respective project pages on the National Infrastructure website. However, please be aware that only parties that have previously registered are entitled to make submissions during an examination. The Examining Authority (ExA) will exercise its discretion whether to accept submissions from parties that have not registered as IPs. For the applications that are yet to be submitted, an opportunity to register as an IP will be available at a later date, if the applications are accepted for examination. Examining Authorities consider all information submitted during an examination when preparing Recommendation Reports to the SoS. Each Recommendation Report will National Infrastructure Planning Temple Quay House 2 The Square Bristol, BS1 6PN Customer Services: e-mail: 0303 444 5000 [email protected] [attachment 1] contain a chapter relating to the legal framework, in which it lists the relevant National Policy Statements (if applicable), as well as other national and local policies that are applicable. It will also reference any case law that has been raised during the examination which the ExA considers relevant to the application. The Report will consider the planning merits of the proposal, against the policy framework, and recommend whether Development Consent should be granted. The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) will of course be aware of the Judicial Review of its decision on the Norfolk Vanguard application; that case is currently with BEIS to be re-determined. Sections 104 and 105 of the Planning Act 2008 specify what information the Secretary of State must have regard to when deciding applications for Development Consent. This includes “any other matters which the Secretary of State thinks are both important and relevant to the Secretary of State’s decision”. It is open to you to write directly to BEIS, and the Department for Transport, to raise this matter, if you wish. I hope this is of assistance. Yours sincerely, Jake Stephens

12 November 2021
Sandra Betts
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Inception Meeting
Please see attached meeting note.

11 November 2021
Indaver Rivenhall Ltd - anon.
Rivenhall IWMF and Energy Centre
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting.

11 November 2021
National Highways - anon.
Lower Thames Crossing
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

10 November 2021
Associated British Ports (ABP)
Immingham Eastern Ro-Ro Terminal
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Diweddariad ar y prosiect cyfarfod - Project update meeting
Gweler yr atodiad - Please see attached

08 November 2021
Awel y Môr Offshore Wind Farm Limited - anon.
Awel y Môr Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
In relation to the baselines Gatwick has proposed for the project in its consultation (which we note have changed from the baselines proposed in its Scoping Report), you say: "they are not matters that we can take a view on prior to submission as the Inspectorate has no role in confirming whether a baseline level proposed by an Applicant is appropriate." We understand from this that PINS does not intend to form a view on Gatwick's proposed baselines prior to submission of the application. You also say: "at the point of submission during the acceptance stage, the Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) will have to decide whether or not the application meets the standards required to be accepted for examination". We would like to understand what work you plan do once the application has been submitted to confirm that the proposed baselines levels are appropriate. We believe that PINS and other intertested parties will only be able to be confident that the adverse impacts (and any benefits) of Gatwick's proposed growth have been scoped and assessed accurately if it has tested the baselines robustly. We would therefore be grateful if you could tell us: • what "the standards required" to be accepted for examination are as regards the proposed baselines; • how PINS will judge whether those standards have been met, that is what specific work it will do; and • what would happen if the standards required were not met. In summary, our view is that PINS will need to review in detail whether Gatwick can achieve the baseline levels it proposes without any of the works for which it seeks consent through the DCO process. We note that paragraph 3.3.7 of the Scoping Opinion says "The Applicant should be careful to ensure that the ‘future baseline’ is established relevant to suitably robust assumptions and is fully representative of the likely outcomes in the absence of the Proposed Development". In this context we would also like to understand whether PINS expects to assess and take into account the cumulative adverse impacts of all the airport's proposed growth (both growth generated by more intensive use of the main runway and that generated by routine use of the standby runway if consent was granted) or just the adverse impacts of proposed standby runway growth? We note that paragraph 3.3.5 of the Scoping opinion says "Where ... works do not specifically form part of the DCO application, the ES should ensure that they are adequately assessed as part of the baseline (and future baseline) conditions or within the cumulative effects assessment where significant effects are likely to occur". My email of 9 September also asked whether, if the need for the development was shown to be low and the adverse impacts high, as we believe will be the case, the Inspectorate can propose caps on Gatwick's growth below the proposed baseline level and potentially below the actual level of traffic achieved in 2019? Your response did not address this question and we would be grateful if you could let us know the position.
Please see attached.

08 November 2021
Gatwick Area Conservation Campaign - anon.
General
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
In relation to the baselines Gatwick has proposed for the project in its consultation (which we note have changed from the baselines proposed in its Scoping Report), you say: "they are not matters that we can take a view on prior to submission as the Inspectorate has no role in confirming whether a baseline level proposed by an Applicant is appropriate." We understand from this that PINS does not intend to form a view on Gatwick's proposed baselines prior to submission of the application. You also say: "at the point of submission during the acceptance stage, the Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) will have to decide whether or not the application meets the standards required to be accepted for examination". We would like to understand what work you plan do once the application has been submitted to confirm that the proposed baselines levels are appropriate. We believe that PINS and other intertested parties will only be able to be confident that the adverse impacts (and any benefits) of Gatwick's proposed growth have been scoped and assessed accurately if it has tested the baselines robustly. We would therefore be grateful if you could tell us: • what "the standards required" to be accepted for examination are as regards the proposed baselines; • how PINS will judge whether those standards have been met, that is what specific work it will do; and • what would happen if the standards required were not met. In summary, our view is that PINS will need to review in detail whether Gatwick can achieve the baseline levels it proposes without any of the works for which it seeks consent through the DCO process. We note that paragraph 3.3.7 of the Scoping Opinion says "The Applicant should be careful to ensure that the ‘future baseline’ is established relevant to suitably robust assumptions and is fully representative of the likely outcomes in the absence of the Proposed Development". In this context we would also like to understand whether PINS expects to assess and take into account the cumulative adverse impacts of all the airport's proposed growth (both growth generated by more intensive use of the main runway and that generated by routine use of the standby runway if consent was granted) or just the adverse impacts of proposed standby runway growth? We note that paragraph 3.3.5 of the Scoping opinion says "Where ... works do not specifically form part of the DCO application, the ES should ensure that they are adequately assessed as part of the baseline (and future baseline) conditions or within the cumulative effects assessment where significant effects are likely to occur". My email of 9 September also asked whether, if the need for the development was shown to be low and the adverse impacts high, as we believe will be the case, the Inspectorate can propose caps on Gatwick's growth below the proposed baseline level and potentially below the actual level of traffic achieved in 2019? Your response did not address this question and we would be grateful if you could let us know the position.
Please see attached.

08 November 2021
Gatwick Area Conservation Campaign - anon.
Gatwick Airport Northern Runway
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project progress update meeting for the Hinkley Point C material change application.
Please see attached.

05 November 2021
NNB Generation Company (HPC) Limited - anon.
Hinkley Point C New Nuclear Power Station Material Change 1
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached.

04 November 2021
National Highways - anon.
A27 Arundel Bypass
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Supplementary consultation update meeting.
Please see attached.

02 November 2021
National Highways - anon.
A12 Chelmsford to A120 Widening Scheme
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project inception meeting
Please see attached.

02 November 2021
Low Carbon - anon.
Gate Burton Energy Park
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Sent: 22 October 2021 17:57 To: Hinckley SRFI Subject: HNRFI Please can you advise if there is any limit on the number of times the application can be pushed back. Kind regards Sharon Scott Local Resident.
Subject: RE: HNRFI Dear Ms Scott, Thank you for your email to the Planning Inspectorate in regard to the Hinckley National Rail Freight Interchange project. Hinckley National Rail Freight Interchange is currently in the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 process. The Pre-application period is Applicant led so it is at their discretion when they submit an application to us and how long the period prior to that takes. For more information on the process as a whole please read Advice Note 8: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure process and the Advice notes 8.1 to 8.6. For more information about the pre-application process please read: Planning Act 2008: guidance on the Pre-application process. I hope the above information is helpful and please do let me know if you have any further questions. Thanks,

27 October 2021
Sharon Scott
Hinckley National Rail Freight Interchange
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please see attached.
Please see attached.

26 October 2021
Ørsted Hornsea Project Four Limited
Hornsea Project Four Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached Meeting Note

21 October 2021
Medworth CHP Limited
Medworth Energy from Waste Combined Heat and Power Facility
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Please see attached.
Please see attached.

20 October 2021
Ørsted
Hornsea Project Four Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via email
The last meeting note published on the PINS project website is from 7 May 2021. The note stated "Next meeting to be arranged between the Applicant and the Inspectorate for late June 2021" A few questions 1. Was there such a meeting in late June and/or any other meetings? 2. When did that/those meeting(s) take place? 3. When will the meeting notes from such meetings be published? Obviously it is important that this information is made publicly available as soon as possible given the strong public interest in ensuring such discussions are transparent. I look forward to hearing from you.
Thank you for your email, and apologies for the delayed response. I can confirm that no further meetings have been held with the Applicant since the Friday 7 May 2021. Any meetings that are held with an Applicant have to have a note taken that is published as advice under s51 of the Planning Act 2008. The note is usually published a few weeks after the meeting takes place as it has to be signed off by various parties before publication. I am the Case Officer for the North Falls project, supporting Tracey Williams as the Case Manager. Please do not hesitate to contact us via the project mailbox if you have any further questions.

19 October 2021
Michael Mahony
North Falls Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Draft document review and Project update meeting
Please see attached

14 October 2021
North Lincolnshire Green Energy Park Limited - anon.
North Lincolnshire Green Energy Park
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached

14 October 2021
Oaklands Solar Farm Ltd - anon.
Oaklands Farm Solar Park
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

14 October 2021
Highways England - anon.
Lower Thames Crossing
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached.

12 October 2021
Sunnica Energy Farm - anon.
Sunnica Energy Farm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

12 October 2021
National Grid Electricity Transmission (NGET) - anon.
Yorkshire GREEN
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting.
Please see attached.

07 October 2021
Gloucestershire County Council - anon.
M5 Junction 10 Improvements Scheme
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

05 October 2021
SSE Slough Multifuel Limited - anon.
Slough Multifuel Extension Project
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Inception meeting note
Please see attached

05 October 2021
West Burton Solar Project Limited and Cottam Solar Project Limited
Cottam Solar Project
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Inception meeting note
Please see attached

05 October 2021
West Burton Solar Project Limited and Cottam Solar Project Limited
West Burton Solar Project
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached Meeting Note

05 October 2021
Oikos Marine and South Side Development
Oikos Marine & South Side Development
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Nodyn cyfarfod sefydlu - Inception meeting note
Gweler yr atodiad - Please see attached

04 October 2021
Mona Offshore Wind Limited - anon.
Mona Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Inception Meeting
Please see attached

04 October 2021
bp / EnBW - anon.
Morgan Offshore Wind Farm Generation Assets
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Inception meeting
Please see attached meeting note

04 October 2021
Green Investment Group and Total Energies - anon.
Outer Dowsing Offshore Wind (Generating Station)
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Tripartite meeting between PINS, LTC and some of the LAs impacted by the scheme
Please see attached.

30 September 2021
National Highways and various Local Authorities - anon.
Lower Thames Crossing
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting.
Please see attached.

29 September 2021
National Highways (the Applicant) - anon.
A358 Taunton to Southfields
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Inception Meeting.
Please see attached.

27 September 2021
Mallard Pass Solar Farm Limited - anon.
Mallard Pass Solar Project
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached meeting note

27 September 2021
London Luton Airport Limited
London Luton Airport Expansion
Enquiry received via email
Comments regarding affected access and watercourse as a result of the scheme.
For avoidance of doubt, the Planning Inspectorate will be examining National Highway’s (formally Highways England) application for development consent for the A12 Chelmsford to A120 Widening Scheme. Until the application is formally submitted, you should direct all queries in respect of affected access to the Applicant on [email protected]. We encourage all affected landowners to liaise privately with the Applicant during the ‘Pre-application’ stage (the period before the application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate) to ensure the Applicant is aware of any concerns you may have in this regard. Once the application is submitted, and it meets the statutory tests to be accepted for Examination, you (as an ‘Affected Person’) will have the opportunity to submit representations to the Planning Inspectorate that will be considered by the appointed inspector(s) ‘the Examining Authority’ in which you can set out your position and raise any ongoing/ outstanding matters in respect of access you may still have.

24 September 2021
Free Poultry - Nigel Free
A12 Chelmsford to A120 Widening Scheme
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Inception Meeting
Please see attached.

24 September 2021
Ridge Clean Energy and Engena LTD - anon.
Temple Oaks Renewable Energy Park
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

23 September 2021
Drax Power Ltd - anon.
Drax Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage Project
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting.
Please see attached.

22 September 2021
National Grid Carbon - anon.
Humber Low Carbon Pipelines
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project inception meeting.
Please see the attached note.

21 September 2021
RWE Renewables UK Ltd - anon.
Dogger Bank South Offshore Wind Farms
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached.

20 September 2021
Equinor - anon.
Sheringham and Dudgeon Extension Projects
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached

16 September 2021
North Lincolnshire Green Energy Park Limited - anon.
North Lincolnshire Green Energy Park
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

16 September 2021
National Highways - anon.
Lower Thames Crossing
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached.

15 September 2021
Highways England - anon.
A12 Chelmsford to A120 Widening Scheme
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached Meeting Note

15 September 2021
Net Zero Teesside Power Limited and Net Zero North Sea Storage Limited
The Net Zero Teesside Project
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Please see attached.
Please see attached.

15 September 2021
Anglian Water - anon.
Cambridge Waste Water Treatment Plant Relocation
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Inception Meeting
Please see attached meeting note.

13 September 2021
Offshore Wind Limited (OWL) - anon.
Morecambe Offshore Windfarm Generation Assets
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
what work has PINS done, or plans to do, to confirm that the baseline level of 61 million passengers set out in Gatwick's Scoping Report is appropriate.
As part of the development consent process and Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), the Applicant is required to prepare an Environmental Statement accompanying the DCO application which must contain information about the Proposed Development and its environmental effects and include information reasonably required for reaching a reasoned conclusion on the significant environmental effects. Whilst we note the issues you have raised, they are not matters that we can take a view on prior to submission as the Inspectorate has no role in confirming whether a baseline level proposed by an Applicant is appropriate. It is for the Applicant to set out such matters as part of their application documents (and pre-application consultations, where appropriate) and at the point of submission during the acceptance stage, the Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) will have to decide whether or not the application meets the standards required to be accepted for examination. As you may already be aware, the Applicant is about to embark on their statutory consultation which includes their Preliminary Environmental Information Report (PEIR). It is likely that their PEIR will contain further details about the approach to the environmental assessments in this regard although please note the content of the PEIR and consultation process as a whole are matters for the Applicant. In shaping their application, the Applicant has a duty to have regard to issues raised during the statutory consultation and so we strongly recommend you continue to raise your concerns especially at this part in the process, in response to the Applicants consultation. Further details of this can be found on their project website at: [attachment 1]. If an application is accepted for examination, an examining authority will be appointed, and they will consider all relevant and important matters through the examination process and have a duty to have regard to any submissions made by interested parties.

09 September 2021
Gatwick Area Conservation Campaign - anon.
Gatwick Airport Northern Runway
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
S51 Advice on draft versions of drawing layouts - A51 Cyngor ar fersiynau drafft o osodiadau lluniadau
Please see attached - Gweler ynghlwm

03 September 2021
ENI, Progressive Energy Limited, WSP - anon.
HyNet Carbon Dioxide Pipeline
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached

02 September 2021
anon.
Heckington Fen Solar Park
response has attachments
Project update meeting
See attached.

02 September 2021
East West Rail Company Limited - anon.
East West Rail - Bedford to Cambridge and Western improvements
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached.

02 September 2021
National Highways - anon.
Lower Thames Crossing
Enquiry received via post
response has attachments
Advice following issue of decision not to accept the application for examination
Please see attached

26 August 2021
Augean South Limited
East Northants Resource Management Facility Western Extension
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

26 August 2021
Highways England - anon.
M60/M62/M66 Simister Island
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Note of project meetings that took place with the Applicant on 19 and 25 August 2021
Please see attached.

25 August 2021
Augean South Limited - anon.
East Northants Resource Management Facility Western Extension
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached.

25 August 2021
National Grid Ventures - anon.
Nautilus Interconnector
Enquiry received via email
To whom it may concern. As residents of Amcotts we have, yet again, become concerned about the level and persistence of noise emanating from the Flixborough industrial estate, the closest and most open western boundary of which is not much more than 200 metres from the edge of our village. There is a history of noise nuisance affecting Amcotts from this industrial estate, and wharf, going back thirty years, not to mention dust, foul odours, swarms of flies and light pollution. We simply do not see why we should have to continually tolerate this. If this was not bad enough, there is now a proposal to build a massive incinerator on the North Lincolnshire Green Energy Park, on that site. If this proposed project were to be given the go ahead it would mean increased activity from 24hr working, with increased river, wharf, rail and road activity, all leading, as experience tells us, to even more noise nuisance and more stress and trauma. Solar 21 recently carried out a noise assessment survey from the 12th to the 21st April here at Amcotts, as well as Flixborough, and we believe that noise survey was seriously compromised, due to excess and persistent noise emanating from the Flixborough industrial estate, and consider that survey to be invalid because it is not representative of the background noise levels as they would be expected to be without the current noise issues. Furthermore it cannot be right that this Incinerator is not considered against a lower baseline noise than measured. Attached are graphs of recent noise level readings taken (by me) at the industrial estate boundary, which clearly show the extent to which these limits are being breached, and are coming from established operations and processes. This is happening continually and for considerable lengths of time. These noise levels are clearly in excess of existing noise-limiting planning/permitting conditions and are causing statutory nuisance. We refer you to attached documents confirming existing restrictions placed on the Flixborough industrial estate, Planning Ref:7/CBC5/13/83, recently sent to us. Also attached are the notes of a meeting held with residents of Amcotts on Wednesday 18th June 1997, in respect of "Environmental Problems" following our complaints at that time, and which also refers to the same noise restrictions. See also 1. Noise Assessment a. Noise Levels at Amcotts. This clearly illustrates how Amcotts is affected by activity on the industrial estate. We also have copies of two other noise reports undertaken in 2006 and 2014, following complaints. CONDITIONS WERE PLACED ON THE FLIXBOROUGH INDUSTRIAL ESTATE BECAUSE. "The site is relatively close to occupied residential properties whose occupants should not be subject to undue risk" "To protect the amenities of residents in Amcotts and Flixborough" THE CONDITIONS RELATING TO NOISE LEVELS ARE AS FOLLOWS. "Noise emanating from operations and processes conducted on the site shall not exceed 55 dba between the hours of 7.00a.m. and 7p.m. nor 50 dba between the hours of 7p.m. and 7a.m. as measured at the boundaries of the site" We sincerely hope that all the issues that have been raised here will be investigated, and that the authority/authorities will take appropriate enforcement action to reduce the level of noise emanating from the industrial estate. Yours sincerely Brian and Eileen Oliver, Susan and Ian Ritchie, Amy Ogman, Shaun Berkeley(chairman Amcotts Parish Council), Stuart and Jenette Tretheway. Derek and Julie Horton, Tricia Murphy.
Dear Mr Oliver, Thank you for your comments. Please note that prior to the official submission of their application for development consent, the Applicant for the North Lincolnshire Green Energy Park project is solely responsible for their Pre-Application activities and consultation. Although the statutory consultation period for receipt of views on the proposed development closed on 25 July 2021, you can still make your concerns known to them if you have not already done so. We would also advise you to inform your local authority of these concerns, and note that you have also cc’d North Lincolnshire Council in to your email. When the application for development consent for the North Lincolnshire Green Energy Park has been submitted the Planning Inspectorate will make a decision on whether or not the application has met the necessary statutory requirements to be accepted for Examination. Should the application be accepted you will then have the opportunity to register as an Interested Party and submit your concerns as a Relevant Representation. By registering as an Interested Party you will have the right to make representations, attend and speak at the Preliminary Meeting and subsequent hearings, and provide written evidence throughout the Examination. Further information about becoming an Interested Party can be found in Advice Note 8.2 located on the National Infrastructure website. For further guidance on engaging in the nationally significant infrastructure planning process please refer to Advice Note 8. Please do not hesitate to get in contact if you have any further questions of a procedural nature. Many thanks, Tamika Hull Case Officer

20 August 2021
Brian and Eileen Oliver
North Lincolnshire Green Energy Park
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Can you please tell me: 1. As a Parish Council impacted by the onshore cable path when we can submit a Local Impact Report 2. Will you contact Parish Councils for submission of Local Impact Reports? 3. Do you contact other local authorities i.e. Norfolk County Council and District Councils? 4. Your advice note on submitting Local Impact Reports states you contact other organisations. Can you supply a list of who you will be contacting? 5. As this is a new area for me, any other advice you can give will be most welcome including guidance on format
1. As a Parish Council impacted by the onshore cable path when we can submit a Local Impact Report? Parish councils cannot submit Local Impact Reports (LIR). Section 60(2) of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) sets out that only the relevant local authorities defined in s56A(2) of the PA2008 (ie the host and neighbouring upper (county)/ lower (district/ borough etc) tier and unitary local authorities in which the Proposed Development is located), as well as the Greater London Authority (if located within Greater London)) can submit a LIR. Although the relevant parish councils (those parish councils located within the host lower tier/ unitary local authorities’ administrative boundary) are regarded as statutory parties for the purposes of an Examination, they cannot submit a LIR. Advice Note One: Local Impact Reports sets out that parish council representations to local authorities in respect of the Proposed Development can be referenced in LIRs if they’re relevant to particular local impacts. You may wish to liaise with the relevant local authorities to set out your concerns in respect of the Proposed Development on your parish. [attachment 1] 2. Will you contact Parish Councils for submission of Local Impact Reports? Parish councils will not be contacted to prepare and provide LIRs. The relevant local authorities (as defined above) are informally notified about the preparation of LIRs when we contact them to advise that an application is close to being submitted, in order to request ‘Adequacy of Consultation Representations’ once the application has been received to gain understanding as to whether they believe an Applicant has met its statutory duties in respect of Statutory Consultation. The ‘Rule 6’ letter, which, amongst other things, invites parties to attend the Preliminary Meeting (PM), sets out the draft Examination Table for the Examination, and includes a procedural decision formally inviting LIRs from the relevant local authorities. The ‘Rule 8’ letter that follows after the PM, once Examination begins, sets out the deadlines contained within the Examination Timetable including the deadline for receipt of LIRs. Usually this is very early in the timetable to allow appropriate time to examine the matters contained within LIRs. The relevant parish councils will also receive the Rule 6 and 8 letters, which set out the deadline for ‘Written Representations’, providing parish councils the opportunity to put their case in writing on how their parish will be affected by a Proposed Development. Additionally, you may consider entering into a ‘Statement of Common Ground’ (SoCG) with the Applicant to set out formally any areas of agreement and disagreement you and the Applicant may have in respect of the Proposed Development in your parish. The Applicant will submit a suite of SoCGs with various statutory bodies and local authorities and may consider doing so with your parish council. As the responsibility for producing and submitting SoCGs lies solely with the Applicant, I recommend contacting them to enquire about the opportunity for such a document prior to submission. 3. Do you contact other local authorities i.e. Norfolk County Council and District Councils? The Rule 6 and 8 letters inviting the preparation and submission of LIRs are sent to the relevant host and neighbouring upper/ lower tier and unitary local authorities, which, for this scheme, includes Norfolk County Council as the host upper tier council. Any host or neighbouring district councils will also be invited to do so. 4. Your advice note on submitting Local Impact Reports states you contact other organisations. Can you supply a list of who you will be contacting? As set out above, the Rule 6 and 8 letters will invite only the relevant host and neighbouring local authorities, and the Greater London Authority (if the Proposed Development is located within Greater London) to prepare and submit LIRs. I am happy to prepare a list of these councils if that would help but the relevant local authorities will not be formally identified until the Applicant provides confirmation of the Proposed Development’s final footprint, its ‘Red Line Boundary’, setting out the area that contains all the works and land acquisition applied for that’s required to construct and operate the Proposed Development, shortly before submission. 5. As this is a new area for me, any other advice you can give will be most welcome including guidance on format. As your parish council will not be invited to prepare and submit a LIR, I recommend you review the following advice for your council to engage effectively during the Examination: [attachment 2] [attachment 3] [attachment 4] [attachment 5] [attachment 6]

20 August 2021
Barford and Wramplingham Parish Council - Sandra Betts
Sheringham and Dudgeon Extension Projects
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached.

20 August 2021
Highways England - anon.
M3 Junction 9 Improvement
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

19 August 2021
Gatwick Airport Limited - anon.
Gatwick Airport Northern Runway
Enquiry received via post
response has attachments
Various Enquiries received for Rt Hon Grant Shapps MP, the Secretary of State for Transport. Please see attached for details.
Please see pages 20 and 21 of the attached

16 August 2021
Various Enquiries
Oikos Marine & South Side Development
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Please see attached.
Please see attached.

16 August 2021
Ørsted Hornsea Project Four Limited - anon.
Hornsea Project Four Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Various Enquiries by Tom Howlett; Jude Sutton; Jonathan Thompson; Alan James ; Vall Webb; Leigh Howley; Thelma Kensley; Amanda Bliss; Charlotte Crozier; G. Else; Lee Cook
Thank you for your correspondence regarding the proposed Medworth Energy from Waste Combined Heat and Power Facility. The proposed application by Medworth CHP 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. An application is expected to be submitted in Quarter 1 2022. As you may be aware, the Applicant has recently carried out its statutory consultation period; the deadline for consultation responses was 13 August 2021. However, you can make general enquiries about this project directly with the Applicant via the following contact details: email - [email protected] Telephone - 01945 232 231 Freepost address: "Freepost MVV" Please note that the Pre-Application consultation process is entirely led by the Applicant, who are responsible for ensuring that they comply with the legislative requirements surrounding consultation which are set out in PA2008. Your correspondence provides your comments on the merits of the Proposed Development, which the Applicant sought during its consultation. We can see from your email that you have made these comments directly to the Applicant. If you are not satisfied that the Applicant is taking your comments into account, you should raise this with the Local Authority. Information about the Planning Inspectorate’s remit once an Application is submitted When an application is formally submitted to the Planning Inspectorate for Examination, an assessment is made on whether it 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. In order to help make an informed decision on this matter the Planning Inspectorate writes to all relevant Local Authorities for their views on the adequacy of the consultation. 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 subsequently accepted for Examination, parties are able to 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. In order to assist parties in understanding the Planning Act 2008 process, the Planning Inspectorate has prepared a suite of Advice Notes. In particular 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: [attachment 1] I hope this information is of assistance.

16 August 2021
Various Enquiries
Medworth Energy from Waste Combined Heat and Power Facility
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Inception Meeting
Please see attached.

13 August 2021
Corey Group - anon.
Cory Decarbonisation Project
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Various Enquiries by Stuart Wilkie; Ursula Waverley; Alan Wheeldon; Donna Knott; Ben Greig; Mike Hopgood; David Bragg; Julie Beart; Marina Guriano; Garry Monger; Martin & Jacqui Barwell James Wicker; Rachel Burry; David and Julie Shaw; Mariah Moyses; Nadine Ridgewell  R Kirk; Peter Burbank; Jacqueline Barnett; Paul Barnett; James Kerr; Simon Parsons; Patrycja Pracowiak; Maggie Donaldson; Stefanie & Steve Millington; Jo Murfitt
Thank you for your emails regarding the proposed Medworth Energy from Waste Combined Heat and Power Facility. The proposed application by Medworth CHP Limited is at the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) process. Therefore, the Planning Inspectorate is unable to consider representations about the merits of any application until it is accepted for Examination. The Applicant, Medworth CHP Limited, is carrying out its Statutory Consultation between 28 June - 13 August 2021, as required by s47 of the Planning Act 2008. Details can be found on the Applicant’s website: [attachment 1] Early engagement provides the Applicant with an opportunity to resolve or reduce the impacts caused by the construction and operation of the Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP) in advance of submitting the application. The Applicant is under a legal duty to demonstrate that they have had regard to consultation responses at this stage, although that isn’t to say that they must agree with all of the views put to them in the responses received. Further information on responding to the Applicants consultation can be found in the Planning Inspectorate’s Advice note 8.1 [attachment 2] The deadline to respond to the Applicant’s statutory consultation is Friday 13 August 2021.

13 August 2021
Various Enquiries
Medworth Energy from Waste Combined Heat and Power Facility
Enquiry received via email
Request for delivering presentation at a hearing. Dear James, Please find a letter attached for Inspector Hutson. The main points are that: - I request to make an approximately 30 minutes Powerpoint presentation at the ISH2 under "Climate Change" agenda item - I note the recent quashing of a Development Consent Order approving a major junction improvement scheme on the A38 in Derby by the High Court on 8th July 2021 and request the implications of it are also included at the ISH On the first request, if Inspector Hutson agrees, I assume that slide sharing facilities using the PINS Teams set-up is reasonably straightforward (I am well acquainted with the similar mechanisms on Zoom). I hope that I can be advised as soon as possible on my request so that I can prepare the right materials for the ISH. Apologies for my delay to respond to the ISH agenda but I was on holiday until Sunday and still catching up. With best regards, Andrew
Dear Andrew, Thank you for your email. The purpose of a Hearing is for the ExA to ask questions about written representations submitted by Interested Parties. As such there is no opportunity to make a presentation during a Hearing. We do not allow attendees to share documents, this is to avoid the risk of inappropriate content being shared. If you wish to refer to a document, or part thereof, eg a plan, please let us know in advance and we will arrange for this to be available for you should you be asked a question relating to your submission. We will be sending out joining details the day before each Hearing. If you have any questions please don’t hesitate to contact us. Thank you, Deborah Deborah Allen Case Manager National Infrastructure Planning

11 August 2021
Andrew Boswell
A47 Blofield to North Burlingham
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting.
Please see attached.

11 August 2021
North Lincolnshire Green Energy Park Limited - anon.
North Lincolnshire Green Energy Park
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting - Diweddariad ar y Prosiect
Please see attached - Gweler ynghlwm

10 August 2021
ENI, Progressive Energy Limited, WSP - anon.
HyNet Carbon Dioxide Pipeline
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached.

10 August 2021
National Highways - anon.
Lower Thames Crossing
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please see attached.
Under the EIA Regulations, the Applicant’s Environmental Statement must include “a description of the reasonable alternatives studied by the applicant, which are relevant to the proposed development and its specific characteristics, and an indication of the main reasons for the option chosen, taking into account the effects of the development on the environment”. The Planning Inspectorate does not have a remit to exert particular influence on their consideration of alternatives in EIA terms, beyond that which is required as defined above. There are also references in the National Policy Statements for Energy Infrastructure EN-1 (Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy) and EN-3 (National Policy Statement for Renewable Energy Infrastructure) about how the Secretary of State will consider alternatives in their decision making. As part of the Applicant’s statutory consultation duty, they are obliged to consult on ‘preliminary environmental information’ as defined in the EIA Regulations. There is a legal duty on the Applicant to demonstrate that they have had regard to consultation responses received under section 49 of the Planning Act itself. Your consultation response may include information about alternatives to the project, and the best point at which to raise these matters is in response to the Applicant’s current formal, statutory consultation (running to 16 September 2021). The Inspectorate would therefore advise you to ensure you submit a response to the current consultation. One of the principles of the Planning Act 2008 is “front loading” of the process, with the intention that matters such as alternatives that you wish to raise are made to the Applicant in the pre-application period, which they then have regard to in finalising their application (eg reasons as to why they are not feasible etc). If an application is accepted for Examination, you (and anyone else) are able to register as an Interested Party and make submissions (having considered the Applicant’s application), and this may include matters relating to alternatives. The Examining Authority then has regard to such submissions in their consideration of the evidence and the case for development consent. Although there is a duty to consider submissions made by Interested Parties, the Examining Authority has discretion as to how they conduct their Examination of the issues, and whether or not/ how they pursue relevant matters raised by Interested Parties. The Acceptance stage is purely for the Planning Inspectorate, on behalf of the Secretary of State, to decide whether or not the application meets the standards required to be accepted for Examination. In particular, whether the Applicant has met its consultation duties. It does not make any decision on the outcome of the DCO application or the merits of the scheme at this stage, nor is there any opportunity for Interested Parties to make submissions, which comes after any decision to accept an application. However, we will seek the views of the relevant local authorities on the adequacy of the consultation undertaken by the Applicant. Local Impact Report Section 60(2)(a) of the Planning Act 2008 states that each local authority that is identified within section 56A of the Planning Act are invited to submit a Local Impact Report. As the boundaries for each scheme differ, we cannot assume that the same local authorities will be identified under section 56A and invited to submit a Local Impact Report. If Adur and Worthing Councils fall within this category they will be invited to submit a Local Impact report at the relevant deadline in the examination, which will be set by the Examining Authority. We advise all councils to look at Advice Note One on the Planning Inspectorate’s website, which provides guidance on what to include in a Local Impact Report. Also Advice Note Two, which explains the role of local authorities in the DCO process. The Planning Inspectorate thanks you for the invitation to observe the public meeting, however, due to resource pressures we are not able to attend and in general, given our quasi-judicial role in the process, we tend not to participate or observe meetings of this nature, to avoid any perception of prejudice.

05 August 2021
Mr Haas - anon.
Rampion 2 Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Meeting Update.
Please see attached.

05 August 2021
Highways England - anon.
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Meeting Update.
Please see attached.

05 August 2021
Highways England - anon.
Lower Thames Crossing
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
s51 advice issued to Grant Schapps
Please see attached.

04 August 2021
Mr Grant Schapps MP - anon.
Oikos Marine & South Side Development
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Inception meeting
Please see attached.

03 August 2021
Associated British Ports (ABP)
Immingham Eastern Ro-Ro Terminal
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please see attached
Following the decision to accept the application the Inspectorate issued the following advice. Please see attached

02 August 2021
Highways England - anon.
A47 Wansford to Sutton
Enquiry received via phone
Phone call with Transport for London
To discuss the withdrawal of the application and how the Applicant is working towards resubmission

29 July 2021
Transport for London - anon.
Lower Thames Crossing
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Discussion following commencement of the consultation and ahead of the anticipated resubmission, with representatives of Thurrock Council, Gravesham Borough Council, London Borough of Havering, Kent County Council and Essex County Council.
Please see attached meeting note.

27 July 2021
Various local authorities - anon.
Lower Thames Crossing
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please see attached.
Please see attached.

26 July 2021
Daniel Wimberley
A57 Link Roads (previously known as Trans Pennine Upgrade Programme)
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting.
Please see attached.

23 July 2021
Longfield Solar Energy Farm Limited - anon.
Longfield Solar Farm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please see attached.
Please see attached.

22 July 2021
Jo Dagustun
A57 Link Roads (previously known as Trans Pennine Upgrade Programme)
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please see attached.
Please see attached.

22 July 2021
CPRE Peak District and South Yorkshire - Anne Robinson
A57 Link Roads (previously known as Trans Pennine Upgrade Programme)
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please see attached.
Please see attached.

22 July 2021
Kevin Ludden
A57 Link Roads (previously known as Trans Pennine Upgrade Programme)
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Please see attached.
Please see attached.

22 July 2021
National Grid Electricity Transmission (NGET) - anon.
Bramford to Twinstead
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

21 July 2021
Highways England - anon.
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Meeting Update.
Please see attached.

21 July 2021
Highways England - anon.
Lower Thames Crossing
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

21 July 2021
Oxfordshire Rail freight Ltd - anon.
Oxfordshire Strategic Rail Freight Interchange
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please see attached enquiries dated 6 and 16 July 2021.
Please see attached joint response.

16 July 2021
CPRE Peak District and South Yorkshire - Anne Robinson
A57 Link Roads (previously known as Trans Pennine Upgrade Programme)
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting.
Please see attached.

15 July 2021
Ørsted Hornsea Project Four Limited - anon.
Hornsea Project Four Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via email
Dear Sirs, Thank you for your reply, normally when considering planning applications for establishments regulated by the COMAH regulations the Local Planning Authority under the guise of the Hazardous Substance Authority are required to assess the residual risk presented, the COMAH regulations clearly state that any development that leads to greater human activity adds to the residual risk and should therefore be refused, this application confirms the employment of 10 additional on site personnel which leads to greater human activity. As the Planning Inspectorate on behalf of the Secretary of State are deciding on this application they must now also accept responsibility for assessing residual risk, this is not the responsibility of The COMAH Competent Authority or any other statutory authority nor can this be negated by a Development Consent Order. It is unthinkable that the residual risk aspect of this application which affects circa 40,000 nearby inhabitants should not be properly considered because the development falls under the umbrella of the Nationally Significant Infrastructure Planning Regime. Regards Neil Scarff
Dear Mr Scarff, Thank you for your email dated 29 June 2021. The proposed Oikos Marine and South Side Development project is currently at Pre-Application stage and application for development consent has not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate for consideration. An application is expected to be submitted to the Planning Inspectorate in Quarter 3, 2021. Please note that the Pre-Application consultation process is entirely led by the Applicant, who are responsible for ensuring that they comply with the legislative requirements surrounding consultation, which are set out in the Planning Act 2008. This includes a legal requirement for the Applicant to consult with Statutory Bodies such as the Health and Safety Executive (HSE). Although the Applicants statutory consultation has now closed, the Planning Inspectorate would advise you to raise your concerns with the Applicant at this stage. If you are not satisfied that the Applicant is taking them into account you should raise this with the Local Authority also. You can of course contact the Health and Safety Executive / the Environment Agency for further information in relation to the COMAH Regulations. You can make general enquiries about this project with the developer or register for their project updates via the following contact details: • Email: [email protected] • Phone: 0800 206 2583 • Post: OIKOS FREEPOST Further information on the project, including their consultation activities and documents are still available on the OMSSD website at www.oikos.co.uk/omssd/consultation Information about the Planning Inspectorate’s remit once the Application is submitted If the Application has been submitted, and subsequently accepted for Examination, you will be able to register as an Interested Party and make Relevant Representations for the Examining Authority to consider. If you wish to register as an Interested Party, you may wish to make the points you have raised in your emails below as part of your Relevant Representation. The Examining Authority will make an initial assessment of the issues arising from the submitted application as well as from the Relevant Representations, which will inform their Examination of the proposed development. Once registered you can submit further evidence or raise concerns for consideration during the Examination. Please read the Planning Inspectorate’s advice note on How to Register to participate in an Examination for further information. 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 Oikos scheme. You can register for updates on the project by entering an email address in the “Email Updates” section on the right hand side of the project page. This will then alert you as to when the Application has been received, and the period for registering and making Relevant Representations has opened. All documents received and issued during the course of the Examination will be published to this page. For clarification, the Planning Inspectorate will not be deciding the application (if submitted and accepted to proceed to examination), it will be for the Secretary of State for Transport to decide the Development Consent Order. I hope you find this information useful. Kind regards

13 July 2021
Neil Scarff
Oikos Marine & South Side Development
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I've recently joined Anglian Water and identified that Anglian hasn't submitted Relevant Representations for the A47 Blofeld or the Tuddenham scheme. I've agreed with Highways England Programme lead that Anglian will seek a dispensation to submit Relevants Reps to ensure these matters are before the Examining Authority. Can you advise on the address to send the Reps to for Blofield and for Tuddenham?
The deadline for ‘Relevant Representations’ (RRs) (preliminary submissions setting out the matters that are to be raised in more detail at Examination) for the A47 Blofield to North Burlingham project elapsed on 6 April 2021. However, as a Statutory Consultee, Anglian Water can participate at the Examination and submit written submissions to update the Examining Authority on its position in respect of the Proposed Development without needing to register and provide a RR. As the Examination has commenced, the deadline for ‘Written Representations’ (WRs), your comprehensive written submission, is Deadline 2 - 20 July 2021. You can either submit your WR via email ([email protected]) or via the project page’s portal on the following link: [attachment 1];d=Deadline+2+D2 In respect of the A47 North Tuddenham to Easton application, the RR deadline has also elapsed. However, once Examination commences, you will have the same opportunity to provide a WR for the Proposed Development to set out Anglian Water’s position and raise any pertinent matters. The ‘Rule 6’ letter, which amongst other things invites attendance to the Preliminary Meeting and circulates the draft Examination Timetable, includes a cursory date of Deadline 1 – 1 September 2021 for WRs (tbc). You can provide your WR via the project’s email ([email protected]) or via the project’s portal once live following the commencement of the Examination.

09 July 2021
Anglian Water Services Limited - Darl Sweetland
A47 Blofield to North Burlingham
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting.
Please see attached.

08 July 2021
Oaklands Farm Solar Ltd - anon.
Oaklands Farm Solar Park
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

08 July 2021
Highways England - anon.
Lower Thames Crossing
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

08 July 2021
Highways England - anon.
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached

06 July 2021
Oikos Marine and South Side Development (OMSSD)
Oikos Marine & South Side Development
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Enquiry about the status of an emerging National Policy Statement for the purposes of making a decision on an application for a Development Consent Order.
Your query appears to relate to the weight that a decision maker may attach to an emerging National Policy Statement (NPS). You refer to s105 of the Planning Act 2008 which sets out the matters that a decision maker must have regard to when making a decision on an application for a development consent order (DCO) where no relevant NPS has been designated. “Designated” in this context means that the NPS has been formally approved by Parliament. Therefore, any decision on an application where no designated NPS was in place would need to be made under s105. There may be circumstances where a NPS remains in place at the same time as it is being reviewed and a draft NPS is being consulted on. In those circumstances the application may be determined under s104 (for applications for a DCO where a designated NPS has effect). However, the decision maker may have regard to any draft “emerging” NPS and will need to exercise their judgment about the weight to be attached to the policies in the emerging NPS. This will require the decision maker to consider a range of factors including the maturity of the document and the extent to which it has been subject to public consultation. The Planning Act 2008 sets out a process for the preparation and designation of NPSs in Part 2 (sections 5 to 13): [attachment 1] On a general point, a decision maker for an application for a DCO 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.

30 June 2021
Debbie Bryce
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting.
Please see attached.

30 June 2021
National Grid Carbon - anon.
Humber Low Carbon Pipelines
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached.

30 June 2021
Drax Power Limited
Drax Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage Project
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached meeting note

30 June 2021
London Luton Airport Limited - anon.
London Luton Airport Expansion
Enquiry received via email
I am aware of course that the above proposed development is being decided by The Secretary of State for Transport via the Planning Inspectorate and not by the Local Planning Authority Castle Point Borough Council, would you however please advise if the duties and responsibilities of The Hazardous Substance Authority as contained in the COMAH Regulations with regard to planning applications have also been passed onto the Planning Inspectorate or do these remain with the Local Authority.
Thank you for your email. Under the nationally significant infrastructure planning regime hazardous substances consent can be deemed to be granted by a Development Consent Order. The aim in doing so is to provide a ‘one stop shop’ for consenting for nationally significant infrastructure projects. Before submitting an application, potential applicants have a statutory duty to carry out consultation on their proposals under the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008). The hazardous waste authorities will be statutory consultees at the pre-application stage of the PA2008 process for this proposed application. The Health and Safety Executive (or, in relation to nuclear establishments, the Office for Nuclear Regulation) will give pre-application advice to new operators of hazardous installations and to nationally significant infrastructure project applicants. The Environment Agency provides a pre-application advice service for applicants. If an application for Development Consent for the proposed Oikos Marine and South Side Development is received by the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State), there will be 28 days for the Planning Inspectorate to review the application and decide whether or not to accept it for examination. If accepted, there will then be a period for the public and statutory parties to register with the Planning Inspectorate to become an Interested Party by making a Relevant Representation. The hazardous waste authorities would be statutory parties on this application and be able to make a Relevant Representation. During the Examination stage Interested Parties who have registered by making a Relevant Representation are invited to provide more details of their views in writing. The Health and Safety Executive and the Environment Agency (competent Authority in England) and the local authorities will be able to make representations to the Examining Authority. Careful consideration is given by the Examining Authority (appointed at the pre-examination stage) to all the important and relevant matters including the representations of all Interested Parties, any supporting evidence submitted and answers provided to the Examining Authority’s questions set out in writing or posed at hearings. The Planning Inspectorate must prepare a report on the application to the relevant Secretary of State, including a recommendation, within three months of the close of the six month Examination stage. The relevant Secretary of State then has a further three months to make the decision on whether to grant or refuse development consent. The decision maker for the Development Consent Order application would in this case be the Secretary of State for Transport. I hope you find this information useful.

29 June 2021
Neil Scarff
Oikos Marine & South Side Development
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Diweddariad ar y prosiect cyfarfod - Project update meeting
Gweler yr atodiad - Please see attached

24 June 2021
Awel y Môr Offshore Wind Farm Limited - anon.
Awel y Môr Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

24 June 2021
Highways England - anon.
Lower Thames Crossing
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached.

21 June 2021
Net Zero Teesside Power Limited and Net Zero North Seas Storage Limited
The Net Zero Teesside Project
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Dear Tamika and Louise, Firstly I must apologize if I should not be sending this to you. However today 18th of June 2021 I have been to the designated venue at Crowle Community Hub for the project information regarding the energy park. As I was talking to the assistant there was NO information available and there has been other people who have also enquired but to no avail. Why are Solar 21 NOT carrying out their duty of communicating with the public? All this is so stressful for myself and family especially having to travel 9 miles knowing that Solar 21 said we would be able to access this information form Monday 14th June. Kind Regards Sue Ritchie.
Please see attached.

21 June 2021
Sue Ritchie
North Lincolnshire Green Energy Park
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Discussion following the withdrawal of the first application and ahead of the anticipated consultation, with representatives of Thurrock Council, Gravesham Borough Council, London Borough of Havering and Kent County Council.
Please see attached meeting note.

15 June 2021
Various local authorities - anon - anon.
Lower Thames Crossing
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Inception Meeting
Please see attached.

15 June 2021
Southern Water Services Limited - anon.
Hampshire Water Transfer and Water Recycling Project
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Pre-submission update meeting 2.
Please see attached.

14 June 2021
BDB Pitmans and Able Humber Ports Ltd - anon.
Able Marine Energy Park Material Change 2
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Inception meeting
Please see attached.

14 June 2021
SSE Slough Multifuel Limited - anon.
Slough Multifuel Extension Project
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached.

10 June 2021
Highways England - anon.
Lower Thames Crossing
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update and Draft Document Review Meeting
Please see attached Meeting Note

09 June 2021
Augean South Limited
East Northants Resource Management Facility Western Extension
response has attachments
Local Authorities: Lunch and Learn session from The Inspectorate.
Please see attached.

08 June 2021
Representatives of the host Local Authorities - anon.
A66 Northern Trans-Pennine Project
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached Meeting Note

04 June 2021
Medworth CHP Limited
Medworth Energy from Waste Combined Heat and Power Facility
Enquiry received via email
Dear Rt Hon Grant Shapps MP I am writing with regards to the proposed expansion of the Oikos facility located in Canvey Island to express my concerns and state my objection to it. As a resident of Canvey, I have serious concerns over our safety should an event like Buncefield repeat itself. During an online Q&A session that I joined I asked if they can guarantee our safety – and Oikos said they cannot. They can make it “as safe as possible” which isn’t good enough given the amount of hazardous materials they are planning on storing (they want to double the storage). There are all types of issues that could arise from a huge explosion – including its proximity to the sea (and the risk of causing a flood) to the fact there is a Calor Gas facility right next door to Oikos! I also asked about an evacuation plan in the event of an “accident” and they said they do not have one and it’s down to the local council. I find that response astounding and there does not appear to be a plan in place from the council either. I asked what would happen if one of their HGVs/tankers was to have an accident in Canvey, and the response was the same – it’s the council’s responsibility. So they are basically passing the buck and anything outside of their fence is not their problem! The site as it is shouldn’t be where it is in such close proximity to residents and to the sea, let alone doubling the size of it! It’s all about money and greed and Canvey is the cheapest option because of the existing facility. Well Canvey residents do not want to be sitting ducks. Would you be comfortable with it on your doorstep? As well as human error and technical error, there is also the threat of terrorism – how would they stop a drone flying over and dropping something – they simply cannot. It’s no good to learn from something after the event of a catastrophe – lives should not be put at risk for the purposes of greed. As well as safety, traffic is another major concern. There are only two roads on/off Canvey to service nearly 40,000 residents and both meet at the same roundabout. Not only will Oikos’ projected extra 480 vehicle movements PER DAY add to our already huge traffic problems, in the event of a major incident, Canvey residents have no chance of getting off the Island quickly when we all have to meet at that one roundabout. Oikos’ response was that they do not envisage causing further traffic issues – they really do not care. They said that HGV timings will be timetabled or words to that effect – they clearly have never been on Canvey when there has been an accident on Somnes Avenue – the whole island comes to a standstill – their HGVs will be backed up with tonnes of hazardous materials on board. Many Canvey residents turned out yesterday for a protest against the expansion – that was just the start, we are going to fight this all the way to protect where we live for us and for future generations. I hope you will take a very close look at this and reach the conclusion that this is a ludicrous and more importantly, deadly proposal that should not be passed. Surely it also goes against the government’s green policy to reduce the use of fossil fuels? I look forward to your response.
Thank you for your recent e-mail in relation to the proposed Oikos Marine and South Side Development project, which is currently in the Pre-Application stage and for which an application for development consent has not yet been submitted. An application is expected to be submitted to the Planning Inspectorate in Quarter 3, 2021. As you are aware, the developer has recently carried out its statutory consultation period. It is understood, from the developer’s website, that the deadline for consultation responses was 18 May 2021. However you can make general enquiries about this project with the developer or register for their project updates via the following contact details: • Email: [email protected] • Phone: 0800 206 2583 • Post: OIKOS FREEPOST Further information on the project, including their consultation activities and documents are still available on the OMSSD website at www.oikos.co.uk/omssd/consultation Please note that the Pre-Application consultation process is entirely led by the Applicant, who are responsible for ensuring that they comply with the legislative requirements surrounding consultation, which are set out in the Planning Act 2008. This includes a legal requirement for the Applicant to consult with Statutory Bodies such as the Health and Safety Executive (HSE). Your e-mail provides your comments on the merits of the Proposed Development, which the Applicant sought during its consultation. Your email indicates you have already made these comments directly to the Applicant during the consultation, as the Planning Inspectorate would advise you to do. If you are not satisfied that the Applicant is taking them into account you should raise this with the Local Authority also. Information about the Planning Inspectorate’s remit once the Application is submitted When an application is formally submitted to the Planning Inspectorate for Examination, an assessment is made on whether it 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. In order to help make an informed decision on this matter the Planning Inspectorate writes to all host and neighbouring Local Authorities for their views on the adequacy of the consultation. 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 has been accepted for Examination, you will be able to register as an Interested Party and make Relevant Representations for the Examining Authority to consider. Please read the Planning Inspectorate’s advice note on How to Register to participate in an Examination for further information. The Examining Authority will make an initial assessment of the issues arising from the submitted application as well as from the Relevant Representations, which will inform their 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 Oikos scheme. All documents received and issued during the course of the Examination will be published to this page. I hope this e-mail is of assistance. Kind regards

03 June 2021
Rt Hon Grant Shapps MP - anon.
Oikos Marine & South Side Development
Enquiry received via email
NatGrid are being duplicitous, as my understanding following the last consultations, in which I played a part as a representative for Lamarsh, was that the line would be undergrounded across the valley in Lamarsh. The AONB is due to be extended as far as Little Henny, but is awaiting approval from Natural England where there is a backlog of applications to protect the countryside. A recent planning proposal for houses in Bures was turned down on the basis that the development would be in the extended AONB which went down the valley to Little Henny. The area of the proposed extension of the AONB has been visited by Lord Gardiner, who is Secretary of State for Rural Affairs and Biosecurity, and he supports the application to extend the AONB. At the last consultation my understanding was that NatGrid would underground the line across the valley if the AONB was extended. NatGrid cannot now try and rush this proposal through to avoid having to underground the line. They should also underground the existing line when working on the undergrounding of the new line. This was something that I believed they would do. It is about time NatGrid laid a transmission line along the seabed around most of the UK to avoid above ground pylons blighting our green and pleasant land. Mark Dawson [Redacted]
Dear Mr Dawson, Thank you for your e-mail in relation to the proposed Bramford to Twinstead project earlier this month. Please accept my apologies for the delayed response to your email, unfortunately it was filtered into our spam folder rather than our main inbox. The Bramford to Twinstead 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 Quarter 4, 2022. Please note that the Pre-Application consultation process is led by the developer, and the Planning Inspectorate’s role is to provide procedural advice, which we publish. The Inspectorate has no power to require a developer to pause or stop their pre application consultation. The developer is responsible for ensuring that it complies with the legislative requirements surrounding consultation, which are set out in the Planning Act 2008. 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 its consultation. 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 are aware, the developer has recently carried out its non - statutory consultation. It is understood, from the developer’s website, that the deadline for consultation responses was 6 May 2021 and there will be an opportunity to provide further feedback during its statutory consultation, which is due to take place later this year. You can make general enquiries about this with the developer or register for their project updates via the following contact details: Phone: 0808 196 1515 Opening hours: 9:00am – 5:30pm Freepost: B TO T REINFORCEMENT Landowner contact: Email or call 01452 889000. Information about the Planning Inspectorate’s remit once the Application is submitted When an application is formally submitted to the Planning Inspectorate for Examination, an assessment is made on whether it 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. 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 the consultation. 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 has been accepted for Examination, you will be able to register as an Interested Party and make Relevant Representation; Please read our Advice Note no.8 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 their 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 Bramford to Twinstead scheme where documents received and issued during the course of the Examination will be published to this page. Hopefully this e-mail is of assistance but if you require any further information please do not hesitate to contact us. Kind regards Caroline Caroline Hopewell NSIP Officer The Planning Inspectorate Temple Quay House, 2 The Square, Temple Quay, Bristol, BS1 6PN

28 May 2021
Mark Dawson
Bramford to Twinstead
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached meeting note

28 May 2021
Highways England - anon.
A47 Wansford to Sutton
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting by telecon
Please see attached meeting note

28 May 2021
Rampion Extension Development Limited - anon.
Rampion 2 Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

27 May 2021
Ørsted - anon.
Hornsea Project Four Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Pre-submission update meeting.
Please see attached.

27 May 2021
Able Humber Ports Ltd and BDB Pitmans - anon.
Able Marine Energy Park Material Change 2
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached.

27 May 2021
Highways England - anon.
A358 Taunton to Southfields
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached.

27 May 2021
Highways England - anon.
Lower Thames Crossing
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Meeting with the Applicant – Highways England
Please see attached.

26 May 2021
Highways England - anon.
M60/M62/M66 Simister Island
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached meeting note.

26 May 2021
Anglian Water - anon.
Cambridge Waste Water Treatment Plant Relocation
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached

24 May 2021
Oikos Marine and South Side Development (OMSSD) - anon.
Oikos Marine & South Side Development
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Dudgeon and Sheringham extensions is an NSIP project which is currently consulting on its PEIr (Section 42 consultation) that incorporates extensions to the Dudgeon and Sheringham Round 2 OWFs. However, it is not that simple as dudgeon extension consists of two areas Dudgeon North and Dudgeon South that are completely separated by the original array which are again separated from the Sheringham extension by some distance. So effectively you have 3 spatially separate projects/array areas with interlinking cables where the impacts are significantly different. The Applicant wants ultimate flexibility so their assessment under each thematic area includes options for building the project as a whole, sequentially (phased build) or only taking forward one of the extensions and not the other (either/or). We are therefore faced with a situation of not only assessing/advising on the impacts in each of the 3 (different) arrays separately but then under each of the 4 construction options. Unfortunately the DCO/dML is still to be drafted so we are struggling to see how the above issues will all be addressed and to inform on mitigation measures to minimise the impacts Therefore we would really appreciate some steer from PINs as to whether or not on the information presented above, and experience from EA1N and EA2, if this should actually be taken forward as one project? And if it is, then would it then be considered that options to only part build out the project would be for the developer to decide post consent and impacts for the individual extensions are not needed to be considered in the application as not worst case scenario?
Thank you for your email of 21 May in which you seek advice about the proposed Sheringham and Dudgeon Extension Project (SADEP). We discussed the scale and nature of the proposed application with the Applicant and our published advice is set out here in the published meeting note (Attachment). We won’t comment on the East Anglia One North and East Anglia 2 parallel examinations as they are ongoing and you have the opportunity to put your views on the applications directly to the Examining Authority. With regard to SADEP, it’s for the Applicant to decide what to include in their application, including any construction phasing plan. It’s also not unusual for a DCO to contain more than one NSIP. We note the complexities you describe in respect of the current PEIR consultation; however, during the pre application stage, statutory bodies and other consultees have the opportunity to put their views on the structure of the emerging ES directly to the Applicant as part of the ongoing engagement process. In general terms, the Applicant would need to assess the worst case i.e. the maximum extent of development. If the Applicant chose to build out less than the maximum development, this would be assumed to have less environmental impact than the worst case. PINS also has regular meetings with Natural England at the corporate level, which are non-case specific – you can also feed in any views or thoughts on the difficulties you have identified to your colleagues who attend those meetings.

21 May 2021
Natural England - anon.
Sheringham and Dudgeon Extension Projects
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting.
Please see attached.

21 May 2021
Gloucestershire County Council - anon.
M5 Junction 10 Improvements Scheme
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Please see attached.
Please see attached.

19 May 2021
Highways England - anon.
A12 Chelmsford to A120 Widening Scheme
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached

19 May 2021
Bradwell B - anon.
Bradwell B new nuclear power station
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting & Draft Document Feedback
Please see attached meeting note

17 May 2021
Highways England - anon.
A417 Missing Link
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached.

17 May 2021
Five Estuaries Offshore Wind Farm Ltd - anon.
Five Estuaries Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting.
Please see attached.

13 May 2021
Highways England - anon.
Lower Thames Crossing
Enquiry received via email
I am preparing a submission on behalf of Norwich Cycling Campaign which could amount to several thousand words as will be referring to many official policy and research papers. I have been trying to get this to you by 25 May, but do I understand from your latest email that the deadline may be 20 July?. The 20 July could be very helpful to us as we are only small organisation and the later date would help us to consult with the wider cycling community.
Submissions for Procedural Deadline A (25 May 2021) should only comment on the proposed procedure of the Examination; specifically how the application should be examined. This includes comments on the draft Examination Timetable and/ or the Initial Assessment of Principal Issues, both provided in the Examining Authority’s (ExA) letter of 28 April 2021. It is also the deadline for those persons who wish to confirm their intention to speak at the Preliminary Meeting (PM), which should again solely focus on procedural matters. If you want to address the merits of the application, the first opportunity to do this will be by submitting a ‘Written Representation’ (WR) for Deadline 2 – 20 July 2021(tbc). For avoidance of doubt, the ExA will not want to hear representations about the merits of the application until the Examination formally opens following the close of the PM. Your WR should expand and build on the matters previously set out in your Relevant Representation (RR) and include the evidence to back up your arguments. There is no limit on the length of WRs. The process is predominantly a written process and the bulk of your written material should be contained within your WR. You may also comment on other submissions if you wish, such as RRs and WRs, as well as submissions from the Applicant, at the subsequent deadline. The ExA will confirm the Examination Timetable (which includes the WR deadline) as soon as practicable in its’ ‘Rule 8’ letter following the close of the PM. Therefore, please be aware the deadline for WRs may change. However, this should provide you adequate time to prepare your WR following consultation with the wider cycling community.

11 May 2021
Norwich Cycling Campaign - Tony Clarke
A47 Blofield to North Burlingham
Enquiry received via email
I will be referring to up to twenty documents published by the Government, Norfolk County Council, Highways England and others. Do I need to load these to the Inquiry Website? Which section would be appropriate? I feel the need to support one submission by a member of the public. What is the best way to do this?
If you refer to certain documents in your Written Representation (WR) please either append the whole document to your submission or quote the excerpt and acknowledge the source. If you wish to upload each reference document, please set each document as your WR. You may wish to include an annex list at the end of your WR; we can identify the annex in the document description when it’s publish alongside your WR. I assume you are referring to a Relevant Representation already published? There is a deadline for comments on Relevant Representations built into the (currently draft) Examination Timetable at Deadline 1 - Tuesday 6 July 2021. Please note the deadline for WRs is currently at Deadline 2 - Tuesday 20 July 2021 therefore you should separate these comments from your WR.

10 May 2021
Norwich Cycling Campaign - Tony Clarke
A47 Blofield to North Burlingham
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

07 May 2021
North Falls Offshore Wind Farm Ltd - anon.
North Falls Offshore Wind Farm
As a resident of Lower Layham, I write to strongly object to the proposed increase in the number of power lines passing overhead between Layham and Hadleigh and to express my concern regarding an inadequate consultation. I argue that a priority aim of industry and government, in the long term, should be to decrease the number of visible power lines passing through our countryside, not increase them. Layham is not quite an area of outstanding beauty, but what chance will this beautiful rural area of Suffolk have of being classified as AOB in the future with rows of huge pylons adding to the scene? I urge you to extend the period of consultation bearing in mind that 'lockdown' has significantly limited community discussions of the issues and options. I also request that the consultation provide more information about alternative choices in the short term and possible developments in the future as more electricity is transferred from an increasing number of North Sea turbines. If more power needs to be transferred in the future will we have additional overhead power lines and larger pylons? Will there be a third set of pylons passing between Layham and Hadleigh? What will be the cost implications of moving the planned overhead power lines underground or under the sea at a later date? Is it short sited in terms of cost not to be ambitious in terms of maintaining our beautiful views? What are the implications for future generations? To make informed decisions we need to know how the increased cost of burying power lines could be spread across households and organisations. I note that members of government, support and argue for putting the power lines under the sea along the coast and up the Thames towards the areas that are using this additional electricity. Consultation should openly explore this option and consultation papers should give us an opportunity to vote on this. The affect on the residents of Hadleigh and Layham will not only include a detrimental affect on views, but the lines will add to noise pollution. Static electricity in humid air generates electric shocks - I have experienced them under power lines, they may not be fatal, but they are unpleasant. Can we have up to date outcomes into the research of the effect on health of living in an electromagnetic field? The proposed 'corridor' of huge pylons and many power lines is going to create a very strong electromagnetic field. Can you guarantee health will not be affected? Who will be liable when there is evidence that it has, affected the health of members of our community. Has there been any consideration taken into the effect on wildlife or domestic animals? S.M. Roberts 6th May 2021
Dear Ms Roberts, Thank you for your recent e-mail in relation to the proposed Bramford to Twinstead project, which is currently in the pre-Application stage. An Application is expected to be submitted to the Planning Inspectorate in Quarter 4, 2022. Please note that the Pre-Application consultation process is led by the developer, and the Planning Inspectorate’s role is to provide procedural advice, which we publish. The Inspectorate has no power to require a developer to pause or stop their pre application consultation. The developer is responsible for ensuring that it complies with the legislative requirements surrounding consultation, which are set out in the Planning Act 2008. 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 its consultation. 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 are aware, the developer has recently carried out its non - statutory consultation. It is understood, from the developer’s website, that the deadline for consultation responses was 6 May 2021 and there will be an opportunity to provide further feedback during its statutory consultation, which is due to take place later this year. You can make general enquiries about this with the developer or register for their project updates via the following contact details: Phone: 0808 196 1515 Opening hours: 9:00am – 5:30pm Freepost: B TO T REINFORCEMENT Landowner contact: Email or call 01452 889000. Information about the Planning Inspectorate’s remit once the Application is submitted When an application is formally submitted to the Planning Inspectorate for Examination, an assessment is made on whether it 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. 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 the consultation. 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 has been accepted for Examination, you will be able to register as an Interested Party and make Relevant Representation; Please read our advice note 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, which will contribute to their Examination of the proposed development. Please note that it is not within the Planning Inspectorate’s remit to comment on the policy you refer to, or how/what the Applicant considers as relevant to their considerations. However, the Examining Authority will make its recommendations within the framework provided by the National Policy Statement for Ports, as required by the Planning Act 2008 and will also take into account matters it considers relevant and important to its recommendation including relevant policy/local plan. However please be aware there would not be any scope to dispute the contents of such policy frameworks during the Examination. 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 Bramford to Twinstead scheme where documents received and issued during the course of the Examination will be published to this page. Hopefully this e-mail is of assistance but if you require any further information please do not hesitate to contact us. Kind regards Caroline

07 May 2021
Sheila Roberts
Bramford to Twinstead
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Dear Sir Re Sunnica DCO and Funding Statement due 31st May 2021. I am a member of the campaign group re the above and would like some info please. Is the Funding statement an integral part of the DCO application? I need to know what the detailed funding requirements are from an applicant for the planning inspectorate process. Can you please supply me with guidance notes for an applicant so I can check the funding statement when this is eventually available from Sunnica for public viewing. Many thanks Alan B Smith Worlington
Dear Mr Smith, Thank you for your email dated 4 May 2021 seeking further information in relation to the Applicant’s Funding Statement. Regulation 5(h) of The Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009) specifies that any application for a Development Consent Order which seeks powers to compulsory acquire land must contain a Funding Statement setting out how the Applicant intends to fund the Compulsory Acquisition (CA) of land. A Funding Statement must contain sufficient information to enable the Secretary of State to be satisfied that, if it were to grant the compulsory acquisition request, the proposed development is likely to be undertaken and not be prevented due to difficulties in sourcing and securing the necessary funding. If the application is accepted for Examination, the Examining Authority will test the Funding Statement to ensure it contains sufficient information to satisfy the Secretary of State that the Applicant has sufficient funds to acquire the land, should the Secretary of State be minded to grant CA powers. Guidance on the Funding Statement can be found in this document: Planning Act 2008: Guidance for the examination of applications for development consent in paragraphs 25 to 26. Yours sincerely

05 May 2021
Alan B Smith Worlington
Sunnica Energy Farm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached.

05 May 2021
National Grid Ventures (NGV) - anon.
Nautilus Interconnector
Enquiry received via email
I wondered if it was too late for us to comment on this scheme? I believe we have a response circulating awaiting sign off and I’m hoping it won’t be too late to make the submission early next week.
Firstly, Anglian Water Services Limited (AWSL) has been identified as the relevant water and sewage undertaker for the A47 Blofield to North Burlingham scheme application. Although the Registration and Relevant Representation period has elapsed, as a Statutory Undertaker, you can request ‘Interested Party’ status retrospectively at any stage by submitting your request in writing. By doing this you will ensure AWSL receives all notifications for the duration of the Examination and subsequent stages. Otherwise, you will cease to receive notifications after the ‘Rule 8’ letter is issued at the start of the Examination. The Examining Authority’s (ExA) Rule 6 letter issued earlier this week included its draft Examination Timetable at Annex D. This draft Timetable includes a preliminary deadline for ‘Written Representations’ at Deadline 2 – 20 July 2021 (tbc). You can therefore submit comments as part of AWSL’s Written Representation for this deadline. However, the ExA can use discretion to accept ad hoc written submissions earlier as ‘Additional Submissions’ if you wish to provide your written comments sooner.

29 April 2021
Anglian Water Services Limited - Jacob Wallace
A47 Blofield to North Burlingham
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting.
Please see attached.

29 April 2021
Highways England - anon.
Lower Thames Crossing
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting with the following Local Authorities: Leicestershire County Council, Blaby District Council and Hinckley and Bosworth Borough Council
Presentation on the Planning Act 2008 process

28 April 2021
anon.
Hinckley National Rail Freight Interchange
Enquiry received via email
Comments in respect of how the Applicant proposes to handle publicising the Statement of Community Consultation and s48 notices for its forthcoming consultation.
To summarise that approach (and give you the opportunity to correct me if I have misunderstood), given there are legitimate circumstances within which the public consultation events could be cancelled you intend to host the table of events on the Highways England website rather than publishing it in a fixed notice(s). In the event of any cancellation this will allow you to amend the table and provide comms around it in a flexible way, rather than having to reissue the notice(s). The published notice(s) will make clear that the website information signposted from them may for legitimate reasons be subject to change. In terms of the legislation underpinning these notification requirements (i) the content of the SoCC notice is not prescribed in detail in s47 and (ii) Reg 4 of the APFP Regulations does not require applicants to itemise consultation events ‘up front’ within the s48 notice itself. On this basis, provided your comms are clear about the potentially uncertain status of the consultation events, we consider that your proposed approached is pragmatic within the current circumstances.

27 April 2021
Highways England - anon.
A12 Chelmsford to A120 Widening Scheme
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please see attached.
Please see attached.

23 April 2021
Mr Lawrence Haas and Faye Christensen - anon.
Rampion 2 Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via email
Dear Louise The community of Canvey Island have been encouraged to participate in the Oikos Statutory Consultation on the OMSSD project from 6th April 2021 till the 18th of May 2021. Although recognising that this consultation is a key stage in the application process, it precedes any meaningful response to issues identified by the Planning Inspectors Opinion Comments that are of concern to the community of Canvey Island. The consultation only considers the positives and lacks explanation of the likely significant cumulative effects of the development on the population and the environment. It appears that the community can however take comfort in regards to the controls of increased hazards, risk and the cumulative impact on safety and well-being issues, as comprehensively detailed within the CPBCs Local Plan Ports Policy EC4. It would not be unreasonable to suggest that Policy EC4 may have the effect of encouraging the public’s non- participation via the applicant’s community consultation process. From CPBCs Local Plan Local Policy EC4 Canvey Port Facilities 1. Existing operations Applications for development within the allocated Port Related Facilities Area shown on the Policies Map at the existing port facilities at South Canvey will be permitted subject to compliance with the following criteria: a. There must be no increase in the level of hazard or risk posed by the facility as a consequence of the proposals. The advice of the Health and Safety Executive will be sought in relation to this matter; b. The design of the proposed development must not cause significant harm to the landscape, having regard to the scale of existing development on the site; c. Public access to the coastal path adjacent to the site must be retained; and d. The future operation of the site will not result in adverse impacts on water quality in the Thames Estuary, or have a significant adverse effect on protected nature conservation sitesNeither the development itself, nor the future operation of the site will result in adverse effects on the integrity of Benfleet and Southend marshes SPA and Ramsar site or the Thames Estuary and Marshes SPA and Ramsar site, either alone or in combination with other plans or projects. This must be demonstrated through a project level Habitats Regulations Assessment. Where appropriate proposals will be required to deliver a biodiversity net gain; and e. The design of the proposed development will incorporate measures to manage current and future flood risk, ensuring development is resistance to all sources of flood risk, including careful consideration of emergency planning procedures and areas of refuge for site users. 2. Proposed operations Applications for the change of use, change of materials handled, or for redevelopment of the existing port facilities at South Canvey will be permitted subject to compliance with the following criteria: a. It can be demonstrated that the proposal is in the national interest; b. The level of hazard and risk posed by the site is no greater than existing levels. The advice of the Health and Safety Executive will be sought in relation to this matter; c. The design of the proposed development must not cause significant harm to the landscape, having regard to the scale of existing development on the site; d. Public access to the coastal path adjacent to the site must be retained; and e. Neither the development itself, nor Tthe future operation of the site will not result in adverse impacts effects on the Integrity of Benfleet and Southend Marshes SPA and Ramsar site or the Thames Estuary and Marshes SPA and Ramsar site, either alone or in combination with other plans and projects. This must be demonstrated through a project level Habitats Regulations Assessmenton water quality in the Thames Estuary, or have significant adverse effects on protected nature conservation sites. Where appropriate proposals will be required to deliver a biodiversity net gain; and f. The design of the proposed development will incorporate measures to manage current and future flood risk, ensuring development is resistance to all sources of flood risk, including careful consideration of emergency planning procedures and areas of refuge for site users. 3. In the event that a proposal in relation to port facilities on Canvey Island is of a sufficient size to be considered a National Infrastructure Project for determination by the Planning Inspectorate, the Council will consider its response in accordance with the requirements of this policy. Both Oikos and the Port of London Authority objected to these constraining issues presented by Policy EC4 in particular to 1(a) 2(b) and 3 as highlighted above. These objection arguments can be found via CPBCs Local Plan evidenced document. EXM-016 Reg 19 Schedule of representation 691-706 forwarded by Jennie Reynold This Castle Point Council response (below) provides some assurance that the potential “cumulative effect” had been assessed in relation to aspects of the environment, health safety and well-being likely to affect the significantly proposed increased population via housing development aspiration of the Local Plan and the existing population of Canvey Island. “The Council welcomes the representation from the PLA in respect of policy EC4 regarding the duplication of wording. This duplication was recommended by IPE in their Local Plan support role during 2018, and therefore the Council is not minded to amend policy EC4 in this regard. The Council however feels that the requirements of policy EC4 are appropriate given that these facilities are located on an Island with a population of around 40,000 people which should be a critical consideration when determining the acceptability of any proposal for these sites”. Waiver of Hazardous Substance Control What is not generally known by the population of Canvey Island is that the Cabinet of the Council when discussing the “Oikos Port Expansion” at the meeting of the 19th of February 2020, elected to approve the inclusion within the “Development Consent Order” the “Hazardous Substance Consent” and waive the Council’s determination of such a consent in respect of the OMSSD DCO. In doing so completely negating the spirit of Local Policy EC4 Please see attached. Agenda Item7(b) Oikos Marine and South Side Development – Development Consent Order (Report of the Cabinet Member Regeneration and Business Liaison) Seemingly the ambiguity that the decision taken to waive the Hazardous Substance Consent process of this application did not (as would normally be the case) include the Council Hazardous Substance Authority i.e., the Planning Authority, has not been challenged. Land Use Planning in combination with Hazardous Substance Consent is now a primary vehicle for the protection of communities, replacing the Seveso III EU Directives recognition and response to societal risk. National guidance seeks to protect communities living and working within the environment of Hazardous Substances. The hazardous substances consent process ensures that necessary measures are taken to prevent major accidents and limit their consequences to people and the environment. This is a key part of the controls for storage and use of hazardous substances which could, in quantities at or above specified limits, present a major off-site risk. The system of hazardous substances consent does not replace requirements under health and safety legislation. Hazardous substances consent provides control over the presence of hazardous substances whether or not an associated planning permission is required. Where the presence of a hazardous substance is directly associated with a proposed development, local planning authorities can exercise control through the decisions on applications for planning permission. The consent process regulates the storage and use of hazardous substances and enables breaches of control, which may present serious risks, to be dealt with quickly and effectively. The Hazardous Substance application process would have given Local Councillors and the general public the opportunity to make representation. The following statement presented by Castle Point in relation to the EIA response to the Inspectorate consultation. Email dated 6th May 2020. “Consideration is also given to the cumulative impacts of the proposed development when considered in the context of other developments” seems to imply that CPBC considers that the proposed further development of Canvey Island including large scale housing, in addition to the existing 40.000 residents is acceptable in terms of the ramification of a serious event. However, Land Use Planning and Societal Risks are intrinsically linked, both of which are the sole responsibility of CPBC. Robust consideration is required of the cumulative effect on both the current and future population of Canvey Island specifically in respect of increased hazard range and numbers of person that could be injured as a result of an industrial accident, residual or otherwise. This statement is certainly inconsistent with the statement offered as justification to retain specific policy items as detailed by Local Policy EC4. Other matters such as access and egress issues to and from Canvey Island having implication for Emergency Planning creating a cumulative impact, are not being appropriately assessed. Table 21.1 found in the applicants April 2020 Scoping report is inconsistent with the Local Plans development aspirations for Canvey Island, undergoing examination at this moment in time. The Oikos statement of Community Consultation fails to acknowledge Local Policy EC4 CPBCs submitted for examination, Local Plan fails to reference the OMSSD. Pre application consultations between Oikos CPBC and ECC failed to highlight this discrepancy even though robustly contested via the Reg 19 LP Consultation process. Your consideration of this and other matters are greatly appreciated. Yours faithfully Steve Sawkins.
Dear Mr Sawkins, Thank you for your recent e-mail in relation to the proposed Oikos Marine and South Side Development project, which is currently in the pre-Application stage. An Application is expected to be submitted to the Planning Inspectorate in Quarter 3, 2021. Please note that the Pre-Application consultation process is entirely led by the Applicant, and the Planning Inspectorate has no involvement at this stage. The Applicant is responsible for ensuring that it complies with the legislative requirements surrounding consultation, which are set out in the Planning Act 2008. This includes a legal requirement for the Applicant to consult with Statutory Bodies such as the Health and Safety Executive (HSE). Your e-mails provide your comments on the merits of the Proposed Development, which the Applicant is seeking during this consultation. As such, if you have not already done so, it is important that you make these comments directly to the Applicant. If you are not satisfied that the Applicant is taking them into account you should raise this with the Local Authority also. For further information, please see our advice note 8.1 on Responding to the developers pre-application consultation. As you are aware, the Applicant is currently carrying out its Statutory Consultation, which launched on 6 April 2021. It is understood, from the Applicant’s website, that the deadline for consultation responses is 11:59 on 18 May 2021. Ways to get involved with the Applicant’s Statutory Consultation It appears from the Applicant’s website that they are introducing alternative ways for members of the public to engage in the consultation, whilst restrictions on social gatherings are in place. I have taken the information below from the Applicant’s website to assist you: Register for one of the online webinars: You can also register by calling 0800 206 2583. The events include a question and answer session and are taking place on: Monday 26th April, 11am – 2pm Thursday 29 April, 9am – 1pm Tuesday 4 May, 6pm – 9pm Saturday 8 May, 8am – 11am Visit the virtual exhibition room Book a telephone surgery – project surgery appointments can be booked with a member of the Applicant’s project team to talk through questions and issues relating to the project. Please email [email protected] or call 0800 206 2583 if you would like to book an appointment. Written comments can also be submitted via email: [email protected], or by post: OIKOS FREEPOST (must be written in capitals and no stamp is required). Further information on the project, including their consultation activities, documents, feedback forms and how to submit your comments are available on the OMSSD website at www.oikos.co.uk/omssd/consultation Information about the Planning Inspectorate’s remit once the Application is submitted When an application is formally submitted to the Planning Inspectorate for Examination, an assessment is made on whether it 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. 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 the consultation. 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 has been accepted for Examination, you will be able to register as an Interested Party and make Relevant Representation; Please read our advice note 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, which will contribute to their Examination of the proposed development. Please note that it is not within the Planning Inspectorate’s remit to comment on the policy you refer to, or how/what the Applicant considers as relevant to their considerations. However, the Examining Authority will make its recommendations within the framework provided by the National Policy Statement for Ports, as required by the Planning Act 2008 and will also take into account matters it considers relevant and important to its recommendation including relevant policy/local plan. However please be aware there would not be any scope to dispute the contents of such policy frameworks during the Examination. 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 Oikos scheme where documents received and issued during the course of the Examination will be published to this page. Hopefully this e-mail is of assistance but if you require any further information please do not hesitate to contact us. Kind regards Caroline

23 April 2021
Stephen Sawkins
Oikos Marine & South Side Development
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

23 April 2021
National Grid Carbon - anon.
Humber Low Carbon Pipelines
Enquiry received via email
Mr Shapps I am a resident of Canvey Island - it is a small island in the Thames estuary below sea level with over 45,000 residents and growing!; I have a great concern over the Oikos expansion plan. This site is extremely close to thousands of residential properties, on an island with only two bridges and one main road which leads to the exit routes making a mass evacuation impossible! Traffic is an issue on usual working days! We have no evacuation plan. The local council Castle Point is currently being investigated for corruption and my concern is with covid and all the corruption this expansion will be overlooked. I think I am correct in comparing this site to Buncfield - should an explosion happen this will devestate the whole Island as well as our sea defences, local beaches which are frequented frequently and cause pollution to the River Thames. The site is on our sea wall path which is a busy route for walkers/cycling. I wanted to raise my concerns with you as I believe you have to be included on the consultation for a development consent order. I think the residents of Canvey have been poorly represented by Castle Point Council and I have grave concern for all my family and friends who live on Canvey Island. Many thanks for taking the time to read my email, I hope it will help you make a better informed decision for granting or refusing a consent order.
Thank you for your recent e-mail in relation to the proposed Oikos Marine and South Side Development project, which is currently in the Pre-Application stage and the application for development consent has not yet been submitted. The Applicant is currently carrying out its Statutory Consultation, which launched on 6 April 2021. It is understood, from the Applicant’s website, that the deadline for consultation responses is 11:59 on 18 May 2021. An Application is expected to be submitted to the Planning Inspectorate in Quarter 3, 2021. Please note that the Pre-Application consultation process is entirely led by the Applicant, who are responsible for ensuring that they comply with the legislative requirements surrounding consultation, which are set out in the Planning Act 2008. This includes a legal requirement for the Applicant to consult with Statutory Bodies such as the Health and Safety Executive (HSE). Your e-mail to Mr Shapps provides your comments on the merits of the Proposed Development, which the Applicant is seeking during this consultation. As such, if you have not already done so, it is important that you make these comments directly to the Applicant. If you are not satisfied that the Applicant is taking them into account you should raise this with the Local Authority also. For further information, please see the Planning Inspectorate’s advice note 8.1 on Responding to the developers pre-application consultation. Ways to get involved with the Applicant’s Statutory Consultation It appears from the Applicant’s website that they are introducing alternative ways for members of the public to engage in the consultation, whilst restrictions on social gatherings are in place. I have taken the information below from the Applicant’s website to assist you: Register for one of the online webinars: You can also register by calling 0800 206 2583. The events include a question and answer session and are taking place on: Monday 26th April, 11am – 2pm Thursday 29 April, 9am – 1pm Tuesday 4 May, 6pm – 9pm Saturday 8 May, 8am – 11am Visit the virtual exhibition room Book a telephone surgery – project surgery appointments can be booked with a member of the Applicant’s project team to talk through questions and issues relating to the project. Please email [email protected] or call 0800 206 2583 if you would like to book an appointment. Written comments can also be submitted via email: [email protected], or by post: OIKOS FREEPOST (must be written in capitals and no stamp is required). Further information on the project, including their consultation activities, documents, feedback forms and how to submit your comments are available on the OMSSD website at www.oikos.co.uk/omssd/consultation Information about the Planning Inspectorate’s remit once the Application is submitted When an application is formally submitted to the Planning Inspectorate for Examination, an assessment is made on whether it 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. In order to help make an informed decision on this matter the Planning Inspectorate writes to all host and neighbouring Local Authorities for their views on the adequacy of the consultation. 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 has been accepted for Examination, you will be able to register as an Interested Party and make Relevant Representations for the Examining Authority to consider. Please read the Planning Inspectorate’s advice note on How to Register to participate in an Examination for further information. The Examining Authority will make an initial assessment of the issues arising from the submitted application as well as from the Relevant Representations, which will inform their 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 Oikos scheme. All documents received and issued during the course of the Examination will be published to this page. I hope this e-mail is of assistance. Kind regards

23 April 2021
Rt Hon Grant Shapps MP - anon.
Oikos Marine & South Side Development
Enquiry received via post
response has attachments
Advice following issue of decision to Accept the application for Examination
Please see attached

20 April 2021
Alternative Use Boston Projects Limited - anon.
Boston Alternative Energy Facility (BAEF)
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached meeting note.

20 April 2021
Highways England - anon.
A57 Link Roads (previously known as Trans Pennine Upgrade Programme)
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Draft Document Review and Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

19 April 2021
Keadby Generation Limited - anon.
Keadby 3 Carbon Capture Power Station
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

19 April 2021
Net Zero Teesside Power Limited and Net Zero North Seas Storage Limited
The Net Zero Teesside Project
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached meeting note.

14 April 2021
Oikos Marine and South Side Development (OMSSD) - anon.
Oikos Marine & South Side Development
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting - Diweddariad ar y Prosiect
Please see attached - Gweler ynghlwm

14 April 2021
ENI, Progressive Energy Limited, WSP - anon.
HyNet Carbon Dioxide Pipeline
response has attachments
Advice following issue of decision to Accept the application for Examination
Please see attached

12 April 2021
Highways England - anon.
A47 North Tuddenham to Easton
Enquiry received via email
1. I note that there two versions of Chapter 14 on Climate Change. The Rev 0 (website: January 15th) version is 27 pages in length, and the Rev 1 (website: Feb 8th) version is 26 pages in length. However, I can't see what the difference between Rev 0 and Rev1 is, they look identical. Please can you advise on the difference(s) between the two revisions. 2. Chapter 15 "Cumulative Effects Assessment" states at 15.3.16 that Planning Inspectorate Advice Note Seventeen was followed in four stages. Stage 1 refers to Volume 3, Appendix 16.1 and stage 2 refers to Volume 3, Appendix 16.2. However, I can not find these appendices. I'd appreciate it if you could point me to where they are. I am also slightly confused as I understand Volume 3 to the draft DCO from the "1.1 Introduction to the Application" document. 3. Further, Chapter 15 15.3.17 states that "The ZOI is based on the study areas of the environmental topics detailed in the preceding chapters of this ES and summarised in Table 15-1 (Study area extents). Volume 2, Figure 15.1 shows the developments from the short list and study area." Likewise I cannot find Volume 2, Figure 15.1, and would appreciate being pointed to it. (I have found Appendix 15.2 "CEA Short List: Development Type" which contains related material). 4. Further, Chapter 15 5.3.18 states that Highways England consulted with Norfolk County Council and Broadland District Council on the scope of the Cumulative Effects Assessment. I see no other record of this consultation exercise, and would appreciate it if you could point me to where it is located.
1. Firstly, following issue of Acceptance decision, the Examining Authority issued a Procedural Decision that, amongst other things, noted that ES Chapter 14 states that the construction period would be 18 months. However, elsewhere in the application, this is envisaged to be 22 months. Therefore Revision 1 has corrected this inconsistency. 2. For avoidance of doubt, all appendices and figures relating to a specific Environmental Statement chapter share the same reference (ie Chapter 15 will have Appendix 15.x and Figure 15.x). It appears the Applicant incorrectly referred to Appendix 16.1 and 16.2 when it should have been Appendix 15.1 and Appendix 15.2. 3. There is only one figure that relates to Chapter 15: FIGURE 15.1 - CUMULATIVE EFFECTS. 4. The Applicant must consult the relevant local authorities when it prepares its ‘Preliminary Environmental Information’ that forms part of the consultation material used at Statutory Consultation. I understand the scope of the Cumulative Effects Assessment is included in this dialogue. Details of the Applicant’s non-Statutory engagement with the local authorities is set out in the document '5.2 Annex P Engagement Undertaken with Statutory Bodies'.

09 April 2021
Andrew Boswell
A47 Blofield to North Burlingham
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
(a) Word Limit In making the our representation / registering our submission online – is there any word limit at this stage? On previous NSIPs where the County Council has registered comments there has not been any word limit as far as I’m aware and the County Council has “cut and paste” those comments agreed through our relevant Committee process; In making representations on the above Blofield to Burlingham scheme there was a suggestion from the Planning Inspectorate (PINS) that there is an upper word limit on the online registration Form of 500 words. As a statutory Consultee with a number of statutory roles, including Highway Authority; and Lead Local Flood Authority, it is not feasible to make a short (500 word) representation given the detailed technical / statutory nature of our comments. Therefore please could you confirm whether there are any word limits in registering our comments. (b) Representations made The County Council has made representations to the A47 Blofield to Burlingham Scheme and has received two ID Numbers. I believe the first was in relation to representations which were made direct to PINS (see PDF attached); and the second was in relation to a Summary of the County Council’s representation, which were made on the online Registration Form. Please can you confirm which is the valid ID Number - we don’t need two. (c) Local Impact Report (LIR) I understand from previous NSIPs the County Council has been involved with that the preparation of a Local Impact Report is not a requirement, although LAs are encouraged to produce and submit such evidence normally at deadline 1 in the Examination Process as set out in the Rule 6 letter. Given the complexity in responding to the submitted DCO documentation at the registration stage and the uncertainty regarding the word limit (as outlined above), is there any opportunity of providing further detailed evidence to the Examining Authority through the LIR? In other words can the LA at the Registration stage simply indicate that it is an “interested Party” with a number of detailed issues it would like addressing through the DCO/Examination process – and then provide the detailed evidence through the LIR. This would give a LA significantly more time to prepare its response to the DCO over and above the 28 days we have to register comments following submission. I’d welcome your advice and comments.
Representations made Firstly, I confirm that Norfolk County Council (NCC) has registered successfully and submitted its Relevant Representation (RR) for the A47 Blofield to North Burlingham Dualling scheme. It will appear as part of the suite of RRs when published. As we only register each organisation once, please disregard the reference (redacted) and use (redacted) for future correspondence. Valid RRs must be submitted via the Registration and Relevant Representation form (either paper or electronically online). However, we understand that Statutory Consultees are likely to have more complex RRs and sometimes prefer to submit their RRs on formally headed letters. In this instance we will append to the formal letter as the RR (for example here) so that it’s content is easier to read, especially when there are sub-headers within the letter. I have therefore appended the original NCC letter to your summary so that the complete submission is contained with one registration (redacted). Word Limit The Inspectorate asks that RRs are ideally kept to a maximum of 500 words as they are initial submissions that should set out the key issues that will later be expanded and backed with evidence, either in written submissions or orally at hearings, once the Examination begins. However, we understand Statutory Consultees (such as local authorities, as the competent authority for various matters) may have lengthier RRs longer than 500 words. Although there is no word limit set for RRs, you may find the RR field on the online form will limit you to a finite number of characters and therefore lengthier RRs are accepted if provided on a letterhead, if the registration has already been completed. In future, I recommend NCC registers through the online form and provides either a summary of its main RR or a brief sentence to say the main submission will be provided in letterhead form via email. Please then email the letter once the registration process has been completed and note you have done this to negate any concern that the process has yet to be completed. If the content of your letter fits in the RR field, you may still wish to provide the letter via email to improve readability. Local Impact Report (LIR) The Examination Timetable will include a deadline for Local Impact Reports (LIRs) quite early in the examination, therefore RRs from local authorities do not need to contain the detailed evidence the LIR will later provide. As advised above, the RR should focus on the key issues. For further information on the production of LIRs, please see the Inspectorate’s Advice note One: [attachment 1]

09 April 2021
Norfolk County Council - Stephen Faulkner
A47 Blofield to North Burlingham
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please see attached.
Good afternoon Thank you for your email of 6 April 2021 and accompanying letter of 29 March 2021. With regard to your proposed revised timetable, that will be a matter for the Examining Authority to consider at the Preliminary Meeting. We advise that the Examination process for nationally significant infrastructure projects (NSIPs) is predominantly a written one, with the ExA taking on an inquisitorial role. The Examination of an NSIP application therefore differs from a planning appeal, with the latter being determined following a more adversarial procedure. During ISHs, the ExA will ask questions of the Applicant and IPs; these parties IPs or the Applicant will then be given the opportunity to comment on the answers given to the ExA’s questions. The questions that the ExA may raise at any ISH will be based on an agenda that will be published on the specific project webpage of the National Infrastructure website in advance of the relevant hearing. As the Examination process is predominantly a written one, the ExA has the opportunity to raise written questions; the draft timetable for the Little Crow Solar Park project allows for the asking of up to four rounds of written questions by the ExA. These written questions will be directed to the Applicant, specific IPs or a combination of both. Subsequent deadlines in the timetable will allow for these parties to make written responses to the answers given to a preceding round of written questions. The first scheduled round of written questions would follow ISH1 and are likely to be published by the ExA no later than 28 April 2021. Part of the function of the first round of written questions will be to enable the ExA to seek clarifications or additional information further to the answers provided by the Applicant and IPs at ISH1. The questions that the ExA will raise at ISH1 will be based on the originally submitted application documents, together with Additional Submissions AS-002 to AS-004 (as listed in the published Examination Library for this case) and the Relevant Representations (RR) that have been submitted by IPs. In advance of ISH1, the Applicant will therefore not have the opportunity to submit any new documentation. Following the Preliminary Meeting and ISH1, at Deadline 1 (10 May) all IPs (in addition to submitting written submissions for the oral cases they make at ISH1) will have the opportunity to: a) Submit written representations, building upon their Relevant Representations; and b) Answer any written questions that the ExA may ask of them. Please note that it is for the ExA rather than IPs to request the submission of documentation by the Applicant. However, in response to written submissions made by IPs during the course of the Examination, the ExA may request that the Applicant submits documentation to assist with its understanding of issues that arise as part of the application’s Examination. With respect to participation in the Examination, please note that it is not a requirement for all IPs to make submissions at every deadline within the timetable, however there may be occasions within the timetable when a response is required from specific IPs, e.g. as part of one of the ExA’s Written Questions, whereby a question(s) is directed to that specific party. Please also note that as the Examination progresses it may be that the ExA has no questions for the Applicant or IPs in respect to a given topic. This does not mean that topic is unimportant, rather the position with respect to any such topic areas will be that the ExA may consider that its understanding of the Applicant’s and IPs’ cases would not be enhanced through the asking of additional questions or inviting further comment. Your letter of 6 April and this response will be published on the website for this application. Yours sincerely

07 April 2021
Sills & Betteridge Solicitors
Little Crow Solar Park
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Mr Reeve had been notified by the Planning Inspectorate (the Inspectorate) of a section(s) 53 request for his land and wanted more information about the s53 process and how to respond to the Inspectorate’s request for comments.
The Inspectorate suggested that he read Advice Note 5: Section 53 – Rights of Entry to understand more about the process. In terms of his comments to the Inspectorate: the Inspectorate advised, he provide information and evidence of any correspondence with the Applicant in relation to the s53 request.

07 April 2021
Graham Reeve
Sunnica Energy Farm
Enquiry received via email
The enquirer addressed concerns that they had not been identified as an Affected Person and sought clarification on information contained within certain application documents.
Applicants must use due diligence to identify and consult affected landowners ‘Affected Persons’ who would be affected by Compulsory Acquisition applied for as part of Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIPs). Please address the potential inaccuracies, and the other points you seek clarification on, to the Applicant – Highways England – in the first instance. The project specific email address is: [email protected]. Now that the application has formally been accepted by the Inspectorate, the Applicant will have notified those persons prescribed, including all Affected Persons, of the accepted application under s56 of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008). Once the Applicant has done this, it must certify this duty has been met by providing the Inspectorate certificates, under s58 of the PA2008. As part of this certification process, the Applicant must provide details of amendments to its BoR since the version provided at submission, which includes persons originally omitted or the removal of persons included in error. Therefore, it is important that this is brought to the Applicant’s attention as soon as possible so that the Applicant can investigate and potentially amend its BoR at the s58 certification stage. Once the six-month Examination commences, the Applicant will be asked to provide updated iterations of the BoR and Land Plans for the various deadlines set in the Examination Timetable. I note you have already registered to become an Interested Party (IP) and submitted the information in your email as a Relevant Representation (RR). This will bring your concerns to the ExA’s attention and provide you the legal right to participate during the Examination. Although the ExA will consider this information, you will not receive a specific response. I also see you have registered on behalf of the ‘Randlesome Family’. The Inspectorate encourages persons who share the same views to group together and elect a spokesperson to represent the group. Please advise if you would like me to amend your registration so that you represent the views of the residents of Sunny Acres in addition to those of the Randlesome Family. If the Applicant later identifies you and your partner as Affected Persons, although you will have IP status, you will gain additional powers as Affected Persons (such as having the opportunity to request and speak at any Compulsory Acquisition Hearings).

31 March 2021
Anna Grace Randlesome
A47 Blofield to North Burlingham
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting.
Please see attached.

31 March 2021
Highways England - anon.
Lower Thames Crossing
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Advice regarding draft Application documents
Please see attached

30 March 2021
Sunnica Energy Farm - anon.
Sunnica Energy Farm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

25 March 2021
BDB Pitmans and Able Humber Ports Ltd - anon.
Able Marine Energy Park Material Change 2
Enquiry received via email
I refer to the recently published Volume 6.9 Reform to Inform Habitats Regulations Assessment and in particular the redacted parts of the text relating to the surveying of the bats. You will be aware the Aarhus Convention (1998) gives the right to everyone to receive environmental information that is held by public authorities. I am of the view that the report as published contravenes the principles of that Convention and would ask please for the report to be produced in full and without redaction.
We have reviewed the redaction applied to the recently published Report to inform the Habitats Regulations Assessment (Doc 6.9) and agree the information in relation to bat roost locations is not protected by law and was erroneously removed from the public domain. Updated versions of the document have now replaced the previously published versions. Please note the document still retains some redaction of personal information to satisfy the Inspectorate’s GDPR responsibilities.

25 March 2021
David Pett
A47 Blofield to North Burlingham
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached Meeting Note

23 March 2021
Augean plc
East Northants Resource Management Facility Western Extension
response has attachments
Project update meeting between the Inspectorate and Longfield Solar Energy Farm Limited
Please see attached

19 March 2021
Longfield Solar Energy Farm Limited - anon.
Longfield Solar Farm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached meeting note and appended comments in respect of the Applicant's outline Landscape and Environmental Management Plan (oLEMP), Chapter 12 of the Applicant’s document ”1.3 Introduction to the Application” dated October 2020, and Highways England's Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) standards.

18 March 2021
Highways England - anon.
Lower Thames Crossing
Enquiry received via post
response has attachments
Review of draft Statement of Community Consultation
Please see attached.

18 March 2021
Anglian Water - anon.
Cambridge Waste Water Treatment Plant Relocation
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached meeting note

12 March 2021
NZT Power & NZNS Storage
The Net Zero Teesside Project
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

11 March 2021
Alternative Use Boston Projects Limited - anon.
Boston Alternative Energy Facility (BAEF)
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Diweddariad ar y prosiect cyfarfod - Project update meeting
Gweler yr atodiad - Please see attached

11 March 2021
Awel y Môr Offshore Wind Farm Limited - anon.
Awel y Môr Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

10 March 2021
Drax Power Limited - anon.
Drax Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage Project
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting with the Applicant and the following Local Authorities: Leicestershire County Council, Blaby District Council and Hinckley and Bosworth Borough Council
Please see attached

09 March 2021
Tritax Symmetry (Hinckley) Limited - anon.
Hinckley National Rail Freight Interchange
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
We are writing to you to ask for the Government to look into the failure in the adequacy of the EWR Consultation in the selection of Route E, Bedford to Cambridge and also the very dubious costings that have so far been produced. Originally Route E was the most expensive of the routes but somehow it has now become the cheapest option. How did that happen? There must be transparency of all the costings but these have still not been shared although have been requested. The latest costings we have seen show a dramatic increase to the figures for Routes A,B,C and D whereas Route E has been reduced. The new costings for Route E seem unbelievable as it must include redesign of Bedfordshire Midland Station and a longer route with more difficult topography. EWR quote that the consultation only had 7,204 responses across the wider Oxford to Cambridge region. Apparently 120,000 postcards were sent out to residents that would be affected but they do not appear to have been received by the North Bedfordshire villages. We, and other residents in Wilden, did not receive the cards. We believe that most of the consultation meetings happened south of Bedford and therefore there would be an unequal response to a selection of the preferred route. Route E is less direct and given it will be used for diesel freight trains running through Bedford town centre will significantly increase the carbon footprint. EWR when referring to Route B said that it would conflict with the Guided busway between Cambourne and Cambridge whereas EWR say that for Route E it will integrate with the Guided Busway. Surely Route E will be duplication not integration. Route E coming north out of Bedford Midland Station is cutting through unspoilt countryside and tranquil North Bedfordshire villages but this area will have no benefit for this route being chosen as no new station is proposed. Referring back to the costs we believe Route E with its difficult terrain , redevelopment of Bedford Midland Station and crossing a flood plain will eventually become the most costly option. We do not believe that this consultation by EWR has been conducted in a fair , transparent and legal way and therefore we are asking you to review the decision for choosing Route E. Thank you for reading this email and we look forward to your support.
Thank you for your e-mails of 1 March 2021 in relation to the proposed East West Rail project. An application for this project has not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate (the Inspectorate). With regards to the proposed Bedford to Cambridge route, the Inspectorate understands that the Applicant ‘East West Railway Company’ (EWR), is currently undertaking detailed design work to define the preferred alignment of the tracks, following a non-statutory consultation in 2019. The Inspectorate also understands that EWR will be holding a further non-statutory consultation exercise in 2021. EWR will then conduct a statutory pre-application consultation in advance of submitting their application to the Inspectorate. The purpose of the statutory pre-application stage is to allow the developer to consult on their proposals so that they can be shaped with the input of communities and others before being finalised and submitted as an application. As the project is still at the pre-application stage, I would strongly encourage you to contact the Applicant directly with regard to your concerns, as they have a statutory duty to have regard to all consultation responses, which should be demonstrated in the Consultation Report as part of their DCO application. 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 will be considered by the local authority when sending the 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 Applicant can be reached in the following ways: By email: [email protected] By phone: 0330 1340067 By post: FREEPOST East West Rail 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 are 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’. Please be assured that anyone interested in the proposed developments, their 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.

09 March 2021
Kathleen Hayhoe Derek Hayhoe
East West Rail - Bedford to Cambridge and Western improvements
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I would like to make a complaint regarding the Pre-Application stage and the way EWR handled their consultation. They claim to have sent out 120000 postcards to local residents that were affected by the routes. I did not receive any communication and I cannot recall seeing any publication about the consultation being held. As a born and bred Bedfordian I have been aware of the EWR for over thirty years, but always understood the favoured route was South. I was completely unaware of the Bedfords Borough Council paying consultants to strengthen their lobby position for Route E (northern) in March 2019 and then the impact of this on the decision taken by ERW and Secretary of State for Transport in January 2020. The route will significantly affect the countryside area where I live a few minutes walk from and have enjoyed for many years, also it will pass by very close to Brickhill where many of my family members live. I feel this decision has been made without proper consultation and engagement of the most affected people. The Borough Council Lib have cleverly disguised their favoured route by announcing they have always supported a route `through` Bedford but did not expand on this to say this would mean a northern route. If this had been made clearer then I would have made a stern objection, as this route takes the line through green space, in fact the green space that the very same Council designated as protected area in its Green Infrastructure plan in 2009. I would like to ask that a new consultation is undertaken, ensuring all residents of Bedford are made aware of, focusing on the 5 proposed routes and then decision be taken on a fair and full consultation. This is very disappointing to hear and I would suggest the methodology you applied to the pre consultation was flawed. If you had engaged in more initial research you would of found that historically the EWR route has been publicised as a southern route, this is certainly the understanding I have had as a Bedford resident for 45 years. If there had been any communication from my Borough Council that they had changed their mind on the preferred route then this would of been useful to know. As I was not aware of the consultation I did not get an opportunity to air my views and now I understand as the route as been chosen I have will no way to readdress this. I would ask that you stop the process where it is and re-open your pre-application consultation and let all the residents of Bedford have an equal chance to be heard on all the 5 options that were proposed. I await to hear your response. Further to my email a couple of days ago I would like to inform you about the response I have had from EWR which shows the methodology they applied to conduct their pre-application was flawed and resulted in an unfair consultation. I would like to ask that the process on the EWR is stopped and all Bedford residents get an opportunity to have their voices heard on the 5 route options, by reopening the initial consultation.
Thank you for your e-mails of 28 February and 2 March 2021 in relation to the proposed East West Rail project. An application for this project has not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate (the Inspectorate). With regards to the proposed Bedford to Cambridge route, the Inspectorate understands that the Applicant ‘East West Railway Company’ (EWR), is currently undertaking detailed design work to define the preferred alignment of the tracks, following a non-statutory consultation in 2019. The Inspectorate also understands that EWR will be holding a further non-statutory consultation exercise in 2021. EWR will then conduct a statutory pre-application consultation in advance of submitting their application to the Inspectorate. The purpose of the statutory pre-application stage is to allow the developer to consult on their proposals so that they can be shaped with the input of communities and others before being finalised and submitted as an application. As the project is still at the pre-application stage, I would strongly encourage you to continue to contact the Applicant directly with regard to your concerns, as they have a statutory duty to have regard to all consultation responses, which should be demonstrated in the Consultation Report as part of their DCO application. 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 will be considered by the local authority when sending the 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 Applicant can be reached in the following ways: By email: [email protected] By phone: 0330 1340067 By post: FREEPOST East West Rail 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 are 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’. Please be assured that anyone interested in the proposed developments, their 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.

09 March 2021
Ms Evans
East West Rail - Bedford to Cambridge and Western improvements
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I would like to comment on the proposed route through Bedford for the East – West Rail Link. Recently, I took part in a Zoom meeting to discuss this issue with other interested parties and Richard Fuller, MP. The majority of those involved were not against the proposed link but were deeply unhappy with the chosen route. It transpired that when consultation for the proposed route through Bedford was initiated, five possible choices were suggested. Route E was deemed to be the most expensive and, to those of us who have lived in Bedford for many years, the idea that a route east would come north-west up a hill through unspoilt rural countryside appeared nonsensical if not ludicrous! As such, it came as a surprise that, after the consultation period, as if by magic, Route E was suddenly the cheapest and preferred option. Of course this preference was made during the early period of the first lockdown when other issues were to the fore. Now that Bedford lacks any local newspapers the decision was largely overlooked by many. I do not propose to detail all the objections I and many others have to the choice of Route E, as these will already be well-documented and obvious. A southern route, using much of the existing track from pre-Beeching days, would appear to be clear-cut and unambiguous. I travelled on this line in the early 60s and it was perfectly functional. I realize that not all of the route is available today but the part into and out of Bedford certainly is. The choice of a southern route would mean freight could move directly east to west (and vice versa) without the need to enter Bedford station. Passenger trains could divert briefly north to Bedford and then back out to rejoin the southern line. To conclude, I wish to protest at the way the decision was made would like there to be a more public, honest and open revisiting of the consultation procedure.
Thank you for your e-mails with a word document attached on the 1 March 2021 in relation to the proposed East West Rail project. An application for this project has not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate (the Inspectorate). With regards to the proposed Bedford to Cambridge route, the Inspectorate understands that the Applicant ‘East West Railway Company’ (EWR), is currently undertaking detailed design work to define the preferred alignment of the tracks, following a non-statutory consultation in 2019. The Inspectorate also understands that EWR will be holding a further non-statutory consultation exercise in 2021. EWR will then conduct a statutory pre-application consultation in advance of submitting their application to the Inspectorate. The purpose of the statutory pre-application stage is to allow the developer to consult on their proposals so that they can be shaped with the input of communities and others before being finalised and submitted as an application. As the project is still at the pre-application stage, I would strongly encourage you to contact the Applicant directly with regard to your concerns, as they have a statutory duty to have regard to all consultation responses, which should be demonstrated in the Consultation Report as part of their DCO application. 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 will be considered by the local authority when sending the 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 Applicant can be reached in the following ways: By email: [email protected] By phone: 0330 1340067 By post: FREEPOST East West Rail 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 are 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’. Please be assured that anyone interested in the proposed developments, their 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.

09 March 2021
Ian Coyne
East West Rail - Bedford to Cambridge and Western improvements
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I am writing to raise my concerns about the proposed route E going north of Bedford. The issues are almost to plentiful to go into in one email, however, in short SOME of the issues I have as a resident who will be affected by this route (along with my young family and countless other people) are as follows- 1) The consultation process has been HEAVILY flawed and the results have been heavily twisted in order to suit the purpose of route E being favoured. The meetings, supposed postcards, and any other communication have ‘conveniently’ missed the majority of the residents that this route will have an impact on, and therefore was not where near fit for purpose and should be repeated. 2) The route is advertised as the ‘most cost effective’..... this would be because it is the only route that has been looked at my external contractors to reduce the apparent costs as much as possible. If the same was done for ALL routes, as would be fair and transparent, I highly doubt this would be the case. 3) the environmental impact of this route is devastating. It is named as the route with the least impact environmentally.... when it goes through one of the only untouched green belts of countryside around Bedford, that was publicised as protected not too long ago..... and is home to ancient woodlands, numerous species of bird, badgers, foxes, and a plethora of other species. The fact that the route will potentially be a diesel freight route is also a massive environmental issue for the area. 4) the route potentially passes closely to a large number of residential areas such as Brickhill,Wilden, Renhold, Roxton, Ravensden and rural areas of Clapham, all of which were chosen by people because of the countryside and peace and quiet that this route would heavily impact. The residents have paid a premium for these elements, and were under the impression they were safe due to the protected nature of the belt. The route will directly negatively impact on peoples lives and finances, and without appropriate consultation at all (please see point one). 5) The route passes through one of the only hilly areas surrounding the town, which will either be cut into, use additional diesel due to the gradient, or have to work around (potentially taking it closer to the residents, costing more, and/or becoming even more indirect) There are several other issues with the process and proposed route, and as a mother who has recently moved to the area (due to having no idea about these plans), especially to being my family up surrounded by peace and natural beauty, I whole heartedly oppose this route and hope you will look into the matter further.
Thank you for your e-mail on the 3rd March 2021 in relation to the proposed East West Rail project. An application for this project has not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate (the Inspectorate). With regards to the proposed Bedford to Cambridge route, the Inspectorate understands that the Applicant ‘East West Railway Company’ (EWR), is currently undertaking detailed design work to define the preferred alignment of the tracks, following a non-statutory consultation in 2019. The Inspectorate also understands that EWR will be holding a further non-statutory consultation exercise in 2021. EWR will then conduct a statutory pre-application consultation in advance of submitting their application to the Inspectorate. The purpose of the statutory pre-application stage is to allow the developer to consult on their proposals so that they can be shaped with the input of communities and others before being finalised and submitted as an application. As the project is still at the pre-application stage, I would strongly encourage you to contact the Applicant directly with regard to your concerns, as they have a statutory duty to have regard to all consultation responses, which should be demonstrated in the Consultation Report as part of their DCO application. 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 will be considered by the local authority when sending the 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 Applicant can be reached in the following ways: By email: [email protected] By phone: 0330 1340067 By post: FREEPOST East West Rail 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 are 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’. Please be assured that anyone interested in the proposed developments, their 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.

09 March 2021
Kerry Taylor
East West Rail - Bedford to Cambridge and Western improvements
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
We are writing to you to express our concern, as residents of Great Shelford, about the adverse impact this proposal could have on our village and the high handed way in which the so called consultation is being conducted by EWR. Whilst a range of routes, to the north and south of Cambridge were initially considered, it now appears that this has been narrowed down to route option E which is to the south and joins the Kings Cross line in the vicinity of Great Shelford. I would argue that this has ignored the benefits of the routes to the north and in particular the route advocated by the CamBedRailRoad group (CBRR). This alternative route, developed by CBRR, presents a very powerful case in favour of the northern approach and would better serve the needs of the whole region as well as local communities on the edge of Cambridge. The forthcoming non-statutory consultation, which considers just route E, should be cancelled and replaced with a wider ranging public consultation to compare the relative merits of both the northern (CBRR) approach as well as the southern route E. I would urge you to consider and promote this alternative consultation.
An application for this project has not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate (the Inspectorate). With regards to the proposed Bedford to Cambridge route, the Inspectorate understands that the Applicant ‘East West Railway Company’ (EWR), is currently undertaking detailed design work to define the preferred alignment of the tracks, following a non-statutory consultation in 2019. The Inspectorate also understands that EWR will be holding a further non-statutory consultation exercise in 2021. EWR will then conduct a statutory pre-application consultation in advance of submitting their application to the Inspectorate. The purpose of the statutory pre-application stage is to allow the developer to consult on their proposals so that they can be shaped with the input of communities and others before being finalised and submitted as an application. As the project is still at the pre-application stage, I would strongly encourage you to contact the Applicant directly with regard to your concerns, as they have a statutory duty to have regard to all consultation responses, which should be demonstrated in the Consultation Report as part of their DCO application. 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 will be considered by the local authority when sending the 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 Applicant can be reached in the following ways: By email: [email protected] By phone: 0330 1340067 By post: FREEPOST East West Rail 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 are 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’. Please be assured that anyone interested in the proposed developments, their potential impacts and any planning matters can be fully engaged in the examination process.

09 March 2021
K.E.Fletcher and Mrs D.S.Fletcher
East West Rail - Bedford to Cambridge and Western improvements
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached meeting note

04 March 2021
Highways England - anon.
Lower Thames Crossing
response has attachments
Project inception meeting
Please see attached.

02 March 2021
Highways England - anon.
A358 Taunton to Southfields
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

26 February 2021
Alternative Use Boston Projects Limited - anon.
Boston Alternative Energy Facility (BAEF)
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

26 February 2021
Highways England - anon.
A57 Link Roads (previously known as Trans Pennine Upgrade Programme)
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached

23 February 2021
North Falls Offshore Wind Farm Ltd - anon.
North Falls Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached

19 February 2021
National Grid Electricity Transmission (NGET) - anon.
Bramford to Twinstead
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached meeting note

18 February 2021
Highways England - anon.
Lower Thames Crossing
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please see attached.
Please see attached.

16 February 2021
CPRE Peak District and South Yorkshire - Anne Robinson
A57 Link Roads (previously known as Trans Pennine Upgrade Programme)
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Inception Meeting.
Please see attached.

16 February 2021
Oxfordshire Rail freight Ltd - anon.
Oxfordshire Strategic Rail Freight Interchange
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

15 February 2021
SSE Thermal - anon.
Keadby 3 Carbon Capture Power Station
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached

15 February 2021
Highways England - anon.
A428 Black Cat to Caxton Gibbet Road Improvement scheme
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached

12 February 2021
Equinor - anon.
Sheringham and Dudgeon Extension Projects
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Inception Meeting.
Please see attached.

12 February 2021
Highways England - anon.
M60/M62/M66 Simister Island
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Please see attached meeting note.
Please see attached meeting note.

09 February 2021
Alternative Use Boston Projects Ltd - anon.
Boston Alternative Energy Facility (BAEF)
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Mr Mayhew has been contacted by a constituent, Mr Gates, regarding the proposed dualling of the A47. Mr Gates’ full concerns are outlined below. ‘Our Community Group here at North Burlingham has been lobbying Highways England since the beginning of the A47 Dualling Consultation process for: 1) a crossing at North Burlingham giving N/S access to Lingwood, particularly to and from the Station. 2) provision of a pathway link from South Walsham Road eastwards to Acle - about 250m - to gain access to the existing (but soon to be closed) lay-by. There is an existing path from this lay-by to Acle, where there are buses, a Station and our main selection of shops. We have none at North Burlingham. ‘We now learn that HE have no intention of providing these links, but expect NCC to do this from the Community Infrastructure Fund, after the dualling is complete. ‘Have you any legal advice at your disposal that could tell us if HE is able to ignore local consultation and side-step responsibility in this way?’ Mr Gates has now received information stating that the matter is with the planning inspectorate, and would like to know whether he can make representations directly. Mr Mayhew would be grateful for your comments on the matter, as well as providing a response that addresses these concerns.
The A47 Blofield to North Burlingham application was accepted for Examination on 27 January 2021. The Inspectorate has decided that the Applicant – Highways England – has met its associated Pre-application duties, which include having due regard to the responses to Statutory Consultation (under s49 of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008)) adequately. Now that the application has progressed into ‘Pre-examination’, the considerations of this decision, including how the Applicant conducted its Statutory Consultation, cannot be disputed. The Applicant is now required to serve notice that the application has been formally accepted, under s56 of the PA2008. This notice, amongst other things, must include details of how members of the public can register to become ‘Interested Parties’ (IP) and submit a ‘Relevant Representation’ (RR) setting out the matters the appointed ‘Examining Authority’ (the inspector or panel of inspectors who will examine the application) should consider in its Examination of the application. The Inspectorate will also publicise the notice and associated information on the project page of the National Infrastructure Planning website in due course. I therefore recommend Mr Gates is kept informed of this and other key milestones by registering for the email update feature here: [attachment 1];email= Once the RR period formally opens, Mr Gates can register to become an IP and submit a RR setting out his concerns (which can include the interrelationship with any associated works to carried out by the relevant highways authority if consent is later granted). He can also expand and provide further evidence via ‘Written Representations’ and/ or oral submissions at hearings once the Examination formally commences. He may find the following Inspectorate advice notes helpful: [attachment 2] [attachment 3] [attachment 4] [attachment 5]

08 February 2021
Office of Jerome Mayhew MP - Tom Horton
A47 Blofield to North Burlingham
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I prepared a submission to Highways England on behalf of Norwich Cycling Campaign on the dualling of the A47 Blofield to North Burlingham. Due to various personal matters I have been unable to follow this up. Since I prepared this submission the Government has published two important policy documents: "Gear Change" "Cycle Infrastructure Design LTN 1/20" "Gear Change" announced a new regulatory body which will have extensive powers with regard to the provision and design of cycling and walking facilities. Reading these documents, and the relevant sections of the latest edition of the Design Manual for Road and Bridges, it appears that the plans or the A47 published by Highways England fall short of the policies set out in the above documents. I am not sure of the exact statues of the Inquiry process at the moment. I am therefore seeking advice as to what Norwich Cycling Campaign should do to make sure we have an opportunity to raise these matters.
The A47 Blofield to North Burlingham application was accepted for Examination on 27 January 2021. The Applicant is now required to serve notice that the application has been formally accepted, under s56 of the Planning Act 2008. This notice, amongst other things, must include details of how members of the public can register to become ‘Interested Parties’ (IP) and submit a ‘Relevant Representation’ (RR) setting out the matters the appointed ‘Examining Authority’ (the inspector or panel of inspectors who will examine the application) should consider in its Examination of the application. The Inspectorate will publicise the notice and associated information on the project page of the National Infrastructure Planning website once the RR period has started. You may wish to register to receive key information: [attachment 1];email= Once the RR period formally opens, you can register to become an IP and submit a RR setting out your concerns, such as whether the Proposed Development should have regard to the recently published non-motorised user policies set out in your email. You can also expand and provide further evidence via ‘Written Representations’ and/ or oral submissions at hearings once the Examination formally commences and a timetable setting out the associated deadlines and hearings is agreed and published. You may find the following Inspectorate advice notes helpful: [attachment 2] [attachment 3] [attachment 4] [attachment 5]

08 February 2021
Norwich Cycling Campaign - Tony Clarke
A47 Blofield to North Burlingham
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please see attached.
Please see attached.

08 February 2021
Blaby District Council - Louise Hryniw
Hinckley National Rail Freight Interchange
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project inception meeting.
Please see the attached note.

08 February 2021
anon.
Yorkshire GREEN
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Meeting
Please see link above

08 February 2021
National Grid - anon.
Yorkshire GREEN
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please see attached.
Please see attached.

05 February 2021
Highways England - Naomi Kretschmer
A428 Black Cat to Caxton Gibbet Road Improvement scheme
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting with the Applicant
Please see attached meeting note

04 February 2021
Highways England - anon.
Lower Thames Crossing
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

03 February 2021
Gatwick Airport Limited - anon.
Gatwick Airport Northern Runway
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached.

02 February 2021
Oikos Marine and South Side Development (OMSSD) - anon.
Oikos Marine & South Side Development
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached.

02 February 2021
National Grid Ventures - anon.
Nautilus Interconnector
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please see attached.
Please see attached.

29 January 2021
Dr Luke Evans MP
Hinckley National Rail Freight Interchange
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please see attached.
Please see attached.

28 January 2021
London Resort Company Holdings Limited - anon.
The London Resort
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
A47/A11 Thickthorn Junction Project Update Meeting
Please see attached.

28 January 2021
Highways England - anon.
A47 - A11 Thickthorn Junction
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting.
Please see attached.

28 January 2021
Ørsted - anon.
Hornsea Project Four Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting.
Please see attached.

22 January 2021
Highways England - anon.
A47 North Tuddenham to Easton
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached.

22 January 2021
Highways England - anon.
A12 Chelmsford to A120 Widening Scheme
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached Meeting note

22 January 2021
Anglian Water - anon.
Cambridge Waste Water Treatment Plant Relocation
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Compensation workshop.
Please see attached .

22 January 2021
Ørsted (Applicant), key stakeholders - anon.
Hornsea Project Four Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please see attached
Please see attached

20 January 2021
Able Humber Ports Ltd - anon.
Able Marine Energy Park Material Change 1
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

20 January 2021
BDB Pitmans - anon.
Able Marine Energy Park Material Change 2
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please see attached.
Please see attached.

15 January 2021
Framptons - Peter Frampton
Hinckley National Rail Freight Interchange
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached Meeting Note

15 January 2021
MVV Environment Ltd
Medworth Energy from Waste Combined Heat and Power Facility
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting.
Please see attached.

14 January 2021
North Lincolnshire Green Energy Park Limited - anon.
North Lincolnshire Green Energy Park
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

13 January 2021
Highways England - anon.
A428 Black Cat to Caxton Gibbet Road Improvement scheme
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached

13 January 2021
Bradwell B - anon.
Bradwell B new nuclear power station
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting with the Applicant
Please see attached meeting note

13 January 2021
Highways England - anon.
Lower Thames Crossing
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

13 January 2021
East West Rail Ltd - anon.
East West Rail - Bedford to Cambridge and Western improvements
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Please see attached

07 January 2021
Boston Alternative Energy Facility Project Team - anon.
Boston Alternative Energy Facility (BAEF)
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached meeting note

07 January 2021
Highways England - anon.
A47 Wansford to Sutton
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Please see attached.
Please see attached.

22 December 2020
Boston Alternative Energy Facility Project Limited - anon.
Boston Alternative Energy Facility (BAEF)
Enquiry received via email
Highways England (the Applicant) provided the Planning Inspectorate (the Inspectorate) with a suite of draft Works Plans to demonstrate how it proposed to articulate utility works. The Inspectorate issued the following advice:
• The approach assists the reading of the scheme, is proportionate to the relevant issue and represents a commitment by the Applicant to explain its scheme as clearly as possible - this is likely to be welcomed by an appointed ExA (and Interested Parties). • “Composite” is shown on drawing titles when all utilities are shown. Where one utility is shown (eg water) then it may be helpful to include (eg water utilities) in the title for ease of reference. • It would be helpful to have a different line type or colour for each different type of utility service.

17 December 2020
Highways England - anon.
A428 Black Cat to Caxton Gibbet Road Improvement scheme
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached meeting note

17 December 2020
Highways England - anon.
Lower Thames Crossing
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Please see attached.
Please see attached.

17 December 2020
BDB Pitmans and Able Humber Ports Ltd - anon.
Able Marine Energy Park Material Change 2
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Please see attached.
Please see attached.

17 December 2020
BDB Pitmans and Able Humber Ports Ltd - anon.
Able Marine Energy Park Material Change 1
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached Meeting Note

16 December 2020
London Resort Company Holdings
The London Resort
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached Meeting Note

15 December 2020
Local Authority representatives
The London Resort
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Meeting to discuss the withdrawal of the application with representatives of Thurrock Council, Gravesham Borough Council and London Borough of Havering
Please see attached meeting note

15 December 2020
Various local authorities - anon.
Lower Thames Crossing
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Inception Meeting - Cyfarfod Cychwynnol
Please see attached - Gweler ynghlwm

15 December 2020
ENI, Progressive Energy Limited, WSP - anon.
HyNet Carbon Dioxide Pipeline
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Note of Preliminary Meeting part 1 and 2
Please see attached.

10 December 2020
Highways England - anon.
A1 in Northumberland - Morpeth to Ellingham
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting.
Please see attached.

10 December 2020
Ørsted - anon.
Hornsea Project Four Offshore Wind Farm
response has attachments
Meeting Note
Please see attached

10 December 2020
FCC Environment (UK) Limited - anon.
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached.

09 December 2020
Highways England - anon.
A417 Missing Link
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Inception Meeting
Please see attached.

09 December 2020
National Grid Electricity Transmission (NGET) - anon.
Bramford to Twinstead
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

08 December 2020
Sunnica Energy Farm - anon.
Sunnica Energy Farm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Please see attached meeting note
Please see attached meeting note

07 December 2020
Highways England - anon.
A428 Black Cat to Caxton Gibbet Road Improvement scheme
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached meeting note

07 December 2020
Highways England - anon.
A47 Blofield to North Burlingham
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Update on engagement and other environmental matters.
Please see attached.

04 December 2020
DEFRA Group - anon.
Bradwell B new nuclear power station
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached meeting note

03 December 2020
London Resort Company Holdings
The London Resort
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Inception Meeting
Please see attached

01 December 2020
Drax Power Ltd - anon.
Drax Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage Project
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project inception meeting.
Please see attached meeting note.

01 December 2020
National Grid Carbon - anon.
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached.

01 December 2020
Highways England - anon.
A57 Link Roads (previously known as Trans Pennine Upgrade Programme)
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project inception meeting.
Please see attached meeting note.

01 December 2020
National Grid Carbon - anon.
Humber Low Carbon Pipelines
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Meeting to discuss the Applicant’s s48 consultation
Please see attached meeting note

27 November 2020
INRG SOLAR (Little Crow) Ltd - anon.
Little Crow Solar Park
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Meeting with the Applicant following withdrawal of the application
Please see attached meeting note

26 November 2020
Highways England - anon.
Lower Thames Crossing
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please see attached.
Please see attached.

23 November 2020
Suffolk Energy Action Solutions (SEAS) - anon.
East Anglia ONE North Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please see attached.
Please see attached.

23 November 2020
Suffolk Energy Action Solutions (SEAS) - anon.
East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project meeting update.
Please see attached.

19 November 2020
The Net Zero Teeside Project - anon.
The Net Zero Teesside Project
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached Meeting Note

19 November 2020
London Resort Company Holdings
The London Resort
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Meeting to discuss in more detail the Applicant’s approach to its plans structure, Green Managed Growth strategy and latest survey work
Please see attached note

19 November 2020
London Luton Airport Limited - anon.
London Luton Airport Expansion
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting.
Please see attached.

16 November 2020
SADEP - anon.
Sheringham and Dudgeon Extension Projects
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please see letter dated 17 July 2020 attached.
Please see reply dated 13 November 2020.

13 November 2020
Somerset County Council - Andy Coupe
Hinkley Point C New Nuclear Power Station
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Please see attached meeting note.
Please see attached meeting note.

13 November 2020
Highways England - anon.
Lower Thames Crossing
response has attachments
Please see attached.
Please see attached.

13 November 2020
Boston Alternative Energy Facility Limited - anon.
Boston Alternative Energy Facility (BAEF)
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Please see attached.
Please see attached.

11 November 2020
Eversheds
Little Crow Solar Park
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

11 November 2020
Tritax Symmetry (Hinckley) Limited - anon.
Hinckley National Rail Freight Interchange
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Diweddariad ar y prosiect cyfarfod - Project update meeting
Gweler yr atodiad - Please see attached

09 November 2020
Awel y Môr Offshore Wind Farm Limited - anon.
Awel y Môr Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Please see attached.
Please see attached.

06 November 2020
North Falls Offshore Wind Farm Ltd - anon.
North Falls Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Please see attached.
Please see attached.

05 November 2020
Highways England
A27 Arundel Bypass
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
as a local doctor working in mental health I wish to express my grave concerns about the planned Aquind Interconnector from France via Portsmouth to Lovedean. Portsmouth is one of the most densely populated cities in the UK, and we really need the limited green spaces we have. Our parks and other communal green areas provide outdoor spaces for families and individuals which is especially important during these times of Covid-19. Our allotments enable local residents to grow their own food and spend time in the open air. All these activities are highly beneficial for our city's physical and mental wellbeing. So much so in fact, that social prescribing recognises and recommends the benefits of exercise and socialising (keeping a safe distance currently of course). We have been sending mental health patients from a nearby hospital to the community allotments in Eastney for many years for the purposes of therapeutic activities and structure to their days in a safe environment as part of their recovery. Patients often told the staff with pride about their achievements in planting and tending to the plants. At harvest time, patients were able to bring some fruit or vegetables back to the hospital. It would be inconceivable if this invaluable community resource were destroyed as part of the Interconnector plans. We urge you to find a solution which safeguards Portsmouth's green spaces and community resources. I would like to add a couple of questions in relation to Brexit. From January 1st, 2021 the EU 's Internal Energy Market will no longer include Great Britain (with special rules for Northern Ireland). In the case of a no-deal Brexit, if there is no electricity trading arrangement between the EU and UK, government guidance headed "Trading electricity from 1 January 2021" states that "alternative trading arrangements will need to be developed, including for trade between Great Britain and the Single Electricity Market through interconnectors". The guidance further states that "trade on interconnectors may be less efficient". 1. Who are the owners of Aquind please? Who will pay for this interconnector to be installed, and for local residents to be reimbursed if the project goes ahead? 2. What contingency plans have the owners of Aquind made for Brexit, a) in case of a deal with the EU and b) in case of no-deal? 3. How are the owners of Aquind engaging with the "relevant EU national regulators"? I would be grateful if you could answer my questions in the last paragraph, please regard them as questions under Freedom of Information legislation I look forward to your reply
With reference to your email of 5 October 2020, we note that you have asked some questions under the Freedom of Information (FoI) Act. The Planning Inspectorate is the body responsible for examining Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects and providing recommendation reports to the relevant Secretaries of State. On 30 July 2018, the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (SoS) made a direction under s35 of the Planning Act 2008 that the proposed UK elements of the AQUIND Interconnector project, be treated as development for which development consent is required (i.e. a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project), following a request made by the Applicant, AQUIND Limited. The Application was accepted for examination on 12 December 2019 and the examination formally began on 8 September 2020. All documents submitted during the course of an examination are publicly available as they are published to the project page of the Planning Inspectorate’s website: [attachment 1] As such, it is suggested that the information you have requested, if held, will be within the Applicant’s application documents. For example, you may wish to view the Funding Statement, which provides a background to the Applicant’s funding for the Proposed Development. You may also wish to view the Planning Statement, which provides the Applicant’s position on planning policy and confirms that the project is considered a Project of Common Interest (‘PCI’) of the European Union, in accordance with the TransEuropean Networks for Energy (TEN-E) Regulation (347/2013). I can confirm that the Planning Inspectorate does not hold any separate information (outside of what is available on the project page) that answer your questions subject to the FoI request. If the information is not available in the published documents, you may wish to contact the Applicant directly to seek it. However, there is no explicit obligation on the Applicant to provide answers to these questions as part of the examination process. The contract details for the Applicant are: [email protected] Tel. 01962 893869

04 November 2020
Dr Veronika Wagner
AQUIND Interconnector
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Please see attached meeting note.
Please see attached meeting note.

04 November 2020
Able Humber Ports Ltd - anon.
Able Marine Energy Park Material Change 1
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached Meeting Note

03 November 2020
London Resort Company Holdings
The London Resort
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached.

29 October 2020
Highways England - anon.
A428 Black Cat to Caxton Gibbet Road Improvement scheme
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I hope you have noted that the latest plans being shown by The London Resort project in their public consultation and in their latest Scoping Report (June 2020) are not compliant with those shown in their Direction Order application (April 2014) plan. They are proposing taking a further 30 acres (approx) of industrial estates housing over one hundred businesses and many thousands of employees, direct and indirect. Surely such an amendment to the original Order should have been given due consideration by the SoS as it is slightly more than a tweak to respond to design flexibility as permitted in the Direction Order.
Please see attached

28 October 2020
Bramwell Associates - Dan Bramwell
The London Resort
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please see attached.
Please see attached.

26 October 2020
Harrison Grant - Susan Ring
Sunnica Energy Farm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Hi Liam ; I believe Anglian Water have misled the public regarding the status of the application based on your reply. AW refuse to explain the 500,000 population so not particularly being helpful. See extract from the project website..which clearly states it is a NSIP already ?
Dear Nigel, Thank you for your response. If the application for the Cambridge Waste Water sewage works is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, one of the factors the Secretary of State will consider under section 55 of PA2008 is whether or not the application meets that criteria. It is for the applicant to demonstrate that they have met the relevant thresholds. If you have concerns about the Applicant’s pre-application consultation you should contact the Applicant in the first instance to enable them to address the issues. 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 local authority can consider them as part of their Adequacy of Consultation Representation submission to the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) at the application stage of the process. Further information about Community Consultation can be found here: [attachment 1] I hope that information is helpful and let me know if you have any further questions?

23 October 2020
Nigel Seamarks - anon.
Cambridge Waste Water Treatment Plant Relocation
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
See Meeting Note attached

22 October 2020
Highways England - anon.
A47 Blofield to North Burlingham
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Meeting to advise TCAG about the Planning Act 2008 process
Please see attached meeting note

22 October 2020
Thames Crossing Action Group (TCAG) - anon.
Lower Thames Crossing
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Dear National Infrastructure Applications; I understand you recently planned to have a meeting with Anglian Water about moving the Cambridge Waste Treatment plant. Please can I have an update on the progress of talks. I do object to Anglian Water in using the National Infrastructure programme as a way of obtaining permission and instead AW should use the Cambridgeshire County Council Planning Systems. The Localism Act, local people should have a major role in local projects, this is not a NPI application. I would like your group to consider the reason for my objection of using the National Infrastructure Planning Tool :- 1. During the consultation process Anglian Water would not explain how they would achieve 500,000 people usage of the new Waste Treatment Centre ; a key requirement . 2. The Project is not of National Importance as the current site delivers the needs of Cambridgeshire. There is no Operational need to move. 3. The current site serves Cambridgeshire’s needs and does not have a capacity issue. The current site is large enough to cope with expansion needs if ever required. 4. Anglian Water are undertaking the project for profit by selling the current site for housing. Anglian Water will then need to find a new location. The current location has served the community well for decades probably a century. Moving fo moving sakes is not a NPI valid reason. 5. The Localism Act is in place for this type of application and PINS should not allow this National Infrastructure Planning abuse and recommend Anglian Water applies for permission via Cambridgeshire County Council. 6. Anglian Water are proposing to use the highly valued Cambridge Greenbelt . Once the Cambridge Green Belt is eroded developers will want the rest of the Green Belt. We must protect the last remaining Green corridors. The use of Green Belt would be best considered locally using local planning tools and Localism Act 7. Two of the sites will impact the Mere Way an established pedestrian and cycleway. The landowners and farmers have developed key biodiversity sites along the stretch. This would be better reviewed using the local planning tools and Localism Act 8. The U&C Waterbeach housing development has been given permission; one of the conditions is to protect and enhance the Mere Way , a Roman Road. This would be better reviewed using the local planning tools and Localism Act 9. One of the proposed sites impact the 100 Year vision of the National Trust to reintroduce a Fen from Wicken Fen to Cambridge. This would be better reviewed using the local planning tools and Localism Act 10. A proportion of the current location could be sold as over 50% of the current site is not in operation. Anglian Water could sell some land and the full redevelopment area could still deliver upto 5,000 homes for Cambridge. I appreciate this number of homes is less than if Anglian Water was allowed to use Green Belt land for the move. I strongly believe Anglian Water are using the wrong planning tool; they have failed to communicate with local people regarding the 500,000 people threshold. I don’t believe the NPI was put in place just to move infrastructure for profit. I am not against the redevelopment plans but due to the local impacts, The Localism Act, local planning tools and not meeting the 500,000 threshold the NPI should reject the project and refer Anglian Water back to Cambridgeshire County Council planning.
Dear Mr Seamarks, Application by Anglian Water Services Limited for an Order Granting Development Consent for the Cambridge Waste Water Treatment Plant Relocation I am writing regarding your correspondence sent to the Planning Inspectorate dated 27 September 2020 in relation to the above proposals, apologies for the delay in response. The proposed application is at the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 process. The Applicant approached the Planning Inspectorate to discuss the proposed application, you can find a record of the initial meeting here: [attachment 1]. There has been one further meeting which took place in July, the note of this meeting will shortly be published in the same place. The Inspectorate is unable to consider representations about the merits of any application until it is accepted for Examination. Further information about the process can be found in the link below to the National Infrastructure Planning website: [attachment 2] As the application has not yet been formally submitted to the Inspectorate your first point of contact should be the Applicant and we would encourage you to contact them directly by email: [email protected]. 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 Inspectorate. The Planning Inspectorate has published a series of Advice Notes about the Planning Act 2008 process. ‘Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others’ can be found here:https://infrastructure.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/legislation-and-advice/advice-notes/. I hope the above information is helpful.

22 October 2020
Nigel Seamarks - anon.
Cambridge Waste Water Treatment Plant Relocation
response has attachments
Evidence Plan Steering Group Six
Please see attached

21 October 2020
Historic England - PINS, Ørsted, East Riding of Yorkshire Council, Natural England, Marine Management Organisation
Hornsea Project Four Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached.

21 October 2020
National Grid Ventures (NGV) - anon.
Nautilus Interconnector
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting by telecon
Please see attached meeting note

19 October 2020
Rampion Extension Development Limited - anon.
Rampion 2 Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Meeting Update
Please see attached.

16 October 2020
The Net Zero Teeside Project - anon.
The Net Zero Teesside Project
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting.
Please see attached.

12 October 2020
Ørsted - anon.
Hornsea Project Four Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting with the Applicant
Please see attached meeting note

07 October 2020
Highways England - anon.
Lower Thames Crossing
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting to discuss the new scope of the EIA to be undertaken in relation to the Proposed Development.
Please see attached meeting note.

02 October 2020
Network Rail - anon.
Western Rail Link to Heathrow
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Note of meeting.
Please see attached.

30 September 2020
FCC Environment (UK) Limited - anon.
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting.
See meeting note attached

30 September 2020
Highways England - anon.
M3 Junction 9 Improvement
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached meeting note

30 September 2020
London Luton Airport Limited - anon.
London Luton Airport Expansion
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

29 September 2020
Oikos Marine and South Side Development - anon.
Oikos Marine & South Side Development
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Meeting with Thurrock Council, Kent County Council and Gravesham Borough Council to discuss concerns relating to the consultation process, activities and information for Lower Thames Crossing
Please see attached meeting note

25 September 2020
Various local authorities - anon.
Lower Thames Crossing
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting with the Applicant
Please see attached meeting note

23 September 2020
Highways England - anon.
Lower Thames Crossing
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached Meeting Note

23 September 2020
London Resort Company Holdings
The London Resort
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Dear team, I have recently been contacted by my constituent, Mr Daniel Harwood, regarding a proposed development at Swanscombe Marshes. Mr Harwood is concerned that about the impact this could have on both the local environment. He states that he is further concerned about the amount of scrutiny in national government of major developments, such as the Swanscombe Development, which he believes will adversely affect the environment, I would be grateful if you could look into this matter on their behalf and respond to their concerns. I look forward to hearing from you. Yours sincerely, Helen Sent on behalf of Helen Hayes MP Member of Parliament for Dulwich and West Norwood
Dear Mr Harwood, We have been forwarded your details by Helen Hayes MP in relation to your concerns regarding the proposed London Resort project (formally known as London Paramount). The proposed application by London Resort Company Holdings (the Applicant) is at the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) process. The Planning Inspectorate (the Inspectorate) is unable to consider representations about the merits of any application until it is accepted for Examination. The Inspectorate also does not have the power to intervene in an Applicant’s pre-application programme. The process for applying for a Development Consent Order (DCO) is set out in the PA2008. The timing of the application’s programme is at the discretion of the Applicant. This statutory consultation exercise is taking place between 27 July - 21 September 2020. All parties that wish to put their views to the applicant are strongly advised to do so at this opportunity. Further information and documentation can be found on the applicants website: [attachment 1] You can call the Applicant on: 0800 470 0043, or write to them at: FREEPOST: LONDON RESORT CONSULTATION The Applicant has a statutory duty to have regard to all consultation responses received and this should be demonstrated in the Consultation Report which is part of their DCO application. Your comments should be taken into account when the local authority sends the Inspectorate its comments on whether the Applicant has fulfilled its consultation duties. The local authority’s comments on the Applicant’s consultation will be taken into account when the Acceptance Inspector makes their decision whether to accept the application for Examination. Should the DCO application be accepted by the Inspectorate for examination, the Applicant has a duty to notify the local community when providing information on how to register as an Interested Party for the purpose of the process. The process under the PA2008 has been designed to allow members of the public and statutory stakeholders to participate in examination of all DCO applications so that anyone interested in the proposed developments, their potential impacts and any relevant matters can be fully engaged in the examination process. Once the examination begins, the Examining Authority will assess all information submitted in the application documents and will consider whether the Applicant has provided the necessary level of information. The Inspectorate has produced several Advice Notes to help provide an overview of the PA2008 process and the opportunities to get involved. They are available at the following link: [attachment 2] The following are 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’. Please be assured that anyone interested in the proposed developments, their potential impacts and any planning matters can be fully engaged in the examination process. A copy of your correspondence has been placed on our records and will be presented to the Inspector at acceptance together with the application documents and Local Authorities’ comments on the Applicant’s consultation. Regarding your concerns on scrutiny in national government of major developments; National Policy Statements (NPSs) are produced by government. They give reasons for the policy set out in the statement and must include an explanation of how the policy takes account of government policy relating to the mitigation of, and adaptation to, climate change. They comprise the government’s objectives for the development of nationally significant infrastructure projects (NSIPs). The Inspectorate is impartial and does not comment on government policy. However, Examining Authorities do make their recommendations within the framework provided by NPSs, as required by the Planning Act 2008. At this time, there is no specific NPS for Business and Commercial NSIPs. The Applicant has acknowledged this in their scoping report. They have identified the National Planning Policy Framework and the local plans prepared by the relevant planning authorities in the area affected by the proposed development. In addition, the National Networks NPS (NPS EN-1) and the NPS for Ports (NPSP) have been identified as being relevant to the proposed development. With regard to the current Coronavirus (COVID-19) situation, please refer to the Planning Inspectorate’s published guidance which will be updated as the situation develops. [attachment 3] We have also published a Frequently Asked Questions document regarding Pre-application consultation and this can be viewed on our website here: [attachment 4] 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.

21 September 2020
Mr Daniel Harwood - Helen Hayes MP
The London Resort
Enquiry received via email
Sir / Madam, I deal with the Councils’ responsibilities under The Rookery South Order 2011 for the construction of a circa. 50MW resource recovery facility in Bedfordshire. We have recently received a Rights of Way Strategy as required under the DCO and accompanying S106 agreement. Schedule 3, Part 2 of the DCO lists the new status of footpaths and cycleways within the Order Limits (please see attached). Could you please confirm that their reference within the DCO eliminates the need for these routes to be formally adopted by the Council under other rights of way / highway legislation and that they are effectively adopted as such by virtue of the DCO? In addition – if these routes were to be upgraded to bridleways would these need to go through the formal adoption process as the DCO does not specifically refer to them as such? Many thanks for your advice,
Dear Anita, Thank you for your email regarding the Rookery South DCO and the Public Rights of Way (PRoW) affected. Firstly, if the PRoWs referred to in the DCO were to be adopted by the local highway authority then this would have been agreed as part of a s106 agreement with the relevant Council. You cannot assume their inclusion in the DCO confers any automatic adoption by the Council. I would recommend you check with your in-house legal team or records about this aspect of the implementation of the DCO. Secondly, given the DCO is explicit about the status of the new PRoWs in terms of their purpose and use, any change to this may require the applicant to make an application to the Secretary of State to change the DCO. There may be alternatives to that approach but again you would need to discuss this with the applicant and take your own legal advice as necessary. Obviously, how you would approach a change to the status of the PRoWs would depend on whether or not the Council was going to adopt them and when. Please contact us again if you have any further questions. However, please be advised that the Inspectorate is not able to provide legal advice and so if you have particular legal questions about the implementation of the Rookery South DCO you should consult with your own legal team in the first instance. Yours sincerely

21 September 2020
Central Bedfordshire Council - Anita Taylor
Rookery South Energy from Waste Generating Station
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Dear Louise This has been extremely helpful thanks once again for your assistance. May I just enquire further with regards to the applicants “Preliminary Environmental Information Report”. Is the (PEIR) the applicants opportunity to address the Inspectors concerns detailed in his “Environmental Statement Scoping Opinion" report.? Would it be reasonable to expect the applicant to comprehensively address the Inspectors specific concerns such as? - Risk of Major Accidents and/or Disasters and Flooding. Tidal, Breach and Over Topping / Fluvial and critical drainage issues. Addressing these issues will not only be of an advantage to the applicant, it would also give the local community confidence that the Local Authority will have considered all residual risk ramification of this application. There are reservations however that adverse public comments on such issues, however soundly formulated, having been submitted to the applicant may not be transmitted to the Inspector for further consideration. I am particularly grateful for your direction towards Sec47 of the Planning Act 2008 and the reference to the area of public consultation, “living in the vicinity of the land”. In this context what does this actually mean? For example, could it relate to the HSEs consultation distances (CD)or should it reflect the revised “Hazard Range” as determined by the Installations “Safety Report”. Some clarity would be helpful as to the term (vicinity) in respect of the possible impact on the wider area of residential properties that this public consultation should embrace. Thank you once again Yours sincerely
Dear Mr Webb Thank you for your email. The purpose of the Preliminary Environmental Report (PEIR) is to enable consultees (both specialist and non-specialist) to understand the likely environmental effects of the Proposed Development and help to inform their consultation responses on the Proposed Development during the pre-application stage. It is defined in s.12(2)(b) of the EIA Regulations as information which: (a) has been compiled by the applicant; and (b) is reasonably required for the consultation bodies to develop an informed view of the likely significant environmental effects of the development (and of any associated development)’ The Applicant recently published an update on their project website concerning their plans for formal pre-application consultation which they intend to commence in early 2021: [attachment 1] In this update the Applicant states that the formal Environmental Information Scoping Opinion received from the Planning Inspectorate has been used to continue to progress the design of the project and to develop their programme of environmental assessment, (along with the responses received during the 2019 informal consultation and ongoing discussion with various stakeholders) and therefore this should inform any consultation documents provided by the Applicant during their statutory consultation next year. Please note that an Inspector (Examining Authority) will not be appointed until the application for this project is accepted for Examination. To answer your second query, it is for the Applicant to determine during the Pre-Application period which parties fall under the category of s47 (‘people living within the vicinity of the land’), and for them to then justify their compliance within their application for development consent. The Applicant is expected to consult with relevant local authorities, statutory consultees and those owning or having an interest in the land that would be affected by the proposed development. The Applicant should have regard to guidance as well as the views of relevant local authorities on their proposed consultation with the local community under s47. I hope that this has been of help to you. Kind regards

17 September 2020
John Webb
Oikos Marine & South Side Development
Enquiry received via email
Good Afternoon, I have a relatively straightforward question that I have ben unable to find the answer for on your website. I have been asked to look at a potential large scale solar park. I understand that if the export capacity is 50MW is will be a NSIP. What I am seeking advice on is the cumulative export capacity of a proposed solar park and an existing one. If the new solar park will have an export capacity of say 45MW but is adjacent to an existing site of 10MW will it be considered to be a NSIP? The two solar parks may share the same grid connection point but would be operated and managed separately. There would be no physical connection between the two, i.e each solar park would be fenced separately. Many thanks. Kind regards,
Dear Helen, Thank you for your email about whether or not the proposed 45MW solar park you refer to in your email of 10 September would constitute an extension of an existing solar park. The definition of extension is set out in Section 235(1) of PA 2008 which states that, in relation to a generating station, it has the meaning given by Section 36(9) of the Electricity Act 1989. That provision of the Electricity Act states that, ““extension”, in relation to a generating station, includes the use by the person operating the station of any land or area of waters (wherever situated) for a purpose directly related to the generation of electricity by that station…”. You state that the 45MW solar park would be operated and managed separately to the existing 10MW generating station, however, you would need to clarify whether that is consistent with the definition in the Electricity Act that refers to “the person operating the station”. For example, if it was the same entity seeking to operate both stations independently of one another. You may also wish to explore the significance of the shared grid connection in that context and the ability of the solar parks to operate independently of one another. An applicant will need to satisfy itself, taking its own legal advice if appropriate, as to whether or not its proposal is an Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP). The Inspectorate cannot provide you with a legal opinion on this. 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”. You may also wish to make enquiries with the relevant local planning authority about their willingness to accept an application for planning permission for your proposed solar park. Yours sincerely

17 September 2020
Corylus Planning and Environmental Ltd - Helen Donnelly
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting prior to Submission
Please see attached.

17 September 2020
Highways England - anon.
A428 Black Cat to Caxton Gibbet Road Improvement scheme
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
A47 Projects Programme Update Meeting
Please see attached.

16 September 2020
Highways England - anon.
A47 - A11 Thickthorn Junction
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please find attached a note in response to your letter, dated 23rd July, which you might like to share with your Chief Executive. I apologise for the length but as you will see a large portion of it is an extract from LRCH's latest Scoping Opinion. I think it is important that this is placed 'on the record' as it is very evident that the Applicant has been less than honest with The Inspectorate and its Officers, MHCLG and the taxpayer! The only section I would like a response to is the last paragraph as many people cannot understand why this was not included in your Scoping Opinion when it was so evident in the various responses. I am extremely grateful for the time you have taken to deal with this enquiry but I think the one lesson that has to be learnt from this 'commercial NSIP' is that the facts have to be true and not made up as the Applicant goes along.
Thank you for your email of 7 August 2020 regarding the application by London Resort Company Holdings Limited for an order granting development consent for the London Resort Project, specifically in relation to the Planning Inspectorate’s letter of 23 July 2020 in response to your email of 15 July 2020. We value your comments in explaining the relationship between Peninsula Management Group (PMG) and parties potentially affected by the proposed development and that PMG has no legal and professional advice concerning land acquisition and the compulsory acquisition process. In relation to your comment on the Secretary of State direction under s35 of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008), can you please provide clarity as to which meeting note/s express that the project would meet ‘NSIP criteria in terms of economic regeneration, cross-council boundary issues etc’. We are unable to find this specific advice in any of the meeting notes published under s51 of PA2008. In relation to your comments on participation in the scoping process, we reiterate our position that the scoping opinion adopted by the Inspectorate on behalf of the Secretary of State is formed on the basis of information provided by the Applicant. The Applicant has a statutory duty to have regard to all consultation responses received and this should be demonstrated in the Consultation Report as part of their DCO application. However, if you feel your comments are not being taken into account, I would advise you to raise these with your local authority, Dartford Borough Council and set out why you think the Applicant is failing to conduct its consultation properly. Your comments should be taken into account when the local authority sends the Inspectorate its comments on whether the Applicant has fulfilled its consultation duties. The local authority’s comments on the Applicant’s consultation will be taken into account when the Acceptance Inspector makes their decision whether to accept the application for Examination. In relation to your comments on the land required for the project, the applicant has revised their project site boundary throughout the pre-application process. The applicant has launched the statutory consultation phase of their project. Earlier rounds on non-statutory consultation are used by the applicant to help inform the final project; the statutory consultation exercise should be considered as the official consultation in regard to any submitted application for a Development Consent Order. This statutory consultation exercise is taking place between 27 July – 21 September 2020. All parties that wish to put their views to the applicant are strongly advised to do so at this opportunity. Further information and documentation can be found on the applicants website: [attachment 1] The site meeting that took place on 10 November 2015, which included viewing the Manor Way Industrial Estate is documented in a meeting note: [attachment 2];ipcadvice=e4922a0577 No specific information is included in this meeting note in regard to the industrial estate and we cannot speculate as to any discussion that may have taken place between parties. As there is no documented evidence of questions being asked about the impact on the businesses, then we must conclude that none were asked. In determining if the application is of a sufficient standard to be accepted for examination, the Inspectorate can only make a decision on the final application submitted. In response to your query on the content of the Scoping Opinion, it should be noted that section 7 of the Scoping Report does describe the displacement of existing businesses and jobs as a matter that would be included in the assessment of socio-economic effects resulting from the Proposed Development. The Inspectorate’s advice (see section 4.1 of the Scoping Opinion, items 4.12 and 4.13) requested clarity regarding the study area and receptors to be included in the socio-economic assessment. This encompasses all the receptors likely to experience significant socio-economic effects. The Applicant was also advised to agree the receptors with the relevant consultation bodies, which would include the local authorities and Ebbsfleet Development Corporation.

10 September 2020
Bramwell Associates - Dan Bramwell
The London Resort
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Dear Louise, Please see this speedy response from Oikos Community Relations to my email dated 12th July 2020 from which I have made the following observations. Oikos agree that effective engagement is a critical element of the DCO process and express that the SoCC is essentially a plan of activities undertaken to consult local communities. As to content of this engagement however they state that:- The SoCC itself does not, therefore, include detailed information about the proposal, the likely implications of the project, nor does it summarise the consultation undertaken to date or the views of the local community. Information relating to the project and its likely impacts and implications is included in the Preliminary Environmental information Report. It is not clear how this can be regarded as effective engagement if the Statement of Community Consultation does not reflect the unique circumstances of the community/area of Canvey Island. If this is indeed the correct procedure, it seems that the SoCC event undertaken by Oikos will only take the form of a Presentation and not a Consultation. Those with the concerns that have been highlighted as Local Issues, need not therefore partake in the process but instead await the production of a “Preliminary Environmental information Report.” As such Public Safety concerns effectively become an afterthought. This does not seem to correspond with the spirit of Advice note 8.1 “3. Statutory consultation with the local community This is required and is usually carried out nearer to the submission of the application. At this stage the project is likely to be more defined, although the developer should retain the flexibility to alter the development based on consultation feedback. The developer is under a legal duty to demonstrate that they have had regard to consultation responses at this stage, although that isn’t to say that they must agree with all of the views put to them in the responses recieved.” What is apparent is that it is not in the applicants interest to discuss the increased Ramifications of Major Accidents, residual or otherwise, nor is it the interest of Castle Point Borough Council to take ownership of Societal Risk when it impacts on their Local Planning aspirations. It is therefore imperative that public participation of the examination of this project is encouraged and I am extremely grateful for your assistance with this matter. Yours sincerely
Dear Mr Webb Thank you for your email, and I apologise again for the delay in replying. The Statement of Community Consultation (SoCC) is a statement setting out how the applicant’s consultation activities within the areas impacted by the proposed development will be conducted, including details of public consultation events (e.g. dates, locations, which documents will be available to view at the event etc) and how views on the proposed development can be submitted. An example of a SoCC for an earlier port development nationally significant infrastructure project (NSIP) can be viewed here: [attachment 1]. The applicant is statutorily required to consult with each local authority within the vicinity of the proposed development on the intended content of this statement, and to have regard to any responses provided. The views of the affected local authorities on the applicant’s intended consultation with the community must be reflected in the final version of the SoCC. The Preliminary Environmental Information Report is often provided in draft form at public consultation events for review, after which comments can be submitted to the applicant. On submitting their application for development consent, the applicant must demonstrate that they have met all statutory requirements necessary for their application to be accepted for Examination, which includes the requirements relating to the Statement of Community Consultation, as set out in s47 of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended) . If the applicant has not demonstrated in their application that they have met these statutory requirements, their application may not be accepted for Examination. During the Pre-Application period, the Planning Inspectorate will provide advice to the applicant on the statutory requirements that they must meet in order for their application for development consent to be accepted, as outlined above. I hope that this email has been of help to you. Please contact us if you have any further queries. Yours sincerely

09 September 2020
John Webb
Oikos Marine & South Side Development
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached Meeting Note

09 September 2020
London Resort Company Holdings
The London Resort
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting and review of draft documents
Please see attached.

08 September 2020
Highways England - anon.
A47 Blofield to North Burlingham
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Please see attached.
Please see attached.

07 September 2020
Boston Alternative Energy Facility Limited - anon.
Boston Alternative Energy Facility (BAEF)
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Please see attached
Please see attached

04 September 2020
Longfield Solar Farm - anon.
Longfield Solar Farm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached.

01 September 2020
North Lincolnshire Green Energy Park Limited - anon.
North Lincolnshire Green Energy Park
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Please see attached.
Please see attached.

01 September 2020
Highways England
Lower Thames Crossing
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please see attached.
Please see attached.

26 August 2020
Marianne Fellowes
East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please see attached.
Please see attached.

26 August 2020
Marianne Fellowes
East Anglia ONE North Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Compensation Workshop for ‘Project Seabird’ and derogation under the Habitats Regulations with Ørsted, Natural England, the Marine Management Organisation, Defra, The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds
Please see attached meeting note

11 August 2020
Ørsted - anon.
Hornsea Project Four Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Compensation Workshop for ‘Project Seabird’ and derogation under the Habitats Regulations with Ørsted, Natural England, the Marine Management Organisation, Defra, The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds
Please see attached meeting note

11 August 2020
Ørsted - anon.
Hornsea Project Three Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via email
Dear Sirs I am trying to clarify procedure. If a local council gives planning permission for groundwork investigation related to a NIP and groundworks are clearly for a larger project should the local council reject the application? I presume the local council should follow the NPS? Kind regards Graham Fraley
Dear Mr Fraley, Thank you for your email. Whilst the Planning Inspectorate cannot comment on any Local Authority’s planning or decision, it might be that some of the groundwork currently being conducted could be part of survey work. If the works are in relation to a potential Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP), providing your comments to the Local Authority may be considered as part of the Local Authority’s response on the project; if an application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate. Please see this Advice Note on how the NSIP process is conducted. We would advise you to contact your Local Authority for further information on the current works and provide you with the relevant advice. Yours Sincerely, Paige Hall

10 August 2020
Graham Fraley
General
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
My family and I live in the small Georgian town of Wisbech and are strongly opposed to the proposal to build an incinerator in the town, 1 mile from our children's school and adding to the significant traffic problems that we already have. I look forward to receiving your answers to my questions below: Over what timescale do you expect to get to 50 megawatts? How much waste will this involve to deliver 50 megawatts? Over what timescale do they expect to get to 50 megawatts? How much waste will this involve to deliver 50 megawatts? Why is proximity to three schools and The Eye Clinic the best site given the volume of lorries, impact on air pollution, and odour concerns amongst others? Why did the developer ignore the planning inspector and issue this scoping report over the Christmas holiday period? Why has the developer failed to follow best practice in developing a proposal in consultation with the community, when consultation did not begin until Spring 2020 at which point Covid-19 hit? How many lorries a week will be required, and how far will they be travelling including from surrounding counties? Why is flood risk land suitable for a waste incinerator when the Environment Agency has raised concerns at house building on such land? What is the risk of contamination in the event of flooding? How would the incinerator plans impact on Wisbech Rail? What impact will the grid connection have on the local community, and is it part of the DCO? What land does the developer plan to compulsory purchase, on what basis, and from whom, in order to build an incinerator of the scale required for its designation as a national infrastructure project?
The proposed application by MWV Environment Ltd (the Applicant) is at the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) process. Therefore, the Planning Inspectorate is unable to consider representations about the merits of any application until it is accepted for Examination. The Planning Inspectorate also does not have the power to intervene in an Applicant’s pre-application programme. The process for applying for a Development Consent Order (DCO) is set out in the PA2008. The timing of the application’s programme is at the discretion of the Applicant. The Applicant is currently carrying out their first round of non-statutory consultation. Further rounds of consultation will take place and the Applicant will advertise these before they are due to commence. Therefore, I would encourage you to contact the Applicant directly with regard to your concerns. The Applicant has a statutory duty to have regard to all consultation responses received and this should be demonstrated in the Consultation Report which is part of their DCO application. However, if you feel your comments are not being taken into account, I would advise you to write to your local authority and set out why you think the Applicant is failing to conduct its consultation properly. Your comments should be taken into account when the local authority sends the Inspectorate its comments on whether the Applicant has fulfilled its consultation duties. The local authority’s comments on the Applicant’s consultation will be taken into account when the Acceptance Inspector makes their decision whether to accept the application for Examination. Should the DCO application be accepted by the Inspectorate for examination, the applicant has a duty to notify the local community when providing information on how to register as an Interested Party for the purpose of the process. The process under the PA2008 has been designed to allow members of the public and statutory stakeholders to participate in examination of all DCO applications so that anyone interested in the proposed developments, their potential impacts and any relevant matters can be fully engaged in the examination process. Once the examination begins, the Examining Authority will assess all information submitted in the application documents and will consider whether the Applicant has provided the necessary level of information. The Planning Inspectorate has produced several Advice Notes to help provide an overview of the PA2008 process and the opportunities to get involved. They are available at the following link: [attachment 1] The following are 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’. Please be assured that anyone interested in the proposed developments, their potential impacts and any planning matters can be fully engaged in the examination process. A copy of your correspondence has been placed on our records and will be presented to the Inspector at acceptance together with the application documents and Local Authorities’ comments on the Applicant’s consultation. With regard to the current Coronavirus (COVID-19) situation, please refer to the Planning Inspectorate’s published guidance which will be updated as the situation develops. [attachment 2] We have also published a Frequently Asked Questions document regarding Pre-application consultation and this can be viewed on our website here: [attachment 3] 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.

07 August 2020
Lucy Moody
Medworth Energy from Waste Combined Heat and Power Facility
Enquiry received via email
Subject: Solar PV NSIP planning Dear James, We have been in touch before in relation to the requirements for NSIP on solar PV projects. Horus is starting the development of 3 single and independent projects, that will share a grid connection at the DNO level (but not at project level). Please find enclosed a brief presentation of the proposed development. We would like to ask you a confirmation that we can progress the planning for the projects with the LPA and that the projects do not fall under the NSIP regime. We remain at your disposal if you need any additional information. Thanks in advance for your support. Regards, Stefano Romanin | CEO Horus Capital 20 North Audley Street London, W1K 6LX, UK [email protected] www.horuscapital.co.uk www.horusenergy.co.uk
Dear Mr Romanin, Thank you for your query of the 24 July2020 regarding the proposed three solar PV sites, located at two disused airfield sites in the vicinity of Eaton upon Tern and High Ercall in Shropshire. 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 you decide 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, you assert that the solar PV installations on the three sites will operate independently of each other and this is indeed pertinent to considering whether all or some of the sites can be considered as different generating stations. It is also pertinent that the solar parks will share a connection to the DNO and 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 two of the sites, Peplow and Eaton upon Tern solar parks, 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. Yours sincerely Mark Wilson

05 August 2020
Horus Capital - Stefano Romanin
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached.

04 August 2020
Bradwell B - anon.
Bradwell B new nuclear power station
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached meeting note

29 July 2020
London Luton Airport Limited - anon.
London Luton Airport Expansion
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please see attached
Please see attached

28 July 2020
on behalf of Bean Residents Association - Linda Collins
The London Resort
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached.

28 July 2020
Sunnica Ltd - anon.
Sunnica Energy Farm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Sent: 08 July 2020 06:46 To: Enquiries Subject: NSIP - Anglia Water Cambridge Waste Application Good Morning PINs; I am writing to you about the Anglia Water Cambridge Waste Water Application ( Sewage works ) . Am I correct that an NSIP must benefit 500,000 people. I cant believe this project meets the National Project status and 500,000 people. Have Anglia Water shared the maths with PINs and shown they meet the 500,000 people threashold. I assume 500,000 target is on the opening of the project not what might be in 50/100 years. How are developers meant to show they meet the 500,000 people threshold. Take Care Helen
Cc: NI Enquiries Subject: RE: NSIP - Anglia Water Cambridge Waste Application Dear Ms Seamarks Thank you for your email. I apologise for the delay in our reply. An application for a waste water treatment plant will be considered as a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project under section 14(o) of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) if it meets the criteria in section 29(1) that it will be (a) in England and (b) is expected to have a capacity exceeding a population equivalent of 500,000 (when constructed). If the application for the Cambridge Waste Water sewage works is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, one of the factors the Secretary of State will consider under section 55 of PA2008 is whether or not the application meets that criteria. It is for the applicant to demonstrate that they have met the relevant thresholds. Regards Siân Evans Case Manager National Infrastructure Planning The Planning Inspectorate Helpline: 0303 444 5000 Email: [email protected] Web: [attachment 1] (National Infrastructure Planning) Web: www.gov.uk/government/organisations/planning-inspectorate (The Planning Inspectorate) Twitter: @PINSgov This communication does not constitute legal advice Please view our Privacy Notice before sending information to the Planning Inspectorate.

27 July 2020
Helen Seamarks
Cambridge Waste Water Treatment Plant Relocation
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
FOA: Sarah Richards, Chief Executive, The Planning Inspectorate In the absence of an e-mail address, I should be grateful if you could forward the following e-mail to The Chief Executive and please confirm receipt. Many thanks. Dear Secretary I am writing to you in your capacity as Secretary MHCLG and apologise for using your MP address but there is no other evident way to contact you. I have very grave concerns about many aspects of the above project, some of which have already been stated in correspondence to The Planning Inspectorate Case Officers and others which are becoming evident by the day. I am extremely disappointed with all the responses I am receiving as none of The Planning Inspectorate Case Officers are taking any notice of them and are literally 'running scared' of what is being said. They are not posting s51 advice on the website and not responding to serious claims made by e-mail. Hence I have to raise these issues to the most senior level as investigative journalists are already phoning me about what appears to be 'an insider job' project and another political scandal. I have lodged an FoI request with The Planning Inspectorate concerning the initial Direction Letter categorising the project as an NSIP and various matters about the Applicant's first EIA Scoping Report, lodged November 2014. I have also asked whether or not representatives from The Inspectorate visited the proposed site to assess the veracity of the material contained therein. I am awaiting responses. Whether they did or not, they will notice that the Scoping Report and, more importantly, the Applicant's second EIA Scoping Report, submitted 17th June 2020, are both totally inaccurate and deceptive to say the least. In fact the Applicant has almost intentionally tried to avoid admitting that there are major industrial estates on part of the site which could mean the elimination of approx 140 businesses with over 1,500 jobs without much prospect of them being relocated nearby. Furthermore, I have raised this matter on many occasions with The Inspectorate as the Applicant has failed to engage fully with these businesses, the last 'constructive' meeting being OVER TWO YEARS AGO but they have failed to respond to many questions since then. More importantly, I have advised your Officer (Helen Lancaster) of these serious errors and am advised I have no right to comment on the Scoping Report - A SERIOUS PROCESS ERROR if landowners are not allowed to rectify such 'untruths'. I must request that in the interests of these businesses, the truth and full facts must be addressed urgently and immediately to prevent any further waste of civil servant time and taxpayer funds. If the Applicant can't disclose the truth to The Planning Inspectorate their credibility to front such a project must be challenged, especially as they have no funds and, according to various official and published sources, they are not to be trusted financially!
Please see attached.

23 July 2020
Dan Bramwell
The London Resort
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Please see attached meeting note.
Please see attached meeting note.

23 July 2020
Anglian Water - anon.
Cambridge Waste Water Treatment Plant Relocation
Enquiry received via email
Helen Many thanks for your e-mail. You are obviously not as familiar with LRCH and its team as I am. For two years I have been asking them for information, responses to e-mails and update meetings but no reply! Then suddenly last week they wanted everybody to attend a Zoom meeting call with just 48 hours notice but most couldn't manage it as they were already in meetings, abroad on business or otherwise unavailable. However, these issues were raised during the meeting: • Why weren't the Estates included in the Scoping Report? They didn't know why not and couldn't answer the reasons on why the Estates were not included within the application submission back in 2014 because they didn't work there! They did say they are amending the Report and re-submitting it - not good enough! They need to do the total site assessment exercise again....and they are not aware of the horrific contamination and other issues already existing on the site • During the Zoom call they also told us that the site could well be sold on to another developer if they are successful with the DCO Application but they can't guarantee any Option agreements if any were to be agreed and hence the PMG businesses and landowners are facing even further uncertainty . Unfortunately, all of this is impacting on businesses, already struggling after eight years of their dithering and also having to cope with the effects of the virus, HS1, Brexit etc. I would have hoped that The Planning Inspectorate would be an effective independent organisation capable of ensuring that all parties concerns are addressed so that the Applicant is given robust and constructive advice to progress their application. I understand your hands are tied so time to change the system and expose its flaws. Many thanks and please publish this as a formal response to the 's51 advice' - people must get the full story. I live in Bristol and as stated many times previously am more than willing to attend any meeting if it would be advantageous. Best wishes Dan
Dear Mr Bramwell Thank you for your email addressed to my colleague in the Environmental Services Team. Please note during the pre-application stage, the Inspectorate is not required to publish any responses it receives to s51 advice unless further s51 advice is given to that response. Therefore, as previously advised, please continue to direct your concerns directly to the Applicant and where you are not satisfied, to raise your concerns with the local authority. In the meantime, the Inspectorate will continue to encourage the Applicant to engage with parties throughout its pre-application stage and should the application be accepted for examination, you will be provided with an opportunity to register as an Interested Party. Apologies this email was in reply to the below, I will reply to your later emails in due course. Kind regards Liam London Resort Case Team

22 July 2020
Dan Bramwell
The London Resort
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
My wife and I have both received a letter asking for a contact email in relation to the application by North Somerset Council for an order granting development consent for the Portishead Branch Line - MetroWest Phase 1. I'm writing to ask that you remove our details from your records as we are in the process of selling our property so will no longer be directly impacted by the development.
The Applicant’s Book of Reference (the document identifying ‘Affected Persons’ whose rights will be affected by Compulsory Acquisition required to construct and operate the scheme) lists both yourself and your wife due to your properties’ proximity to the proposed Portishead Branch Line - MetroWest Phase 1. The Planning Inspectorate is legislatively required to correspond with all Affected Persons for the duration of the application until the Secretary of State’s decision is issued. I will forward your email to the Applicant so it’s aware of the situation. It would be helpful if you could confirm again once you have formally left the property so we can temporarily amend our records to ‘Owner / Occupier’ until those persons have been identified.

22 July 2020
An Affected Person
Portishead Branch Line - MetroWest Phase 1
Enquiry received via email
Could someone explain why work has started on the construction of the rail compounds, e.g. at Sheepway Farm; has other work started of which I am not aware? Is this DCO application, which is still subject to the ExA gathering evidence and facilitating public consultation, in effect (however it is presented) a retrospective application to approve matters already decided?
The Portishead Branch Line - MetroWest Phase 1 scheme is currently in the ‘Pre-Examination stage’ with the Examining Authority’s (ExA) six-month Examination yet to start. Once the ‘Preliminary Meeting’ is held, the Examination will formally begin and the ExA can begin to test and probe the evidence via written and oral questioning. Construction of the development cannot commence until after the SoS’s decision has been made. The Planning Act 2008 regime has no scope to consent Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects retrospectively. It might be that some groundwork conducted on site by the Applicant at this stage could be a part of the scheme’s ongoing survey work programme or similar. Please contact the applicant, James Willcock at North Somerset Council directly who will be able to answer your concerns: [email protected]. If you still have concerns once the Examination has started, you may wish to bring this to the attention of the ExA via written or oral submissions.

22 July 2020
Stuart Tarr
Portishead Branch Line - MetroWest Phase 1
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please see attached
Please see attached

21 July 2020
on behalf of Swanscombe & Greenhithe Town Council - Graham Blew
The London Resort
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting.
Please see attached.

16 July 2020
Ørsted - anon.
Hornsea Project Four Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please see attached
Please see attached

13 July 2020
on behalf of Buglife - Jamie Robins
The London Resort
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting with the Applicant.
Please see attached note.

08 July 2020
Highways England - anon.
A12 Chelmsford to A120 Widening Scheme
response has attachments
Received: 1 July 2020 I refer back to your e-mail to me of 9th March 2020. There is one general point I wish to raise with you and some specific issues which it is essential are noted on the application case file and The Planning Inspectorate must consider. I registered to receive updates on this project from The Planning Inspectorate on 17th June 2017 but for some reason your system is failing to advise me when new documents are added to the website project file. Luckily I check the website regularly so am able to pick up any important additions such as the EIA Scoping Reports! Reference these reports, I trust you realise and pick-up on the flaws within them. Issues I wish to raise and upon which I expect the The Planning Inspectorate to revert to the Applicant are: SITE SELECTION I refer to the Applicant's Scoping Report Table 4.1 on Page 38. This is severely flawed as under the 'Swanscombe, North Kent' entry it states that both 'Land Use' and 'Regeneration & Economic Benefits' are positive. A significantly important element of this land (approx 40 acres at entrance to site) is not readily available for development as it is the home to approx 140 businesses, employing circa 1,000-1,500 employees with many offsite businesses also reliant on trading with them. The Applicant has failed to include this in their assessment (see also below - Estates). There were plans afoot by some of the existing landowners to invest in the estates but because of all the uncertainty these had to be put on hold. This would have significantly increased the local employment base so to claim it is suitable for regeneration with economic benefits is not accurate. ESTATES The Planning Inspectorate has been aware of these industrial estates (Northfleet Industrial, Manor Way, Kent Kraft and Rod End) for some years. However, when the Applicant applied for NSIP status for the project, to the best off my knowledge, no mention was made of them and the likely impact on the businesses. Furthermore, the fourth public consultation exercise undertaken by LRCH failed to include them but they were re-instated into their plans AFTER the consultation exercise was completed. It is interesting to note that the Applicant is at last confirming they have every intention of using the CPO process to take control of the required land, despite their then Chief Executive re-assuring the businesses at a meeting with them on 12th June 2017 that they would only use the CPO process as a last resort. There has been a draft document circulated by LRCH suggesting an option agreement but this will mean many businesses/landowners losing large sums of money, is riddled with flaws and, despite it being circulated TWO years ago, LRCH has yet to respond to any comments made by the businesses. The ultimate consequences of this ineptitude is that many businesses won't survive having already gone through the effects of HS1, Brexit, Coronavirus and now this! ENGAGEMENT The last constructive engagement between LRCH and the businesses was two years ago although some communication has been received in recent days. Over this time, PMG, representing the businesses, has sent endless e-mails to LRCH requesting responses to comments made on their offer, meetings, project updates etc but there has NEVER been any response. Thus in your e-mail to me dated 9th March you say ask the Applicant - how can one ask an Applicant if they are refusing to engage with parties impacted by their ill-thought out plans? Furthermore, LRCH has been constantly advised that it needs to engage with the individual businesses who have been affected by the implications of The London Resort project, many for eight years and more since the project was first suggested. Over this time the businesses have suffered blight, impacted trading, trouble raising finance for trading due to the uncertainties and some landowners have lost out on significant business deals which could have created thousands of additional jobs. Other businesses have already left due to the uncertainties. If LRCH was really serious about acquiring the site it has had ample opportunities to purchase elements of the estates - and make money to cover their investments. It has been made abundantly clear to LRCH that PMG does not represent the businesses but is in existence to give them guidance. It is up to LRCH to identify all the businesses and landowners and PMG has offered its support. However, LRCH has to date asked Argent, Savills and now Land Referencing Services (LRS) to undertake the compilation of a business and landowners register, only then will they be able to start any sort of negotiations. Again little has happened to date! This must be completed before any further progress can be made with the DCO Application or the Applicant has failed to undertake basic engagement/consultation activities. SUMMARY In the absence of any meaningful direct engagement with the Applicant, I hope The Planning Inspectorate will take onboard the above comments on behalf of PMG to ensure the businesses, employees, communities and the taxpayer is fully represented in consideration of the Applicant's performance and in responding to the EIA Scoping Report. Received: 6 July 2020 I must express my disappointment that there has been no acknowledgement of my e-mail of last week, as below, and it has not yet been posted to The Planning Inspectorate (NSIP) website as requested. Please can you acknowledge receipt as a matter of urgency. I should also be grateful if you can confirm that the EIA Scoping Reports published online for the above project are the final copies for consideration by all parties. I have to advise my Clients as to whether it is justified to consider a formal review of the process as the inclusion of the Industrial Estates was not included in the initial application for NSIP status to the then Secretary of State and is still missing in these latest Reports, a major omission that cannot have gone unnoticed by The Planning Inspectorate. I request an immediate response to this matter.
Thank you for your enquiry. I can confirm that the version of the Scoping Report published on our website is the final version. However, we will not be able to take your comments into account in the Scoping Opinion since the list of consultees is largely prescribed by law. Our Advice Note 3 ‘EIA Notification and Consultation’ provides more information and is available at this link: [attachment 1] We advise you to consult the developer directly about your concerns.

07 July 2020
Bramwell Associates - Dan Bramwell
The London Resort
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I refer back to your e-mail to me of 9th March 2020. There is one general point I wish to raise with you and some specific issues which it is essential are noted on the application case file and The Planning Inspectorate must consider. I registered to receive updates on this project from The Planning Inspectorate on 17th June 2017 but for some reason your system is failing to advise me when new documents are added to the website project file. Luckily I check the website regularly so am able to pick up any important additions such as the EIA Scoping Reports! Reference these reports, I trust you realise and pick-up on the flaws within them. Issues I wish to raise and upon which I expect the The Planning Inspectorate to revert to the Applicant are: SITE SELECTION I refer to the Applicant's Scoping Report Table 4.1 on Page 38. This is severely flawed as under the 'Swanscombe, North Kent' entry it states that both 'Land Use' and 'Regeneration & Economic Benefits' are positive. A significantly important element of this land (approx 40 acres at entrance to site) is not readily available for development as it is the home to approx 140 businesses, employing circa 1,000-1,500 employees with many offsite businesses also reliant on trading with them. The Applicant has failed to include this in their assessment (see also below - Estates). There were plans afoot by some of the existing landowners to invest in the estates but because of all the uncertainty these had to be put on hold. This would have significantly increased the local employment base so to claim it is suitable for regeneration with economic benefits is not accurate. ESTATES The Planning Inspectorate has been aware of these industrial estates (Northfleet Industrial, Manor Way, Kent Kraft and Rod End) for some years. However, when the Applicant applied for NSIP status for the project, to the best off my knowledge, no mention was made of them and the likely impact on the businesses. Furthermore, the fourth public consultation exercise undertaken by LRCH failed to include them but they were re-instated into their plans AFTER the consultation exercise was completed. It is interesting to note that the Applicant is at last confirming they have every intention of using the CPO process to take control of the required land, despite their then Chief Executive re-assuring the businesses at a meeting with them on 12th June 2017 that they would only use the CPO process as a last resort. There has been a draft document circulated by LRCH suggesting an option agreement but this will mean many businesses/landowners losing large sums of money, is riddled with flaws and, despite it being circulated TWO years ago, LRCH has yet to respond to any comments made by the businesses. The ultimate consequences of this ineptitude is that many businesses won't survive having already gone through the effects of HS1, Brexit, Coronavirus and now this! ENGAGEMENT The last constructive engagement between LRCH and the businesses was two years ago although some communication has been received in recent days. Over this time, PMG, representing the businesses, has sent endless e-mails to LRCH requesting responses to comments made on their offer, meetings, project updates etc but there has NEVER been any response. Thus in your e-mail to me dated 9th March you say ask the Applicant - how can one ask an Applicant if they are refusing to engage with parties impacted by their ill-thought out plans? Furthermore, LRCH has been constantly advised that it needs to engage with the individual businesses who have been affected by the implications of The London Resort project, many for eight years and more since the project was first suggested. Over this time the businesses have suffered blight, impacted trading, trouble raising finance for trading due to the uncertainties and some landowners have lost out on significant business deals which could have created thousands of additional jobs. Other businesses have already left due to the uncertainties. If LRCH was really serious about acquiring the site it has had ample opportunities to purchase elements of the estates - and make money to cover their investments. It has been made abundantly clear to LRCH that PMG does not represent the businesses but is in existence to give them guidance. It is up to LRCH to identify all the businesses and landowners and PMG has offered its support. However, LRCH has to date asked Argent, Savills and now Land Referencing Services (LRS) to undertake the compilation of a business and landowners register, only then will they be able to start any sort of negotiations. Again little has happened to date! This must be completed before any further progress can be made with the DCO Application or the Applicant has failed to undertake basic engagement/consultation activities. SUMMARY In the absence of any meaningful direct engagement with the Applicant, I hope The Planning Inspectorate will take onboard the above comments on behalf of PMG to ensure the businesses, employees, communities and the taxpayer is fully represented in consideration of the Applicant's performance and in responding to the EIA Scoping Report. I must express my disappointment that there has been no acknowledgement of my e-mail of last week, as below, and it has not yet been posted to The Planning Inspectorate (NSIP) website as requested. Please can you acknowledge receipt as a matter of urgency. I should also be grateful if you can confirm that the EIA Scoping Reports published online for the above project are the final copies for consideration by all parties. I have to advise my Clients as to whether it is justified to consider a formal review of the process as the inclusion of the Industrial Estates was not included in the initial application for NSIP status to the then Secretary of State and is still missing in these latest Reports, a major omission that cannot have gone unnoticed by The Planning Inspectorate.
Thank you for your enquiry. I can confirm that the version of the Scoping Report published on our website is the final version. However, we will not be able to take your comments into account in the Scoping Opinion since the list of consultees is largely prescribed by law. Our Advice Note 3 ‘EIA Notification and Consultation’ provides more information and is available at this link: [attachment 1] We advise you to consult the developer directly about your concerns.

07 July 2020
Bramwell Associates - anon.
The London Resort
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached Meeting Note

06 July 2020
MVV Environment Ltd
Medworth Energy from Waste Combined Heat and Power Facility
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting with the Applicant
Please see attached meeting note

02 July 2020
Highways England - anon.
Lower Thames Crossing
Enquiry received via email
Dear Louise, Thank you for your quick and informative response. There has already been a public consultation undertaken by Oikos at the Paddocks Community Centre on Canvey Island, where strong public concerns were expressed at that time. There are several of us taking an interest, who have not seen a “Statement of Community Consultation” reflecting the unique circumstances of Canvey Island. The Island’s population of approximately 40,000 is accommodated in the high-density development within the residential and commercial areas. Historically residential provision has been undertaken on a piecemeal basis and not strategically planned, leading to incremental development in and around the COMAH sites on Canvey Island, some within consultation distances all within the hazard range. Canvey Islanders, blissfully unaware of the risk and ramification of an industrial accident such as a BLEVE (Boiling Liquid Expanding Vapour Explosion) or (Unconfined Vapour Cloud Explosions) residual or otherwise, emanating from the Major Hazardous Sites. The Community are being asked to trust that CPBC’s Cabinet Members and not the Hazardous Substance Authority, have the relevant expertise required to secure the communities safety and that all appropriate emergency planning logistics are in place. Canvey islanders are perhaps not fully aware of the challenges presented that come from living below sea level. Although the risk is reduced by sea defences those defences are in constant need of maintenance and improving in line with global warming. The flooding of a defended area, be it via a breach or overtopping, is described as having a catastrophic outcome. The issue of surface water flooding is however more apparent, with the urgent need to improve the control and removal of surface water due to inadequate and poorly maintained drainage infrastructure. The complicated management and the lack of pumping capacity against tidal influence is an additional problem. It is not unreasonable to suggest that our local authority has not expressed fully their overall knowledge of local issues. It has been reasoned that this is because of the need, not to create an unduly atmosphere of fear of pending disasters, or the subsequent devaluation of property. It needs to be recognised that by registering as an Interested Party, taking part in representation, highlighting such points of concern, would put individuals in line for criticism from the very members of the community, that the Local Authority have failed to protect. Having said that, there are community members that wish to register as an interested party so that the community’s concerns are expressed. Can I therefore request, that we be informed immediately the Planning Inspectorate accepts this proposal to hugely increase the storage capacity of hazardous materials, so that application for registration can be made well in time for the deadline. Louise thanks once again for your assistance, your further thoughts and guidance is very much appreciated. Yours Sincerely, John Webb
Dear Mr Webb Thank you for your email. The applicant’s Statement of Community Consultation (SoCC) will form part of their Pre-Application statutory consultation activities as per s47 of the Planning Act 2008, and has not yet been made public. We advise that you contact the Applicant directly for updates on their public consultation activities, as well as to inform them of your concerns for the proposed development as outlined below. If the application is submitted and accepted for Examination we advise that you include these concerns in your representation to register as an Interested Party with as much detail as possible, so that they can form part of the Examining Authority’s Examination of the proposed development. The Planning Inspectorate’s role during the Pre-Application stage is primarily to act in an advisory capacity to the Applicant in preparing their application documents for submission. When the application is submitted, the Planning Inspectorate will review all documents provided as part of the application to ensure that the Applicant has sufficiently fulfilled their statutory requirements, including their consultation activities with the public. The Planning Inspectorate is not able to contact individual parties as per your request below, however by registering for email updates via the project webpage you will be notified straightaway once the application for the Oikos Port Development project has been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, when a decision is made on whether to accept the application for Examination, and when the registration for Interested Parties is open. Yours sincerely Louise Evans

01 July 2020
John Webb
Oikos Marine & South Side Development
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Please see attached.
Please see attached.

29 June 2020
Highways England
A47 North Tuddenham to Easton
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I refer to your letter dated 11 May 2020, described as a ‘progress note’ and which was circulated to all Interested Parties, Statutory Parties and Other Persons. The letter covers a number of matters but I wish to focus on the topic of the pre application consultation exercise. The letter contains the following observation: We have received a number of representations in relation to the formal acceptance of the application for Development Consent by the Planning Inspectorate, and others in relation to the perceived adequacy of pre-application consultation by the Applicant. It may be useful for all parties to know that our current thinking is that both matters precede and therefore lie outside the remit of the Examination process, and it is therefore unlikely that we will consider them in detail during the Examination. In its Adequacy of Response letter dated 28 November 2019 (document AoC-016) Winchester City Council (WCC) raised concerns over the adequacy of the pre application consultation exercise. This concern was discounted and in the letter dated 12 December 2019 (doc PD-001) the Planning Inspectorate stated that the application was accepted for examination. The Section 55 Checklist (doc PD-002) was the only explanation available that in any way sought to explain the reasons behind the acceptance decision. Having noted its contents, WCC had outstanding questions and therefore raised the matter again in its Relevant Representation (doc RR-198) and was intending to raise it at the Preliminary Meeting. Given the above circumstances, WCC is therefore grateful that the Examination Panel has alerted us to the fact that consideration of this matter should precede the Examination. It is considered that there is sufficient time to raise this matter now with PINs as the application has not yet moved into the Examination Stage, a phase in the procedure which is clearly defined in Section 98 of the 2008 Planning Act. WCC is therefore taking this opportunity to seek clarification and a more detailed explanation of why PINS discounted its concerns over the pre application consultation exercise. The concerns of the council relate to the way Aquind has sought to fulfil its duties under Section 47 of the act (duty to consult the local community). The WCC letter Adequacy of Response (doc AoC-016) sets out in detail the concerns and what are regarded as the failures to comply with Section 47. To summarise, the council had concerns relating to the following: • A failure to appreciate that the application area is not uniform in nature and needed different and potentially novel approaches to consultation across it. • A failure to offer people reasonable access to hard copies of the details. • A failure to reach out and engage with the local community across the whole of the area potentially impacted by the proposed development. • A failure to explain to recipients of the consultation letter sent to the organisers of groups based at community centres in Denmead and Hambledon why they where being approached. • The failure to reach out to the local business community. The Council has been left confused by the apparent dismissal of its concerns in the Section 55 Checklist. In section 5 of the matrix, under the question “Have any Adequacy of Consultation Representations been received from ‘A’, ‘B’, ‘C’ and ‘D’ local authorities; and if so, do they confirm that the Applicant has complied with the duties under s42, s47 and s48?” it makes the following comment on the Winchester representations: Winchester City Council states within its AoCR: “Overall, Winchester City Council considers that the applicant has complied with its duties under Sections 42, & 48 of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended). Regarding Section 47, the council has concerns over the extent of the engagement with the local community which it feels could have been more inclusive.” The Council’s concerns regarding the Denmeat and Hambledon areas are noted, and there is applicable discussion in paragraph 8.4.1.4 of the Consultation Report (Doc 5.1). We note the Council’s concerns regarding a perceived lack of consultation with local businesses, and observation that it is felt that the consultation could have been more inclusive. The Council were consulted on the Statement of Community Consultation and the Applicant appears to have consulted in accordance with the commitments set out within the SoCC. Aquinds consultation report (Doc 5.1) para 8.4.1.4 reported above states: “It was subsequently realised that the distribution area did not include one stretch of the proposed onshore underground cable route along Hambledon Road In addition, the public exhibition event held at Lovedean Village Hall (the venue nearest the area affected) was attended by a significantly higher number of individuals than the events held at Waterlooville Community Centre and Milton Village Community Hall, thereby illustrating that the local community were well informed of the consultation. All these areas were included in the mailing area for the statutory consultation period in 2019 and all subsequent mailings”., or an area of land potentially affected by the Proposed Development in the Denmead area. However, the Applicant does not believe this impacted the ability of the local community to participate in the consultation, due to the extensive publicity conducted through other channels as detailed below in the remainder of Chapter 8. Doc 5.1 does not address all the specific concerns raised by WCC. Reading the above, if taken at face value, it appears to be saying notwithstanding any comments made by WCC, PINs accepts compliance with the regulations since Aquind undertook a consultation exercise in accordance with its written Statement of Community Consultation (SoCC). This is despite the fact that WCC considers the SoCC to be deficient for the reasons set out in its letter. In the circumstances and particularly with the concern raised by the local parish council a more thoughtful analysis of the points raised by WCC against the actions of Aquind was expected. I am therefore inviting you to explain in more detail why the specific issues raised by WCC where discounted, before the application moves on into the Examination Stage.
Thank you for your letter dated 26 May 2020, which has been forwarded to the Examining Authority (ExA). I apologise for the delay in responding to you. A copy will be published on the project webpage and added to the Examination Library (EL): [attachment 1]. In the meantime, as Case Manager for the project, I thought it would be helpful to respond to some of the points you have raised. In accordance with s51 of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008), please note that a copy of my response will be published to the project webpage. In relation to the adequacy of the Applicant’s consultation, and your response during the acceptance stage (EL reference AoC 016), I can assure you that your comments were fully considered when a decision was made on firstly, whether the Applicant complied with its statutory duties to consult, and secondly, on whether the application was of a satisfactory standard to proceed to Examination. As you have seen from the s55 acceptance checklist (EL reference PD-002), the checklist sets out the criteria for acceptance and provides an explanation against each and whilst noting comments raised by the Local Authorities, a judgement was made that the Applicant had fulfilled its statutory duties under sections 42, 45, 46, 47, 48 and 49 of the PA2008. Whilst the s55 checklist does not in your view contain the level of detail you consider it should, or provide the answers which you are seeking, the application was accepted for Examination on 12 December 2019 in accordance with the PA2008. Therefore, it must now proceed to Examination as that decision is final. There is no mechanism under the PA2008 for the decision to be re-visited, and the only way in which it could be overturned is through a successful Judicial Review. For this reason, the ExA is unlikely to consider any submissions relating to this during the Examination. 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.

26 June 2020
Winchester City Council - Ms Julie Pinnock Service Lead Built Environment
AQUIND Interconnector
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Dear Emily Having been informed by the Oikos Community Relations Team the following: - “Whilst writing, we would also like to take the opportunity to provide you with an update on the preparation timeframe for the OMSSD project. In light of the Covid-19 pandemic, it is clearly no longer possible for the project to proceed along the timeframe we originally programmed. This means that the statutory consultation period, which we originally envisaged taking place in early summer 2020, will not be going ahead as planned at that time” Being unaware that the Scoping Opinion process including statutory responses had been undertaken with the deadline being 7th May 2020. I am strongly of the opinion that whole process has subsequently been undermined in terms of the local community’s participation in the procedure. May I respectfully therefore request dispensation to express the following. The lack of opportunity for public consultation at this stage, has prompted this response to provide background information and overview of the Inspectorates Scoping Opinion and consultation responses. The primary objective being to ensure that public safety and well-being is foremost in all aspects of the (OMSSD) project. Oikos Site Storage History The proposed increase storage of hazardous materials represents a huge increase, in real terms, when consideration is given to the fact that a significant proportion of the Oikos storage site facility was operating under the Environment Agency “Pollution Prevention and Control Regulation 2000”, Permit Number VP3838LP issued 30/10/2007. Whereby a permitted grant for 237,750 tonnes annual throughput of a variety of waste raw material and fuel of a less volatile nature was processed. The point being made here is that the original tank capacity for the storage of highly hazardous materials was not being maintained for some considerable time at this facility. The argument that the recent application for renewal of licence ( Hazardous Substance Consent Ref CPT/3811/HAZ) to store at this site, represented reduction in previous storage capacities of highly volatile materials was not only questionable, it highlights that the real objective, as this application indicates, has been the further substantial increased storage capacity. In the understanding that the considerable increase in storage of hazardous materials does not necessarily equate to the increase in risk, the “Residual Risk” consequences imposed on the same community is however considerable. The consequential and totality of increased activity, human or otherwise, when handling the storage and distribution hazard material in this area of Canvey Island has increased the likelihood of an adverse event and thereby heightened the level of Societal Risk. The Applicants Scoping report at: - “2.18 Calor LPG Terminal - The Calor LPG terminal, located to the east of the Oikos Facility and the HBC site, is owned and operated by Calor Gas Ltd and adjoins the south-east corner of the Oikos Facility (as shown on Figure 2.2). The Calor terminal contains LPG storage tanks and benefits from a jetty that extends out into the River Thames. 2.19 Beyond the Calor LPG terminal and further to the east lies an existing waste-water treatment works, the Concord Rangers Football Club and Thorney Bay Caravan Park, which contains static caravans and mobile homes for both holiday use and permanent residential occupation” The significance of the “Calor Gas” site and the “Thorney Bay Caravan Park” in terms of Societal Risk needs to be fully explored. For reasons best known to themselves, the Calor Gas Company Ltd have seemingly failed to contribute towards this consultation process, however, they are the Domino site to the Oikos installation. The significant storage and transportation of LPG, to and from this Major Hazardous terminal, requires a stringent risk reduction safety regime. The Thorney Bay Caravan Park exists under licence issues by Castle Point Borough Council. The applicants scoping report at page 245 refers to planning applications 14/0620/FUL and CPT/707/11/OUT for consideration. What is clear however is that the “Thorney Bay” site owner has favoured the very popular concept of the now “Sandy Bay” Luxury Park Home Residential Development exclusively for an over 50s occupation covering the whole site. (www.sandybay.co.uk) A site visit would be conclusive. Astonishingly, neither Castle Point Borough Council, the Canvey Island Town Council or Essex County Council have discussed this issue in their response. Also see from scoping report “HSE Consultation Diagram” on page 239 which identifies how intrinsically linked the Oikos and Calor Gas sites are in terms of hazard zoning. The Development of a Park Homes Complex should have caused a review of the Local Authorities Licensing Process to reflect on the requirement of NPPF.45 “45. Local planning authorities should consult the appropriate bodies when considering applications for the siting of, or changes to, major hazard sites, installations, or pipelines, or for development around them”. Environment Agency Competent Authority The Environment Agency submission to the Planning Inspectorate Scoping Opinion Report refers to COMAH Site “Safety Reports”. “Control of Major Accident Hazards Regulations “COMAH Regulation (Notifications and Safety Report) As noted in section 20 of the Scoping Report the proposal is located at a facility notified under The Control of Major Accident Hazards Regulations 2015 (COMAH) as an upper tier COMAH establishment. It is also adjacent to another upper tier COMAH establishment operated by Calor Gas Limited. The COMAH regulations are enforced by the Competent Authority (CA). The CA comprises the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) and the Environment Agency (EA), acting jointly. COMAH requires for operators to notify the CA ‘in advance’ of certain changes including ‘a significant increase or decrease in the quantity of dangerous substances’ and ‘any modification of the establishment or an installation which could have significant consequences in terms of major accident hazards’. Upper Tier establishments are also required to submit revised Safety Reports which, amongst other aspects, must demonstrate that the major accident scenarios in relation to the establishment have been identified and that the necessary measures have been taken to prevent such accidents and to limit their consequences for human health and the environment This proposal will require a review and revision to the Safety Report before the proposed changes are made at the establishment. The operator should discuss this requirement with their COMAH Intervention Manager. Further information on COMAH is available in guidance document ‘L111 - A guide to the Control of Major Accident Hazards Regulations 2015’ available on the HSE website” COMAH Site Safety Reports It is hoped that the Planning Inspector will avail him/herself of the content of the updated Oikos and current Calor Gas “Safety Reports”, particularly the section that identifies “Societal Risk” with worst case events and consequences. This will allow for a full appreciation of the types of possible incidents, the hazard range resulting from such incidents and the likely number and type of persons that could harmed. Such information will also present an opportunity to examine the logistics of suitable for purpose Off Site Emergency Planning and evacuation proposals. The submission from the HSE “Land Use Planning” Department is extremely limited as what its role covers when dealing with what they describe as the Major Accident Sites such as Oikos and Calor Gas. This consultation with regards to Land Use Planning is totally reliant on communication from Local Planning Authorities Waiver of Representation at Local Level The process of protecting the community of Canvey Island and beyond via the Hazardous Substance Consent controls has been relinquished by the Cabinet at CPBC, when agreeing to the recommendation to do so. Agenda Item 7(b) Cabinet Agenda Wednesday 19th February 2020 Recommendations 1 That the Cabinet notes the Development Consent Order process and the role of the Council. 2 To approve the inclusion within the Development Consent Order the Hazardous Substances Consent and waive the Council’s determination of such a consent only in respect to the matters identified in the Development Consent Order. 3 That a report is made to Cabinet in respect of the Council’s representation to the Development Consent Order. A point to note here is, that the decision having been taken, to waive the Councils determination of such consent, was made by CPBC Cabinet Members and not as normally the Hazardous Substance Authority ie the Planning Committee. This had the outcome of denying the community of Canvey Island of Councillor representation, due to Councillor distribution and there being no Canvey Island Councillors in the Cabinet. Flood Risk The issue of flood risk and the use of the most up to date information has been dealt with comprehensively in the Scoping Opinion comments. This is a significant issue for Canvey Island in terms of property damage and risk to life, with the Stay Put Emergency Plan seemingly completely in appropriate in some cases. What has not been discussed however is the activity of water take-up space erosion caused by development and the considerable land raising incidents, particularly in the area immediately around the Okios and neighbouring Calor Gas establishments. This unabated activity has had a direct impact on flood water depth and velocities, to the effect that any previous flood issue modelling such as LiDAR is now completely nullified. The likelihood of flooding of the access routes to and from Canvey Island will increase following sea level rise. Access to Canvey Island is currently only possible by two roads (A130 and B1006), both of which are connected at the same roundabout. Any disruption to these routes would hamper evacuation and severely limit access to the industrial areas on Canvey Island, including potential disruption to the gas and oil storage installations. This could have significant implications for the national economy since Canvey Island is already functioning as one of the main oil and gas distribution centres for the UK, which question the logistics of these sites having any long-term sustainability. Aspirational TE2100 Plan The Environment Agency’s submission clearly identifies that: - “The TE2100 Plan is an aspirational document, rather than a definitive policy, so whether the defences are raised in the future will be dependent on cost benefit analysis as well as eligibility and availability of central government Grant in Aid to deliver the required works”. This indicates that recommendation from the TE2100 plan should not be relied upon as the evidence basis in support of a long-term sustainability. Critical Drainage. There has been no acknowledgement from the relevant authorities that the whole of Canvey Island is a “Critical Drainage” area, and despite CPBCs best efforts to gain significant government funding following the severe surface water flooding incidents in 2013 and 2014 to resolve such issues, no such funding has materialised. Strategic Flood Risk Assessment and Surface Water Management Plan. The following comment from the Essex County Council Lead Local Flood Authority submission implies that they consider the flood risk modelling and surveys to be up to date and suitable for purpose, which clearly is not the case. “The information supplied for flood risk and surface water management is considered sufficient, and there is not a need for additional information to be supplied as part of the ES”. This would indicate that there is a lack of communication between CPBC and the LLFA as to the activities undertaken on Canvey Island that would have a direct impact on the “Surface Water Management Plan” and Strategic Flood Risk Assessment, both of which need review. Thank you for giving these observations your consideration, they are intended to be constructive and hopefully of value in the examination process. Yours sincerely John Webb.
Dear Mr Webb Thank you for your email. At present the Oikos Applicant has undertaken their scoping activities; In accordance with Regulation 10 of the EIA Regulations 2017, the Applicant is required during Pre-Application to seek an opinion from PINS on the content of their Environmental Statement (a document relating to the environmental impact of the proposed development forming part of their application for development consent). Before providing the Applicant with their opinion, PINS must consult with all parties listed in column 1 of the table as set out in Schedule 1 of the Infrastructure Planning (Applications Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009. Please also see Advice Note 3: EIA Notification and Consultation for further information, which I have attached to this email. The applicant’s consultation with the local communities and general public has not yet taken place. Due to the current Covid-19 situation the applicant’s public consultation activities, which they are statutorily obligated to undertake as part of the Pre-Application stage of the development consent process, have been delayed as per their communication to you. Once they are able to resume these, you will be able to view and provide a response to their proposals. We are currently not aware of when these will take place. If the Oikos Development application is submitted and accepted for Examination, you will be able to register as an Interested Party to the project and submit your views, which will form part of the Examining Authority’s subsequent Examination. We advise that you view our webpage for this project, where you can sign up for updates via email as the project progresses - the email updates option is on the right hand side of the page. For further information I have also attached our Advice Note 8.1 which provides information on responding to the developer’s Pre-Application consultation, and Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination. Our full suite of Advice Notes can be accessed from our website. I hope this email has been of assistance, please contact us if you have any further queries.

25 June 2020
John Webb
Oikos Marine & South Side Development
s51 Advice given to the Applicant following issue of decision to accept the application for examination.
Dear Mr Bull Planning Act 2008 (as amended) – Section 51 Application by NNB Nuclear Generation (SZC) Limited for an Order Granting Development Consent for The Sizewell C Project Advice following issue of decision to accept the application for examination On 24 June 2020 the Secretary of State decided that the application for the above project satisfied the acceptance tests under section 55 of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008). The Planning Inspectorate’s acceptance checklist and the application documents have been published and made available on the project page of the National Infrastructure Planning website. In undertaking checks at the Acceptance stage, the Inspectorate has made some initial observations in relation to the application. This letter comprises advice to the Applicant provided under section 51 of the PA2008 in respect of these initial observations. The Applicant should pay attention to its content and consider how appropriate action might be taken in response. Consultees identified on a precautionary basis Given the individual circumstances of this case, and taking a precautionary approach to ensure that all persons potentially affected by, or potentially likely to have an interest in, the application are given the opportunity to participate fully in the examination of the application, the Planning Inspectorate suggests that the Applicant may wish to include the bodies listed below amongst those on whom they serve notice of the accepted application under s56(2)(a) of the PA2008; unless there is a specific justification why this is not necessary. • Murphy Gas Network • Eclipse Power Networks • Leep Electricity Networks • Vattenfall Networks Limited • Harlaxton Energy Networks • Energy Assets Pipelines Limited • Energy Assets Networks Limited • Fulcrum Electricity Assets Limited • UK Power Distribution Limited Please pay close attention to the advice set out in this letter and act on it accordingly. This will contribute towards a more efficient Examination and give any future Examining Authority comfort that the documentation is complete and accurate. We trust you find this advice helpful, however if you have any queries on these matters please do not hesitate to contact our office using the contact details at the head of this letter. Yours sincerely Michele Gregory Case Manager

24 June 2020
Richard Bull
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please see attached
Please see attached

24 June 2020
Various Enquiries
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Please see attached.
Please see attached.

24 June 2020
Ørsted, the MMO, RSPB, GoBe
Hornsea Project Four Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please see attached
The Acceptance Stage The application was submitted on 27 May 2020 and the decision about whether or not to accept the application must be taken on or before 24 June 2020. The decision will be published on the Project page of the National Infrastructure Planning website here: [attachment 1] If the application is accepted for Examination, the following documents will also be published on the Project page: • The application documents, including the Environmental Statement; • any Adequacy of Consultation Representations submitted by relevant local authorities; and • the Planning Inspectorate’s acceptance checklist. The Acceptance tests Section 55 of the Planning Act 2008 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; • that 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. Additionally, Regulation 14 and Schedule 4 of the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 set out the information for inclusion in an Environmental Statement. The Secretary of State must have regard to the following when making the decision: • 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.

19 June 2020
The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds - Jacqui Miller On behalf of
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Dear PINS I am writing on behalf of Suffolk Coastal Friends of the Earth or which I am Coordinator. Our members are concerned that the Sizewell C application for planning consent was put in on Wednesday without any public notification nor any advertising in local and national newspapers, as required under section 48 of the Planning Act and further instructed under Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms & Procedures) Regulations 2009: Publicising a proposed application Section 4(2) The applicant must publish a notice .... of the proposed application ... a) for at least two successive weeks in one or more local newspapers .... in which the proposed development would be situated b) once in a national newspaper None of our members has seen any such advertisements. This indicates to us that many members of the public will not be aware that the application has been submitted. Clearly, bearing in mind the massive impact that this project would have on local communities here in Suffolk, everyone has a right to know the current situation. Moreover, I was personally promised by Carly Vince, EDFE's Planning Officer, that we would have a fortnight's notice of the application going in. We ask, therefore, that this application be rejected until proper procedure has been followed. Yours sincerely Rachel Fulcher, Coordinator Suffolk Coastal FOE
Dear Ms Fulcher, Thank you for contacting the Planning Inspectorate about the application by NNB Nuclear Generation (SZC) Ltd for an order granting development consent for the Sizewell C Project, Suffolk. Please accept our apologies for the delay in responding The Acceptance Stage The application was submitted on 27 May 2020 and the decision about whether or not to accept the application must be taken on or before 24 June 2020. The decision will be published on the Project page of the National Infrastructure Planning website here: [attachment 1] If the application is accepted for Examination, the following documents will also be published on the Project page: • The application documents; • any Adequacy of Consultation Representations submitted by relevant local authorities; and • the Planning Inspectorate’s acceptance checklist. The Acceptance tests Section 55 of the Planning Act 2008 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; • that 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. Chapter 2 of Part 5 of the Planning Act 2008 includes section 48 to which you have referred. The Secretary of State must have regard to the following when making the decision: • 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. I hope the above information is helpful to you. Kind regards Liam

19 June 2020
Suffolk Coastal Friends of the Earth - Rachel Fulcher On behalf of
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Dear Liam and Michelle, We noted in the latest Meeting note between PINS and EDF that issues regarding making documents available at public locations remain unresolved. Can you let us know whether you anticipate legislative changes prior to 24 June, and if not and the application is accepted, what the implications are likely to be for the commencement of Section 56? Best wishes Alison Downes
Dear Alison, Thank you for your email. Please accept our apologies for the delay in responding. With regard to the current Coronavirus (COVID-19) situation and the arrangements for members of the public to access documents relating to an application that has been accepted for Examination, please note the contents of the Government’s Written Ministerial Statement (WMS) of 13 May 2020 which provides updated guidelines regarding the use of digital events, such as virtual hearings, and digital documentation. The WMS explains that online inspection of documents should be the default position and, recognising that there are sections of the community that may have limited or no access to the internet, that developers should take reasonable steps to ensure all members of the public are able to be involved. The Planning Inspectorate’s published guidance has been updated and will continue to be updated as the situation develops: [attachment 1] As you are aware, should the application be accepted for Examination then parties who wish to participate in the Examination would have the opportunity to register as an Interested Party by submitting a Relevant Representation at the appropriate time during the Pre-examination stage of the PA2008 process. If the Planning Inspectorate decides to accept an application for Examination, it remains the Applicant’s duty to advertise the Relevant Representation period and provide details about how to register to become an Interested Party under Section 56 of the Planning Act 2008. In this case the Applicant has indicated that it would extend this registration period beyond the statutory minimum of thirty days, if the application is accepted, to allow all parties more time to review the application documents and register their interest before the start of the six month Examination stage. I hope the above information is helpful to you. Kind regards Liam

19 June 2020
Alison Downes
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Please see attached.
Please see attached.

17 June 2020
Natural England and Marine Management Organisation
Hornsea Project Four Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via post
response has attachments
Please see attached.
The proposed application by MWV Environment Ltd is at the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) process. Therefore, the Planning Inspectorate is unable to consider representations about the merits of any application until it is accepted for Examination. The Planning Inspectorate also does not have the power to intervene in a developer’s pre-application programme. The process for applying for a Development Consent Order (DCO) is set out in the PA2008. The timing of the application’s programme is at the discretion of the Applicant. The Developer is currently carrying out their first round of non-statutory consultation. Further rounds of consultation will take place and the Developer will advertise these before they are due to commence. Therefore, I would encourage you to contact the developer directly with regard to your concerns. The developer has a statutory duty to have regard to all consultation responses received and this should be demonstrated in the Consultation Report as part of their DCO application. However, if you feel your comments are not being taken into account, I would advise you to write to your local authority and set out why you think the Applicant is failing to conduct its consultation properly. Your comments should be taken into account when the local authority sends the Inspectorate its comments on whether the Applicant has fulfilled its consultation duties. The local authority’s comments on the Applicant’s consultation will be taken into account when the Acceptance Inspector makes their decision whether to accept the application for Examination. Should the DCO application be accepted by the Inspectorate for Examination, the Applicant has a duty to notify the local community when providing information on how to register as an Interested Party for the purpose of the process. The process under the PA2008 has been designed to allow members of the public and statutory stakeholders to participate in examination of all DCO applications so that anyone interested in the proposed developments, their potential impacts and any relevant matters can be fully engaged in the examination process. Once the Examination begins, the Examining Authority will assess all information submitted in the application documents and will consider whether the Applicant has provided the necessary level of information. The Planning Inspectorate has produced several Advice Notes to help provide an overview of the PA2008 process and the opportunities to get involved. They are available at the following link: [attachment 1] The following are 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’. Please be assured that anyone interested in the proposed development, the potential impacts and any planning matters can be fully engaged in the examination process. A copy of your correspondence has been placed on our records and will be presented to the Inspector at Acceptance together with the application documents and Local Authorities’ comments on the Applicant’s consultation. With regard to the current Coronavirus (COVID-19) situation, please refer to the Planning Inspectorate’s published guidance which will be updated as the situation develops. [attachment 2] We have also published a Frequently Asked Questions document regarding Pre-application consultation and this can be viewed on our website here: [attachment 3]

16 June 2020
Sue Beel
Medworth Energy from Waste Combined Heat and Power Facility
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please see attached
Please see attached

05 June 2020
Dr Daniel Poulter MP
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via phone
response has attachments
Draft Document Review and Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

02 June 2020
Highways England - anon.
A428 Black Cat to Caxton Gibbet Road Improvement scheme
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Inception Meeting
Please see attached Meeting Note

01 June 2020
Augean plc
East Northants Resource Management Facility Western Extension
response has attachments
The London Resort Company has informed me the development of (Paramount Park & Hotels) is a part of National Infrastructure Project supported by the UK Government as this would highly benefit tourism industry in UK. I am sure any amusement parks like the one of Disney, in Paris or Orlando & Sunway in Malaysia has boosted tourism. I did look up the link on your website for London Resort also showing negligible current update. The reason I write to you is because I am concerned about how the London Resort Co has started investment schemes on the bases of the above development. They are pre-selling the hotel rooms. That means I am able to buy one room in the hotel (to be constructed in 3 years) and get guaranteed rental returns of 8% post constructed for the next 3 years., thereafter returns will be un-guaranteed for the next 27 years. However the hotel room is owned by investor for 995 years. To buy the hotel room I need to invest 20% now, 20% when construction begins Jun 2021, 10% Dec 2021 and 50% Dec 2023. The cost of each hotel room is Pound 40,000. This seems quite attractive, hence several would want to invest from INDIA. However I feel something fishy and need some update on the status of permission hence I write to you. Hope its not a big scam. Why you reply benefits me ? I am a realtor and planning to market this project. I do not want to market anything which is a fraud. Hence kindly provide non-bias opinion. Be rest assured your reply will be strictly confidential and will not be used or presented to anyone, it will only help me to decide if this project is right for me to market or not.
The London Resort project is currently in the Pre-Application stage of the development consent process, which means that the Applicant has not yet formally submitted their application to us (the Planning Inspectorate). We currently anticipate that the application will be submitted later this year. You may wish to view our Advice Note which provides an overview of the Planning Act 2008 process. This confirms that the statutory timescales between the Examination commencing and a decision being made on the application is 12 months. We advise that you can sign up to receive updates on this project as it progresses via our webpage: [attachment 1] - the email notification sign-up facility is to the right hand side of the page, halfway down. Unfortunately, we are unable to offer any advice to you in relation to potential purchase of property; this is a matter which is outside of our remit and to do so could pre-judge the outcome of the application. You should seek your own professional advice on this matter.

28 May 2020
Manish Chheda
The London Resort
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting with the Applicant
Please see attached meeting note

28 May 2020
Highways England - anon.
Lower Thames Crossing
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Dear Sir/Madam, I appreciate that you have no legal ability to control the timing of a DCO application, but I wish to register my concern that EDF/CGN are due to submit the DCO application for Sizewell C during this time of national emergency when residents, businesses, parish/town councils, district councils, the county council, statutory authorities, NGOs, indeed the entire country are under severe strain in dealing with the impacts of the coronavirus pandemic. There is enough stress and anxiety in place in society due to fears of the impact of covid 19 on the health and well-being of individuals and on their loved ones, without the additional anxiety that the Sizewell C DCO will inflict on thousands. EDF have claimed on many occasions that they are "good neighbours". Nothing could be further from the truth. The comprehensive omission of information and the lack of serious consultation throughout the four stage pre application consultation is well recognised and has been referred to by many, including the Environment Agency, Natural England, RSPB, Suffolk Wildlife Trust, Suffolk Preservation Society, Together Against Sizewell C, Suffolk Coast Friends of the Earth, Suffolk Coast and Heaths Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, Suffolk County Council. 54 parish and town councils, who together represent more than 50,000 residents, have called on EDF to postpone Sizewell C's DCO application. However, EDF's total disregard for the mental and physical health of the people and businesses of Suffolk is demonstrated by their stated intention of submitting the DCO application imminently. Should the Applicant submit the DCO application before all the coronavirus restrictions are lifted, I urge you, and the local authorities (to whom this is copied), to do all in your power to reject such a callous action and for you to refuse to accept said application. Yours sincerely, Mr Chris Wilson
Dear Mr Wilson Thank you for your email expressing concerns about the adequacy of the Applicants consultation and consultation material, your email and this response will be published on the project page of the National Infrastructure Planning website shortly. We note that you have sent your letter to the local authorities. The local authorities can consider your comments as part of their Adequacy of Consultation Representation submission to the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) at the Application Stage of the process. The Planning Inspectorate will consider any adequacy of consultation representations received from the relevant local authorities when deciding whether or not to accept the application, as required under section 55(4)(b) of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended). It is therefore important to ensure the local authorities are informed of your concerns. Further information about Community Consultation can be found here: [attachment 1] As you are aware the proposed application by EDF Energy is at the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 process. The Planning Inspectorate is unable to consider representations about the merits of any application until it is accepted for Examination. Further information about the process can be found in the link below to the National Infrastructure Planning website: [attachment 2] Should the application be accepted the application and all the supporting documentation will be published on the project page of the National Infrastructure Planning website: [attachment 3] All parties are encouraged to sign up for Email Updates using the button on the project page or via the link below: [attachment 4];email= Email Updates will enable parties to observe what’s happening on the application after it has been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate. (Please note: email updates are occasionally recognised as “spam” mail so if you do sign up to receive updates, you should check you “spam” folders regularly). Should the application be accepted for Examination, it is important to note that if parties then wish to participate in the Examination they would need to register as an Interested Party at the appropriate time during the Pre-examination stage. If parties have signed up for the Email Updates they will receive a prompt when the registration period opens (the Relevant Representation period). The ‘Registration and Relevant Representation form’ will be made available here during the Pre-examination stage and all parties will have an opportunity to outline their views about the project. The appointed Examining Authority will then use these to carry out an initial assessment of principal issues. 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’: [attachment 5] The Planning Inspectorate is mindful of the need to ensure both openness and fairness throughout all stages of the DCO process and will continue to highlight this in discussions with the Applicant. The Applicant has indicated that the Relevant Representation period would be extended beyond the statutory 30 days minimum to allow everyone more time to read the documents through the summer months and submit their views during the Pre-examination period. Once the six month Examination period starts registered Interested Parties can then submit further Written Representations to expand on those views. Finally, with regard to the current Coronavirus (COVID-19) situation, please refer to the Planning Inspectorate’s published guidance which will be updated as the situation develops. [attachment 6] I hope you find the above information helpful.

26 May 2020
Chris Wilson
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via post
response has attachments
Please see attached.
We note that you have sent a letter to the Applicant. Additionally, the local authorities can consider your comments on consultation as part of their Adequacy of Consultation Representation submission to the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) at the Application Stage of the process. The Planning Inspectorate will consider any adequacy of consultation representations received from the relevant local authorities when deciding whether or not to accept the application, as required under section 55(4)(b) of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended) (PA2008). It is therefore important to ensure the local authorities are informed of your concerns. Further information about Community Consultation can be found here: [attachment 1]. The proposed application by EDF Energy is at the Pre-application stage of the PA2008 process. The Planning Inspectorate is unable to consider representations about the merits of any application until it is accepted for Examination. Further information about the process can be found in the link below to the National Infrastructure Planning website: [attachment 2]. Should the application be accepted the application and all the supporting documentation will be published on the project page of the National Infrastructure Planning website: [attachment 3]. The ‘Registration and Relevant Representation form’ will be made available here during the Pre-examination stage and all parties will have an opportunity to outline their views about the project. The appointed Examining Authority will then use these to carry out an initial assessment of principal issues. Further information about registering as an Interested Party can be found in the Planning Inspect The Planning Inspectorate is mindful of the need to ensure both openness and fairness throughout all stages of the PA2008 process and will continue to highlight this in discussions with the Applicant. With regard to the current Coronavirus (COVID-19) situation and the arrangements for members of the public to access and view documents relating to the Application, please note the contents of the Government’s Written Ministerial Statement (WMS) of 13 May 2020 which provides updated guidelines regarding digital documentation.

26 May 2020
Alison Shireff
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via email
Good Afternoon, I am doing some research around Strategic Rail Freight Interchange. I found a recent article covering the refused Rail Freight Interchange in North Yorkshire outside Sherburn. (Developer Harworth Group). In the article it states that the LPA (Selby District Council) refused it in March last year. It has then gone to Appeal and Inspector Kevin Ward dismissed the Appeal. The enquiry/ question I have is that my understanding is that a SRFI like this would go through the Planning Inspectorate and then to Secretary of State as a NSIPs. I just wondered why the Local Authority in this case were able to refuse this in the first instance? What factors/criteria were different? I have little knowledge in this area and just wondered if you could provide some information? Kind Regards
Good morning Thank you for your email. Section 26 of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended) sets out the criteria for Rail Freight Interchanges (RFI) to quality as Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIPs). The NSIP process involves an application for development consent, which is made to the Planning Inspectorate; there is no application to a Local Planning Authority beforehand. The relevant subsections are: (3)The land on which the rail freight interchange is situated must— (a)be in England, and (b)be at least 60 hectares in area. (4)The rail freight interchange must be capable of handling— (a)consignments of goods from more than one consignor and to more than one consignee, and (b)at least 4 goods trains per day. (5)The rail freight interchange must be part of the railway network in England. (6)The rail freight interchange must include warehouses to which goods can be delivered from the railway network in England either directly or by means of another form of transport. (7)The rail freight interchange must not be part of a military establishment Any application for an RFI which does not meet this criteria falls to be considered under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) and an application is made to the relevant Local Authority(ies) in the first instance. If that application is refused, the Applicant has a right of appeal under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act. Unfortunately, as this application was not submitted as an NSIP, we are unable to comment any further on your query. However, hopefully this response will be of assistance to you in understanding the difference in consenting regimes. You may also wish to view our suite of Advice Notes (in particular the 8 series) which provides for information on NSIPs. Yours sincerely

26 May 2020
Amy Moseley
General
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Dear Ms Richards The above are proposing to build a 50 megawatt incinerator in our small Georgian Town of Wisbech. They are making this a national infrastructure to circumnavigate local planning and have ignored planning guidance by failing to put forward alternative sites but have put forward alternatives relating to the design and not its siting which is my understanding of what they have done. My understanding is that in my lifetime it is unlikely to be used to full capacity. This proposed site is within 200 meters of one school, 500 meters from another and 750 meters from our largest school. It meters away from residential areas. We do not need a MEGA incinerator we should be looking to recycle not encourage waste for our future generation to live a healthier life. This small market does not have the infrastructure to cope with the amount of lorries that will be descending on our town which only has single lane carriageways. Our MP Steve Barclay (who is campaigning against this Mega incinerator) and local residents have worked hard to get the railway back into this town so that local people will have better job prospects by having carbon neutral way to expanded their job opportunities in Cambridge, Norwich Peterborough ect. This proposed MEGA incinerator puts that in jeopardy. MVV Environment Ltd have no idea what dangerous items will be on the vehicles heading for the for the proposed incineration. MVV have been less than honest in regard to the downplaying of the dangers this MEGA incinerator will pose to local residents. Not just local residents but anyone eating produce from farmland which surrounds the area from the deposits of particulates coming out of its funnel. I have read the report on PM2.5 and PM10 from AQEG (Air Quality Expert Group) commissioned by DEFRA (Department for Environment Food & Rural Affairs) I have cut and pasted at the bottom of this communication an important part, HEALTH that MVV are failing to bring to residents attention they have in fact gone all out to downplay the dangers by putting a leaflet through residence doors which contains a section MYTH busters, thereby totally disregarding the below report of just how dangerous the particulates exposure is. I am so shocked and appalled by this proposal and MVV’s total disregard for the health and well being of the residents of Wisbech and the surrounding area and further afield by particulates on crops they purchase. Governments are looked upon to protect the health and well being of its citizens if this proposal gets the green light they will have failed. Please think of the ramifications after reading the report below by AQEG and reject this proposal. I have not committed a crime yet MVV Environment Ltd have put a death sentence on my life. (read below) AQEG report 1.3.1 Health effects of PM2.5 10. The Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants (COMEAP) reports LongTerm Exposure to Air Pollution: Effect on Mortality (COMEAP, 2009) and The Mortality Effects of Long-Term Exposure to Particulate Air Pollution in the United Kingdom (COMEAP, 2010) provide an excellent synthesis of the current evidence on the impact of particulate matter on mortality. There is clear evidence that particulate matter has a significant contributory role in human all-cause mortality and in particular in cardiopulmonary mortality. 11. PM2.5 penetrates deeply into the human respiratory system. The acute effects of particle exposure include increases in hospital admissions and premature death of the old and sick due to diseases of the respiratory and cardiovascular systems. The evidence is that both PM2.5 and PM10 cause additional hospital admissions and deaths on high pollution days. Less severe effects of short-term particle exposure also occur during pollution episodes, including worsening of asthma symptoms and even a general feeling of being unwell leading to a lower level of activity. 12. Long-term exposure to particles is associated with increased levels of fatal cardiovascular and respiratory diseases, including lung cancer, which reveal themselves as increased rates of death in cities with higher concentrations of airborne particles. COMEAP (2009) expressed the view that the best estimate of the chronic health impacts of particulate matter exposure was a 6% increase in death rates per 10 µg m-3 PM2.5 concentration. As with the acute effects of particle exposure no wholly safe level has been identified. regards B Males
Dear Ms Males, Thank you for your email of 18 April 2020 expressing concerns about the proposed Medworth Energy from Waste Combined Heat and Power Facility The proposed application by MWV Environment Ltd is at the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) process. Therefore, the Planning Inspectorate is unable to consider representations about the merits of any application until it is accepted for Examination. The Planning Inspectorate also does not have the power to intervene in a Developer’s pre-application programme. The process for applying for a Development Consent Order (DCO) is set out in thePA2008. The timing of the application’s programme is at the discretion of the Applicant. The Developer is currently carrying out their first round of non-statutory consultation. Further rounds of consultation will take place and the Developer will advertise these before they are due to commence. Therefore, I would encourage you to contact the developer directly with regard to your concerns. The developer has a statutory duty to have regard to all consultation responses received and this should be demonstrated in the Consultation Report as part of their DCO application. However, if you feel your comments are not being taken into account, I would advise you to write to your local authority and set out why you think the Applicant is failing to conduct its consultation properly. Your comments should be taken into account when the local authority sends the Inspectorate its comments on whether the Applicant has fulfilled its consultation duties. The local authority’s comments on the Applicant’s consultation will be taken into account when the Acceptance Inspector makes their decision whether to accept the application for Examination. Should the DCO application be accepted by the Inspectorate for examination, the applicant has a duty to notify the local community when providing information on how to register as an Interested Party for the purpose of the process. The process under the PA2008 has been designed to allow members of the public and statutory stakeholders to participate in examination of all DCO applications so that anyone interested in the proposed developments, their potential impacts and any relevant matters can be fully engaged in the examination process. Once the examination begins, the Examining Authority will assess all information submitted in the application documents and will consider whether the Applicant has provided the necessary level of information. The Planning Inspectorate has produced several Advice Notes to help provide an overview of the PA2008 process and the opportunities to get involved. They are available at the following link: [attachment 1] The following are 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’. Please be assured that anyone interested in the proposed developments, their potential impacts and any planning matters can be fully engaged in the examination process. A copy of your correspondence has been placed on our records and will be presented to the Inspector at acceptance together with the application documents and Local Authorities’ comments on the Applicant’s consultation. With regard to the current Coronavirus (COVID-19) situation, please refer to the Planning Inspectorate’s published guidance which will be updated as the situation develops. [attachment 2] We have also published a Frequently Asked Questions document regarding Pre-application consultation and this can be viewed on our website here: [attachment 3] 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.

26 May 2020
Beryl Males
Medworth Energy from Waste Combined Heat and Power Facility
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Dear Mr Salter I have some concerns about the incinerator MVV are proposing to build in the town of Wisbech. I live here and I was born here. I would be grateful if you could answer these questions for me: 1. Over what timescale do they expect to get to 50 megawatts? 2. How much waste will this involve to deliver 50 megawatts? 3. The incinerator will have a chimney up to a massive 95 metres high. From how many miles will the incinerator be visible? 4. The incinerator will be just 200 metres from one primary school, 500 metres from another, and 750 metres from the largest secondary school in our district, Thomas Clarkson Academy. The ACIS Eye Clinic is just 350 metres away. Why is this site so close to three schools and the Eye Clinic the best site given the volume of lorries, impact on air pollution, and odour concerns amongst others? 5. Why does the scoping request fail to include valid alternative locations? 6. What alternative sites / solutions were considered? 7. What is the methodology for site selection and when will it be published in line with best practice? 8. How did it consider sensitive receptors like schools, community impact like odour and noise, and visual impact? 9. The scoping request was issued over the Christmas holiday period, yet the report reveals that “the Inspectorate queried whether the scoping request would be premature given the current stage of development”. Why did the developer ignore the inspector and issue this scoping report over the Christmas holiday period? 10. Why has the developer failed to follow best practice in developing a proposal in consultation with the community, which it does not plan to consult until Spring 2020? 11. The developer suggests the incinerator will require lorry movements 7 days a week from 6am to 7pm. Yet almost all the roads in Fenland are single carriageway. The incinerator will require over half a million tonnes of waste, with the report suggesting 523,500 tonnes a year (i) How many lorries a week will be required (ii) how far will they be travelling including from surrounding counties ? 12. The incinerator will be built on land at risk of flooding (known as Flood Risk 3). Yet the developer is silent on the risk this causes of contamination (including to drinking water), in addition to any risk of soil contamination during the construction phase. Why is flood risk land suitable for a waste incinerator when the Environment Agency has raised concerns at house building on such land? 13. What is the risk of contamination in the event of flooding? 14. Later this month the Cambridgeshire Combined Authority will publish its 15-month long report on the next phase of work for Wisbech Rail, yet the incinerator developer appears to plan to dig up the Wisbech Rail line for a Combine Heat and Power (CHP) connection. How would the incinerator plans impact on Wisbech Rail? 15. The developer suggests two proposed options for connection, a 132kv line at the Walpole substation and one joining the National Grid 400kv line to the east of Walsoken. Yet it is not clear whether these are part of the Development Consent Order (DCO). What impact will this have on the local community, and is it part of the DCO? 16. The developer says they have an option on the main site from the current owners, and that it is used for aggregate storage, but then add that compulsory acquisition may be required to obtain land outside of this main site in order to build an incinerator of the scale required for its designation as a national infrastructure project (i) What land does the developer plan to compulsory purchase? (ii) on what basis? (iii) from whom? 17. Why haven't the particles PM 2.5 been measured in the surveys and only PM 10, which are less harmful to human bodies? 18. Do you consider that MVV believes Wisbech to be a softer target than Waterbeach and King's Lynn, where incinerators have been blocked? I look forward to hearing from you. Carla Johnson
Dear Ms Johnson, Thank you for your email of 18 March 2020, regarding the proposed Medworth Energy from Waste Combined Heat and Power Facility. The proposed application by MWV Environment Ltd is at the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) process. Therefore, the Planning Inspectorate is unable to consider representations about the merits of any application until it is accepted for Examination. The Planning Inspectorate also does not have the power to intervene in a developer’s pre-application programme. The process for applying for a Development Consent Order (DCO) is set out in the PA2008. The timing of the application’s programme is at the discretion of the Applicant. The Developer is currently carrying out their first round of non-statutory consultation. Further rounds of consultation will take place and the Developer will advertise these before they are due to commence. Therefore, I would encourage you to contact the developer directly with regard to your concerns. The developer has a statutory duty to have regard to all consultation responses received and this should be demonstrated in the Consultation Report as part of their DCO application. However, if you feel your comments are not being taken into account, I would advise you to write to your local authority and set out why you think the Applicant is failing to conduct its consultation properly. Your comments should be taken into account when the local authority sends the Inspectorate its comments on whether the Applicant has fulfilled its consultation duties. The local authority’s comments on the Applicant’s consultation will be taken into account when the Acceptance Inspector makes their decision whether to accept the application for Examination. Should the DCO application be accepted by the Inspectorate for Examination, the Applicant has a duty to notify the local community when providing information on how to register as an Interested Party for the purpose of the process. The process under the PA2008 has been designed to allow members of the public and statutory stakeholders to participate in examination of all DCO applications so that anyone interested in the proposed developments, their potential impacts and any relevant matters can be fully engaged in the examination process. Once the Examination begins, the Examining Authority will assess all information submitted in the application documents and will consider whether the Applicant has provided the necessary level of information. The Planning Inspectorate has produced several Advice Notes to help provide an overview of the PA2008 process and the opportunities to get involved. They are available at the following link: [attachment 1] The following are 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’. Please be assured that anyone interested in the proposed development, the potential impacts and any planning matters can be fully engaged in the examination process. A copy of your correspondence has been placed on our records and will be presented to the Inspector at Acceptance together with the application documents and Local Authorities’ comments on the Applicant’s consultation. With regard to the current Coronavirus (COVID-19) situation, please refer to the Planning Inspectorate’s published guidance which will be updated as the situation develops. [attachment 2] We have also published a Frequently Asked Questions document regarding Pre-application consultation and this can be viewed on our website here: [attachment 3] 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.

26 May 2020
Carla Johnson
Medworth Energy from Waste Combined Heat and Power Facility
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Dear Secretary of State Re: Medworth Energy from Waste Combined Heat and Power Facility [attachment 1] With the present health crisis caused by the Coronavirus pandemic all planned public consultations and community events regarding the application to build a vast incinerator in the small market town of Wisbech have been cancelled until further notice. There is significant public objection to this project and it is essential for the community to be able to meet with the Applicant and to challenge their many claims. [attachment 2] [attachment 3] The claim by the Applicant and by staff at the Inspectorate that public consultations can continue online via emails may seem reasonable in these unprecedented times but is, nevertheless, totally inappropriate for this community. Large numbers of residents in Wisbech and the surrounding villages do not use the internet, therefore the community do not accept email communication as being a ‘public consultation’ when many residents are prohibited from taking part. All concerned are very aware of the legislation that has permitted the creation of commercial incinerators in the UK, at a time when not enough evidence was known regarding the possible preventable harm and negative health implications that could be created by burning plastic and other waste materials. Therefore, given the unprecedented circumstances where the community are effectively housebound, and no community event can take place, please consider an exception to the legislation by postponing the public consultations and the eventual decision regarding this project for at least three months, or until such times as the government have deemed that public meetings and community events can safely be held. Thank you for your time. Mo Stewart Retired healthcare professional Resident of Wisbech
Dear Ms Stewart, Thank you for your email of 1 April 2020 expressing concerns about the adequacy of consultation in the current unprecedented public health situation. Please accept our sincere apologies for the delay in replying. The proposed application by MWV Environment Ltd is at the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) process. Therefore, the Planning Inspectorate is unable to consider representations about the merits of any application until it is accepted for Examination. The Planning Inspectorate also does not have the power to intervene in a developer’s pre-application programme. The process for applying for a Development Consent Order (DCO) is set out in the PA2008. The timing of the application’s programme is at the discretion of the Applicant. The Developer is currently carrying out their first round of non-statutory consultation. Further rounds of consultation will take place and the Developer will advertise these before they are due to commence. Therefore, I would encourage you to contact the developer directly with regard to your concerns. The developer has a statutory duty to have regard to all consultation responses received and this should be demonstrated in the Consultation Report as part of their DCO application. However, if you feel your comments are not being taken into account, I would advise you to write to your local authority and set out why you think the Applicant is failing to conduct its consultation properly. Your comments should be taken into account when the local authority sends the Inspectorate its comments on whether the Applicant has fulfilled its consultation duties. The local authority’s comments on the Applicant’s consultation will be taken into account when the Acceptance Inspector makes their decision whether to accept the application for Examination. Should the DCO application be accepted by the Inspectorate for Examination, the Applicant has a duty to notify the local community when providing information on how to register as an Interested Party for the purpose of the process. The process under the PA2008 has been designed to allow members of the public and statutory stakeholders to participate in examination of all DCO applications so that anyone interested in the proposed developments, their potential impacts and any relevant matters can be fully engaged in the examination process. Once the Examination begins, the Examining Authority will assess all information submitted in the application documents and will consider whether the Applicant has provided the necessary level of information. The Planning Inspectorate has produced several Advice Notes to help provide an overview of the PA2008 process and the opportunities to get involved. They are available at the following link: [attachment 4] The following are 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’. Please be assured that anyone interested in the proposed development, the potential impacts and any planning matters can be fully engaged in the examination process. A copy of your correspondence has been placed on our records and will be presented to the Inspector at Acceptance together with the application documents and Local Authorities’ comments on the Applicant’s consultation. With regard to the current Coronavirus (COVID-19) situation, please refer to the Planning Inspectorate’s published guidance which will be updated as the situation develops. [attachment 5] We have also published a Frequently Asked Questions document regarding Pre-application consultation and this can be viewed on our website here: [attachment 6] 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.

26 May 2020
Mo Stewart
Medworth Energy from Waste Combined Heat and Power Facility
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
On behalf of the Campaign against the proposed Wisbech Incinerator, (WisWIN - Wisbech Against Incineration) we wish to raise our grave concern that no consultation is taking place with residents and that the Planning Inspectorate are of the view that consultation via email is acceptable. Wisbech is a small rural town and many people do not have digital communication in the form of emails and social media. This is well known locally but was evident when people cued up when we held a Rally in Wisbech Market Place in February when we had a paper petition for people to sign. Over 200 people signed. We subsequently took the petition to Tesco's early in March for two hours on two occasions and we received nearly 1,000 signatures. When checking with residents to ensure they hadn't already signed our MP's petition, many people confirmed they had no computer. We are therefore asking for a delay and have also written to the Leader of Cambs County Council and the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Mayor raising our concerns and asking for them to request a deferment. We appreciate that there are legal time limits but in this unprecedented time because of the Coronavirus epidemic, this seems a reasonable request.
Thank you for your email of 29 March 2020 expressing concerns about the adequacy of consultation in the current unprecedented public health situation. Please accept our sincere apologies for the delay in replying. As you are aware, the proposed application by MWV Environment Ltd is at the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) process. Therefore, the Planning Inspectorate is unable to consider representations about the merits of any application until it is accepted for Examination. The Planning Inspectorate also does not have the power to intervene in a Developer’s pre-application programme. The process for applying for a Development Consent Order (DCO) is set out in thePA2008. The timing of the application’s programme is at the discretion of the Applicant. The Developer is currently carrying out their first round of non-statutory consultation. Further rounds of consultation will take place and the developer will advertise these before they are due to commence. Therefore, I would encourage you to contact the developer directly with regard to your concerns. The developer has a statutory duty to have regard to all consultation responses received and this should be demonstrated in the Consultation Report as part of their DCO application. However, if you feel your comments are not being taken into account, I would advise you to write to your local authority and set out why you think the Applicant is failing to conduct its consultation properly. Your comments should be taken into account when the local authority sends the Inspectorate its comments on whether the Applicant has fulfilled its consultation duties. The local authority’s comments on the Applicant’s consultation will be taken into account when the Acceptance Inspector makes their decision whether to accept the application for Examination. Should the DCO application be accepted by the Inspectorate for examination, the applicant has a duty to notify the local community when providing information on how to register as an Interested Party for the purpose of the process. The process under the PA2008 has been designed to allow members of the public and statutory stakeholders to participate in examination of all DCO applications so that anyone interested in the proposed developments, their potential impacts and any relevant matters can be fully engaged in the examination process. Once the examination begins, the Examining Authority will assess all information submitted in the application documents and will consider whether the Applicant has provided the necessary level of information. The Planning Inspectorate has produced several Advice Notes to help provide an overview of the PA2008 process and the opportunities to get involved. They are available at the following link: [attachment 1] The following are 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’. Please be assured that anyone interested in the proposed developments, their potential impacts and any planning matters can be fully engaged in the examination process. A copy of your correspondence has been placed on our records and will be presented to the Inspector at acceptance together with the application documents and Local Authorities’ comments on the Applicant’s consultation. With regard to the current Coronavirus (COVID-19) situation, please refer to the Planning Inspectorate’s published guidance which will be updated as the situation develops. [attachment 2] We have also published a Frequently Asked Questions document regarding Pre-application consultation and this can be viewed on our website here: [attachment 3]

26 May 2020
WisWIN - Wisbech Against Incineration - Virginia Bucknor
Medworth Energy from Waste Combined Heat and Power Facility
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Dear Mr Salter I have some concerns about the incinerator MVV are proposing to build in the town of Wisbech. I live here and I was born here. I would be grateful if you could answer these questions for me: 1. Over what timescale do they expect to get to 50 megawatts? 2. How much waste will this involve to deliver 50 megawatts? 3. The incinerator will have a chimney up to a massive 95 metres high. From how many miles will the incinerator be visible? 4. The incinerator will be just 200 metres from one primary school, 500 metres from another, and 750 metres from the largest secondary school in our district, Thomas Clarkson Academy. The ACIS Eye Clinic is just 350 metres away. Why is this site so close to three schools and the Eye Clinic the best site given the volume of lorries, impact on air pollution, and odour concerns amongst others? 5. Why does the scoping request fail to include valid alternative locations? 6. What alternative sites / solutions were considered? 7. What is the methodology for site selection and when will it be published in line with best practice? 8. How did it consider sensitive receptors like schools, community impact like odour and noise, and visual impact? 9. The scoping request was issued over the Christmas holiday period, yet the report reveals that “the Inspectorate queried whether the scoping request would be premature given the current stage of development”. Why did the developer ignore the inspector and issue this scoping report over the Christmas holiday period? 10. Why has the developer failed to follow best practice in developing a proposal in consultation with the community, which it does not plan to consult until Spring 2020? 11. The developer suggests the incinerator will require lorry movements 7 days a week from 6am to 7pm. Yet almost all the roads in Fenland are single carriageway. The incinerator will require over half a million tonnes of waste, with the report suggesting 523,500 tonnes a year (i) How many lorries a week will be required (ii) how far will they be travelling including from surrounding counties ? 12. The incinerator will be built on land at risk of flooding (known as Flood Risk 3). Yet the developer is silent on the risk this causes of contamination (including to drinking water), in addition to any risk of soil contamination during the construction phase. Why is flood risk land suitable for a waste incinerator when the Environment Agency has raised concerns at house building on such land? 13. What is the risk of contamination in the event of flooding? 14. Later this month the Cambridgeshire Combined Authority will publish its 15-month long report on the next phase of work for Wisbech Rail, yet the incinerator developer appears to plan to dig up the Wisbech Rail line for a Combine Heat and Power (CHP) connection. How would the incinerator plans impact on Wisbech Rail? 15. The developer suggests two proposed options for connection, a 132kv line at the Walpole substation and one joining the National Grid 400kv line to the east of Walsoken. Yet it is not clear whether these are part of the Development Consent Order (DCO). What impact will this have on the local community, and is it part of the DCO? 16. The developer says they have an option on the main site from the current owners, and that it is used for aggregate storage, but then add that compulsory acquisition may be required to obtain land outside of this main site in order to build an incinerator of the scale required for its designation as a national infrastructure project (i) What land does the developer plan to compulsory purchase? (ii) on what basis? (iii) from whom? 17. How does this fit in with the government target of eliminating greenhouses gases by 2050? I look forward to hearing from you. David Hammond
Dear Mr Hammond, Thank you for your email of 21 March 2020, regarding the proposed Medworth Energy from Waste Combined Heat and Power Facility. The proposed application by MWV Environment Ltd is at the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) process. Therefore, the Planning Inspectorate is unable to consider representations about the merits of any application until it is accepted for Examination. The Planning Inspectorate also does not have the power to intervene in a developer’s pre-application programme. The process for applying for a Development Consent Order (DCO) is set out in the PA2008. The timing of the application’s programme is at the discretion of the Applicant. The Developer is currently carrying out their first round of non-statutory consultation. Further rounds of consultation will take place and the Developer will advertise these before they are due to commence. Therefore, I would encourage you to contact the developer directly with regard to your concerns. The developer has a statutory duty to have regard to all consultation responses received and this should be demonstrated in the Consultation Report as part of their DCO application. However, if you feel your comments are not being taken into account, I would advise you to write to your local authority and set out why you think the Applicant is failing to conduct its consultation properly. Your comments should be taken into account when the local authority sends the Inspectorate its comments on whether the Applicant has fulfilled its consultation duties. The local authority’s comments on the Applicant’s consultation will be taken into account when the Acceptance Inspector makes their decision whether to accept the application for Examination. Should the DCO application be accepted by the Inspectorate for Examination, the Applicant has a duty to notify the local community when providing information on how to register as an Interested Party for the purpose of the process. The process under the PA2008 has been designed to allow members of the public and statutory stakeholders to participate in examination of all DCO applications so that anyone interested in the proposed developments, their potential impacts and any relevant matters can be fully engaged in the examination process. Once the Examination begins, the Examining Authority will assess all information submitted in the application documents and will consider whether the Applicant has provided the necessary level of information. The Planning Inspectorate has produced several Advice Notes to help provide an overview of the PA2008 process and the opportunities to get involved. They are available at the following link: [attachment 1] The following are 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’. Please be assured that anyone interested in the proposed development, the potential impacts and any planning matters can be fully engaged in the examination process. A copy of your correspondence has been placed on our records and will be presented to the Inspector at Acceptance together with the application documents and Local Authorities’ comments on the Applicant’s consultation. With regard to the current Coronavirus (COVID-19) situation, please refer to the Planning Inspectorate’s published guidance which will be updated as the situation develops. [attachment 2] We have also published a Frequently Asked Questions document regarding Pre-application consultation and this can be viewed on our website here: [attachment 3] 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.

26 May 2020
David Hammond
Medworth Energy from Waste Combined Heat and Power Facility
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Dear Sir or Madam, I wonder if you can help, I manage, together with several of my colleagues a number of large offshore high voltage electrical windfarm connections with cables onshore and offshore and as such we have experienced a stead increase in the planning applications associated with these recently. Therefore I would like to arrange a call to exchange contact details as several of the initial letters/emails have gone to the wrong address and improve our understanding of the process and interaction. Therefore could you please forward this email to the appropriate person to potential start this. In anticipation many thanks. Regards David Lyon
Good afternoon Mr Lyon Following our telephone conversation yesterday, I have provided in this email an overview of the Planning Act 2008 process, including any key milestones which might impact you. The development consent process for nationally significant infrastructure projects (NSIPs) is made up of stages, which is how I’ve set out the information below: Pre-Application: this is the initial stage during which the Applicant will be preparing their application for development consent, consulting with required persons and organisations and seeking advice and information from the Planning Inspectorate (PINS) on the process. During Pre-Application the Applicant is required, in accordance with s42 of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended), to consult on the proposed development with the following persons: (a) such persons as may be prescribed - this includes all persons listed in Column 1 of the table in Schedule 1 to the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009 (aa) the Marine Management Organisation, in any case where the proposed development would affect, or would be likely to affect, any of the areas specified in subsection (2) - the areas specified in subsection (2) include waters in or adjacent to England (offshore wind projects would be impacted by this) (b) each local authority that is within section 43 - this includes the local authorities for land affected by the proposed development (c) the Greater London Authority if the land is in Greater London, and (d) each person who is within one or more of the categories set out in section 44 - this includes any person who owns, is a legal tenant/lessee or has a legal interest in the land that would be affected by the proposed development - during Pre-Application the applicant is required to make diligent enquiry to ascertain any and all persons within these categories and consult with them The Applicant is also required to keep the local communities in the areas which would be affected by the proposed development notified during Pre-Application via a Statement of Community Consultation (see s47 of the Planning Act) and notices published in local and national papers, including in Lloyds List and an appropriate fishing trade journal if relating to a proposed offshore development (see s48 of the Planning Act and section 4 of the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedures) Regulations 2009). In accordance with Regulation 10 of the EIA Regulations 2017, the Applicant is required during Pre-Application to seek an opinion from PINS on the content of their Environmental Statement (a document relating to the environmental impact of the proposed development forming part of their application for development consent). Before providing the Applicant with their opinion, PINS must consult with all parties listed in column 1 of the table as set out in Schedule 1 of the Infrastructure Planning (Applications Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009. Please also see Advice Note 3: EIA Notification and Consultation attached to this email. It is the responsibility of the Applicant to ensure that their pre-application consultation fully accords with the requirements of the PA2008, including associated regulations, and that they have regard to relevant guidance. The Applicant must also contact PINS to inform them of the proposed development and arrange an initial meeting to discuss the progress of the project so far, as well as the requirements and responsibilities of both the Applicant and PINS throughout the development consent process. PINS can provide advice throughout the Pre-Application stage. The Applicant can also submit draft versions of their application documents to PINS for review prior to the submission of the application. For further information please see our Advice Note 8.0: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others’, and Advice Note 8.1: Responding to the developer’s pre-application consultation, which I have attached to this email. Acceptance: this is the stage during the development consent process in which the Applicant submits the final version of their application to PINS. Once the application for development consent is received by PINS, we have 28 days in which to ascertain if the application has met the necessary statutory requirements, including the requirements as set in sections 42 - 48 of the Planning Act 2008 ‘Duty to Consult’. Pre-Examination If an application for development consent has been accepted by PINS, registration for Interested Parties (IPs) to the proposed development officially opens, during which individuals and organisations can register their views, which will help to inform the Examining Authority’s examination of the project. As registered IPs they will also be kept informed of the progress of the examination and receive notifications of related hearings and site inspections. Examination The Examination of an application for development consent must be completed within six months. During this time the Examining Authority will gather evidence and information on the proposed development in the form of written representations submitted by the Applicant and Interested or Affected Parties. Persons with IP status (see Pre-Examination above) will be invited to submit information throughout the Examination process. However, any person can submit information during Examination, and it is the ExA’s decision whether to accept it into the Examination. Hearings can also be held within the vicinity of the proposed development, which focus on a specific issue(s) (environmental, compulsory acquisition, the development consent order, etc) or are ‘open floor’ during which anyone can attend and give their views. Throughout the Examination, PINS will send correspondence to persons/organisations that have registered as IPs to the project, and all statutory consultees in accordance with s42 of the PA2008. A list of the persons who are statutory consultees as set out in s44 are provided to PINS by the Applicant in their Book of Reference which is submitted as part of their application. Recommendation Once the Examination has closed, the Examining Authority has three months in which to write a Recommendation Report on the proposed development, which will then be submitted to the relevant Secretary of State. Decision Once the recommendation report has been submitted, the relevant SoS has three months in which to make their decision whether or not to grant development consent based on the information provided. Post-Decision Once a decision has been granted by the SoS, there is a six-week period in which the decision may be challenged in the High Court (a judicial review). I hope that the above has been of help to you. PINS’ full suite of advice notes, legislation and guidance can be accessed via our website: [attachment 1]. We also advise you to review our guide on the development consent process, which includes the video ‘6 stages of the development consent process’: [attachment 2] In your email to us you stated that correspondence to yourselves has not been sent to the correct address. If this has been sent from PINS please let us know of the project that this relates to, including the correct contact information for yourselves (as well as any reference numbers included in the correspondence), and we will update our records accordingly. However if the correspondence has been sent to you by the Applicant we advise you to inform them directly of the contact information of the person within your organisation who is in the most appropriate position to provide a response on the impact of their proposed development on the affected wind farm in question. Please contact us at any time if you require further information or clarification on the above. If this remains unclear, and you maintain your request for a face to face meeting, please let us know. However, it is worth noting that our offices are not current available due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Nevertheless, it may be possible for us to arrange a virtual meeting with yourselves via Microsoft Teams earlier. Yours sincerely

20 May 2020
David Lyon
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Submission logistics meeting
Please see attached

18 May 2020
NNB Nuclear Generation (SZC) Limited - anon.
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please see attached
As you are aware the proposed application is at the Pre-application stage of the PA2008 process. The Planning Inspectorate is unable to consider representations about the merits of any application or supporting documentation during Pre-application. At this stage any concerns about the Applicant’s Pre-application consultation should be directed to the Applicant in the first instance to enable them to address the issues. Where the Applicant has been contacted and you are not satisfied that the Applicant has, or will, take account of the comments, then the comments should be made to the relevant local authority. The local authorities can consider these comments as part of their Adequacy of Consultation Representation submission to the Planning Inspectorate during the Acceptance stage of the application process. The Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) will consider any Adequacy of Consultation representations received from the relevant local authorities when deciding whether or not to accept the application, as required under section 55(4)(b) of the PA2008. You have also raised an issue in relation to the standards to be met for Acceptance of an application for development consent, notably in regard to the Environmental Statement (ES). The standards for Acceptance of an application for development consent are set out in Section 55 of the PA2008 and Regulations 5 and 6 of the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009. The Acceptance process is for the Planning Inspectorate, on behalf of the Secretary of State, to decide whether or not the application meets the standard required to be examined. Where an application is accepted for Examination, consideration of the planning merits of the scheme are then matters for the appointed Examining Authority (ExA) (in making their recommendation) and the Secretary of State in determining whether or not development consent should be granted. Regulation 14 of The Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 (EIA Regulations) sets out the information which an ES accompanying a Development Consent Order (DCO) application must include. Amongst the requirements is a reference to the inclusion of additional information specified in Schedule 4 of the EIA Regulations where relevant to the specific characteristics of the particular development or type of development and to the environmental features likely to be significantly affected. The requirements of Schedule 4 of the EIA Regulations will be considered carefully by the Planning Inspectorate at the point of submission of the DCO application to ensure that any accompanying ES is adequate and complies with the minimum requirements of the EIA Regulations. . In reaching a decision as to whether an application is of a satisfactory standard, the Secretary of State must have regard to (inter alia) the extent to which the applicant has followed any applicable guidance given under section 37(4) of PA2008 (section 55(5A)(b)). For example, paragraph 6 of the DCLG Application Form Guidance (2008) states that ‘the application information must be provided to a sufficient degree of detail that will enable the Secretary of State (and all interested parties) to appropriately consider the proposal’. The EIA Regulations make provisions for ‘further information’ to be requested by the ExA or the Secretary of State where they consider such information necessary in order to reach a reasoned conclusion on the significant effects of the development on the environment. You have also requested that certain legal and policy developments should inform the Pre-examination process and have stated that funding matters should be publicly examined. The process for deciding an application and the criteria for assessment are clearly set out in Chapter 5 of the PA2008. This specifies the matters to which the Secretary of State must have regard when he/she determines whether or not development consent should be granted. It is important to note that the appointed ExA has a duty to assess and test a range of issues during an Examination and examine against the relevant international, national and local planning policy context and legislative framework. It is for the ExA to decide how to examine an application. The appointed ExA are required to make an initial assessment of the principle issues arising on the application during the Pre-examination stage of the PA2008 process. When making this assessment the ExA will have regard to the content of all the Relevant Representations submitted by those who have registered to become an Interested Party With regards to the preparation of any Statements of Common Ground, the Planning Inspectorate has held meetings with some of the relevant Statutory Parties and the Applicant and discussed these matters. Notes of the meetings held are available to view on the project page of the National Infrastructure Planning website: [attachment 1] Applicants are advised that, should the application be accepted, then they should aim to have reached an initial agreement of common ground with relevant statutory consultees in the Pre-examination period before the Preliminary Meeting (PM) is held. Following the PM the ExA will publish an Examination Timetable that will set deadlines for the completion of draft and final Statements of Common Ground between parties. Finally, with regards to consultation, when making a decision on whether or not an application can be accepted the Secretary of State will consider the consultation report submitted with the application. He/she will consider the consultation process undertaken by the Applicant and if the consultation report adequately sets out how the Applicant has taken account of any responses.

15 May 2020
Sizewell C Liaison Monitoring Group - Regan Scott on behalf of
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Dear Sizewell team PINS, Please find enclosed the document - Sizewell C – The environment, coastal morphology and climate change-a 2020 perspective. The document explores a serious flood risk associated with the Sizewell location for EDF’s proposed new nuclear power station. The Sizewell C development needs to have security from flooding to at least the year 2150. The so far security of the Sizewell A and B installations is in main part a consequence of the offshore Sizewell Dunwich bank complex that dissipates and attenuates larger waves and prevents their access to the Sizewell foreshore. These matters are not covered in the Scoping reports. Any loss or compromise of these banks would therefore represent high risk to the nuclear installations. This paper looks at the geomorphology and historical bathymetry of the banks and shows how they cannot be relied upon to be sufficiently stable until 2150. The paper also considers climate change and how median sea level rise will diminish the effects of the banks with deeper water allowing the larger waves to pass. The resulting stress to the Sizewell foreshore from increased wave energies and size could result in full or partial ‘islanding’ of the Sizewell nuclear complex. The enclosed brief paper challenges EDF’s claimed micro-stability of the Sizewell coast and shows that it is based on a highly selective interpretation of historical expert evidence. If climate change predictions are accepted along with their acknowledged consequences and a new, full risk analysis undertaken on this basis to define security until at least the year 2150, the Sizewell site will be seen to be highly unsuitable. Regards Nick Scarr – Nuclear Consulting Group, NCG, M.D Seismic and oceanographic engineering consultancy.
Should the application be accepted an Examining Authority (ExA) will be appointed (on behalf of the Secretary of State(SoS)) to examine it and subsequently make a recommendation to the SoS, who will then proceed to issue a decision on the proposal. The process for deciding an application and the criteria for assessment are clearly set out in Chapter 5 of the Planning Act 2008. With regard to climate change please note that the appointed ExA has a duty to assess and test a range of issues during an Examination including the European, National, Local Law and Policy context. We would again emphasise that, should the application be accepted, the Pre-examination stage includes a Relevant Representation period when those who wish to fully participate in the Examination must register to become an Interested Party. This will then provide an opportunity for all parties to put forward their views about the application and the appointed ExA can consider these views when carrying out their initial assessment of principal issues before the Preliminary Meeting. Once the Examinations has started registered Interested Parties can submit further Written Representations to expand on those views or set out their case. Further information about the content of Interested Parties Written Representations can be found in the Planning Inspectorate’s Advice Note 8.4: [attachment 1]

15 May 2020
Nick Scarr
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Dear Sir or Madam I am writing to you as a very concerned member of the public. I believe that EdF are about to or may have already submitted a Development Consent Order (DCO) in respect of Sizewell C to the Planning Inspectorate. During this Covid pandemic lockdown how are the general public going to access , read and respond to the documents when the library’s are not open.? How are the Planning Inspectors going to be able to make sight visits ? I consider it very important that we the public are fully informed about this application which will severely impact our precious Suffolk coast and rural communities. Yours sincerely Virginia Storey
Dear Ms Storey, Thank you for your email expressing concern about the submission of the Sizewell C New Nuclear Power Station application for development consent. The process for applying for a Development Consent Order (DCO) is set out in the Planning Act 2008. The timing of the application is at the discretion of the Applicant. The project page of the National Infrastructure Planning website will be updated when the application is received and when the decision on whether or not to accept the application for Examination is made. [attachment 1] The Planning Inspectorate (the Inspectorate) is mindful of the need to ensure both openness and fairness throughout all stages of the DCO process and will continue to highlight this in discussions with the Applicant. Please see a note of the meeting between the Inspectorate and the Applicant held on the 17 April 2020 for more information. With regard to the current Coronavirus (COVID-19) situation and the arrangements for members of the public to access and view documents relating to the DCO application, please note the contents of the Government’s Written Ministerial Statement (WMS) of 13 May 2020 which provides updated guidelines regarding digital documentation. The WMS explains that online inspection of documents should be the default position and, recognising that there are sections of the community that may have limited or no access to the internet, Applicants should take reasonable steps to ensure all members of the public are able to be involved. The Planning Inspectorate’s published guidance has been updated and will continue to be updated as the situation develops: [attachment 2] When an Applicant submits an application for development consent to the Planning Inspectorate there then follows a period of up to 28 days for the Planning Inspectorate, on behalf of the Secretary of State, to decide whether or not the application meets the standards required to be accepted for Examination. The standards are set out in Section 55 of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended) and Regulations 5 and 6 of the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009. All parties are encouraged to sign up for Email Updates using the button on the project page or via the link below: [attachment 3];email= Email Updates will enable parties to observe what’s happening on the application after it has been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate. Should the application be accepted for Examination, it is important to note that if parties then wish to participate in the Examination they would need to register as an Interested Party at the appropriate time during the Pre-examination stage. If parties have signed up for the Email Updates they will receive a prompt when the registration period opens (the Relevant Representation period). For further information about registering as an Interested Party please see ‘Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination’: [attachment 4] The Advice Note explains that if the Planning Inspectorate decides to accept an application for Examination, it will then be the Applicant’s duty to advertise the Relevant Representation period and provide details about how to register to become an Interested Party. The Applicant has indicated that it will extend this registration period beyond the statutory minimum of thirty days, if the application is accepted, to allow all parties more time to review the application documents and register their interest before the start of the six month Examination stage. I hope you find the above information helpful.

15 May 2020
Virginia Storey
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Dear Sir We are writing to say we are extremely unhappy that EDF are intending to submit their DCO application this month and that the Planning Inspectorate will only have 28 days from the submission date to make a decision to accept the DCO or not. The country is in lockdown, local councils and government agencies will be severely impacted by the restrictions placed on them due to the Covid-19 pandemic. We would ask you to ensure that EDF wait until the country is back to normal before it submits their DCO application, then a proper, more in-depth review can take place. It looks like EDF are taking advantage of the pandemic to push through the DCO without consideration from all who oppose the building of yet another nuclear power station. The government are saying the country will be different once the lockdown is gradually lifted and people start to go back to work, so in that case wouldn’t it be better for EDF to wait and see if we require yet another nuclear power station, which is not carbon free with all the concrete etc that is used in it’s construction, loss of historical woodlands and sites like SSIs etc. Why can’t we use solar power, wind power and wave power, all this can be up and running quicker than the 10 to 15 years it will take to build Sizewell C? in the event that EDF submits its DCO application, we ask that the planning process is made to stop until all social distancing restrictions are lifted and everyone is free to fully engage. In summary, our concerns are listed below: • The DCO scrutiny process requires the free access and movement of personnel of every authority and agency involved, from the Planning Inspectorate to the county, district, town and parish councils and every individual attending the hearings • Local authorities, large and small, and regulators are all under pressure, such as ability to travel, lack of staff and timescales and are likely overwhelmed dealing with so many difficult issues • EDF should, at least, show respect for the consequences of the coronavirus pandemic by calling a halt to business as usual for a sensible and reasonable period of time to allow life to regain some normality • Many will still be required to self-isolate and the gathering of people in even small groups is likely to be banned as we continue to struggle to fight the pandemic • We would ask that you call on EDF to agree to delay the submission of their DCO until the government declare the Covid-19 emergency permanently over, enabling all to give their full and undivided attention to fighting this outrageous threat to our Heritage Coast and AONB • Residents will be unable to visit libraries or other public places where the documents are displayed and many may not have access to the internet at all, while others will suffer from irregular and poor quality reception • Many residents will already be suffering anxiety from isolation, financial worries, ill-health of a loved one or even bereavement, without the added burden and worry of the Sizewell C DCO Yours sincerely Stephen and Beverley Chamberlain
Dear Mr and Mrs Chamberlain, Thank you for your email expressing concern about the submission of Sizewell C New Nuclear Power Station application for development consent. The process for applying for a Development Consent Order (DCO) is set out in the Planning Act 2008. The timing of the application is at the discretion of the Applicant. The Planning Inspectorate (the Inspectorate) is mindful of the need to ensure both openness and fairness throughout all stages of the DCO process and will continue to highlight this in discussions with the Applicant. Please see a note of the meeting between the Inspectorate and the Applicant held on the 17 April 2020 for more information. With regard to the current Coronavirus (COVID-19) situation and the arrangements for members of the public to access and view documents relating to the DCO application, please note the contents of the Government’s Written Ministerial Statement (WMS) of 13 May 2020 which provides updated guidelines regarding digital documentation. The WMS explains that online inspection of documents should be the default position and, recognising that there are sections of the community that may have limited or no access to the internet, Applicants should take reasonable steps to ensure all members of the public are able to be involved. The Planning Inspectorate’s published guidance has been updated and will continue to be updated as the situation develops: [attachment 1] When an Applicant submits an application for development consent to the Planning Inspectorate there then follows a period of up to 28 days for the Planning Inspectorate, on behalf of the Secretary of State, to decide whether or not the application meets the standards required to be accepted for Examination. The standards are set out in Section 55 of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended) and Regulations 5 and 6 of the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009. All parties are encouraged to sign up for Email Updates using the button on the project page or via the link below: [attachment 2];email= Email Updates will enable parties to observe what’s happening on the application after it has been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate. Should the application be accepted for Examination, it is important to note that if parties then wish to participate in the Examination they would need to register as an Interested Party at the appropriate time during the Pre-examination stage. If parties have signed up for the Email Updates they will receive a prompt when the registration period opens (the Relevant Representation period). For further information about registering as an Interested Party please see ‘Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination’: [attachment 3] The Advice Note explains that if the Planning Inspectorate decides to accept an application for Examination, it will then be the Applicant’s duty to advertise the Relevant Representation period and provide details about how to register to become an Interested Party. The Applicant has indicated that it will extend this registration period beyond the statutory minimum of thirty days, if the application is accepted, to allow all parties more time to review the application documents and register their interest before the start of the six month Examination stage. I hope you find the above information helpful.

15 May 2020
Stephen and Beverley Chamberlain
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Pre-Submission Meeting
Please see attached

15 May 2020
Highways England - anon.
A1 in Northumberland - Morpeth to Ellingham
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached meeting note

15 May 2020
London Luton Airport Limited - anon.
London Luton Airport Expansion
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Meeting with the No Third Runway Coalition to discuss expansion at Heathrow Airport
Please see attached meeting note

15 May 2020
No Third Runway Coalition - anon.
Expansion of Heathrow Airport (Third Runway)
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Dear Sir/Madam, Please find attached a letter sent yesterday to Rt Hon Alok Sharma MP in connection with the impending Sizewell C development consent order and complications relating to the Covid 19 lockdown. This is a copy for your information. With kind regards, Pete Wilkinson Chairman Together Against Sizewell C
With regard to the current Coronavirus (COVID-19) situation and the arrangements for members of the public to access and view documents relating to the DCO, please note the contents of the Governments Written Ministerial Statement (WMS) of 13 May 2020 which provides updated guidelines regarding digital documentation. The WMS explains that online inspection of documents should be the default position and that developers should take reasonable steps to ensure all members of the public are able to be involved. The Planning Inspectorate’s published guidance has been updated and will continue to be updated as the situation develops: [attachment 1] The Planning Inspectorate is mindful of the need to ensure both openness and fairness throughout all stages of the DCO process and will continue to highlight this in discussions with the Applicant. The Planning Inspectorate is fully committed to ensuring that everyone can participate fairly. Finally, as you may be aware, when an Applicant submits an application for development consent to the Planning Inspectorate that there then follows a period of up to 28 days for the Planning Inspectorate, on behalf of the Secretary of State, to decide whether or not the application meets the standards required to be accepted for Examination. Should the application be accepted for Examination, it is important to note that if parties then wish to participate in the Examination they would need to register as an Interested Party at the appropriate time during the Pre-examination stage. The Applicant has indicated that it will extend this registration period beyond the statutory minimum of thirty days, if the application is accepted, to allow all parties more time to review the application documents and register their interest before the start of the six month Examination stage. For further information about registering as an Interested Party please see ‘Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination’. [attachment 2]

14 May 2020
on behalf of Together Against Sizewell C - Pete Wilkinson
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's Supplementary Consultation in light of current COVID19 circumstances by providing the Planning Inspectorate and Thurrock Council their consultation response.
Thank you for your email expressing concerns about the adequacy of the Applicant’s Pre-application consultation in the current unprecedented public health situation. Please accept our apology for the delay in responding. The Planning Inspectorate does not have power to intervene in an applicant’s pre-application programme. The process for applying for a Development Consent Order (DCO) is set out in the Planning Act 2008. The timing of the application is at the discretion of Highways England, the Applicant. As you have concerns about the Applicant’s pre-application consultation, you should contact the Applicant in the first instance to ensure these issues are addressed. If you have contacted the Applicant but you are not satisfied that the Applicant has, or will, address them, the relevant local authority can take account of your comments. I see you have copied Thurrock Council into your consultation response already. For avoidance of doubt, relevant local authorities can consider comments from members of the public relating to consultation when preparing an ‘Adequacy of Consultation Representation’ (AoCR) submission to the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) during the Acceptance period. The Planning Inspectorate must consider any AoCRs received from relevant local authorities when deciding whether or not to accept the application, as required under s55(4)(b) of the Planning Act 2008. It is therefore important to ensure the local authorities are informed of your concerns. Further information about Community Consultation is contained within the attached FAQ document.

14 May 2020
Gladys Vellamaa
Lower Thames Crossing
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's Supplementary Consultation in light of current COVID19 circumstances by providing the Planning Inspectorate and various Members of Parliament and local councillors their consultation response.
Dear Mr Windiate Thank you for your email. Please accept our apology for the delay in responding. It appears you have copied the Planning Inspectorate into your response to the Applicant’s pre-application consultation. The Planning Inspectorate is unable to consider representations about the merits of any application until it is accepted for Examination. Further information about the process can be found in the link below to the National Infrastructure Planning website: [attachment 1]. Should the application be accepted for Examination, all the supporting documentation will be published on the project page of the National Infrastructure Planning website: [attachment 2] and parties will have an opportunity to outline their views about the application by registering to become ‘Interested Parties’ (IP). Further information about registering as an IP can be found in the Planning Inspectorate’s ‘Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination’: [attachment 3]. With regard to the current Coronavirus (COVID-19) situation, please refer to the Planning Inspectorate’s published guidance which will be updated as the situation develops: [attachment 4]. You may wish to register at the following link to receive email updates on the status of the application: [attachment 5];email= Kind regards

14 May 2020
Mr Cyril Windiate
Lower Thames Crossing
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached.

12 May 2020
NNB Generation Company (HPC) Limited - anon.
Hinkley Point C New Nuclear Power Station Material Change 1
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Dear Planning Inspectorate, I am forwarding a letter I wrote to my MP Peter Aldous today about EDFE's Sizewell C DCO. Please hear my concerns about this possibly happening in the next few weeks as I would like to fully participate in the process. However as I express below [Redacted] and believe that my chance to participate will be eroded as I have been told to stay in my house till July 1st. I also have to deal with the added pressure of managing [Redacted] during the Lockdown. I cannot stress strongly enough how important it is to be able to leave my house whilst engaging in the first stages of the DCO process and feel that [Redacted] puts me at a disadvantage in terms the quality of participation I can provide. Besides myself there will also be other people similarly wanting to participate who are Shielded. Please don't forget your obligation to Equalities legislation and assure me that you will reject a DCO submission until people are able to safely leave their homes and fully engage. The fact that we are having to deal with the uncertainties of COVID19 and uncertainties about when EDFE are going to submit their DCO is very challenging to those who are concerned about the impact of SizewellC on local communities and the environment. Sincerely Nicola Pilkington ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Peter, I hope you are keeping well. I am contacting you at this difficult time as I am reading in the Media that EDFE are about to submit their Development Consent Order to the Planning Inspectorate in the next few weeks. If they do submit as they suggest, they will not have taken into account how difficult it will be for the public to properly engage during Covid19. A proportion of the public [Redacted] will have received a Shielding Letter from the NHS. [Redacted]. It stated that I should not leave my house or garden for three months and gave detailed information about how I should manage [Redacted] in the current Pandemic. The suggestions for care are time absorbing and have left me [Redacted] about what I should do if I get ill, how I keep to regular Hospital appointments etc etc. The NHS is being brilliant and I can't complain however it does mean that my focus is somewhat different than usual. Even with a staged lifting of Lockdown for Shielded individuals our Lockdown is likely to continue after July!st. This means that a proportion of the population are not going to be able to engage in the planning process in a manner they feel would be most effective and are going to have to compromise on the quality of their participation. This hardly seems Fair and I would like you to take it up with Ministers charged with Equalities Legislation to establish what is Fair in terms of postponement of the DCO. Any adjusted plans I have seen for going ahead with the DCO depend completely on online usage, including EDFE documents. Being able to visit Libraries as a way of accessing special data as well as EDFE paper copies of Documents is essential. So is the opportunity to meet MP's, Parish and Town Councils and NGO's face to face. Even for those who are not Shielded they should be able to carry out these activities without having to worry whether they need to have these meetings with a face mask on or not? The Industrialisation of East Suffolk through Wind and new Nuclear is challenging to everyone who lives in the area and it is vital that attempts at full engagement should be exemplarily and notably take in account all the environmental protections that apply to the area. I will feel personally most aggrieved if the Government, Planning Inspectorate and EDFE don't show they are listening to the needs of Shielded individuals and make sure there is a postponement of the Development Consent Order of more than a few weeks. Some clarity on this is greatly needed. Best wishes Nicola Pilkington
The process for applying for a Development Consent Order (DCO) is set out in the Planning Act 2008. The timing of the application is at the discretion of the Applicant. The project page of the National Infrastructure Planning website will be updated when the application is received and when the decision on whether or not to accept the application for Examination is made. [attachment 1] When an Applicant submits an application for development consent to the Planning Inspectorate that there follows a period of up to 28 days for the Planning Inspectorate, on behalf of the Secretary of State, to decide whether or not the application meets the standards required to be accepted for Examination. The standards are set out in Section 55 of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended) and Regulations 5 and 6 of the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009. All parties are encouraged to sign up for Email Updates using the button on the project page or via the link below: [attachment 2];email= Email Updates will enable parties to observe what’s happening on the application after it has been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate. Should the application be accepted for Examination, it is important to note that if parties then wish to participate in the Examination they would need to register as an Interested Party at the appropriate time during the Pre-examination stage. If parties have signed up for the Email Updates they will receive a prompt when the registration period opens (the Relevant Representation period). For further information about registering as an Interested Party please see ‘Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination’. [attachment 3] The Advice Note explains that if the Planning Inspectorate decides to accept an application for Examination, it will then be the Applicant’s duty to advertise the Relevant Representation period and provide details about how to register to become an Interested Party. The Applicant has indicated that it will extend this registration period beyond the statutory minimum of thirty days, if the application is accepted, to allow all parties more time to review the application documents and register their interest before the start of the six month Examination stage. The PA2008 process is primarily a written process, if you register as an Interested Party then you will have the opportunity to submit written representations throughout the Examination. The Inspectorate will continue to look at ways to engage with people and facilitate progress online. The Planning Inspectorate is mindful of the need to ensure both openness and fairness throughout all stages of the DCO process and will continue to highlight this in discussions with the Applicant. Finally, with regard to the current Coronavirus (COVID-19) situation, please refer to the Planning Inspectorate’s published guidance which will be updated as the situation develops. [attachment 4]

11 May 2020
Nicola Pilkington
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Submission Logistics meeting with NNB Nuclear Generation (SZC) Ltd
Please see attached Meeting Note

07 May 2020
NNB Nuclear Generation (SZC) Ltd - anon.
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Please see attached.
Please see attached.

07 May 2020
Ørsted
Hornsea Project Four Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Dear Planning Inspectorate, BEIS Ministers and EDF I urge you not to accept EDF’s application to construct two new nuclear reactors at Sizewell. I am deeply dismayed that EDF has proceeded with submitting this application whilst the country is dealing with coronavirus restrictions, and consider the timing to be totally inappropriate. Additionally, despite 4 rounds of public consultations, EDF has not provided enough information or adequately consulted people about a number of issues: The Environment Agency, Marine Management Organisation and Natural England have expressed concerns to you about the DCO, including that agreement on a number of issues had not yet been reached, that they did not have access to sufficient levels of information, and that necessary documents were late or not provided. The serious threat to RSPB Minsmere Nature Reserve and other protected sites. The company has provided no assurances that Minsmere and Sizewell Marsh SSSI will be protected from any potential harm as a result of Sizewell C. The amount of information about environmental impacts has been woeful. The way in which EDF plans to deliver 10m tonnes of material without a jetty, significant use of rail, or an adequate road route that will protect local communities. Suffolk Councils dispute EDF's claim to have chosen the best road route. Community Impacts: No study has been provided despite despite EDF promising this “at a later stage of consultation” Health Impacts: no study has been provided despite despite EDF promising this “at a later stage of consultation” Worker numbers and accommodation: Before coronavirus there were reports that EDF has underestimated the workers it needs at Hinkley Point. This suggests more will be needed at Sizewell C too. EDF’s communications about worker numbers at Sizewell have been very misleading and it is uncertain where everyone would live. At Stage 4 consultations the two villages most affected by the Sizewell Link Road, a major part of this consultation, were not visited with EDF’s touring exhibition. Yours sincerely, Joan Gernand
Dear Ms Gernand, Thank you for your email of the 28 April 2020. The process for applying for a Development Consent Order (DCO) is set out in the Planning Act 2008. The timing of the application is at the discretion of the Applicant. The project page of the National Infrastructure Planning website will be updated when the application is received and when the decision on whether or not to accept the application for Examination is made. [attachment 1];ipcadvice=f89bb4795f It is important to note that when an Applicant submits an application for development consent to the Planning Inspectorate that there then follows a period of up to 28 days for the Planning Inspectorate, on behalf of the Secretary of State, to decide whether or not the application meets the standards required to be accepted for Examination. The standards are set out in Section 55 of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended) and Regulations 5 and 6 of the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009. I note you have concerns about the Applicant’s pre-application consultation, you should contact the Applicant in the first instance to enable them to address the issues ([email protected]). If you have contacted the Applicant but you are not satisfied that the Applicant has, or will, take account of your comments you can make your comments to the relevant local authority. The local authority can consider them as part of their Adequacy of Consultation Representation submission to the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) at the Acceptance stage of the process. All parties are encouraged to sign up for Email Updates using the button on the project page or via the link below: [attachment 2];email= Email Updates will enable parties to observe what’s happening on the application after it has been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate. Should the application be accepted for Examination, it is important to note that if parties then wish to participate in the Examination they would need to register as an Interested Party at the appropriate time during the Pre-examination stage. If parties have signed up for the Email Updates they will receive a prompt when the registration period opens (the Relevant Representation period). For further information about registering as an Interested Party please see ‘Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination’. [attachment 3] The Advice Note explains that if the Planning Inspectorate decides to accept an application for Examination, it will then be the Applicant’s duty to advertise the Relevant Representation period and provide details about how to register to become an Interested Party. The Applicant has indicated that it will extend this registration period beyond the statutory minimum of thirty days, if the application is accepted, to allow all parties more time to review the application documents and register their interest before the start of the six month Examination stage. The Planning Inspectorate is mindful of the need to ensure both openness and fairness throughout all stages of the DCO process and will continue to highlight this in discussions with the Applicant. Finally, with regard to the current Coronavirus (COVID-19) situation, please refer to the Planning Inspectorate’s published guidance which will be updated as the situation develops. [attachment 4] I hope you find the above information helpful. Kind regards, Liam

06 May 2020
Joan Gernand
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Dear all, I am writing to ask that the DCO submission be delayed until after lockdown and social distancing measures no longer in place to allow full access to information such as at re-opened libraries and access to meetings. When consulting groups are allowed to gather again,people are not encumbered by ill-health, stress , bereavement etc due to covid-19. If EDF make the submission the planning process needs to halt until the above is achievable. This is an extremely unwelcome proposal for Suffolk, East Anglia and indeed for further afield and cannot be rushed through behind closed doors. The consultation is overwhelmingly thought to be completely inadequate. All the dissenters opinions , questions, petiitions,letters etc have been quietly swept aside, an opinion shared by practically all. We have a duty to hand on the land to future generations in good shape. It is appalling to think our children and their children will be fighting exraordinary problems in years to come due to climate change, which we have brought about , and on top of that they will have large reserves of highly toxic nuclear waste( just for one example ,combined with the projected rising sea level) which will be impossible to deal with and will cause untold suffering. Overwhelmingly the people of Suffolk (and beyond) are horrified and cannot believe what is being proposed here with two untried nuclear mega-reactors. It appears EDF have a well rehearsed strategy of simply ignoring the objections and carrying on as usual. This has happened time and again for example over 1000 people collected at Minsmere last Autumn to form a huge heart overlooking the nearby proposed site. Animals/birds have to range over large interconnected areas to breed /feed successfully. This event was reported on the news and then conveniently disappeared from the radar,like many others. For these reasons, EDF has fragmented the consultation so that the vast majority of Suffolk which is opposing has been silenced. It is not necessary to subject us , East Anglia and indeed potentially London and beyond (with potential fallout) to this collosal danger and destructive project. Renewables are cheaper, quicker to build , local jobs and you can walk away in times of crisis. So many experts have plans of how we could achieve this-just one -something as simple as replacing all street lighting with LED would create huge savings in electricity.Lets move forward with the times and put Nuclear Energy behind us ,you cannot expect tax payers to bail out this dying industry. Yours sincerely, Clare Rizzo
Dear Ms Rizzo, Thank you for your email. The process for applying for a Development Consent Order (DCO) is set out in the Planning Act 2008. The timing of the application is at the discretion of the Applicant. The project page of the National Infrastructure Planning website will be updated when the application is received and when the decision on whether or not to accept the application for Examination is made. [attachment 1];ipcadvice=f89bb4795f It is important to note that when an Applicant submits an application for development consent to the Planning Inspectorate that there then follows a period of up to 28 days for the Planning Inspectorate, on behalf of the Secretary of State, to decide whether or not the application meets the standards required to be accepted for Examination. The standards are set out in Section 55 of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended) and Regulations 5 and 6 of the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009. I note you have concerns about the Applicant’s pre-application consultation, you should contact the Applicant in the first instance to enable them to address the issues. If you have contacted the Applicant but you are not satisfied that the Applicant has, or will, take account of your comments you can make your comments to the relevant local authority. The local authority can consider them as part of their Adequacy of Consultation Representation submission to the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) at the Acceptance stage of the process. All parties are encouraged to sign up for Email Updates using the button on the project page or via the link below: [attachment 2];email= Email Updates will enable parties to observe what’s happening on the application after it has been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate. Should the application be accepted for Examination, it is important to note that if parties then wish to participate in the Examination they would need to register as an Interested Party at the appropriate time during the Pre-examination stage. If parties have signed up for the Email Updates they will receive a prompt when the registration period opens (the Relevant Representation period). For further information about registering as an Interested Party please see ‘Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination’. [attachment 3] The Advice Note explains that if the Planning Inspectorate decides to accept an application for Examination, it will then be the Applicant’s duty to advertise the Relevant Representation period and provide details about how to register to become an Interested Party. The Applicant has indicated that it will extend this registration period beyond the statutory minimum of thirty days, if the application is accepted, to allow all parties more time to review the application documents and register their interest before the start of the six month Examination stage. The Planning Inspectorate is mindful of the need to ensure both openness and fairness throughout all stages of the DCO process and will continue to highlight this in discussions with the Applicant. Finally, with regard to the current Coronavirus (COVID-19) situation, please refer to the Planning Inspectorate’s published guidance which will be updated as the situation develops. [attachment 4] I hope you find the above information helpful. Kind regards, Liam

06 May 2020
Clare Rizzo
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Dear EDF & Sizewell Planning Inspectorate, Do not submit an application for Sizewell C during coronavirus restrictions – which government advisers say could last most of the year. Do not to proceed until all social distancing restrictions are lifted and everyone is free to fully engage. Without this, the planning process would be severely compromised. Yours sincerely, Dorothy Aitchison DA, Dip. Ed.
Dear Ms Aitchison, Thank you for your email. The process for applying for a Development Consent Order (DCO) is set out in the Planning Act 2008. The timing of the application is at the discretion of the Applicant. The project page of the National Infrastructure Planning website will be updated when the application is received and when the decision on whether or not to accept the application for Examination is made. [attachment 1];ipcadvice=f89bb4795f It is important to note that when an Applicant submits an application for development consent to the Planning Inspectorate that there then follows a period of up to 28 days for the Planning Inspectorate, on behalf of the Secretary of State, to decide whether or not the application meets the standards required to be accepted for Examination. The standards are set out in Section 55 of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended) and Regulations 5 and 6 of the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009. All parties are encouraged to sign up for Email Updates using the button on the project page or via the link below: [attachment 2];email= Email Updates will enable parties to observe what’s happening on the application after it has been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate. Should the application be accepted for Examination, it is important to note that if parties then wish to participate in the Examination they would need to register as an Interested Party at the appropriate time during the Pre-examination stage. If parties have signed up for the Email Updates they will receive a prompt when the registration period opens (the Relevant Representation period). For further information about registering as an Interested Party please see ‘Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination’. [attachment 3] The Advice Note explains that if the Planning Inspectorate decides to accept an application for Examination, it will then be the Applicant’s duty to advertise the Relevant Representation period and provide details about how to register to become an Interested Party. The Applicant has indicated that it will extend this registration period beyond the statutory minimum of thirty days, if the application is accepted, to allow all parties more time to review the application documents and register their interest before the start of the six month Examination stage. The Planning Inspectorate is mindful of the need to ensure both openness and fairness throughout all stages of the DCO process and will continue to highlight this in discussions with the Applicant. Finally, with regard to the current Coronavirus (COVID-19) situation, please refer to the Planning Inspectorate’s published guidance which will be updated as the situation develops. [attachment 4] I hope you find the above information helpful. Kind regards, Liam

06 May 2020
Dorothy Aitchison
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Dear Sir, please stop the DCO submission from EDF for Sizewel C.We the residents of Theberton and Middleton living along the [redacted] are already [redacted] and exhausted. Why 1.Living for 8 years with the threat of the largest project in Europe possibly, 2.Most of the residents are over seventy and are in lock down possibly till December.3. A number are under "expressions of interest" from EDF to take part of their front gardens and some to loose their farms.4.With the cancellation of movements over a cancelled jetty and very little coming by train a road led stratagy with 1100 lorry movements a day via B1122 and a bypass going god knows where.5.We the old locked down for many months to come. and 6.YOU PROPOSE TO WELCOME THE DCO FROM EDF. EDF arrogantly claim that we the public must learn new ways of working backed up by PINS confidently predicting the DCO can be accommodate during lockdown..So people in their 70s and 80,s have to buy large computers,learn to cope with hundreds of on line documents including tiny maps that when enlarged mean nothing, impossible to read. Zoom conferencing to those able to understand more. Obscure links embedded in documents to hide or confuse. (our councils are adept at this). Before lock down we would have all gone to our local library , read the reporton paper, got relevant copies and discussed at public meetings. To quote... If this is justice(and democracy) in action I,m a banana. Ian Hislop.
Dear Mr Hatt, Thank you for your email expressing concern at the submission of the Sizewell C New Nuclear Power Station Development Consent Order (DCO) application. The process for applying for a DCO is set out in the Planning Act 2008. The timing of the application is at the discretion of the Applicant. The project page of the National Infrastructure Planning website will be updated when the application is received and when the decision on whether or not to accept the application for Examination is made. [attachment 1];ipcadvice=f89bb4795f It is important to note that when an Applicant submits an application for development consent to the Planning Inspectorate that there then follows a period of up to 28 days for the Planning Inspectorate, on behalf of the Secretary of State, to decide whether or not the application meets the standards required to be accepted for Examination. The standards are set out in Section 55 of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended) and Regulations 5 and 6 of the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009. All parties are encouraged to sign up for Email Updates using the button on the project page or via the link below: [attachment 2];email= Email Updates will enable parties to observe what’s happening on the application after it has been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate. Should the application be accepted for Examination, it is important to note that if parties then wish to participate in the Examination they would need to register as an Interested Party at the appropriate time during the Pre-examination stage. If parties have signed up for the Email Updates they will receive a prompt when the registration period opens (the Relevant Representation period). For further information about registering as an Interested Party please see ‘Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination’. [attachment 3] The Advice Note explains that if the Planning Inspectorate decides to accept an application for Examination, it will then be the Applicant’s duty to advertise the Relevant Representation period and provide details about how to register to become an Interested Party. The Applicant has indicated that it will extend this registration period beyond the statutory minimum of thirty days, if the application is accepted, to allow all parties more time to review the application documents and register their interest before the start of the six month Examination stage. The Planning Inspectorate is mindful of the need to ensure both openness and fairness throughout all stages of the DCO process and will continue to highlight this in discussions with the Applicant. Finally, with regard to the current Coronavirus (COVID-19) situation, please refer to the Planning Inspectorate’s published guidance which will be updated as the situation develops. [attachment 4] I hope you find the above information helpful. Kind regards, Liam

06 May 2020
Alan Hatt
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Dear Planning Inspectorate, BEIS Ministers and EDF We will all be measured and remembered by how we behave in the current Coronavirus crisis. I urge you not to accept EDF’s application to construct two new nuclear reactors at Sizewell. I am deeply dismayed that EDF has proceeded with submitting this application whilst the country is dealing with coronavirus restrictions, and consider the timing to be totally inappropriate and, simply, wrong. Additionally, despite 4 rounds of public consultations, EDF has not provided enough information or adequately consulted people about a number of issues: The Environment Agency, Marine Management Organisation and Natural England have expressed concerns to you about the DCO, including that agreement on a number of issues had not yet been reached, that they did not have access to sufficient levels of information, and that necessary documents were late or not provided. The serious threat to RSPB Minsmere Nature Reserve and other protected sites. The company has provided no assurances that Minsmere and Sizewell Marsh SSSI will be protected from any potential harm as a result of Sizewell C. The amount of information about environmental impacts has been woeful. The way in which EDF plans to deliver 10m tonnes of material without a jetty, significant use of rail, or an adequate road route that will protect local communities. Suffolk Councils dispute EDF's claim to have chosen the best road route. Community Impacts: No study has been provided despite despite EDF promising this “at a later stage of consultation” Health Impacts: no study has been provided despite despite EDF promising this “at a later stage of consultation” Worker numbers and accommodation: Before coronavirus there were reports that EDF has underestimated the workers it needs at Hinkley Point. This suggests more will be needed at Sizewell C too. EDF’s communications about worker numbers at Sizewell have been very misleading and it is uncertain where everyone would live. At Stage 4 consultations the two villages most affected by the Sizewell Link Road, a major part of this consultation, were not visited with EDF’s touring exhibition. Yours sincerely, Sent from my iPad
Dear Mr Daniell, Thank you for your email of the 28 April 2020. The process for applying for a Development Consent Order (DCO) is set out in the Planning Act 2008. The timing of the application is at the discretion of the Applicant. The project page of the National Infrastructure Planning website will be updated when the application is received and when the decision on whether or not to accept the application for Examination is made. [attachment 1];ipcadvice=f89bb4795f It is important to note that when an Applicant submits an application for development consent to the Planning Inspectorate that there then follows a period of up to 28 days for the Planning Inspectorate, on behalf of the Secretary of State, to decide whether or not the application meets the standards required to be accepted for Examination. The standards are set out in Section 55 of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended) and Regulations 5 and 6 of the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009. I note you have concerns about the Applicant’s pre-application consultation, you should contact the Applicant in the first instance to enable them to address the issues. If you have contacted the Applicant but you are not satisfied that the Applicant has, or will, take account of your comments you can make your comments to the relevant local authority. The local authority can consider them as part of their Adequacy of Consultation Representation submission to the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) at the Acceptance stage of the process. All parties are encouraged to sign up for Email Updates using the button on the project page or via the link below: [attachment 2];email= Email Updates will enable parties to observe what’s happening on the application after it has been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate. Should the application be accepted for Examination, it is important to note that if parties then wish to participate in the Examination they would need to register as an Interested Party at the appropriate time during the Pre-examination stage. If parties have signed up for the Email Updates they will receive a prompt when the registration period opens (the Relevant Representation period). For further information about registering as an Interested Party please see ‘Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination’. [attachment 3] The Advice Note explains that if the Planning Inspectorate decides to accept an application for Examination, it will then be the Applicant’s duty to advertise the Relevant Representation period and provide details about how to register to become an Interested Party. The Applicant has indicated that it will extend this registration period beyond the statutory minimum of thirty days, if the application is accepted, to allow all parties more time to review the application documents and register their interest before the start of the six month Examination stage. The Planning Inspectorate is mindful of the need to ensure both openness and fairness throughout all stages of the DCO process and will continue to highlight this in discussions with the Applicant. Finally, with regard to the current Coronavirus (COVID-19) situation, please refer to the Planning Inspectorate’s published guidance which will be updated as the situation develops. [attachment 4] I hope you find the above information helpful. Kind regards, Liam

06 May 2020
Robert Daniell
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Dear Sir/Madam I wrote to the planning Inspectorate on 12 March 2020 regarding my dissatisfaction of EDF/CGN Sizewell C four stages of consultation. I am now concerned that EDF/CGN despite being made aware by various Parish Councillors and residents that it would be inappropriate to submit the DCO application during this time of national emergency are planning to do so before the end of April 2020. Surely this cannot be allowed to happen when people are struggling with all the horrors that the Covid 19 virus is and will be inflicting for an unidentifiable period of time. The Sizewell C forum meeting about the EDF Sizewell C Application has been cancelled, libraries are closed and many like myself in rural locations frequently have no or an interrupted internet service, so to proceed before the emergency is officially declared to be over would be undemocratic. I have looked at pins website and it appears that everything is geared towards the developer even down to the fact that the developer dictates the timing-surely this can’t be fair? Sizewell C was first mooted in 2008 so for many has been a constant worry and concern for many years. Quite frankly how it has got to the DCO stage is unbelievable. There is currently no siting criteria for new nuclear as EN6 is out of date. The overall energy policy EN1 is out of date. The public where supposed to have an opportunity to comment on the ongoing need for new nuclear as part of the consultation on the draft new national policy statement for nuclear-this has not happened. I am aware that the Environment Agency, Natural England and other statutory bodies have stated that a wide range of issues have not yet been addressed in any detail making the consultation exercises inadequate and meaningless. There are many site issues:- It is too small for the planned development It is in flood zone 2 and 3 There are many Environmental issues:- Climate change is happening faster than previously predicted meaning that the safety of the nuclear reactor and storing of radioactive waste for 150yrs+ is at risk from coastal erosion, flooding, sea level rise, storm surges and extreme weather events. Sizewell is predicated to become a nuclear island in 100 years! The lack of an Environmental Impact Assessment particularly as it is in Suffolk Coast and Heaths Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and will destroy Sizewell Marsh SSSI impact one the UK’s most important wildlife reserves RSPB Minsmere a Ramsar site, SPA, SAC and a marine conservation area. New roads, road widening, roundabouts, park and ride, rail, caravans & accommodation blocks for 3000/4000 workers. Thousands of HGV, buses and car movements a day. Destruction of woodland and encroachment on vulnerable and sensitive coastal areas. Destroying all flora and fauna in its path many of which are rare or endangered species. The heritage coast is known and loved for its peace, tranquility and rural environment supporting a thriving tourist trade EDF’s SizewellC development will transform the area into an industrial environment irrevocably damaging the tourist industry and all the businesses that supports. EDF EPR has many problems:- EDF’s other EPR projects at Olkiluoto Finland and Flamanville France are at least three times over budget and at least 10 years late to date neither operational. Here in UK Hinkley C was supposed to be up and running by 2017 now not likely to be operational before 2025 budget increased vastly I believe latest estimate around £23 billion French government owned EDF are broke so it needs British taxpayers to pay upfront and take the risk for the construction of Sizewell C and EDF are desperate for UK government to announce a nuclear RAB for new nuclear projects in order to prop up their failing nuclear industry in France. For all the above reasons I urge you to reject EDF’s Sizewell C DCO when it is submitted. Yours sincerely Ms J Wilson
Dear Ms Wilson, Thank you for your email of 21 April 2020. The process for applying for a Development Consent Order (DCO) is set out in the Planning Act 2008. As you note, the timing of the application is at the discretion of the Applicant. With regard to site location and suitability please note that the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) has responsibility for reviewing and designating National Policy Statements, including EN-6. The link below provides the latest information about the designation of the new National Policy Statement for Energy for nuclear power generation including the siting criteria (NPS EN-6): [attachment 1] Page 6 provides details of the timeline towards designating the new NPS. The project page of the National Infrastructure Planning website will be updated when the application is received and when the decision on whether or not to accept the application for Examination is made. [attachment 2];ipcadvice=f89bb4795f It is important to note that when an Applicant submits an application for development consent to the Planning Inspectorate that there then follows a period of up to 28 days for the Planning Inspectorate, on behalf of the Secretary of State, to decide whether or not the application meets the standards required to be accepted for Examination. The standards are set out in Section 55 of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended) and Regulations 5 and 6 of the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009. As you have concerns about the Applicant’s pre-application consultation you should contact the Applicant in the first instance to enable them to address the issues. If you are not satisfied that the Applicant has, or will, take account of your comments you can make your comments to the relevant local authority. The local authorities can consider your comments as part of their Adequacy of Consultation Representation submission to the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) at the Application Stage of the process. The Planning Inspectorate will consider any adequacy of consultation representations received from the relevant local authorities when deciding whether or not to accept the application, as required under section 55(4)(b) of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended). It is therefore important to ensure the local authorities are informed of your concerns. All parties are encouraged to sign up for Email Updates using the button on the project page or via the link below: [attachment 3];email= Email Updates will enable parties to observe what’s happening on the application after it has been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate. Should the application be accepted for Examination, it is important to note that if parties then wish to participate in the Examination they would need to register as an Interested Party at the appropriate time during the Pre-examination stage. If parties have signed up for the Email Updates they will receive a prompt when the registration period opens (the Relevant Representation period). For further information about registering as an Interested Party please see ‘Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination’. [attachment 4] The Advice Note explains that if the Planning Inspectorate decides to accept an application for Examination, it will then be the Applicant’s duty to advertise the Relevant Representation period and provide details about how to register to become an Interested Party. The Applicant has indicated that it will extend this registration period beyond the statutory minimum of thirty days, if the application is accepted, to allow all parties more time to review the application documents and register their interest before the start of the six month Examination stage. The Planning Inspectorate is mindful of the need to ensure both openness and fairness throughout all stages of the DCO process and will continue to highlight this in discussions with the Applicant. Finally, with regard to the current Coronavirus (COVID-19) situation, please refer to the Planning Inspectorate’s published guidance which will be updated as the situation develops. [attachment 5] I hope you find the above information helpful. Kind regards, Liam

05 May 2020
J Wilson
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Two meetings were held on 5 and 12 May 2020 to discuss the Applicant’s approach to meeting its duties under s56 of the Planning Act 2008 with the current COVID-19 restrictions in place
Please see attached meeting note that comprises discussion and advice for both meetings

05 May 2020
EP Waste Management Limited - anon.
South Humber Bank Energy Centre
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Please see attached.
Please see attached.

05 May 2020
RWE Renewables UK Ltd
Rampion 2 Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
On 4 May 2020 the Secretary of State decided that the application for the South Humber Bank Energy Centre satisfied the acceptance tests under section 55 of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008). In undertaking checks at the acceptance stage, the Planning Inspectorate made some observations in relation to the application. The Applicant should pay attention to its content and consider the appropriate action to be taken.
Please see attached letter.

04 May 2020
EP Waste Management Limited - anon.
South Humber Bank Energy Centre
response has attachments
Dear Sir/Madam, I believe that the short delay in submitting a Development Consent Order (DCO) application for Sizewell C “for a few weeks” is totally unacceptable. It is becoming increasingly clear that you intend to go ahead before the end of April, despite the coronavirus crisis. Please will you not submit the application until the Planning Inspectorate, Government’s Statutory Advisers, Local Authorities, Parish and Town Councils, Groups and concerned individuals are fully resourced and fully able to engage. This may require a delay of several months, till the end of the Coronavirus disruption, rather than a few weeks. [Redacted]over the coronavirus is being exacerbated by my worries over Sizewell C. These are very difficult times in Suffolk Coastal, without the threat of the disruption caused by the Sizewell C build. Yours faithfully, Paul Offiler.
Dear Paul Offiler Thank you for your email. The process for applying for a Development Consent Order (DCO) is set out in the Planning Act 2008. The timing of the application is at the discretion of the Applicant. The project page of the National Infrastructure Planning website will be updated when the application is received and when the decision on whether or not to accept the application for Examination is made. [attachment 1];ipcadvice=f89bb4795f It is important to note that when an Applicant submits an application for development consent to the Planning Inspectorate that there then follows a period of up to 28 days for the Planning Inspectorate, on behalf of the Secretary of State, to decide whether or not the application meets the standards required to be accepted for Examination. The standards are set out in Section 55 of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended) and Regulations 5 and 6 of the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009. All parties are encouraged to sign up for Email Updates using the button on the project page or via the link below: [attachment 2];email= Email Updates will enable parties to observe what’s happening on the application after it has been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate. (Please note: email updates are occasionally recognised as “spam” mail so if you do sign up to receive updates, you should check you “spam” folders regularly). Should the application be accepted for Examination, it is important to note that if parties then wish to participate in the Examination they would need to register as an Interested Party at the appropriate time during the Pre-examination stage. If parties have signed up for the Email Updates they will receive a prompt when the registration period opens (the Relevant Representation period). For further information about registering as an Interested Party please see ‘Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination’. [attachment 3] The Advice Note explains that if the Planning Inspectorate decides to accept an application for Examination, it will then be the Applicant’s duty to advertise the Relevant Representation period and provide details about how to register to become an Interested Party. The Applicant has indicated that it will extend this registration period beyond the statutory minimum of thirty days, if the application is accepted, to allow all parties more time to review the application documents and register their interest before the start of the six month Examination stage. The Planning Inspectorate is mindful of the need to ensure both openness and fairness throughout all stages of the DCO process and will continue to highlight this in discussions with the Applicant. Finally, with regard to the current Coronavirus (COVID-19) situation, please refer to the Planning Inspectorate’s published guidance which will be updated as the situation develops. [attachment 4] I hope you find the above information helpful. Regards Sizewell C Project Team National Infrastructure Planning

01 May 2020
Paul Offiler
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Short teleconference covering continuation of service under COVID-19 restrictions.
Please see attached.

30 April 2020
Highways England - anon.
A417 Missing Link
Enquiry received via email
Dear Sirs I’m hoping you can assist me. I currently live in Easthorpe, Essex which could or could not be affected by the A12 widening scheme. I have spoken to the Highway’s Agency who have told me the decision with the garden village, at West Tey lays with the planning inspectorate and I won’t know if I will have a motorway going through my land or house until the decision is made. I currently have my property up for sale and no one is interested in buying it due to no decision being made. This is causing me no end of stress as I need to move for my job and the Highways Agency have refused to buy my property until a decision is made. Is it possible to tell me when a decision is going to be made on the garden village as I really don’t know what else to do with my property. Any help would be appreciated. Kind regards
Dear Miss Coombes Thank you for your e-mail, which appears to relate to both the A12 – A120 widening scheme and the garden village at West Tey. In reference to the A12 to A120 Chelmsford widening scheme, this project is currently in the pre-application stage and has not yet been submitted to us by the Applicant, Highways England. It is unlikely to be submitted to the Planning Inspectorate us as an application for development consent before 2021. Information on the progress of this project can be found on the Highways England website. Once it progresses further the Planning Inspectorate will also have a dedicated webpage for this project, and you can check both websites for updates. As the project is at such an early stage, I would suggest that you approach the Applicant with any concerns you have; contact details can be found on their website. In relation to the garden village at West Tey, this appears to be a matter which is currently under consideration by our Local Plans team. As such, colleagues within that team will respond to you separately concerning this matter shortly. Yours sincerely

30 April 2020
Clare Coombes
General
Enquiry received via phone
response has attachments
A47 Projects Programme Update Meeting
Please see attached.

29 April 2020
Highways England - anon.
A47 Wansford to Sutton
Enquiry received via phone
response has attachments
A47 Projects Programme Update Meeting
Please see attached.

29 April 2020
Highways England - anon.
A47 - A11 Thickthorn Junction
Enquiry received via phone
response has attachments
A47 Projects Programme Update Meeting
Please see attached.

29 April 2020
Highways England - anon.
A47 North Tuddenham to Easton
Enquiry received via phone
response has attachments
A47 Projects Programme Update Meeting
Please see attached.

29 April 2020
Highways England - anon.
A47 Blofield to North Burlingham
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting.
Please see attached.

29 April 2020
Equinor UK - anon.
Sheringham and Dudgeon Extension Projects
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Submission Logistics meeting with NNB Nuclear Generation (SZC) Ltd
Please see attached Meeting Note

28 April 2020
NNB Nuclear Generation (SZC) Ltd - anon.
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting by telecon
Please see attached meeting note.

28 April 2020
Boston Alternative Energy Facility Limited - anon.
Boston Alternative Energy Facility (BAEF)
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Dear Liam Fedden, Thank you for your email re the above. I represent a group of people called FERN who will he having to submit documents and evidence about the 2 village bypass proposal. A couple of things: 1) no email verification email received when I signed up to get alerts 2) I understand EDF submit and you decide whether to accept application within 28 days, but I can’t find the answer too the following: if you do accept it, how long we have to prepare and submit our own evidence, we need time as, EDF would not share their final plans with us, nor any of their evidence, informing us we can see it at the DCO stage. This means we will be under pressure to analyse what they’ve done and prepare our comments. Alongside having to reestablish life after coronavirus, we will have to spend many hours having to deal with this and need time to prepare in an orderly manner. 3) I can’t find advice on how best we, as interested parties, submit our evidence that meets your requirements? I look forward to hearing from you, Many thanks, Sarah Morgan Kew Dip. (Hons)
Dear Sarah Morgan Thank you for your email. I am sorry that you did not receive a verification email when signing up for Email Updates. I will raise this with our IT team. I can confirm that should the application be accepted the Planning Inspectorate will publish all the application documents on the project page of the National Infrastructure Planning website as soon as practicable. These will be available under the ‘Documents’ tab. As you know the Applicant would then advertise the Relevant Representation period when those who wish to fully participate in the Examination must register to become an Interested Party. EDF have indicated that this period would be extended from the 30 days minimum to allow everyone more time to read the documents through the summer months and submit their views during the Pre-examination period. Once the six-month Examination period starts registered Interested Parties can then submit further Written Representations to expand on those views. Further information about the requirements for registering as an Interested Party can be found in the Planning Inspectorate’s Advice Note 8.2: [attachment 1] Further information about the content of Interested Parties Written Representations can be found in the Planning Inspectorate’s Advice Note 8.4: [attachment 2] I hope the above information answers your queries. Regards Liam

27 April 2020
Farnham Environment Friends & Neighbours - Sarah Morgan on behalf of
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Please see Attached
Please see Attached

23 April 2020
IRNG Solar (Little Crow) Ltd - anon.
Little Crow Solar Park
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Dear PINS Please can you explain at what point the public will be able to see all the documents submitted by EDF Energy regarding Sizewell C. Will this be when the application goes in, or when the application is accepted? Thank you, Rachel Fulcher, Coordinator Suffolk Coastal Friends of the Earth
Dear Rachel Fulcher Thank you for your email. I can confirm that should the application be accepted the Planning Inspectorate will publish all the application documents on the project page of the National Infrastructure Planning website as soon as practicable after the decision to accept the application has been made. These will be available under the ‘Documents’ tab. As you are aware the Applicant would then advertise the Relevant Representation period when those who wish to fully participate in the Examination must register to become an Interested Party. EDF have indicated that this period would be extended beyond the statutory 30 days minimum to allow everyone more time to read the documents through the summer months and submit their views during the Pre-examination period. Once the six month Examination period starts registered Interested Parties can then submit further Written Representations to expand on those views. Further information about the requirements for registering as an Interested Party can be found in the Planning Inspectorate’s Advice Note 8.2: [attachment 1] Further information about the content of Interested Parties Written Representations can be found in the Planning Inspectorate’s Advice Note 8.4: [attachment 2] Kind regards Michele Gregory Sizewell C Case Team National Infrastructure Planning

21 April 2020
On behalf of Suffolk Coastal Friend of the Earth - Rachel Fulcher
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
FAO Michele Gregory SZC Case Manager Dear Michele, I have looked at the PINS website for a better understanding of what will happen when EDFE submit their DCO for Sizewell C knowing that it could be imminent. I fully understand the Inspectorate will have 28 days to accept or reject the application. My first question is will the DCO application documents be available to members of the public at that stage ? Secondly if PINS accept the application while the country is still under "lock down" would the Inspectorate have the ability to hold the examination stage part of the process in abeyance until as such time as it could be held in normal circumstances ? This question arises because many people fell intimidated by technology and in the spirit of openness and transparency is it something which may be considered? Joan Girling
Dear Joan Girling Thank you for your email. I can confirm that should the application be accepted the Planning Inspectorate will publish all the application documents on the project page of the National Infrastructure Planning website as soon as practicable. These will be available under the ‘Documents’ tab. See link below: [attachment 1] As you know the Applicant would then advertise the Relevant Representation period when those who wish to fully participate in the Examination must register to become an Interested Party. EDF have indicated that this period would be extended beyond the statutory 30 days minimum to allow everyone more time to read the documents through the summer months and submit their views during the Pre-examination period, there is no statutory timeframe for this period. Once the six month Examination period starts registered Interested Parties can then submit further Written Representations to expand on those views. Further information about the requirements for registering as an Interested Party can be found in the Planning Inspectorate’s Advice Note 8.2: [attachment 2] Further information about the content of Interested Parties Written Representations can be found in the Planning Inspectorate’s Advice Note 8.4: [attachment 3] The Planning Inspectorate recognises the constraints for all parties during these unprecedented times and is always mindful of the need to ensure both openness and fairness for all parties. The Coronavirus (Covid-19) situation is under constant review and the Planning Inspectorate’s website provides guidance which is reviewed and updated regularly: [attachment 4] I hope the above information answers your queries. Kind regards Michele Gregory Sizewell C Case Team National Infrastructure Planning

21 April 2020
Joan Girling
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please see attached
Dear Mr Taylor Thank you for your email and attachment. As you are aware the process for applying for a Development Consent Order (DCO) is set out in the Planning Act 2008 (as amended). The timing of the application is at the discretion of the Applicant. Should the application be accepted an Examining Authority (ExA) will be appointed (on behalf of the Secretary of State(SoS)) to examine it and subsequently make a recommendation to the SoS, who will then proceed to issue a decision on the proposal. The process for deciding an application and the criteria for assessment are clearly set out in Chapter 5 of the Planning Act 2008. In particular section 104 describes what the SoS must have regard to in cases where a National Policy Statement has effect. Before making a recommendation to the SoS the role of the ExA is to consider whether the impacts of a development on the local community and environment outweigh the national need for it. As you are aware the need for an infrastructure development is set down in an NPS. It is not the ExA’s role to examine the merits of Government Policy set down in NPSs that have been laid in Parliament and designated. The ExA can however consider comments on how an application complies or conflicts with national policies. With regard to climate change please note that the ExA will assess and test a range of issues during an Examination including the European, National, Local Law and Policy context. The Pre-examination stage includes a Relevant Representation period when those who wish to fully participate in the Examination must register to become an Interested Party. This provides an opportunity for parties to put forward their views about the application and the appointed ExA can consider these views when carrying out their initial assessment of principal issues before the Preliminary Meeting. Once the Examinations has started registered Interested Parties can submit further Written Representations to expand on those views or set out their case. Further information about the content of Interested Parties Written Representations can be found in the Planning Inspectorate’s Advice Note 8.4: [attachment 1] I hope the above information is helpful. Kind regards Michele Gregory Sizewell C Case Team National Infrastructure Planning

21 April 2020
Mike Taylor
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Dear Sizewell C Team We've asked EDF not to submit an application for a a Development Consent Order to build Sizewell C, we copied you on our email. Should they decide to do so anyway please do not accept such an application as the timing is totally inappropriate during the current coronavirus pandemic. You, our local authorities and the public would not be able to properly assess and engage in an examination of this application. Please refuse to accept an application from EDF. Yours sincerely Louise & Derek Chadwick
Dear Mrs and Mr Chadwick, Thank you for your email to the Inspectorate. The process for applying for a Development Consent Order (DCO) is set out in the Planning Act 2008. The timing of the application is at the discretion of the Applicant. The project page of the National Infrastructure Planning website will be updated when the application is received and when the decision on whether or not to accept the application for Examination is made. [attachment 1] It is important to note that when an Applicant submits an application for development consent to the Planning Inspectorate that there then follows a period of up to 28 days for the Planning Inspectorate, on behalf of the Secretary of State, to decide whether or not the application meets the standards required to be accepted for Examination. The standards are set out in Section 55 of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended) and Regulations 5 and 6 of the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009. All parties are encouraged to sign up for Email Updates using the button on the project page or via the link below: [attachment 2];email= Email Updates will enable parties to observe what’s happening on the application after it has been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate. Should the application be accepted for Examination, it is important to note that if parties then wish to participate in the Examination they would need to register as an Interested Party at the appropriate time during the Pre-examination stage. If parties have signed up for the Email Updates they will receive a prompt when the registration period opens (the Relevant Representation period). For further information about registering as an Interested Party please see ‘Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination’. [attachment 3] The Advice Note explains that if the Planning Inspectorate decides to accept an application for Examination, it will then be the Applicant’s duty to advertise the Relevant Representation period and provide details about how to register to become an Interested Party. The Applicant has indicated that it will extend this registration period beyond the statutory minimum of thirty days, if the application is accepted, to allow all parties more time to review the application documents and register their interest before the start of the six month Examination stage. The Planning Inspectorate is mindful of the need to ensure both openness and fairness throughout all stages of the DCO process and will continue to highlight this in discussions with the Applicant. Finally, with regard to the current Coronavirus (COVID-19) situation, please refer to the Planning Inspectorate’s published guidance which will be updated as the situation develops. [attachment 4] I hope you find the above information helpful. Kind regards, Liam

17 April 2020
Louise and Derek Chadwick
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I am writing having heard that EDF intends to proceed with a DCO application in relation to Sizewell C despite the current COVID19 lockdown. It seems so obvious as hardly to need saying that in the current circumstances a proper process cannot take place. The logistical problems associated with the lockdown mean that a full public engagement and discussion cannot happen. The right course of action would of course be for EDF to delay its application until normal life has been restored. Yours sincerely Justin Dowley
Dear Mr Dowley, Thank you for your email directed at both us and the Applicant. The process for applying for a Development Consent Order (DCO) is set out in the Planning Act 2008. The timing of the application is at the discretion of the Applicant. The project page will be updated when the application is received and when the decision on whether or not to accept the application for Examination is made. It is important to note that when an Applicant submits an application for development consent to the Planning Inspectorate that there then follows a period of up to 28 days for the Planning Inspectorate, on behalf of the Secretary of State, to decide whether or not the application meets the standards required to be accepted for Examination. The standards are set out in Section 55 of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended) and Regulations 5 and 6 of the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009. All parties are encouraged to sign up for Email Updates using the button on the project page or via the link below: [attachment 1];email= Email Updates will enable parties to observe what’s happening on the application after it has been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate. Should the application be accepted for Examination, it is important to note that if parties then wish to participate in the Examination they would need to register as an Interested Party at the appropriate time during the Pre-examination stage. If parties have signed up for the Email Updates they will receive a prompt when the registration period opens (the Relevant Representation period). For further information about registering as an Interested Party please see ‘Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination’. The Advice Note explains that if the Planning Inspectorate decides to accept an application for Examination, it will then be the Applicant’s duty to advertise the Relevant Representation period and provide details about how to register to become an Interested Party. The Applicant has said that it will extend this registration period beyond the statutory minimum of thirty days. Finally, with regard to the current Coronavirus (COVID-19) situation, please refer to the Planning Inspectorate’s published guidance which will be updated as the situation develops. [attachment 2] I hope you find the above information helpful. Kind regards Liam

17 April 2020
Justin Dowley
The Sizewell C Project
response has attachments
Sizewell C Please do not submit an application for a Development Consent Order during the coronavirus lockdown (which could last most of the year). EDF wants to press ahead this month [April], but this would be unacceptable and they should not proceed until the Planning Inspectorate, Government’s Statutory Advisers, Local Authorities, Parish and Town Councils, Groups and individuals are fully resourced and able to engage properly. Pushing this through now would amount to a circumnavigation of democratic planning process. Yours, John Parsons
Dear Mr Parsons, Thank you for your email to the Inspectorate and the Applicant. The process for applying for a Development Consent Order (DCO) is set out in the Planning Act 2008. The timing of the application is at the discretion of the Applicant. The project page of the National Infrastructure Planning website will be updated when the application is received and when the decision on whether or not to accept the application for Examination is made. [attachment 1];ipcadvice=f89bb4795f It is important to note that when an Applicant submits an application for development consent to the Planning Inspectorate that there then follows a period of up to 28 days for the Planning Inspectorate, on behalf of the Secretary of State, to decide whether or not the application meets the standards required to be accepted for Examination. The standards are set out in Section 55 of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended) and Regulations 5 and 6 of the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009. All parties are encouraged to sign up for Email Updates using the button on the project page or via the link below: [attachment 2];email= Email Updates will enable parties to observe what’s happening on the application after it has been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate. Should the application be accepted for Examination, it is important to note that if parties then wish to participate in the Examination they would need to register as an Interested Party at the appropriate time during the Pre-examination stage. If parties have signed up for the Email Updates they will receive a prompt when the registration period opens (the Relevant Representation period). For further information about registering as an Interested Party please see ‘Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination’. [attachment 3] The Advice Note explains that if the Planning Inspectorate decides to accept an application for Examination, it will then be the Applicant’s duty to advertise the Relevant Representation period and provide details about how to register to become an Interested Party. The Applicant has indicated that it will extend this registration period beyond the statutory minimum of thirty days, if the application is accepted, to allow all parties more time to review the application documents and register their interest before the start of the six month Examination stage. The Planning Inspectorate is mindful of the need to ensure both openness and fairness throughout all stages of the DCO process and will continue to highlight this in discussions with the Applicant. Finally, with regard to the current Coronavirus (COVID-19) situation, please refer to the Planning Inspectorate’s published guidance which will be updated as the situation develops. [attachment 4] I hope you find the above information helpful. Kind regards, Liam

17 April 2020
John Parsons
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please see the attached letter sent on behalf of East Suffolk Council and Suffolk County Council in relation to your recent email of the 30 March 2020. Please also find attached a copy of the letter sent to EDF Energy referred to in our letter to yourselves. Please do not hesitate to contact myself or John Pitchford if you have any concerns. You can use this email address to access sus both - [email protected]. Kind regards, Lisa Chandler |Energy Projects Manager East Suffolk Council
Thank you for your letter of 9 April 2020. With regard to the Councils capacity to respond to any Adequacy of Consultation request we note that the Applicant has agreed to provide a preview of their Consultation Report and that, subject to the ongoing Coronavirus (Covid-19) emergency response implications for the Councils, you could respond in the time available. We also note the concerns raised regarding any potential Section 56 notification and that you have written to the Applicant accordingly. The Inspectorate recognises the constraints around the processing of casework during these unprecedented times and is always mindful of the need to ensure both openness and fairness for all parties. The Coronavirus (Covid-19) situation is under constant review and the Planning Inspectorate’s website provides guidance which is reviewed and updated regularly: [attachment 1] If you have any further queries please do not hesitate to contact us.

17 April 2020
Suffolk County Council and East Suffolk Council - anon.
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Dear Sirs I have written to EDF to register my surprise that they are even considering putting in the application for Sizewell C at this time. There is no way it should be allowed and it could not be dealt with and discussed properly, I guess they think they can just sneak it in and it will all be agreed without much fuss, how dreadful this would be if it were allowed to happen. I hope that everyone concerned will see sense and not allow this to go ahead. Yours faithfully Sally Evans
Dear Ms Evans, Thank you for your email. The process for applying for a Development Consent Order (DCO) is set out in the Planning Act 2008. The timing of the application is at the discretion of the Applicant. The project page will be updated when the application is received and when the decision on whether or not to accept the application for Examination is made. It is important to note that when an Applicant submits an application for development consent to the Planning Inspectorate that there then follows a period of up to 28 days for the Planning Inspectorate, on behalf of the Secretary of State, to decide whether or not the application meets the standards required to be accepted for Examination. The standards are set out in Section 55 of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended) and Regulations 5 and 6 of the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009. All parties are encouraged to sign up for Email Updates using the button on the project page or via the link below: [attachment 1];email= Email Updates will enable parties to observe what’s happening on the application after it has been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate. Should the application be accepted for Examination, it is important to note that if parties then wish to participate in the Examination they would need to register as an Interested Party at the appropriate time during the Pre-examination stage. If parties have signed up for the Email Updates they will receive a prompt when the registration period opens (the Relevant Representation period). For further information about registering as an Interested Party please see ‘Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination’. The Advice Note explains that if the Planning Inspectorate decides to accept an application for Examination, it will then be the Applicant’s duty to advertise the Relevant Representation period and provide details about how to register to become an Interested Party. The Applicant has said that it will extend this registration period beyond the statutory minimum of thirty days. Finally, with regard to the current Coronavirus (COVID-19) situation, please refer to the Planning Inspectorate’s published guidance which will be updated as the situation develops. [attachment 2] I hope you find the above information helpful. Kind regards Liam

17 April 2020
Sally Evans
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I am asking the planning inspectorate to not accept EDF's DCO until at least sometime after the lockdown has ended . I alongside the Parish Council and members of FERN Farnham Environment Friends & Neighbours are having to do a lot of our own research/documentation and have employed a lawyer, experts who need access to the site and Records Office which is shut. We were told by the Suffolk Wildlife Trust only today that they would not be holding CWS meetings until the lockdown was over, so would not be able to provide us with the information we requested 5 months ago. No one is operating normal business at this time, there is also the element of sickness stalking us, the level of anxiety is high already. I am very concerned that this process cannot be undertaken fairly and fully until coronavirus has passed. Yours sincerely, Sarah Morgan FERN
Dear Ms Morgan, Thank you for your email directed at both us and the Applicant. The process for applying for a Development Consent Order (DCO) is set out in the Planning Act 2008. The timing of the application is at the discretion of the Applicant. The project page will be updated when the application is received and when the decision on whether or not to accept the application for Examination is made. It is important to note that when an Applicant submits an application for development consent to the Planning Inspectorate that there then follows a period of up to 28 days for the Planning Inspectorate, on behalf of the Secretary of State, to decide whether or not the application meets the standards required to be accepted for Examination. The standards are set out in Section 55 of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended) and Regulations 5 and 6 of the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009. All parties are encouraged to sign up for Email Updates using the button on the project page or via the link below: [attachment 1];email= Email Updates will enable parties to observe what’s happening on the application after it has been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate. Should the application be accepted for Examination, it is important to note that if parties then wish to participate in the Examination they would need to register as an Interested Party at the appropriate time during the Pre-examination stage. If parties have signed up for the Email Updates they will receive a prompt when the registration period opens (the Relevant Representation period). For further information about registering as an Interested Party please see ‘Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination’. The Advice Note explains that if the Planning Inspectorate decides to accept an application for Examination, it will then be the Applicant’s duty to advertise the Relevant Representation period and provide details about how to register to become an Interested Party. The Applicant has said that it will extend this registration period beyond the statutory minimum of thirty days. Finally, with regard to the current Coronavirus (COVID-19) situation, please refer to the Planning Inspectorate’s published guidance which will be updated as the situation develops. [attachment 2] I hope you find the above information helpful. Kind regards Liam

17 April 2020
Farnham Environment Friends & Neighbours - Sarah Morgan on behalf of
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Submission Timetable Meeting with NNB Nuclear Generation (SZC) Limited (Applicant)
Please see attached meeting note

17 April 2020
NNB Nuclear Generation (SZC) Limited (Applicant) - anon.
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please see attached
The process for applying for a Development Consent Order (DCO) is set out in the Planning Act 2008. The timing of the application is at the discretion of the Applicant. The project page of the National Infrastructure Planning website will be updated when the application is received and when the decision on whether or not to accept the application for Examination is made. It is important to note that when an Applicant submits an application for development consent to the Planning Inspectorate that there then follows a period of up to 28 days for the Planning Inspectorate, on behalf of the Secretary of State, to decide whether or not the application meets the standards required to be accepted for Examination. The standards are set out in Section 55 of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended) and Regulations 5 and 6 of the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009. All parties are encouraged to sign up for Email Updates using the button on the project page or via the link below: [attachment 1];email Email Updates will enable parties to observe what’s happening on the application after it has been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate. Should the application be accepted for Examination, it is important to note that if parties then wish to participate in the Examination they would need to register as an Interested Party at the appropriate time during the Pre-examination stage. If parties have signed up for the Email Updates they will receive a prompt when the registration period opens (the Relevant Representation period). For further information about registering as an Interested Party please see ‘Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination’. The Advice Note explains that if the Planning Inspectorate decides to accept an application for Examination, it will then be the Applicant’s duty to advertise the Relevant Representation period and provide details about how to register to become an Interested Party. With regard to the current Coronavirus (COVID-19) situation, please refer to the Planning Inspectorate’s published guidance which is updated regularly as the situation develops [attachment 2] You have also expressed concerns about the adequacy of the developers consultation and consultation material. We note that you have been in contact with the Applicant following the various stages of consultation and that you are not satisfied that the Applicant has, or will, take account of your comments. Please note that you can make such comments to the relevant local authority. The local authority can consider them as part of their Adequacy of Consultation Representation submission to the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) at the application stage of the process. The Planning Inspectorate will consider any adequacy of consultation representations received from the relevant local authorities when deciding whether or not to accept the application, as required under section 55(4)(b) of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended). It is therefore important to ensure the local authorities are informed of your concerns. Further information about Community Consultation can be found here: [attachment 3]

17 April 2020
Wickham Market Parish Council - anon.
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please see attached
We note the concerns you have raised regarding the capacity of your organisation to engage with the Sizewell C DCO application process. As you may be aware, the process for applying for a DCO application is set out in the Planning Act 2008 and the timing of submission is at the discretion of the Applicant. With regard to the DCO application documentation and your request for a copy to be provided to you during the acceptance stage, it is for the Applicant to decide whether the application material is shared with stakeholders at the time of submission. Similarly, any request for financial reparation through an existing Planning Performance Agreement (PPA) is a matter you will need to discuss with the Applicant. We therefore suggest that you contact the Applicant directly. With regard to the current Coronavirus (COVID-19) situation, please refer to the Planning Inspectorate’s published guidance which is updated regularly as the situation develops: [attachment 1]

17 April 2020
Suffolk Constabulary - anon.
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via phone
response has attachments
Draft Documents feedback review and project update
Please see attached

16 April 2020
Highways England - anon.
M25 junction 28 improvements
Enquiry received via email
Good afternoon, In light of the Covid-19 pandemic, I understand that Planning Inspectorate is cancelling all previously arranged site visits, and that staff are working from home. I would be most grateful if you can let me know if the examination timetable for the Southampton to London Pipeline Project is now likely to change. I shall look forward to hearing from you. With best wishes, Frances Frances Reynolds – Senior Parliamentary Assistant Office of the Rt Hon. Michael Gove MP ? 0207 219 8826 ? www.michaelgove.com ? House of Commons, London, SW1A 0AA
Dear Mr Reynolds, Thank you for your e-mail. The situation surrounding COVID-19 is a matter which is under constant review by the Inspectorate. We have set up a group that is dedicated to monitoring the situation, ensuring that we are operating in accordance with current Government guidelines. In relation to the Southampton to London Pipeline Project Examination, I can confirm that all public events have taken place; there are no further site inspections or hearings planned. In the absence of events necessitating social gathering, such as those listed above, there is no planned postponement of the Examination and it will continue to proceed; due to close on Thursday 9 April 2020.

09 April 2020
Office of the Rt Hon. Michael Gove MP - Frances Reynolds
Southampton to London Pipeline Project
Enquiry received via phone
Natural England wished to discuss the Planning Inspectorate’s process from the point of application with respect to the information supplied by an applicant to support an assessment under the requirements of the Habitat Regulations. In particular, it wished to understand how the Inspectorate can test the extent to where matters remain outstanding from discussions held between the Statutory Nature Conservation Bodies (SNCBs) and developers pre-application.
Discussion was held about the advice the Planning Inspectorate is able to provide at pre-application to developers, including discussion about how developers engage with statutory bodies and key stakeholders to agree an Evidence Plan to support the assessment. The Inspectorate acknowledged the absence of an overseeing organisation in relation to evidence plans and both organisations agreed to raise this point internally. The discussion continued whereby the Planning Inspectorate set out its expectations at acceptance, with reference to Advice Note 10. These expectations include the receipt of evidence of consultation with SNCBs and evidence of how its advice has been addressed. The role of Statements of Common Ground was discussed. Following on from this a discussion was held about how both organisations could work together to best assist the Examining Authority should the application be accepted for examination. The Planning Inspectorate advised that where possible Natural England should take full advantage of the opportunity to submit a Relevant Representation within the period for doing so, adding that detailed content is likely to be most helpful. Natural England highlighted that there is often a large amount of information to absorb during examination and it would be helpful to know which submissions may be of most value to the Examining Authority. The Planning Inspectorate acknowledged this and advised that while each examination is different there may be some practical advice that could be shared and that this could be the subject of further discussion.

08 April 2020
Natural England - anon.
Hornsea Project Four Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via phone
Natural England wished to discuss the Planning Inspectorate’s process from the point of application with respect to the information supplied by an applicant to support an assessment under the requirements of the Habitat Regulations. In particular, it wished to understand how the Inspectorate can test the extent to where matters remain outstanding from discussions held between the Statutory Nature Conservation Bodies (SNCBs) and developers pre-application.
Discussion was held about the advice the Planning Inspectorate is able to provide at pre-application to developers, including discussion about how developers engage with statutory bodies and key stakeholders to agree an Evidence Plan to support the assessment. The Inspectorate acknowledged the absence of an overseeing organisation in relation to evidence plans and both organisations agreed to raise this point internally. The discussion continued whereby the Planning Inspectorate set out its expectations at acceptance, with reference to Advice Note 10. These expectations include the receipt of evidence of consultation with SNCBs and evidence of how its advice has been addressed. The role of Statements of Common Ground was discussed. Following on from this a discussion was held about how both organisations could work together to best assist the Examining Authority should the application be accepted for examination. The Planning Inspectorate advised that where possible Natural England should take full advantage of the opportunity to submit a Relevant Representation within the period for doing so, adding that detailed content is likely to be most helpful. Natural England highlighted that there is often a large amount of information to absorb during examination and it would be helpful to know which submissions may be of most value to the Examining Authority. The Planning Inspectorate acknowledged this and advised that while each examination is different there may be some practical advice that could be shared and that this could be the subject of further discussion.

08 April 2020
Natural England - anon.
General
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Dear Planning Inspectorate, BEIS ministers and EDF, I am writing to request you do not to accept EDF’s application to construct two new nuclear reactors at Sizewell. After 4 rounds of public consultations, EDF has still not provided enough information or adequately consulted interested parties. In particular, I would like to express the following reasons for this request: • Various statutory consultees, including Natural England, The Environment Agency and Marine Management Organisation, have serious reservations about the proposed application for a DCO for two reactors at Sizewell. They have noted defects in the work done so far by EDF, such as the failure by EDF to supply sufficient detail on important environmental aspects of the project, with the required documentation delivered late or not at all. • The Environment Agency’s report on the project is littered with various shortcomings in the consultation process. Most frightening, in light of the Fukushima disaster, is EDF’s casual attitude to safety aspects of the proposed development at Sizewell, but there has also been a woeful disregard for the potential threat to the neighbouring RSPB Nature Reserve at Minsmere and other protected sites in the area, as well as the impact on a fragile coastline. • EDF has failed to satisfactorily answer major questions about how the massive amounts of building material that will be needed for the project will be delivered to Sizewell now that EDF has abandoned plans for a jetty out to sea. EDF has not demonstrated that they plan to make significant use of rail or produced a satisfactory plan for a suitable access road that meets with local consensus. Indeed Suffolk Council has specifically contradicted EDF's claim to have chosen the best road route for a link road to the site from the A12. • EDF’s consultation process has failed to recognise the damage that will be done to the local economy, dependant as it currently is on tourism, which has been built up over several decades and replaced the jobs lost over time from agriculture. The loss of tourism revenue is in addition to other major damage likely to be suffered by the local community and environment such as clogged local roads, huge amounts of HGVs belching exhaust fumes, noise and light pollution etc. No study has been provided despite being promised “at a later stage of consultation”. • EDF has recently suggested that they will need a larger workforce at Hinkley Point than had been planned for when that project was proposed and likewise more are likely to be needed at Sizewell than EDF say they require at present. EDF’s communications about worker numbers at Sizewell have been very misleading and it seems they only plan to house a relatively small number of workers close to the site, meaning that many will need to travel to work on unsuitable local roads. • At Stage 4 consultations the two villages most adversely affected by the Sizewell link road, a major part of this consultation, were not visited with EDF’s touring exhibition. • There seems to be no sensible answer as to how the Sizewell project will be financed, without which the project cannot even get off the ground. Yours sincerely, Emma Dowley
Dear Ms Dowley, Thank you for your email outlining concerns about the Applicants Pre-application consultation. We note that you have sent your letter to the Applicant and the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. As you have concerns about the Applicant’s pre-application consultation you should contact the Applicant in the first instance to enable them to address the issues. If you are not satisfied that the Applicant has, or will, take account of your comments you can make your comments to the relevant local authority. The local authorities can consider your comments as part of their Adequacy of Consultation Representation submission to the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) at the Application Stage of the process. The Planning Inspectorate will consider any adequacy of consultation representations received from the relevant local authorities when deciding whether or not to accept the application, as required under section 55(4)(b) of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended). It is therefore important to ensure the local authorities are informed of your concerns. Further information about Community Consultation can be found here: [attachment 1] As you are aware the proposed application by EDF Energy is at the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 process. The Planning Inspectorate is unable to consider representations about the merits of any application until it is accepted for Examination. Further information about the process can be found in the link below to the National Infrastructure Planning website: [attachment 2]. Should the application be accepted the application and all the supporting documentation will be published on the project page of the National Infrastructure Planning website: [attachment 3]. The ‘Registration and Relevant Representation form’ will be made available here during the Pre-examination stage and all parties will have an opportunity to outline their views about the project. The appointed Examining Authority will then use these to carry out an initial assessment of principal issues. 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’: [attachment 4]. Kind regards, Liam

06 April 2020
Emma Dowley
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see Attached

06 April 2020
Thurrock Powe Ltd - anon.
Thurrock Flexible Generation Plant
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached Meeting Note

06 April 2020
London Resort Company Holdings
The London Resort
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Hi there We’re acting on behalf of a number of NSIP projects looking to undertake statutory consultation over the next few month. Are you providing any guidance on pre-application consultation procedures during the Covid-19 outbreak? As far as we can see a lot, if not all consultation, can be done online, but there are a few sticking points, for example around depositing hard copies of documents. I notice the Welsh Government is looking to relax any requirements around this. Is the Planning Inspectorate aware of the position in England? I would be grateful for any guidance you have. Kind regards
Dear Mr Weaver, Thank you for your e-mail. I can confirm that the Inspectorate continues to provide a Pre-application service; all meetings are held digitally via Microsoft Teams. As you are aware, applicants are required to demonstrate that they have complied with all statutory consultation duties set out in the Planning Act 2008 and associated secondary legislation. Whilst we are aware of the current difficulties’ applicants are experiencing in seeking to discharge some of these duties, particularly in relation to making documents (hard and electronic) available at public deposit locations, the Regulations remain in force. On this basis your clients should seek their own legal advice about the effect of the current public health situation on their respective programmes. For the avoidance of doubt, any update to the Regulations amending the requirement to use public deposit locations will require Parliamentary approval. The Inspectorate is not aware of any timescales surrounding this at present. Please regularly check the advice the Planning Inspectorate has issued in relation to COVID-19, which is updated on a regular basis: [attachment 1].

03 April 2020
Andrew Weaver, Copper
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Meeting to discuss Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) related matters
Please see the attached meeting note

02 April 2020
Highways England - anon.
Lower Thames Crossing
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Re: LTC Supplementary Consultation 2020 – Coronavirus Measures I fully understand the need for H.E. to Cancel LTC Consultation Public Information Events following Government Advice. However I strongly oppose your decision to go ahead with the Consultation Response deadline as scheduled. I believe this is unfair and does not provide equal opportunity for the public to ensure that they are fully aware of all the implications and impacts of the LTC not only when it is completed, but during the Construction period which is currently estimated to be a minimum of 5 years. Every resident and road user alike should be entitled to personally access all the information available, very importantly including Large Scale Maps, and to obtain immediate answers to any resulting questions before completing the Consultation Response Forms. I believe it is the duty of Highways England to accept the consequences of the Coronavirus in relation to this Supplementary Consultation and Postpone the Consultation and the current Response deadline. I also believe that H.E. should Reschedule all the Public Information Events when it is safe to do so in fairness to the general public. These Events should also be more widely publicized via National and Local: Television, Radio and Newspapers as there is still a large percentage of the population who do not have access to the internet. The Coronavirus has had a worrying affect on many and it is highly likely that the attendance of the Events that went ahead would reflect this. Yours sincerely, Mrs. J.S. Thacker
Dear Mrs Thacker Thank you for your email expressing concerns about the adequacy of the Applicant’s Pre-application consultation in the current unprecedented public health situation. Please accept my apology for the late response. The Planning Inspectorate does not have power to intervene in an applicant’s pre-application programme. The process for applying for a Development Consent Order (DCO) is set out in the Planning Act 2008. The timing of the application is at the discretion of the Applicant. As you have concerns about the Applicant’s pre-application consultation you should contact the Applicant in the first instance to enable them to address the issues. If you have contacted the Applicant but you are not satisfied that the Applicant has, or will, take account of your comments you can make your comments to the relevant local authority. The local authorities can consider your comments as part of their Adequacy of Consultation Representation submission to the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) at the Application Stage of the process. The Planning Inspectorate will consider any adequacy of consultation representations received from the relevant local authorities when deciding whether or not to accept the application, as required under section 55(4)(b) of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended). It is therefore important to ensure the local authorities are informed of your concerns. Further information about Community Consultation can be found here: [attachment 1] As you are aware the proposed application by Highways England is at the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 process. The Planning Inspectorate is unable to consider representations about the merits of any application until it is accepted for Examination. Further information about the process can be found in the link below to the National Infrastructure Planning website: [attachment 2] Should the application be accepted then the application and all the supporting documentation will be published on the project page of the National Infrastructure Planning website: [attachment 3] The ‘Registration and Relevant Representation form’ will be made available here during the Pre-examination stage and all parties will have an opportunity to outline their views about the project. The appointed Examining Authority will then use these to carry out an initial assessment of principal issues. 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’: [attachment 4] With regard to the current Coronavirus (COVID-19) situation, please refer to the Planning Inspectorate’s published guidance which will be updated as the situation develops. [attachment 5] I hope you find the above information helpful. Kind regards

02 April 2020
Mrs J.S. Thacker
Lower Thames Crossing
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
20th march 2020 I was about to write to you regarding your decision to go ahead with the Supplementary Consultation Response as planned when I received an email advising that Highways England have extended the response date by One Week to the 2nd April. Utterly ridiculous! It was my opinion before and still is, that Highways England made a serious error of judgment to continue with the Consultation process after the necessity of cancelling Public and Mobile Information Events due to the severity of the Coronavirus situation. This is a Major project and everyone is entitled to have the same opportunity to attend the Public Information Events etc. to see the large scale maps of the entire route, and sections of it, and get answers to any questions they might have so that they are aware of the impacts of the LTC during construction and when it is up and running. Proceeding with the Consultation at this time does not offer everyone this choice. Questions and answers online and over the phone are not sufficient. I believe the whole Consultation should be re-run at a future date when the fear of the Coronavirus is over. Sincerely, Mr. J.B. Thacker
Dear Mr Thacker, Thank you for your email expressing concerns about the adequacy of the Applicant’s Pre-application consultation in the current unprecedented public health situation. Please accept my apology for the late response. The Planning Inspectorate does not have power to intervene in an applicant’s pre-application programme. The process for applying for a Development Consent Order (DCO) is set out in the Planning Act 2008. The timing of the application is at the discretion of Highway England, the Applicant. As you have concerns about the Applicant’s pre-application consultation you should contact the Applicant in the first instance to enable them to address the issues. If you have contacted the Applicant but you are not satisfied that the Applicant has, or will, take account of your comments you can make your comments to the relevant local authority. The local authorities can consider your comments as part of their Adequacy of Consultation Representation submission to the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) at the Application Stage of the process. The Planning Inspectorate will consider any adequacy of consultation representations received from the relevant local authorities when deciding whether or not to accept the application, as required under section 55(4)(b) of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended). It is therefore important to ensure the local authorities are informed of your concerns. Further information about Community Consultation can be found here: [attachment 1] As you are aware the proposed application by Highways England is at the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 process. The Planning Inspectorate is unable to consider representations about the merits of any application until it is accepted for Examination. Further information about the process can be found in the link below to the National Infrastructure Planning website: [attachment 2] Should the application be accepted then the application and all the supporting documentation will be published on the project page of the National Infrastructure Planning website: [attachment 3] The ‘Registration and Relevant Representation form’ will be made available here during the Pre-examination stage and all parties will have an opportunity to outline their views about the project. The appointed Examining Authority will then use these to carry out an initial assessment of principal issues. 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’: [attachment 4] With regard to the current Coronavirus (COVID-19) situation, please refer to the Planning Inspectorate’s published guidance which will be updated as the situation develops. [attachment 5] I hope you find the above information helpful. Kind regards

02 April 2020
Mr J.B. Thacker
Lower Thames Crossing
response has attachments
I would like to know if the planning Application for the lower Thames Crossing will be postponed as I have not been able to attend the consultation due to the virus and I was also looking to put forward a formal representation against the lower Thames Crossing and feel that I will now not be able to do this and that highways England will just carry on regardless . Mr S.Brace
Dear Mr Brace, Thank you for your email expressing concerns about the adequacy of the Applicant’s Pre-application consultation in the current unprecedented public health situation. Please accept my apology for the late response. The Planning Inspectorate does not have power to intervene in an applicant’s pre-application programme. The process for applying for a Development Consent Order (DCO) is set out in the Planning Act 2008. The timing of the application is at the discretion of the Applicant. As you have concerns about the Applicant’s pre-application consultation you should contact the Applicant in the first instance to enable them to address the issues. If you have contacted the Applicant but you are not satisfied that the Applicant has, or will, take account of your comments you can make your comments to the relevant local authority. The local authorities can consider your comments as part of their Adequacy of Consultation Representation submission to the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) at the Application Stage of the process. The Planning Inspectorate will consider any adequacy of consultation representations received from the relevant local authorities when deciding whether or not to accept the application, as required under section 55(4)(b) of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended). It is therefore important to ensure the local authorities are informed of your concerns. Further information about Community Consultation can be found here: [attachment 1] As you are aware the proposed application by Highways England is at the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 process. The Planning Inspectorate is unable to consider representations about the merits of any application until it is accepted for Examination. Further information about the process can be found in the link below to the National Infrastructure Planning website: [attachment 2] Should the application be accepted then the application and all the supporting documentation will be published on the project page of the National Infrastructure Planning website: [attachment 3] The ‘Registration and Relevant Representation form’ will be made available here during the Pre-examination stage and all parties will have an opportunity to outline their views about the project. The appointed Examining Authority will then use these to carry out an initial assessment of principal issues. 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’: [attachment 4] With regard to the current Coronavirus (COVID-19) situation, please refer to the Planning Inspectorate’s published guidance which will be updated as the situation develops. [attachment 5] I hope you find the above information helpful. Kind regards

02 April 2020
Mr S.Brace
Lower Thames Crossing
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Dear all 1. You cannot end a 'consultation' when everyone's attention is elsewhere. 2. How can the cost of this project be justified when the UK is going to experience huge financial difficulties for years to come? Time to pause, if not cancel, the LTC. Thank you Jane Wooders
Dear Ms Wooders, Thank you for your email expressing concerns about the adequacy of the Applicant’s Pre-application consultation in the current unprecedented public health situation. Please accept my apology for the late response. The Planning Inspectorate does not have power to intervene in an applicant’s pre-application programme. The process for applying for a Development Consent Order (DCO) is set out in the Planning Act 2008. The timing of the application is at the discretion of Highways England, the Applicant. As you have concerns about the Applicant’s pre-application consultation you should contact the Applicant in the first instance to enable them to address the issues. If you have contacted the Applicant but you are not satisfied that the Applicant has, or will, take account of your comments you can make your comments to the relevant local authority. The local authorities can consider your comments as part of their Adequacy of Consultation Representation submission to the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) at the Application Stage of the process. The Planning Inspectorate will consider any adequacy of consultation representations received from the relevant local authorities when deciding whether or not to accept the application, as required under section 55(4)(b) of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended). It is therefore important to ensure the local authorities are informed of your concerns. Further information about Community Consultation can be found here: [attachment 1] As you are aware the proposed application by Highways England is at the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 process. The Planning Inspectorate is unable to consider representations about the merits of any application until it is accepted for Examination. Further information about the process can be found in the link below to the National Infrastructure Planning website: [attachment 2] Should the application be accepted then the application and all the supporting documentation will be published on the project page of the National Infrastructure Planning website: [attachment 3] The ‘Registration and Relevant Representation form’ will be made available here during the Pre-examination stage and all parties will have an opportunity to outline their views about the project. The appointed Examining Authority will then use these to carry out an initial assessment of principal issues. 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’: [attachment 4] With regard to the current Coronavirus (COVID-19) situation, please refer to the Planning Inspectorate’s published guidance which will be updated as the situation develops. [attachment 5] I hope you find the above information helpful. Kind regards

02 April 2020
Jane Wooders
Lower Thames Crossing
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please see attached
Please see attached

02 April 2020
Mrs Askew
Lower Thames Crossing
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please see attached
The process for applying for a Development Consent Order (DCO) is set out in the Planning Act 2008. The timing of the application is at the discretion of the Applicant. The project page will be updated when the application is received and when the decision on whether or not to accept the application for Examination is made. It is important to note that when an Applicant submits an application for development consent to the Planning Inspectorate that there then follows a period of up to 28 days for the Planning Inspectorate, on behalf of the Secretary of State, to decide whether or not the application meets the standards required to be accepted for Examination. The standards are set out in Section 55 of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended) and Regulations 5 and 6 of the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009. All parties are encouraged to sign up for Email Updates using the button on the project page or via the link below: [attachment 1] Email Updates will enable parties to observe what’s happening on the application after it has been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate. Should the application be accepted for Examination, it is important to note that if parties then wish to participate in the Examination they would need to register as an Interested Party at the appropriate time during the Pre-examination stage. If parties have signed up for the Email Updates they will receive a prompt when the registration period opens (the Relevant Representation period). For further information about registering as an Interested Party please see ‘Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination’. The Advice Note explains that if the Planning Inspectorate decides to accept an application for Examination, it will then be the Applicant’s duty to advertise the Relevant Representation period and provide details about how to register to become an Interested Party. Finally, with regard to the current Coronavirus (COVID-19) situation, please refer to the Planning Inspectorate’s published guidance which will be updated as the situation develops. [attachment 2]

31 March 2020
John Rea Price and Judith Croton
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Dear all, I think that EDFs planning application, now due for submission in April, for Sizewell C should be postponed until after Covid 19 pandemic for the following reasons: 1. This crisis will not be over ‘in a few weeks’. Government advisers indicate that there could be restrictions for the rest of the year. 2. The Planning Inspectorate is short of staff due to sickness and difficulties of getting to work. They may not have the resources to decide whether or not to accept EDF’s application within the required 28 days. 3. People who do not use the internet will be unable to go to libraries to see the documents. The same applies to anyone wanting to check the hard copy (for example the maps and diagrams which may be difficult to make out on screen). 4. While all our councils, parish, town, district and county, cannot meet, they also cannot help and advise the public. Nor can they represent us properly. Their resources are also limited due to sickness and inability of staff to get to work, so both East Suffolk and the County Council will be unable to carry out their duties fully as statutory consultees. 5. Government agencies, including the Environment Agency, Office for Nuclear Regulation and Natural England, all of whom are already short of funds and staff, will now be further compromised by Covid 19. They will not be able to respond fully to the documents, nor take full part in the Examination, nor engage with the public. The Environment Agency will be unable to hold the promised public consultations on licensing. 6. It will be impossible for the Planning Inspectorate to hold the Preliminary Meeting, whereby the public can make requests about how they would like the Examination to be carried out. Nor will the public be able to attend the Hearings. Regards Amy Rayner
Dear Ms Rayner, Thank you for your email. The process for applying for a Development Consent Order (DCO) is set out in the Planning Act 2008. The timing of the application is at the discretion of the Applicant. The project page will be updated when the application is received and when the decision on whether or not to accept the application for Examination is made. It is important to note that when an Applicant submits an application for development consent to the Planning Inspectorate that there then follows a period of up to 28 days for the Planning Inspectorate, on behalf of the Secretary of State, to decide whether or not the application meets the standards required to be accepted for Examination. The standards are set out in Section 55 of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended) and Regulations 5 and 6 of the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009. All parties are encouraged to sign up for Email Updates using the button on the project page or via the link below: [attachment 1] Email Updates will enable parties to observe what’s happening on the application after it has been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate. Should the application be accepted for Examination, it is important to note that if parties then wish to participate in the Examination they would need to register as an Interested Party at the appropriate time during the Pre-examination stage. If parties have signed up for the Email Updates they will receive a prompt when the registration period opens (the Relevant Representation period). For further information about registering as an Interested Party please see ‘Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination’. The Advice Note explains that if the Planning Inspectorate decides to accept an application for Examination, it will then be the Applicant’s duty to advertise the Relevant Representation period and provide details about how to register to become an Interested Party. Finally, with regard to the current Coronavirus (COVID-19) situation, please refer to the Planning Inspectorate’s published guidance which will be updated as the situation develops. [attachment 2] I hope you find the above information helpful.

30 March 2020
Amy Rayner
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Dear PINS I am writing on behalf of Suffolk Coastal Friends of the Earth, of which I am the Coordinator. Our members are truly appalled that EDF Energy are apparently thinking of putting in their application to build Sizewell C imminently, right during this current epidemic and national emergency. Clearly, it would be quite impossible for the public to participate in the Examination, as legally prescribed. Most immediately this would affect the Preliminary Meeting and subsequently the public Hearings, which we would not be able to attend. We ask therefore that EDF Energy's application not be accepted at this critical time, but that it be postponed until the public are able to be involved according to their democratic rights. Your sincerely, Rachel Fulcher, Coordinator Suffolk Coastal Friends of the Earth
Dear Ms Fulcher, Thank you for your email. As you may be aware The Applicant is planning to defer the submission of the Application for a few weeks. The process for applying for a Development Consent Order (DCO) is set out in the Planning Act 2008. The timing of the application is at the discretion of the Applicant. The project page will be updated when the application is received and when the decision on whether or not to accept the application for Examination is made. It is important to note that when an Applicant submits an application for development consent to the Planning Inspectorate that there then follows a period of up to 28 days for the Planning Inspectorate, on behalf of the Secretary of State, to decide whether or not the application meets the standards required to be accepted for Examination. The standards are set out in Section 55 of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended) and Regulations 5 and 6 of the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009. All parties are encouraged to sign up for Email Updates using the button on the project page or via the link below: [attachment 1] Email Updates will enable parties to observe what’s happening on the application after it has been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate. Should the application be accepted for Examination, it is important to note that if parties then wish to participate in the Examination they would need to register as an Interested Party at the appropriate time during the Pre-examination stage. If parties have signed up for the Email Updates they will receive a prompt when the registration period opens (the Relevant Representation period). For further information about registering as an Interested Party please see ‘Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination’. The Advice Note explains that if the Planning Inspectorate decides to accept an application for Examination, it will then be the Applicant’s duty to advertise the Relevant Representation period and provide details about how to register to become an Interested Party. Finally, with regard to the current Coronavirus (COVID-19) situation, please refer to the Planning Inspectorate’s published guidance which will be updated as the situation develops. [attachment 2] I hope you find the above information helpful.

30 March 2020
on behalf of Suffolk Coastal Friends of the Earth - Rachel Fulcher
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
> Re: EDF/Sizewell C consultations x 4 > > As we are led to believe that EDF will soon apply for their DCO, Covid 19 not withstanding, I want to submit some serious misgivings I have about the 4 public consultations that have taken place over the last few years. > > My basic problem is the hopeless lack of detail and evidence that has been offered around the complete transformation from the AONB and the deeply rural surrounding area of East Suffolk and the Heritage Coast to the highly industrialised wasteland that is being proposed. For 15 years or more everyone within a 40 mile radius will be adversely affected, businesses and the general public alike. RSPB Minsmere will be no more, we will lose an unknown acreage of SSSI and our unique landscape will have been irreparably altered for the worse. When asked questions about the impact on various aspects of the environment - use of fresh water (in short supply here), sewage works and related issues, danger of upsetting the water levels in the Minsmere Levels, of pollution and run off from building a permanent road right across the SSSI, danger related to sea level rise and more flooding on this famously fragile and eroding coast, EDF have too frequently said that environmental assessments have yet to be done. Obviously this makes it impossible to make truly well informed conclusions or comments. > > I object on environmental grounds. The British Government accepts we are in climate crisis, but everything about the construction of Sizewell C - actually Sizewell C and D - is extremely carbon heavy up front and much of this release of carbon will be occurring during the 10 year window of opportunity the scientific community have given us to retain life on Earth. The transport of all the necessary aggregates from one side of the country to the other, the pouring of a sea of concrete, the huge rise in traffic, air, light and noise pollution all create massive extra emissions. For example, the Yoxford junction onto the A12 will be an instant disaster. There is already often a queue to join it from the A1120, and with hundreds of extra vehicles it will become almost impossible to turn either right or left there, meaning traffic will be backed up along the High Street, with houses on either side set close to the road. There is also a primary school around which the children, staff, pedestrians and residents will have to breath in even higher levels of pollution than already exist, from backed up, idling traffic emitting toxic fumes. Families living on the east side of the A12 will have a difficult and dangerous time crossing it to reach and return from the school. > > I object on behalf of the the local economy. Far from bringing prosperity and jobs, we will lose our hard earned and lucrative tourist industry. As for boosting Leiston’s economy: as history has proven by the first two builds and by visiting the town today, that it will be a third case of boom and bust. It will take much longer, and be far more unpleasant to drive to East Suffolk and on arrival it will be difficult to find places to stay. Minsmere and the coast will no longer be attractive, suffering from 24 hour noise, light and air pollution. East Suffolk has very low unemployment levels and most of the SZC jobs will go to workers from around the world, many via Hinckley Point C. > > HPC has recently said it needs more workers than previously expected, and doubtless the same will be true at SZC. The infrastructure of the area simply cannot cope with thousands more people and no mitigation is possible for that. Jobs for locals will be largely in catering, general maintenance and similar work, which mean local hotels, restaurants, plumbers, electricians etc will inevitably lose staff to the higher wages of SZC. Local businesses will struggle and local people left without help when they need it. We have yet to be given details of exactly how or where all these previously unforeseen extra workers will be housed. > > The roadworks and roundabout building will take years, meanwhile the existing roads will have to carry hundreds of extra cars, vans, lorries, busses and some super-sized vehicles carrying special loads. Journey times could double or treble. I personally experienced a journey time of two hours to drive the seven miles around Bridgwater. East Suffolk is already one of the worst areas in the country for ambulance arrival times, and more people will suffer unnecessarily as a result - the same applies to the fire service. These extra workers will come to work and live locally but we already have a severe shortage of doctors and other medical assistance and nothing has been done to mitigate any of this We have been informed a helicopter will take injured SZC workers to hospital as it takes too long for ambulances to reach the site. What about the rest of us? We will just be left to die. During the current pandemic particularly we do not want and should not be asked to accommodate an influx of thousands to further endanger both our health and our health services, already almost at breaking point. Current thinking has the virus with us for up to two years. > > I object on financial grounds. The evidence clearly shows that new nuclear builds never come in on time or on budget, quite the reverse. In fact, that may be their only reliable quality. Every year that passes evidence piles up against nuclear, and every year renewable sources become much cheaper to build, as well as much quicker. Their carbon footprint is small in comparison to nuclear, and leaves no poisoned chalice behind. We already have a mass of radioactive waste stored at Sizewell, indefinitely it seems, but no-one asks us our opinions on that matter. Now it will be joined by much more, much ‘hotter’ waste which will be lethal for centuries - just when the world is facing huge sea level rises and more extreme weather events. Apart from the existing danger of low level radiation, this area will become even more dangerous to life. > > Government also gave consumers a choice over their power suppliers. I chose 100% renewable energy. The RAB system of payment for SZC, as suggested, is unacceptable on a personal level as well as in general. Why should the population pay to keep the bankrupt nuclear arm of EDF afloat financially? For a white elephant that we do not need and do not want? We have just left Europe, after all, and the French PM has stated he aims for France itself to become nuclear free. > > Finally I object on personal grounds. The east coast is crumbling and the build at SZC will not only adversely effect the AONB but the villages, land and residents to both north, south and inland as the sea will encroach. We are told SZC may become an island, that EDF will build their wall higher against rising sea levels (remember King Canute?) but in reality no detailed information has been given about this and many more issues that have been raised over and over again during the consultation process. Those of us who live here want to protect our precious local heritage not merely for ourselves but for future generations. We do not want to hasten the demise of some of the UK’s most highly protected and unique landscape for an unnecessary, fabulously expensive and potentially lethally dangerous white elephant that will remain just that for centuries to come. > > It has become only too clear over the past many years and four consultations that the proposed plans for SZC are ruinous both environmentally and financially. The lives of local people have already been adversely affected but ever more disruption will continue for 15 -20 years. All this before SZC generates any electricity at all. During the same period many more wind and solar farms will be built and other renewable technologies will come on stream, making the twin reactors of SZC entirely redundant. > > Jackum Brown
Dear Mr Brown, Thank you for your email expressing concerns about the Applicant’s Pre-application consultation and commenting on the merits of the Application. As you have concerns about the Applicant’s Pre-application consultation you should contact the Applicant in the first instance to enable them to address the issues. If you have contacted the Applicant but you are not satisfied that the Applicant has, or will, take account of your comments you can make your comments to the relevant local authority. The local authorities can consider your comments as part of their Adequacy of Consultation Representation submission to the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) at the Application Stage of the process. The Planning Inspectorate will consider any adequacy of consultation representations received from the relevant local authorities when deciding whether or not to accept the application, as required under section 55(4)(b) of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended). It is therefore important to ensure the local authorities are informed of your concerns. Further information about Community Consultation can be found here: [attachment 1] As you are aware the proposed application by EDF Energy is at the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 process. The Planning Inspectorate is unable to consider representations about the merits of any application until it is accepted for Examination. Further information about the process can be found in the link below to the National Infrastructure Planning website: [attachment 2]. Should the application be accepted the application and all the supporting documentation will be published on the project page of the National Infrastructure Planning website: [attachment 3]. The ‘Registration and Relevant Representation form’ will be made available here during the Pre-examination stage and all parties will have an opportunity to outline their views about the project. The appointed Examining Authority will then use these to carry out an initial assessment of principal issues. 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’: [attachment 4]. I hope the above information is helpful.

30 March 2020
Jackum Brown
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via post
response has attachments
Please see attached
As you have concerns about the Applicant’s pre-application consultation you should contact the Applicant in the first instance to enable them to address the issues. If you have contacted the Applicant but you are not satisfied that the Applicant has, or will, take account of your comments you can make your comments to the relevant local authority. The local authorities can consider your comments as part of their Adequacy of Consultation Representation submission to the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) at the Application Stage of the process. The Planning Inspectorate will consider any adequacy of consultation representations received from the relevant local authorities when deciding whether or not to accept the application, as required under section 55(4)(b) of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended). It is therefore important to ensure the local authorities are informed of your concerns. Further information about Community Consultation can be found here: [attachment 1] As you are aware the proposed application by EDF Energy is at the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 process. The Planning Inspectorate is unable to consider representations about the merits of any application until it is accepted for Examination. Further information about the process can be found in the link below to the National Infrastructure Planning website: [attachment 2]. Should the application be accepted the application and all the supporting documentation will be published on the project page of the National Infrastructure Planning website: [attachment 3]. The ‘Registration and Relevant Representation form’ will be made available here during the Pre-examination stage and all parties will have an opportunity to outline their views about the project. The appointed Examining Authority will then use these to carry out an initial assessment of principal issues. 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’: [attachment 4].

27 March 2020
on behalf of Yoxford Parish Council - John Walford
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I hear that the public meetings about this application have been cancelled due to the present Covid-19 criss. It would be undemocratic to proceed without the meetings and the right course of action would be for EDFE to postpone the application until the crisis is over and the meetings can take place. Yours sincerely, Catherine Northover
Ms Northover, Thank you for your email. The process for applying for a Development Consent Order (DCO) is set out in the Planning Act 2008, the timing of the application is at the discretion of the Applicant. Whilst we are aware that the latest Sizewell C Community Forum meeting has been cancelled please note that the National Infrastructure Planning website provides a significant amount of information about the DCO process and how parties can get involved. Advice Note Eight provides an overview followed by five sections which take you step by step through the planning process for Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects: [attachment 1] The Planning Inspectorate has produced a series of short films explaining the process and how parties can take part: [attachment 2] For information that is specific to the Sizewell C project there is a project page on the National Infrastructure Planning website: [attachment 3] The project page will be updated when the application is received and when the decision on whether or not to accept the application for Examination is made. It is important to note that when an Applicant submits an application for development consent to the Planning Inspectorate that there then follows a period of up to 28 days for the Planning Inspectorate, on behalf of the Secretary of State, to decide whether or not the application meets the standards required to be accepted for Examination. The standards are set out in Section 55 of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended) and Regulations 5 and 6 of the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009. All parties are encouraged to sign up for Email Updates using the button on the project page or via the link below: [attachment 4] Email Updates will enable parties to observe what’s happening on the application after it has been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate. Should the application be accepted for Examination, it is important to note that if parties then wish to participate in the Examination they would need to register as an Interested Party at the appropriate time during the Pre-examination stage. If parties have signed up for the Email Updates they will receive a prompt when the registration period opens (the Relevant Representation period). For further information about registering as an Interested Party please see ‘Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination’. The Advice Note explains that if the Planning Inspectorate decides to accept an application for Examination, it will then be the Applicant’s duty to advertise the Relevant Representation period and provide details about how to register to become an Interested Party. Finally, with regard to the current Coronavirus (COVID-19) situation, please refer to the Planning Inspectorate’s published guidance which will be updated as the situation develops. [attachment 5] I hope you find the above information helpful.

27 March 2020
Catherine Northover
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached meeting note

26 March 2020
NNB Nuclear Generation (SZC) Limited (Applicant) - anon.
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached.

26 March 2020
Highways England - anon.
A1 in Northumberland - Morpeth to Ellingham
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
REF: Response to Scoping Opinion Proposed Medworth Energy from Waste Combined Heat and Power Facility (Wisbech) EN010110 [attachment 1] Can you please confirm that the public response to the above published Scoping Opinion is required by the end of March.
In light of your concerns I have contacted the Applicant to fully understand their consultation processes and changes they have made in response to the Governments approach the coronavirus pandemic. As you are aware the public consultation events for Medworth have been cancelled, however, the public consultation itself is still underway. It was launched on 16th March and is currently proposed to run until Monday 4th May. I think perhaps this may be where the mix up regarding consultation on the Scoping Opinion may have come from. The Applicant has information regarding the proposals on their website – [attachment 2]. You can raise your concerns, including those you have on the Scoping Opinion, using the ‘general enquiry form’ here [attachment 3]. Alternatively you can email [email protected] or call 01945 232 231. Furthermore if you have comments regarding the consultation itself you may provide feedback here [attachment 3] using the ‘consultation feedback form’ tab, or in hard copy to ‘Freepost MVV’. All consultation feedback will be reviewed and considered as the project progresses. The Applicant will continue to review the coronavirus situation in relation to their ability to hold community events. Engaging with affected communities is their key priority and they will assess how and when events can be held as the situation progresses.

26 March 2020
Mo Stewart
Medworth Energy from Waste Combined Heat and Power Facility
Enquiry received via email
Dear Sirs/Madams, In light of the current public health situation surrounding COVID-19 and the Planning Inspectorate’s recent decision to postpone all local plan, appeal and NSIP hearings and enquiries until further notice we write to ask whether any postponement or delay is envisaged in relation to the Southampton to London Pipeline Project. We note that the close of examination is to be the 9 April 2020 and our client, Thames Water Utilities Limited have issues and comments still outstanding. We may need to make final representations before the close of the examination if these are not satisfied by ongoing discussions with the We also wish to manage our clients expectations if there are likely to be delays in the examination and decision periods. Any information you may have in this regard would be welcomed. Kind regards Beth Youngs | Solicitor | Planning and Environmental Team | Birketts LLP
Dear Ms Youngs, Thank you for your e-mail below. The situation surrounding COVID-19 is a matter which is under constant review by the Inspectorate. We have set up a group that is dedicated to monitoring the situation, ensuring that we are operating in accordance with current Government guidelines. In relation to the Southampton to London Pipeline Project Examination, I can confirm that all public events have taken place; there are no further site inspections or hearings planned. In the absence of events necessitating social gathering, such as those listed above, there is no planned postponement of the Examination and it will continue to proceed; due to close on Thursday 9 April 2020. Your comments in relation to your client’s position are noted. There is an opportunity for all Interested Parties to submit their respective positions by the final Examination deadline (Deadline 7 – 2 April 2020). Please note that if any representations are submitted after this deadline, but before the close of the Examination, it will be for the Examining Authority (ExA) to decide whether to exercise its discretion to accept. Any representations submitted after the close of the Examination will not be seen by the ExA and will be passed to BEIS, alongside the ExA’s Recommendation Report. Finally, I regret to inform you that the Inspectorate is not in a position to confirm whether there will be any delay to the decision period; that is a matter for BEIS and will depend on a number of factors such as whether any consultation is required.

24 March 2020
Thames Water Utilities Limited - Beth Youngs ,Birketts LLP
Southampton to London Pipeline Project
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Dear Michele, In these days of crisis with Covid 19 I am very concerned with the situation that may occur concerning the NSIP EDF Energy proposal for Sizewell C. We have been told locally that EDFE are considering putting in their DCO to PINs in the near future ( before the end of March 2020) I am aware that it is entirely in the hands of the Developer as to the timing of their application. However we have received notification that the SZC Community Forum has been cancelled for obvious reasons therefore there will be no opportunity to ask final questions of the EDFE Team before the DCO is submitted. Nor the ability to give people any information as to how the DCO process will work neither will they be instructed as to how to be involved with the DCO process. Which I understood was part of the Consultation process. Understanding the present situation brings into question how can the democratic process work if EDFE decide to put in their DCO, when the Country is dealing with such difficulties. Local Authorities large and small and Regulators are all under pressure such as ability to travel, lack of staff and time scales and the involvement with so many difficult urgent matters. How will members of the public be notified if EDFE decide to submit their DCO for SZC in the present climate ? What measures will be undertaken to ensure democracy is complied with? Does PINS have the ability to suspend any procedure on EDFE DCO until such time as the Covid 19 situation is resolved? I note with interest that the EA1North and EA2 Wind Farms NSIP Planning Examinations have been suspended. Will the same criterion apply to any new NSIP Application? Yours Sincerely Joan Girling
Dear Joan Girling Thank you for your email. The process for applying for a Development Consent Order (DCO) is set out in the Planning Act 2008. As you are aware the timing of the application is at the discretion of the Developer. Whilst we are aware that the latest Sizewell C Community Forum meeting has been cancelled please note that the National Infrastructure Planning website provides a significant amount of information about the DCO process and how parties can get involved. Advice Note Eight provides an overview followed by five sections which take you step by step through the planning process for Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects: [attachment 1] The Planning Inspectorate has produced a series of short films explaining the process and how parties can take part: [attachment 2] For information that is specific to the Sizewell C project there is a project page on the National Infrastructure Planning website: [attachment 3] The project page will be updated when the application is received and when the decision on whether or not to accept the application for Examination is made. It is important to note that when an Applicant submits an application for development consent to the Planning Inspectorate that there then follows a period of up to 28 days for the Planning Inspectorate, on behalf of the Secretary of State, to decide whether or not the application meets the standards required to be accepted for Examination. The standards are set out in Section 55 of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended) and Regulations 5 and 6 of the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009. All parties are encouraged to sign up for Email Updates using the button on the project page or via the link below: [attachment 4] Email Updates will enable parties to observe what’s happening on the application after it has been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate. Should the application be accepted for Examination, it is important to note that if parties then wish to participate in the Examination they would need to register as an Interested Party at the appropriate time during the Pre-examination stage. If parties have signed up for the Email Updates they will receive a prompt when the registration period opens (the Relevant Representation period). For further information about registering as an Interested Party please see ‘Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination’. The Advice Note explains that if the Planning Inspectorate decides to accept an application for Examination, it will then be the Applicant’s duty to advertise the Relevant Representation period and provide details about how to register to become an Interested Party. Finally, with regard to the current Coronavirus (COVID-19) situation, please refer to the Planning Inspectorate’s published guidance which will be updated as the situation develops. [attachment 5] I hope you find the above information helpful.

24 March 2020
Joan Girling
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please see attached.
As you have concerns about the Applicant’s pre-application consultation you should contact the Applicant in the first instance to enable them to address the issues. If you have contacted the Applicant but you are not satisfied that the Applicant has, or will, take account of your comments you can make your comments to the relevant local authority. The local authorities can consider your comments as part of their Adequacy of Consultation Representation submission to the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) at the Application Stage of the process. The Planning Inspectorate will consider any adequacy of consultation representations received from the relevant local authorities when deciding whether or not to accept the application, as required under section 55(4)(b) of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended). It is therefore important to ensure the local authorities are informed of your concerns. Further information about Community Consultation can be found here: [attachment 1]. As you are aware the proposed application by EDF Energy is at the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 process. The Planning Inspectorate is unable to consider representations about the merits of any application until it is accepted for Examination. Further information about the process can be found in the link below to the National Infrastructure Planning website: [attachment 2]. Should the application be accepted the application and all the supporting documentation will be published on the project page of the National Infrastructure Planning website: [attachment 3]. The ‘Registration and Relevant Representation form’ will be made available here during the Pre-examination stage and all parties will have an opportunity to outline their views about the project. The appointed Examining Authority will then use these to carry out an initial assessment of principal issues. 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’: [attachment 4].

19 March 2020
Jane Page on behalf of Hacheston Parish Council
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Please see attached.
Changes to red line boundary and supplementary consultation

19 March 2020
Highways England
A428 Black Cat to Caxton Gibbet Road Improvement scheme
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Dear Sir/Madam I write to express my dissatisfaction with the consultation process which EDF has undertaken in respect of Sizewell C&D. In view of the social and environmental sensitivity of this scheme, the consultations, exhibitions and information available have been a long way short of what I would consider acceptable. When I attended the exhibitions I found the displays lacking in detail, particularly from an environmental point of view and my questions on the impact on the local environment, wildlife and on the health risks to local residents were dismissed. I was told to wait until the Environmental Impact Assessment was published. To leave these questions unanswered until the DCO is submitted is totally unacceptable. One of the most misleading parts of the exhibition was the huge model of the completed development showing all the countryside around the power station. There was no model showing the extent of the actual development site, the Sites of Special Scientific Interest which will be lost or the impact on the beach. There was no indication of the scale and location of the workers’ accommodation blocks and as the display boards failed to show the potential visual impact, there was no way that people could get a real perception of the extent of the construction site, the environmental damage that will be caused and the resulting long-term impact. When I asked why such a model hadn’t been created, my observation was dismissed as (and I quote) ‘unnecessary'. Furthermore there was insufficient detail on the location and extent of the nuclear waste storage which the site will be subject to over its lifetime or indeed on the time which this dangerous nuclear waste will be there. The information was lacking in honesty as the truth is that no one knows what to do with the nuclear waste or what danger it presents when buried in a location which is at severe risk of flooding due to anticipated rise in sea levels in the years to come. Today environmental impacts should be at the top of every list of considerations when development schemes are being planned. EDF has been less than open, indeed I would argue that they have been negligent, in the way and in the extent of information provided with no indication of the levels of pollution which the construction process, traffic and construction materials will produce. Whilst it is (incorrectly) argued that once completed the production of electricity will be carbon free, during the long construction period considerable air and light pollution will be generated - this flies in the face of the Government’s targets for CO2 reduction and will pose a real threat to local people’s health. EDF have totally ignored these aspects during their public exhibitions. EDF’s consultation process had been misleading and insufficient and I would ask the Planning Inspectorate to dismiss the DCO application. Yours faithfully Alan Collett
Dear Mr Collett, Thank you for your email expressing concerns about the adequacy of the Applicants Pre-application consultation and the consultation material. We note that you have sent your letter to the the local authorities. As you have concerns about the Applicant’s pre-application consultation you should contact the Applicant in the first instance to enable them to address the issues. If you have contacted the Applicant but you are not satisfied that the Applicant has, or will, take account of your comments you can make your comments to the relevant local authority. The local authorities can consider your comments as part of their Adequacy of Consultation Representation submission to the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) at the Application Stage of the process. The Planning Inspectorate will consider any adequacy of consultation representations received from the relevant local authorities when deciding whether or not to accept the application, as required under section 55(4)(b) of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended). It is therefore important to ensure the local authorities are informed of your concerns. Further information about Community Consultation can be found here: [attachment 1]. As you are aware the proposed application by EDF Energy is at the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 process. The Planning Inspectorate is unable to consider representations about the merits of any application until it is accepted for Examination. Further information about the process can be found in the link below to the National Infrastructure Planning website: [attachment 2]. Should the application be accepted the application and all the supporting documentation will be published on the project page of the National Infrastructure Planning website: [attachment 3]. The ‘Registration and Relevant Representation form’ will be made available here during the Pre-examination stage and all parties will have an opportunity to outline their views about the project. The appointed Examining Authority will then use these to carry out an initial assessment of principal issues. 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’: [attachment 4]. Kind regards, Liam

18 March 2020
Alan Collett
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please see attached
Thank you for the attached letter expressing concerns about the adequacy of the Applicants Pre-application consultation and the consultation material. As you have concerns about the Applicant’s pre-application consultation you should contact the Applicant in the first instance to enable them to address the issues. If you have contacted the Applicant but you are not satisfied that the Applicant has, or will, take account of your comments you can make your comments to the relevant local authority. The local authorities can consider your comments as part of their Adequacy of Consultation Representation submission to the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) at the Application Stage of the process. The Planning Inspectorate will consider any adequacy of consultation representations received from the relevant local authorities when deciding whether or not to accept the application, as required under section 55(4)(b) of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended). It is therefore important to ensure the local authorities are informed of your concerns. Further information about Community Consultation can be found here: [attachment 1]. As you are aware the proposed application by EDF Energy is at the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 process. The Planning Inspectorate is unable to consider representations about the merits of any application until it is accepted for Examination. Further information about the process can be found in the link below to the National Infrastructure Planning website: [attachment 2]. Should the application be accepted the application and all the supporting documentation will be published on the project page of the National Infrastructure Planning website: [attachment 3]. The ‘Registration and Relevant Representation form’ will be made available here during the Pre-examination stage and all parties will have an opportunity to outline their views about the project. The appointed Examining Authority will then use these to carry out an initial assessment of principal issues. 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’: [attachment 4].

18 March 2020
on behalf of Great Bealings Parish Council - Dee Knights
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
A project update took place on 18 March 2020
A note of that meeting is attached

18 March 2020
The Net Zero Teesside Project - anon.
The Net Zero Teesside Project
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Please see attached.
Please see attached.

18 March 2020
Highways England
A417 Missing Link
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Dear Planning Inspectorate, BEIS Ministers and EDF I urge you not to accept EDF’s application to construct two new nuclear reactors at Sizewell. Despite 4 rounds of public consultations, EDF has not provided enough information or adequately consulted people about: • The threat to RSPB Minsmere Nature Reserve and other protected sites. The company has provided no assurances that Minsmere and Sizewell Marsh SSSI will be protected from any potential harm as a result of Sizewell C. The amount of information about environmental impacts has been woeful. • The way in which EDF plans to deliver 10m tonnes of material without a jetty, significant use of rail, or an adequate road route that will protect local communities. Councils dispute EDF's claim to have chosen the best road route. • Community Impacts - no study has been provided despite being promised “at a later stage of consultation” • Health Impacts - no study has been provided despite being promised “at a later stage of consultation” • Worker numbers and accommodation. Reports from Hinkley Point that EDF has underestimated the workers it needs suggests more will be needed at Sizewell C too. EDF’s communications about worker numbers at Sizewell have been very misleading and its uncertain where everyone would live. • At Stage 4 consultations the two villages most affected by the Sizewell Link Road, a major part of this consultation, were not visited with EDF’s touring exhibition. Yours sincerely, Anna Liberadzki
Dear Ms Liberadzki, Thank you for your email outlining concerns about the Applicants Pre-application consultation. We note that you have sent your letter to the Applicant and the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. As you have concerns about the Applicant’s pre-application consultation you should contact the Applicant in the first instance to enable them to address the issues. If you have contacted the Applicant but you are not satisfied that the Applicant has, or will, take account of your comments you can make your comments to the relevant local authority. The local authorities can consider your comments as part of their Adequacy of Consultation Representation submission to the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) at the Application Stage of the process. The Planning Inspectorate will consider any adequacy of consultation representations received from the relevant local authorities when deciding whether or not to accept the application, as required under section 55(4)(b) of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended). It is therefore important to ensure the local authorities are informed of your concerns. Further information about Community Consultation can be found here: [attachment 1] As you are aware the proposed application by EDF Energy is at the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 process. The Planning Inspectorate is unable to consider representations about the merits of any application until it is accepted for Examination. Further information about the process can be found in the link below to the National Infrastructure Planning website: [attachment 2]. Should the application be accepted the application and all the supporting documentation will be published on the project page of the National Infrastructure Planning website: [attachment 3]. The ‘Registration and Relevant Representation form’ will be made available here during the Pre-examination stage and all parties will have an opportunity to outline their views about the project. The appointed Examining Authority will then use these to carry out an initial assessment of principal issues. 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’: [attachment 4]. Kind regards, Liam

17 March 2020
Anna Liberadzki
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please see attached
Thank you for the attached letter on behalf of Theberton and Eastbridge Action Group on Sizewell expressing concerns about the adequacy of the Applicants consultation, consultation material and the information contained in the Scoping Report. We note that you have sent your letter to the Applicant and the local authorities. The local authorities can consider your comments as part of their Adequacy of Consultation Representation submission to the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) at the Application Stage of the process. The Planning Inspectorate will consider any adequacy of consultation representations received from the relevant local authorities when deciding whether or not to accept the application, as required under section 55(4)(b) of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended). It is therefore important to ensure the local authorities are informed of your concerns. Further information about Community Consultation can be found here: [attachment 1] As you are aware the proposed application by EDF Energy is at the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 process. The Planning Inspectorate is unable to consider representations about the merits of any application until it is accepted for Examination. Further information about the process can be found in the link below to the National Infrastructure Planning website: [attachment 2]. Should the application be accepted the application and all the supporting documentation will be published on the project page of the National Infrastructure Planning website: [attachment 3]. The ‘Registration and Relevant Representation form’ will be made available here during the Pre-examination stage and all parties will have an opportunity to outline their views about the project. The appointed Examining Authority will then use these to carry out an initial assessment of principal issues. 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’: [attachment 4].

17 March 2020
Theberton and Eastbridge Action Group on Sizewell - Alison Downes
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please see attached
Thank you for the attached letter on behalf of Minsmere Levels Stakeholders Group expressing concerns about the adequacy of the Applicants Pre-application consultation and the consultation material. We note that you have sent your letter to the Applicant and the local authorities. The local authorities can consider your comments as part of their Adequacy of Consultation Representation submission to the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) at the Application Stage of the process. The Planning Inspectorate will consider any adequacy of consultation representations received from the relevant local authorities when deciding whether or not to accept the application, as required under section 55(4)(b) of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended). It is therefore important to ensure the local authorities are informed of your concerns. Further information about Community Consultation can be found here: [attachment 1]. As you are aware the proposed application by EDF Energy is at the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 process. The Planning Inspectorate is unable to consider representations about the merits of any application until it is accepted for Examination. Further information about the process can be found in the link below to the National Infrastructure Planning website: [attachment 2]. Should the application be accepted the application and all the supporting documentation will be published on the project page of the National Infrastructure Planning website: [attachment 3]. The ‘Registration and Relevant Representation form’ will be made available here during the Pre-examination stage and all parties will have an opportunity to outline their views about the project. The appointed Examining Authority will then use these to carry out an initial assessment of principal issues. 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’: [attachment 4].

17 March 2020
on behalf of Minsmere Levels Stakeholders Group - Paul Collins
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please see attached
Thank you for the email and attached letter on behalf of Farnham with Stratford St Andrews Parish Council expressing concerns about the adequacy of the developers consultation, consultation material and the information contained in the Scoping Report. We note that you have sent your letter to the Applicant and the local authorities. The local authorities can consider your comments as part of their Adequacy of Consultation Representation submission to the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) at the Application Stage of the process. The Planning Inspectorate will consider any adequacy of consultation representations received from the relevant local authorities when deciding whether or not to accept the application, as required under section 55(4)(b) of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended). It is therefore important to ensure the local authorities are informed of your concerns. Further information about Community Consultation can be found here: [attachment 1]. As you are aware the proposed application by EDF Energy is at the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 process. The Planning Inspectorate is unable to consider representations about the merits of any application until it is accepted for Examination. Further information about the process can be found in the link below to the National Infrastructure Planning website: [attachment 2]. Should the application be accepted the application and all the supporting documentation will be published on the project page of the National Infrastructure Planning website: [attachment 3]. The ‘Registration and Relevant Representation form’ will be made available here during the Pre-examination stage and all parties will have an opportunity to outline their views about the project. The appointed Examining Authority will then use these to carry out an initial assessment of principal issues. 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’: [attachment 4].

17 March 2020
Farnham with Stratford St Andrew Parish Council - Debbi Tayler
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Dear Planning Inspectorate, BEIS Ministers and EDF I urge you not to accept EDF’s application to construct two new nuclear reactors at Sizewell. Despite 4 rounds of public consultations, EDF has not provided enough information or adequately consulted people about: • The threat to RSPB Minsmere Nature Reserve and other protected sites. The company has provided no assurances that Minsmere and Sizewell Marsh SSSI will be protected from any potential harm as a result of Sizewell C. The amount of information about environmental impacts has been woeful. • The way in which EDF plans to deliver 10m tonnes of material without a jetty, significant use of rail, or an adequate road route that will protect local communities. • Community Impacts - no study has been provided despite being promised “at a later stage of consultation” • Health Impacts - no study has been provided despite being promised “at a later stage of consultation” • Worker numbers and accommodation. Reports from Hinkley Point that EDF has underestimated the workers it needs suggests more will be needed at Sizewell C too. EDF’s communications about worker numbers at Sizewell have been very misleading and its uncertain where everyone would live. • At Stage 4 consultations the two villages most affected by the Sizewell Link Road, a major part of this consultation, were not visited with EDF’s touring exhibition. Yours sincerely, Alison Downes
Dear Ms Downes, Thank you for your email outlining concerns about the Applicants pre-application consultation. We note that you have sent your letter to the Applicant and the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. As you have concerns about the Applicant’s pre-application consultation you should contact the Applicant in the first instance to enable them to address the issues. If you have contacted the Applicant but you are not satisfied that the Applicant has, or will, take account of your comments you can make your comments to the relevant local authority. The local authorities can consider your comments as part of their Adequacy of Consultation Representation submission to the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) at the Application Stage of the process. The Planning Inspectorate will consider any adequacy of consultation representations received from the relevant local authorities when deciding whether or not to accept the application, as required under section 55(4)(b) of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended). It is therefore important to ensure the local authorities are informed of your concerns. Further information about Community Consultation can be found here: [attachment 1] As you are aware the proposed application by EDF Energy is at the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 process. The Planning Inspectorate is unable to consider representations about the merits of any application until it is accepted for Examination. Further information about the process can be found in the link below to the National Infrastructure Planning website: [attachment 2]. Should the application be accepted the application and all the supporting documentation will be published on the project page of the National Infrastructure Planning website: [attachment 3]. The ‘Registration and Relevant Representation form’ will be made available here during the Pre-examination stage and all parties will have an opportunity to outline their views about the project. The appointed Examining Authority will then use these to carry out an initial assessment of principal issues. 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’: [attachment 4]. Kind regards, Liam

17 March 2020
Alison Downes
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please see attached
Thank you for the attached letter on behalf of Westleton Parish Council expressing concerns about the adequacy of the Applicants Pre-application consultation and the consultation material. We note that you have sent your letter to the Applicant and the local authorities. The local authorities can consider your comments as part of their Adequacy of Consultation Representation submission to the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) at the Application Stage of the process. The Planning Inspectorate will consider any adequacy of consultation representations received from the relevant local authorities when deciding whether or not to accept the application, as required under section 55(4)(b) of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended). It is therefore important to ensure the local authorities are informed of your concerns. Further information about Community Consultation can be found here: [attachment 1]. As you are aware the proposed application by EDF Energy is at the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 process. The Planning Inspectorate is unable to consider representations about the merits of any application until it is accepted for Examination. Further information about the process can be found in the link below to the National Infrastructure Planning website: [attachment 2]. Should the application be accepted the application and all the supporting documentation will be published on the project page of the National Infrastructure Planning website: [attachment 3]. The ‘Registration and Relevant Representation form’ will be made available here during the Pre-examination stage and all parties will have an opportunity to outline their views about the project. The appointed Examining Authority will then use these to carry out an initial assessment of principal issues. 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’: [attachment 4].

17 March 2020
Westleton Parish Council - Ian Haines
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Draft document feedback discussion and project update meeting
Please see attached meeting note

17 March 2020
EP Waste Management Limited - anon.
South Humber Bank Energy Centre
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Nodyn o gyfarfod rhithwir rhwng yr Arolygiaeth Gynllunio â’r Ymgeisydd ynglyn â Chwmpasu AEA - Note of virtual meeting between the Planning Inspectorate and Applicant relating to EIA Scoping
Gweler yr atodiad - Please see attached

17 March 2020
Awel y Môr Offshore Wind Farm Limited - anon.
Awel y Môr Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please see attached
As you are aware the Planning Inspectorate has published Advice Note Eleven which explains the general principles around effective working relationships with relevant public bodies and includes information about consents and licencing. Annex D provides specific information about the Environment Agency’s role in relation to Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects. Annex F provides specific information about the role of the Office for Nuclear Regulation and states that: “It is the applicant’s responsibility to comply with both regulatory and DCO requirements and applicants are strongly encouraged to liaise with ONR, EA and NRW prior to and during the examination to ensure consistency with the requirements/conditions that ONR/EA/NRW may impose on any licence or consent.” All Advice Notes are available to view on the National Infrastructure Planning website: [attachment 1] Please note that the Planning Inspectorate has held meetings with the Applicant, the Environment Agency and the Defra group (Natural England, The Marine Management Organisation and The Environment Agency) where the co-ordination of permit, licence and consent applications was discussed and advice provided. Notes of these meetings are available to view on the project page of the National Infrastructure Planning website: [attachment 2] With regard to site location and suitability please note that the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) has responsibility for reviewing and designating National Policy Statements, including EN-6. The link below provides the latest information about the designation of the new National Policy Statement for Energy for nuclear power generation including the siting criteria (NPS EN-6): [attachment 3] Page 6 provides details of the timeline towards designating the new NPS.

16 March 2020
Mike Taylor
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via phone
response has attachments
Evidence Plan Teleconference with Ørsted, East Riding of Yorkshire Council, Natural England, Historic England, the Marine Management Organisation, GoBe Consultants, RHDHV
Please see attached

16 March 2020
Ørsted,ERYC,NE,HE,MMO,GoBe Consultants, RHDHV - anon.
Hornsea Project Four Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via email
Dear Sir/Madam, We have had an EIA Screening Request relating to the addition of a 50MW black start facility to an existing 900MW gas fired power station. Given the scale of the project, could you advise whether this is something that the National Infrastructure Planning Unit would deal with please? Kind regards,
Dear Ms Hanlon Under section 14(1) 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(2) of PA2008 provides that the construction or extension of an onshore generating station in England is within section 14(1)(a) only if the generating station is, or (when constructed or extended) does not generate electricity from wind; and its capacity is more than 50 megawatts. The project would therefore appear to fall under PA2008 however the Council will need to satisfy itself, taking its own legal advice if appropriate, as to whether or not any proposal submitted to it can be considered and determined by the local planning authority under any regime other than the development consent regime provided for by PA2008. It should be noted that, under Section 160 of PA2008, 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”. If the Council are minded to conclude that the project is an NSIP, you need to explain to the Applicant why you consider this proposal to be an NSIP and suggest the Applicant contact the Inspectorate to discuss the NSIP process. Please note that the Inspectorate has a statutory duty to record and make publicly available any advice given under s51 of the PA 2008. If you wish to seek any further advice in relation to the NSIP planning regime and these proposals, please contact us at this email address. Regards

13 March 2020
West Devon Borough Council - anon.
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached.

13 March 2020
Highways England - anon.
A1 in Northumberland - Morpeth to Ellingham
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please see attached
Thank you for your email, I apologise for the significant delay in response. The proposed application is 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 Applicant is expecting to submit the application in Q2 2020. As the application has not yet been formally submitted to the Inspectorate your first point of contact should be the Applicant and we would encourage you to contact them directly by email at [email protected]. It is important that the Applicant 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 Inspectorate. The Inspectorate is unable to consider your comments at this time however please note that, should the application be received and accepted by the Inspectorate for Examination, the National Infrastructure Planning website will be updated accordingly and you may submit comments to us at that time: [attachment 2] The Planning Inspectorate has published a series of Advice Notes about the Planning Act 2008 process. ‘Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others’ can be found here: [attachment 3]

12 March 2020
Alison Shireff
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Dear all, I am writing to object to the very unsatisfactory nature of the Sizewell C consultation. I have spoken to over 50 Suffolk residents who overwhelmingly say that their petition signing and objection letters against Sizewell C have been quietly swept aside. Out of those 50 only 4 were in favour of Sizewell C (mainly because they believed the much peddled notion that the 'lights will go out without nuclear power',but they were nevertheless very concerned about nuclear power) The rest were strongly against and it is my belief if the people of Suffolk were laid out the facts and figures clearly and honestly , the majority of Suffolk would be against Sizewell C. We really don't believe the lights will go out. How does one explain that the following counties either don't have nuclear power or are confident enough to begin the phase out of it and replace it with renewables ?: Italy, Australia, Austria, Estonia, Greece, Ireland, Latvia, Lichtenstein, Luxembourg, Malta, Portugal, Israel, Serbia, Malaysia, Norway, Japan, Scotland , New Zealand, Belgium, Germany, Spain, Switzerland, Denmark, Sweden etc. The objectors felt strongly that nuclear power is far too unsafe in terms of the legacy of toxic waste, rising sea levels, terrorism etc. In Suffolk we object strongly to the large scale destruction of AONB and SSSI's. Beleagered nature/wildlife must be prioritised for preservation.The severe damage to Minsmere in terms of road and infrastructure building ,light pollution etc etc. Also the severe effect that will have on the successful Suffolk tourism economy based on Heritage and Nature. Finally we see all this destruction as unneccessary, we have renewables growing rapidly. We need to see solar panels on buildings-everywhere.There are some good large scale domestic shemes which can bring down the installment costs. Wind farms, solar farms, tidal. Also bringing local jobs. Personally, I think also we all need to view energy as a far more precious resource. In my childrens school windows are flung open regularly to let out the heat, in the middle of winter-I think this is common place in businesses etc. We need to put on a jumper rather than reaching to turn up the heating dial. If people feel they can make a difference with their own panels or as part of a scheme, I believe they start to use energy more responsibly. In short ,we the people of Suffolk are overwhelmingly against Sizewell C , and we do not feel that our voices are being heard. Yours suncerely, Clare Rizzo
Dear Ms Rizzo, Thank you for your email expressing concerns about the adequacy of the developers consultation and consultation material. We note that you have sent your letter to the developer and the local authorities. The local authorities can consider your comments as part of their Adequacy of Consultation Representation submission to the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) at the Application Stage of the process. The Planning Inspectorate will consider any adequacy of consultation representations received from the relevant local authorities when deciding whether or not to accept the application, as required under section 55(4)(b) of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended). It is therefore important to ensure the local authorities are informed of your concerns. Further information about Community Consultation can be found here: [attachment 1] As you are aware the proposed application by EDF Energy is at the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 process. The Planning Inspectorate is unable to consider representations about the merits of any application until it is accepted for Examination. Further information about the process can be found in the link below to the National Infrastructure Planning website: [attachment 2]. Should the application be accepted the application and all the supporting documentation will be published on the project page of the National Infrastructure Planning website: [attachment 3]. The ‘Registration and Relevant Representation form’ will be made available here during the Pre-examination stage and all parties will have an opportunity to outline their views about the project. The appointed Examining Authority will then use these to carry out an initial assessment of principal issues. 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’: [attachment 4]. I hope the above information is useful to you. Kind regards, Liam

12 March 2020
Clare Rizzo
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Dear Sir/Madam I have read that EDF are imminently planning to submit their application for a DCO for the proposed Sizewell C. I feel it is necessary, despite four consultations, to voice my concern at the inadequacies of information that has been shared with the public. I am aware that planning rules for major infrastructure projects are that the consultation should be carried out in an open and transparent way to all consultees and should contain as much detail and information as possible. EDF’s Sizewell C four consultations have failed to do this. I personally have been left with many unanswered questions. 1. I have repeatedly expressed my concerns that the site is too small for the two proposed EPR reactors. After four consultations there is still no floor plan indicating where the buildings will be located on a map which includes visible grid lines, contour lines and road numbering. This means it is also impossible to fully understand where roads, rail lines, auxiliary buildings, borrow pits, stockpiles etc etc are located, how much land take is required and what environmental damage will be caused. The maps supplied in the consultation document are small and the key so tiny it is almost impossible to read. 2. I am particularly concerned on the impact on the AONB, Sizewell Marshes SSSI, RSPB Minsmere with its European and International designated habitats so have contacted all the environmental NGO’s and the Environment Agency to find out their opinions. All have told me that they have not had the necessary information from EDF to make an informed response. After four consultations EDF have not supplied Environmental Impact Assessments to the public. Is this because they are yet to do them or they have and are not being transparent, either way this is totally unacceptable. 3. At EDF stage three exhibition I asked how much mains water would be needed during construction and once Sizewell C was operational and the source of that water. Three out of the four EDF representatives I asked where unaware that Sizewell C would use mains water! The fourth took my email address and said he would let me know. To date I have heard nothing. East Anglia is one of the driest counties in the country. Sizewell C’s water consumption must not take priority over farms, businesses and residents. 4. The proposed permanent access road to Sizewell C will take up 12 hectares of Sizewell Marsh SSSI and will require a culvert over the SSSI and water courses. This is likely to cause pollutants to run off into the delicate water system. Throughout all the consultations many have asked for other options or alternative routes, none have been considered. 5. Sizewell was nominated as a potential site in 2008. I am aware that the siting criteria for new nuclear EN6 is out of date. The consultation for EN6 ended March 2018 the Environment Agency and the Office for Nuclear regulation have yet to submit their responses. I therefore do not understand how the Planning Inspectorate can consider EDF Sizewell C’s planning application as there is no valid siting criteria. This is particularly important as since Sizewell was originally nominated as a potential site the impacts of climate change are predicted to be far more severe. Please can you explain. 6. The site is on an eroding coast in flood zones 2 and 3 and will require radioactive waste to be stored 150 years on site (or maybe indefinitely as there is still no geological disposal facility in UK). Surely EDF should have provided information about sea level rise, storm surges and more extreme weather events for both coastal and fluvial flooding. When I asked about this I was told by an EDF representative that to protect the site EDF will just increase the height of the sea wall and that it is likely that the Sizewell site will become a nuclear island. My home is at risk of flooding and [redacted]. EDF have provided no information about how their hard sea defences will affect neighbouring properties, businesses and farms. Protecting the Sizewell site will result in damage to the extended coast yet there is no mention of how coastal erosion will be managed or paid for. If EDF Sizewell C’s hard sea defence results in surrounding properties being flooded, policy should be put in place that EDF must pay for damage caused, burden should not be on the taxpayer. 7. The Government has declared a Climate Emergency. EDF Sizewell C’s 10/12 year build will create a huge upfront carbon footprint and will need to operate for 60 years to become what is deemed low carbon. At a Sizewell C stakeholders meeting EDF claimed the carbon footprint of Sizewell C will be similar to that of Hinkley C 4gC02/kWh (even though IPCC claims nuclear is 12gC02/kWh) Where is the supporting documentation for this? How can Hinkley C and Sizewell C have the same carbon footprint? Hinkley has a marine led strategy Sizewell is most likely to be entirely road driven. EDF have been unable to state how much material is needed for construction of Sizewell C or where materials will come from, precise location of road and rail needed yet can say what the carbon footprint will be! EDF are claiming Sizewell C is needed to help generate low carbon electricity yet in the decade of its construction it will hinder UK climate goals. Who in government is responsible for checking the carbon footprint of major infrastructure projects and their impact on climate goals. EDF must provide supporting documentation that can be verified by an independent party. 8. Little is said about storage of the spent fuel for the EPR reactors. This fuel will be high burn up fuel. Where are the storage ponds and Dry fuel store sited? This is extremely important as radioactive waste will be on site for decades after the plant is operational and maybe indefinitely. French Govt owned EDF finances are in dire straits, how can UK Government be sure EDF will take responsibility for the waste which will need protecting possibly indefinitely, on an eroding coast at risk from flooding and sea level rise. Is there any documentation to say they can and will? EDF when asked have implied the waste is not an issue as a GDF will be available but as yet there is little supporting evidence that there ever will be. The Government has made a big deal about consulting communities regarding the siting of a geological disposal facility yet it is allowing EDF to foist radioactive waste on communities indefinitely without proper consultation. 9. Where is the new sewage works? How is the sewage to be managed and where is the discharge point? Also dewatering of the site where is the water going? 10. At the stage three consultation EDF realised four pylons are necessary, apparently to feed the National Grid these will scar the landscape in the AONB. The height and siting of these are still unknown. There are still so many unanswered questions. The Fish entrainment at the cooling water intakes still unknown. Social-economic case only mentions perceived gains but gives no assessments of the losses on health, tourism and other businesses or house values. Footpaths and bridleways particularly the Heritage Coast Path, soon to become the English Coast Path. The beach frontage the green line agreed for Sizewell B is not being adhered to. Etc etc. The fact that there is still so many unanswered questions and the total lack of supporting documentation highlights the Duty of Regard for the Suffolk Coast and Heaths AONB and the integrity of the Sizewell Marshes SSSI has not been taken into account. Consultees must have this information in order for them to arrive at an informed opinion. Crucial information like this must not be wrapped up in the Rochdale envelope at DCO stage. I feel EDF’s four stages of consultation show little detail or supporting evidence on that basis it renders the process inadequate and invalid. I hope this information will be taken into consideration when EDF submits it’s DCO application to PINS and for the reasons above I urge you to reject the application. Yours Sincerely J. Wilson
Dear Ms Wilson, Thank you for your email expressing concerns about the adequacy of the developers consultation and consultation material. We note that you have sent your letter to the developer and the local authorities. The local authorities can consider your comments as part of their Adequacy of Consultation Representation submission to the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) at the Application Stage of the process. The Planning Inspectorate will consider any adequacy of consultation representations received from the relevant local authorities when deciding whether or not to accept the application, as required under section 55(4)(b) of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended). It is therefore important to ensure the local authorities are informed of your concerns. Further information about Community Consultation can be found here: [attachment 1] As you are aware the proposed application by EDF Energy is at the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 process. The Planning Inspectorate is unable to consider representations about the merits of any application until it is accepted for Examination. Further information about the process can be found in the link below to the National Infrastructure Planning website: [attachment 2]. Should the application be accepted the application and all the supporting documentation will be published on the project page of the National Infrastructure Planning website: [attachment 3]. The ‘Registration and Relevant Representation form’ will be made available here during the Pre-examination stage and all parties will have an opportunity to outline their views about the project. The appointed Examining Authority will then use these to carry out an initial assessment of principal issues. 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’: [attachment 4]. Please note that the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) have responsibility for reviewing and designating National Policy Statements, including EN-6. The link below provides the latest information about the designation of the new National Policy Statement for Energy for nuclear power generation (NPS EN-6): [attachment 5] Please note that page 6 provides details of the timeline towards designating the new NPS. I hope you find the above information useful. Kind regards Liam Fedden

12 March 2020
Jen Wilson
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please see attached
Thank you for your email expressing concerns about the adequacy of the Applicants consultation, consultation material and the information contained in the Scoping Report. We note that you have sent your letter to the Applicant and the local authorities. The local authorities can consider your comments as part of their Adequacy of Consultation Representation submission to the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) at the Application Stage of the process. The Planning Inspectorate will consider any adequacy of consultation representations received from the relevant local authorities when deciding whether or not to accept the application, as required under section 55(4)(b) of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended). It is therefore important to ensure the local authorities are informed of your concerns. Further information about Community Consultation can be found here: [attachment 1] As you are aware the proposed application by EDF Energy is at the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 process. The Planning Inspectorate is unable to consider representations about the merits of any application until it is accepted for Examination. Further information about the process can be found in the link below to the National Infrastructure Planning website: [attachment 2]. Should the application be accepted the application and all the supporting documentation will be published on the project page of the National Infrastructure Planning website: [attachment 3]. The ‘Registration and Relevant Representation form’ will be made available here during the Pre-examination stage and all parties will have an opportunity to outline their views about the project. The appointed Examining Authority will then use these to carry out an initial assessment of principal issues. 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’: [attachment 4].

12 March 2020
Kelsale-cum-Carlton Parish Council - anon.
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please see attached
Thank you for your email and attachment expressing concerns about the adequacy of the developers consultation, consultation material and the information contained in the Scoping Report. Apologies for the significant delay in response to this email. We note that you have sent your letter to the developer and the local authorities. The local authorities can consider your comments as part of their Adequacy of Consultation Representation submission to the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) at the Application Stage of the process. The Planning Inspectorate will consider any adequacy of consultation representations received from the relevant local authorities when deciding whether or not to accept the application, as required under section 55(4)(b) of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended). It is therefore important to ensure the local authorities are informed of your concerns. Further information about Community Consultation can be found here: [attachment 1] As you are aware the proposed application by EDF Energy is at the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 process. The Planning Inspectorate is unable to consider representations about the merits of any application until it is accepted for Examination. Further information about the process can be found in the link below to the National Infrastructure Planning website: [attachment 2]. Should the application be accepted the application and all the supporting documentation will be published on the project page of the National Infrastructure Planning website: [attachment 3]. The ‘Registration and Relevant Representation form’ will be made available here during the Pre-examination stage and all parties will have an opportunity to outline their views about the project. The appointed Examining Authority will then use these to carry out an initial assessment of principal issues. 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’: [attachment 4].

12 March 2020
Theberton and Eastbridge Parish Council - anon.
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached.

11 March 2020
Bradwell B - anon.
Bradwell B new nuclear power station
Enquiry received via email
Dear Sirs Many thanks for your e-mail dated Monday, 10th February. I note under 'COMPULSORY ACQUISITION' it is stated: "The Applicant explained that the company’s in the nearby industrial estate have all banded together and are now represented by a professional adviser." I must stress that this is a totally inaccurate statement and, subject to their own decisions, each business will be individually represented by professional advisers. Furthermore I should stress there are four separate industrial estates, all in separate single or multi party ownership, along with infrastructure and other land holdings which are also in separate ownership. I also note that in the project overview it states: "The application is expected to be submitted to the Planning Inspectorate Q4 2020.". However, in the meeting minutes final paragraph it refers to DCO submission in Q2 2020 - which is correct? I should also be grateful if you could forward me a list of those people who attended the meeting. Finally, the last occasion on which the businesses had any communication or contact from LRCH, applicants for The London Resort Project, was in July 2018. Best wishes Dan Bramwell On behalf of PMG
Dear Mr Bramwell, Thank you for your email in relation to the note of the meeting held between the Planning Inspectorate’s (the Inspectorate) and the London Resort Company Holdings (LRCH) (the Applicant) on 8 October 2019. The information on the Compulsory Acquisition (CA) progress was provided by the Applicant and whilst we are able to highlight any concerns raised with us to Applicants, it is not for the Inspectorate to examine the CA during the pre-application stage of the project. Once an Application is submitted for a Development Consent Order (DCO), if accepted for Examination, the appointed Examining Authority will assess the information and ensure that the relevant tests are met to allow the Applicant to obtain any land for the development. The submission date given in the meeting note (Q2 2020) was correct at the time of the meeting. The Applicant has subsequently updated the Inspectorate on the intended submission date, which they have now advised will be Q4 2020. It is not uncommon for Applicants to change the estimated submission date throughout the pre-application stage due to a host of factors. When the Inspectorate is provided with an updated submission date, it is reflected on the project webpage. Please note we no longer publish a list of attendees in meeting notes (for Inspectorate staff or other attendees). Our use and disclosure of personal information is governed by the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the Data Protection Act 2018. Please see the Inspectorate’s privacy notice for further details on how we process personal data. The Applicant may be inclined to divulge which parties attended the meeting from their team, but it is not for the Inspectorate to provide this information. As the project is still in the pre-application stage, I would strongly encourage you to continue to contact the Applicant directly with regard to your concerns as they have a statutory duty to have regard to all consultation responses which should be demonstrated in the Consultation Report as part of their DCO application. 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 will be considered by the local authority when sending the 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. Kind regards,

09 March 2020
Bramwell Associates on behalf of the Peninsula Management Group
The London Resort
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project inception meeting.
Please see the attached note.

09 March 2020
SSE Generation Limited - anon.
Keadby 3 Carbon Capture Power Station
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Inception meeting.
Please see attached.

09 March 2020
SSE - anon.
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Meeting to discuss Airspace matters specifically in respect of NSIP aviation projects
Please see attached meeting note

05 March 2020
Civil Aviation Authority - anon.
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update and draft documents feedback meeting
Please see attached note with appended table of the Inspectorate’s detailed comments at Appendix A

27 February 2020
Highways England - anon.
Lower Thames Crossing
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Re: ‘Sizewell as a potentially suitable site for new nuclear’ EN-6 Please would you consider the following two statements when reviewing EN-6, ‘potential site suitability for new nuclear’: 1) According to the Institution of Mechanical Engineers (IME) “…in the UK, nuclear sites such as Sizewell, which is based on the coastline, may need considerable investment to protect it against rising sea levels, or even abandonment/relocation” IME (Institution of Mechanical Engineers) (2009): Climate Change: Adapting to the inevitable, Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Westminster, London. 2) A Dutch government scientist has proposed building two mammoth dams to completely enclose the North Sea and protect an estimated 25 million Europeans from the consequences of rising sea levels as a result of global heating. Sjoerd Groeskamp, an oceanographer at the Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research, said a 475km dam between north Scotland and west Norway and another 160km one between west France and south-west England was “a possible solution”. In a paper to be published this month in the American Journal of Meteorology, Groeskamp and Joakim Kjellsson of the Geomar centre for ocean research in Kiel, Germany, say the idea is affordable and technically feasible – if intended more as “a warning of the immensity of the problem hanging over our heads”. Regards Nick Scarr
Dear Mr Scarr Thank you for your email sent to the Planning Inspectorate. Please note that the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) have responsibility for reviewing and designating National Policy Statements, including EN-6. The link below provides the latest information about the designation of the new National Policy Statement for Energy for nuclear power generation (NPS EN-6): [attachment 1] Please note that page 6 provides details of the timeline towards designating the new NPS. Kind regards Michele Gregory

26 February 2020
Nick Scarr
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via email
With regards to your query regarding the proposed draft DCO requirement to secure mitigation identified by the Water Framework Directive (WFD) Assessment. Our Environmental Services Team has come back with the following advice;
After reviewing the dDCO, the only thing that can be seen relating to WFD is that the applicant has listed the WFD assessment in the documents to be certified. This is not something we see as a common practice and it is hard to comment without reviewing the document but on the face on it, there is no issue in doing this. As with all documents listed in the certification requirement, it adds security, which is a good thing.

20 February 2020
Atkins - anon.
M25 junction 28 improvements
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Dear Sir or Madam, This is with respect to the expected DCO application by Highways England and the Lower Thames Crossing. My question is whether our Parish Council can become an Interested Party and that the route to achieve that is to submit a Relevant Representation. The context is that Cobham village is within a Conservation Area, in the immediate proximity of the LTC development (within a 2 mile radius), and with many parts of the parish within the Designated Development Area. The issue of relevance is not to do with land acquisition, but traffic flows through the village and the local impact that would result from higher volumes of traffic due to the LTC development. The local roads are all minor rural roads and unfit for increased traffic volumes and this would be the basis of the representation. Does the Parish Council qualify to apply to be an Interested Party, would that be automatic in this case, or would it be required to submit a Relevant Representation application? Thank you for your help. Kind Regards Tony Rice
Dear Cllr Rice The Parish Council would not be deemed an Interested Party automatically. However, you can register as an Interested Party, following acceptance of the application. If the application is submitted and accepted to proceed to Examination, the Applicant will notify of the period within which people have to register. I hope this information is helpful. Please see the Advice Notes below which may also be of assistance: [attachment 1] [attachment 2] Kind regards

17 February 2020
Cllr Tony Rice
Lower Thames Crossing
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please see attached
Thank you for your email and attachment expressing concerns about the adequacy of the developers consultation and consultation material. We note that you have sent your letter to the developer and the local authorities. The local authorities can consider your comments as part of their Adequacy of Consultation Representation submission to the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) at the Application Stage of the process. The Planning Inspectorate will consider any adequacy of consultation representations received from the relevant local authorities when deciding whether or not to accept the application, as required under section 55(4)(b) of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended). It is therefore important to ensure the local authorities are informed of your concerns. Further information about Community Consultation can be found here: [attachment 1] As you are aware the proposed application by EDF Energy is at the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 process. The Planning Inspectorate is unable to consider representations about the merits of any application until it is accepted for Examination. Further information about the process can be found in the link below to the National Infrastructure Planning website: [attachment 2]. Should the application be accepted the application and all the supporting documentation will be published on the project page of the National Infrastructure Planning website: [attachment 3]. The ‘Registration and Relevant Representation form’ will be made available here during the Pre-examination stage and all parties will have an opportunity to outline their views about the project. The appointed Examining Authority will then use these to carry out an initial assessment of principal issues. 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’: [attachment 4].

17 February 2020
On behalf of Together Against Sizewell - Joan Girling
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting and review of draft documents
Please see attached

14 February 2020
IAMP LLP - anon.
International Advanced Manufacturing Park TWO (IAMP TWO)
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached meeting note

14 February 2020
Heathrow Airport Limited - anon.
Expansion of Heathrow Airport (Third Runway)
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Please see attached.
Overview of statutory consultation

13 February 2020
Highways England
A428 Black Cat to Caxton Gibbet Road Improvement scheme
response has attachments
Received: 23 December 2019 Dear Sirs I understand there was a meeting between the Planning Inspectorate and the above development team (LRCH) on 8th October 2019 or thereabouts but the minutes are yet to be published. It is now nearly three months since that meeting and I find it somewhat incredible that, despite several requests, these minutes have not been made available to interested parties and that there have been no responses to e-mails to yourselves within a reasonable timeframe. Thus I am asking the Secretary of State for an explanation of why there has been a total breakdown in communication from The Planning Inspectorate. Furthermore I am submitting an FoI request for the original unredacted minutes to be released as a matter of urgency. Unfortunately the developer cannot be trusted and has no financial or business credibility but holds many interested parties to ransom jeopardising investment, jobs and the future of many businesses. Your urgent attention to this matter is much appreciated. Received: 14 January 2020 Under the Freedom of Information Act, I would be grateful for answers to the following requests in relation to a meeting about The London Resort Project, an NSIP designated project, held between The Planning Inspectorate and representatives/agents for the above company: 1. A meeting was held on 8th October between agents/representatives for The London Resort Project and The Planning Inspectorate. I should be grateful if you can confirm this and, if so; 2. I should be grateful to receive a copy of the original meeting notes as produced by The Planning Inspectorate; 3. I should be grateful to receive a copy of the final notes to be published on the website which I have been requesting for many weeks; 4. I should be grateful if you could advise me when the next planned meeting is scheduled to take place. Please confirm this request and if you have any queries please do not hesitate to contact me.
Please see attached documents

10 February 2020
Bramwell Associates - Dan Bramwell
The London Resort
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Draft documents feedback meeting
Please see attached.

06 February 2020
EdF Energy - anon.
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Draft Application Documents submitted by EP Waste Management Limited for the Planning Inspectorate review – February 2020
Please see Attached

05 February 2020
EP Waste Management Limited - anon.
South Humber Bank Energy Centre
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Meeting with the Heathrow Community Engagement Board to discuss the Planning Act 2008 process
Please see attached note

30 January 2020
Heathrow Community Engagement Board - anon.
Heathrow West
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Meeting with the Heathrow Community Engagement Board to discuss the Planning Act 2008 process
Please see attached note

30 January 2020
Heathrow Community Engagement Board - anon.
Expansion of Heathrow Airport (Third Runway)
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please See Attached

28 January 2020
Ørsted - anon.
Hornsea Project Four Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Please see attached.
Please see attached.

27 January 2020
Allington EfW Project
General
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Advice following issue of decision to accept the application for Examination
Please see attached.

24 January 2020
North Somerset District Council - anon.
Portishead Branch Line - MetroWest Phase 1
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Nodyn cyfarfod sefydlu - Inception meeting note
Gweler yr atodiad - Please see attached

23 January 2020
Awel y Môr Offshore Wind Farm Limited - anon.
Awel y Môr Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Update on engagement with the Applicant
Please see attached meeting note

20 January 2020
The Defra Group - anon.
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting teleconference
Please see attached meeting note

15 January 2020
Heathrow West Limited - anon.
Heathrow West
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please see attached
Planning Act 2008 (as amended) Proposal by NNB Nuclear Generation (SZC) Limited I am writing regarding your correspondence sent to the Planning Inspectorate dated 11 December 2019, 13 December 2019 and 5 January 2020 in relation to the above proposals. As we have previously advised, the proposed application by NNB Nuclear Generation (SZC) Limited is 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 the application has not yet been formally submitted to the Inspectorate your first point of contact should be the Applicant and we would encourage you to contact them directly by email: [email protected]. It is important that the Applicant 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 Inspectorate. The Inspectorate is unable to consider your comments at this time however please note that, should the application be received and accepted by the Inspectorate for Examination, the National Infrastructure Planning website will be updated accordingly and you may submit comments to us at that time: [attachment 2] The Planning Inspectorate has published a series of Advice Notes about the Planning Act 2008 process. ‘Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others’ can be found here:https://infrastructure.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/legislation-and-advice/advice-notes/

15 January 2020
Nick Scarr
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Post Acceptance advice on concerns related to the Flood Risk Assessment (FRA)
Please see attached

14 January 2020
North Somerset Council - anon.
Portishead Branch Line - MetroWest Phase 1
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please see attached
Thank you for your email expressing concerns about the adequacy of the developers consultation and consultation material. We note that you have sent your letter to the developer and the local authorities. The local authorities can consider your comments as part of their Adequacy of Consultation Representation submission to the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) at the Application Stage of the process. The Planning Inspectorate will consider any adequacy of consultation representations received from the relevant local authorities when deciding whether or not to accept the application, as required under section 55(4)(b) of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended). It is therefore important to ensure the local authorities are informed of your concerns. Further information about Community Consultation can be found here: [attachment 1] As you are aware the proposed application by EDF Energy is at the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 process. The Planning Inspectorate is unable to consider representations about the merits of any application until it is accepted for Examination. Further information about the process can be found in the link below to the National Infrastructure Planning website: [attachment 2]. Should the application be accepted the application and all the supporting documentation will be published on the project page of the National Infrastructure Planning website: [attachment 3]. The ‘Registration and Relevant Representation form’ will be made available here during the Pre-examination stage and all parties will have an opportunity to outline their views about the project. The appointed Examining Authority will then use these to carry out an initial assessment of principal issues. 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’: [attachment 4].

14 January 2020
On behalf of Suffolk Coastal Friend of the Earth - Rachel Fulcher
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please see attached.
Please see attached.

13 January 2020
Trowers and Hamlins
East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please see attached.
Please see attached.

13 January 2020
Trowers and Hamlins
East Anglia ONE North Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Introduction and general process meeting specifically in respect of NSIP aviation projects
Please see note attached

09 January 2020
Independent Commission on Civil Aviation Noise - anon.
General
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Draft Application Documents by Highways England for PINS review
Please see attached.

31 December 2019
Highways England - anon.
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Please see attached.
Discussion on design changes, and DMRB updates

17 December 2019
Highways England
A428 Black Cat to Caxton Gibbet Road Improvement scheme
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached meeting note

17 December 2019
Heathrow Airport Limited - anon.
Expansion of Heathrow Airport (Third Runway)
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Post-Scoping and project update meeting
See attached meeting note

16 December 2019
London Luton Airport Limited - anon.
London Luton Airport Expansion
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Advice to the Applicant following issue of decision to accept the application for Examination
Please see attached.

12 December 2019
North Somerset Council - anon.
Portishead Branch Line - MetroWest Phase 1
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
A project update meeting took place on 12 December 2019
A note of that meeting is attached.

12 December 2019
Highways England - anon.
Lower Thames Crossing
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
PINS REF: EN010078 East Anglia Two Dear Case Officer I am writing to put in a formal complaint about the pre-application work and consultations carried out by Scottish Power & by SPR for National Grid. I have previously raised many of these issues with both The Planning Inspectorate and developer Scottish Power Renewables and separately with National Grid who appear to feel they operate outside of the realms of the Planning Act. I am aware some of these issues have been covered by the local group SASES but these are my own views which I hope PINS will also review and take into consideration. 1. Failure to effectively assess and explore connection possibilities It is not clear as to who majority blame lies with, but it is clear both National Grid & Scottish Power did not explore 'all options' when considering how and where to connect EA1N & EA2 projects to the grid. There was NO consideration of brownfield locations, there was a complete disregard for the Suffolk Coast & Heaths AONB (protected landscape) and it appears virtually no 'on the ground' knowledge of the typography of the chosen location at Grove Wood for substation buildings infrastructure and grid connections. Subsequently cables are intended to land in one of the Suffolk Coast's most vulnerable sand cliff locations north of Thorpeness, the proposed cable route will plough up acres of AONB & Sandlings SSI landscape (possibly twice), the substations if located at Grove Wood are in undulating land that has ongoing problems with surface water 'run-off' which has contributed to flooding in Friston village twice in the month of October alone. 2. Failure to effectively engage, especially those residents living in Friston A key issue for residents living in Friston is that intentionally or unintentionally, Scottish Power failed to generate fair local awareness of the projects or the shortlist of 'onshore' development locations until well into Phase 3 consultation. SPR did not include Friston addresses in early leafleting in the lead up to phase 3, even though postal addresses in other parishes Knodishall, Leiston, Aldringham and Thorpeness were all sent leaflets, or leafleting was made available via the parish councils in these villages. Then, the projects were not effectively advertised SoCC advertisements published March 2018 (see attached image) in the local press contained NO mention whatsoever of onshore development requirements for either of the projects EA1N & EA2. Unless you have significant experience and knowledge of offshore wind projects, the majority of residents would have had NO idea from these advertisements of the significance & potential for these projects to have a major impact on their life and surroundings. I believe these advertisements failed 100% to achieve the necessary local awareness of the scale of EA1N & EA2's 'onshore' and 'permanent' development requirements. We now know the projects each require many acres (circa 35) for industrial buildings and unsightly electrical equipment, transformers etc. which if these projects move forward as intended by SPR will be built at Grove Wood, within in 200 metres of the nearest homes in the north of Friston village. 3. Muddled & confusing consultations, ineffective Public information Days (PIDs), poor local knowledge The consultations were muddled, the public has been confused by the nature of these 'dual projects' and by duplicate information released. It has been hard to assess propsals fairly as it has been unclear if these were one or two projects, or even three (if you take into account the National Grid substation). As the process has moved forward things have become more complicated and confusing. The so called experts on hand at PID's seemed to lack important information and were often unable to answer answer questions, especially about the National Grid substation and NG's requirements. It has and continues to be hard to work out if key details are specific to one project, or the other, or both. Fair and effective consultation for National Grid's substation/connection buildings etc has been virtually non-existent. 4. National Grid Substation - has not been consulted for in accordance with the Planning Act SPR have apparently been consulting for National Grid's Substation & requirements, however essential information has been lacking and at the PIDs no one from National Grid was available to discuss details or answer questions. Many questions raised with Scottish Power about the NG substation raised blank looks and a familiar response along the lines of "that's a National Grid facility.... we are not sure, details will follow". Recently it has been brought to the attention of Friston residents that National Grid's substation could be used for one or both inter-connector projects (Nautilus & Eurolink). The shady nature of Scottish Power & National Grids behind closed doors relationship, seems to be designed to provide National Grid with a new connection facility, that can be used to circumvent planning for future projects. Surely this is NOT legal or acceptable? National Grid appears to have offered a connection point in a questionable and wrong location in order to save money and obtain a new grid connection facility. There has been no consideration of cumulative effects of numerous projects directed to what is a small rural/coastal area just a few miles from Sizewell, which could be the location of one of Europes largest construction projects if plans to build Sizewell C (2 nuclear reactors) go ahead. There has been unacceptable consideration given to the damaging effects on the Suffolk Coast & Heaths AONB and ecology of a supposedly protected landscape. Likewise the effects on the communities and vital tourism industry (the biggest employer in the area) appear to all have been ignored by National Grid and Scottish Power & EDF for that matter. I am aware that the Secretary of State Andrea Leadsom and Energy Minister Kwarsi Kwarteng will be facilitating an investigation into the environmental impacts of energy projects on the Norfolk & Suffolk Coasts. I am a local resident in Friston and a tourism business manager (Beach View, Sizewell), this area faces a real threat of decades of damaging projects and complete devastation of the Suffolk Coast & Heaths AONB, all of which will lead to the questionable viability and future success of many business providers in our local tourism sector. I feel The Planning Inspectorate must reject these applications until environmental and community impacts have been fully and independently assessed, as has been promised by the Secretary of State at BEIS. Yours Sincerely, Nicholas Thorp
Dear Nick, Thank you for contacting the Planning Inspectorate about the application by East Anglia TWO Limited for an Order granting development consent for the East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm. The application was submitted on 25 October 2019. The decision to accept the application was made on the 22 November 2019. The decision was published on the project webpage, here: [attachment 1] The following documents have also been published on the project webpage: • The application documents; • Any Adequacy of Consultation Representations submitted by relevant local authorities; • The Planning Inspectorate’s Acceptance Checklist. If you have sent comments about the pre-application consultation, these can be considered in addition to the statutorily required Acceptance tests when making the decision about whether or not to accept the application. However, it will be for the decision maker (the Planning Inspectorate on behalf of the Secretary of State) to decide the weight to give to the views expressed based on the individual facts of the case. The comments you sent were, as you mention, also raised in correspondence from SASES and therefore were considered in making the acceptance decision. In order to make comments about the merits of the Proposed Development to an appointed Examining Authority, you will need to register as an Interested Party by making a Relevant Representation. You have until the 27 January 2020 to register as an Interested Party and can do so on the project website now: [attachment 2] 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 3] If you wish to have your say on East Anglia ONE North and East Anglia TWO you must register for each application separately. Kind regards, Liam

11 December 2019
Nicholas Thorp
East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
PINS REF: EN010077 East Anglia One North Dear Case Officer I am writing to put in a formal complaint about the pre-application work and consultations carried out by Scottish Power & by SPR for National Grid. I have previously raised many of these issues with both The Planning Inspectorate and developer Scottish Power Renewables and separately with National Grid who appear to feel they operate outside of the realms of the Planning Act. I am aware some of these issues have been covered by the local group SASES but these are my own views which I hope PINS will also review and take into consideration. 1. Failure to effectively assess and explore connection possibilities It is not clear as to who majority blame lies with, but it is clear both National Grid & Scottish Power did not explore 'all options' when considering how and where to connect EA1N & EA2 projects to the grid. There was NO consideration of brownfield locations, there was a complete disregard for the Suffolk Coast & Heaths AONB (protected landscape) and it appears virtually no 'on the ground' knowledge of the typography of the chosen location at Grove Wood for substation buildings infrastructure and grid connections. Subsequently cables are intended to land in one of the Suffolk Coast's most vulnerable sand cliff locations north of Thorpeness, the proposed cable route will plough up acres of AONB & Sandlings SSI landscape (possibly twice), the substations if located at Grove Wood are in undulating land that has ongoing problems with surface water 'run-off' which has contributed to flooding in Friston village twice in the month of October alone. 2. Failure to effectively engage, especially those residents living in Friston A key issue for residents living in Friston is that intentionally or unintentionally, Scottish Power failed to generate fair local awareness of the projects or the shortlist of 'onshore' development locations until well into Phase 3 consultation. SPR did not include Friston addresses in early leafleting in the lead up to phase 3, even though postal addresses in other parishes Knodishall, Leiston, Aldringham and Thorpeness were all sent leaflets, or leafleting was made available via the parish councils in these villages. Then, the projects were not effectively advertised SoCC advertisements published March 2018 (see attached image) in the local press contained NO mention whatsoever of onshore development requirements for either of the projects EA1N & EA2. Unless you have significant experience and knowledge of offshore wind projects, the majority of residents would have had NO idea from these advertisements of the significance & potential for these projects to have a major impact on their life and surroundings. I believe these advertisements failed 100% to achieve the necessary local awareness of the scale of EA1N & EA2's 'onshore' and 'permanent' development requirements. We now know the projects each require many acres (circa 35) for industrial buildings and unsightly electrical equipment, transformers etc. which if these projects move forward as intended by SPR will be built at Grove Wood, within in 200 metres of the nearest homes in the north of Friston village. 3. Muddled & confusing consultations, ineffective Public information Days (PIDs), poor local knowledge The consultations were muddled, the public has been confused by the nature of these 'dual projects' and by duplicate information released. It has been hard to assess propsals fairly as it has been unclear if these were one or two projects, or even three (if you take into account the National Grid substation). As the process has moved forward things have become more complicated and confusing. The so called experts on hand at PID's seemed to lack important information and were often unable to answer answer questions, especially about the National Grid substation and NG's requirements. It has and continues to be hard to work out if key details are specific to one project, or the other, or both. Fair and effective consultation for National Grid's substation/connection buildings etc has been virtually non-existent. 4. National Grid Substation - has not been consulted for in accordance with the Planning Act SPR have apparently been consulting for National Grid's Substation & requirements, however essential information has been lacking and at the PIDs no one from National Grid was available to discuss details or answer questions. Many questions raised with Scottish Power about the NG substation raised blank looks and a familiar response along the lines of "that's a National Grid facility.... we are not sure, details will follow". Recently it has been brought to the attention of Friston residents that National Grid's substation could be used for one or both inter-connector projects (Nautilus & Eurolink). The shady nature of Scottish Power & National Grids behind closed doors relationship, seems to be designed to provide National Grid with a new connection facility, that can be used to circumvent planning for future projects. Surely this is NOT legal or acceptable? National Grid appears to have offered a connection point in a questionable and wrong location in order to save money and obtain a new grid connection facility. There has been no consideration of cumulative effects of numerous projects directed to what is a small rural/coastal area just a few miles from Sizewell, which could be the location of one of Europes largest construction projects if plans to build Sizewell C (2 nuclear reactors) go ahead. There has been unacceptable consideration given to the damaging effects on the Suffolk Coast & Heaths AONB and ecology of a supposedly protected landscape. Likewise the effects on the communities and vital tourism industry (the biggest employer in the area) appear to all have been ignored by National Grid and Scottish Power & EDF for that matter. I am aware that the Secretary of State Andrea Leadsom and Energy Minister Kwarsi Kwarteng will be facilitating an investigation into the environmental impacts of energy projects on the Norfolk & Suffolk Coasts. I am a local resident in Friston and a tourism business manager (Beach View, Sizewell), this area faces a real threat of decades of damaging projects and complete devastation of the Suffolk Coast & Heaths AONB, all of which will lead to the questionable viability and future success of many business providers in our local tourism sector. I feel The Planning Inspectorate must reject these applications until environmental and community impacts have been fully and independently assessed, as has been promised by the Secretary of State at BEIS. Yours Sincerely, Nicholas Thorp
Dear Nick, Thank you for contacting the Planning Inspectorate about the application by East Anglia ONE North Limited for an Order granting development consent for the East Anglia North Offshore Windfarm. The application was submitted on 25 October 2019. The decision to accept the application was made on the 22 November 2019. The decision was published on the project webpage, here: [attachment 1] The following documents have also been published on the project webpage: • The application documents; • Any Adequacy of Consultation Representations submitted by relevant local authorities; • The Planning Inspectorate’s Acceptance Checklist. If you have sent comments about the pre-application consultation, these can be considered in addition to the statutorily required Acceptance tests when making the decision about whether or not to accept the application. However, it will be for the decision maker (the Planning Inspectorate on behalf of the Secretary of State) to decide the weight to give to the views expressed based on the individual facts of the case. The comments you sent were, as you mention, also raised in correspondence from SASES and therefore were considered in making the acceptance decision In order to make comments about the merits of the Proposed Development to an appointed Examining Authority, you will need to register as an Interested Party by making a Relevant Representation at the appropriate time. You have until the 27 January 2020 to register as an Interested Party and can do so on the project website now: [attachment 2] 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 3] If you wish to have your say on East Anglia TWO and East Anglia ONE North you must register for each application separately. Kind regards, Liam

11 December 2019
Nicholas Thorp
East Anglia ONE North Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Please see attached meeting note
Please see attached meeting note

10 December 2019
EdF Energy and Environment Agency - anon.
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached

03 December 2019
EDF Energy - anon.
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Dear National Infrastructure Planning, I am a resident from East Suffolk and I am opposed to the planned windfarm electrical distribution centre and underground cabling in Friston for the East Anglia Two Offshore Windfarm. Firstly I must say I attended many of the Planning Inspectorate meetings for East Anglia One power cable and sub station works at Bramford a few years ago. I was bitterly disappointed by the outcome. The project planning process seemed rushed through, the power developers seemed to control the agenda, the Planning Inspectorate adjudicators had little influence, and their final report did not comment on any requirement of mitigation for the local population and only small mention in passing of the concerns of local people. Further to this, right at the end of the process when the project had already been rubber stamped, the power in the cables was changed from DC to AC, giving little time for discussion and comment. Given this lack of visibility and chance to comment I believe this final change was implemented illegally. The whole process (or shambles) set an unfortunate precedent which has resulted in the proposals now under discussion. During the earlier EA1 planning process it was made to look like enough cable ducts would be provided underground for all further Scottish Renewables windfarm requirements. But now I realise that this wasn't true. So how can we believe anything Scottish Renewables says about future plans. So what is next on the agenda? I agree with the comments stated by government MPs and Ministers that the development of windfarms in the North Sea are being implemented in an ad-hoc fashion with cabling and substations being implemented all over East Anglia, each causing distress and annoying people who live all over the region. A proposal has been made to route all windfarm power to Bradwell power station which I agree is the correct way to go. In any case since Friston is squeezed between areas of natural beauty I would have thought that any areas not designated as such would be better preserved for developments which are associated with the local communities themselves. Not massive national infrastructure projects. Yours sincerely Thomas O'Brien
Dear Thomas, Thank you for contacting the Planning Inspectorate about the application by East Anglia TWO Limited for an Order granting development consent for the East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm. The application was submitted on 25 October 2019. The decision to accept the application was made on the 22 November 2019. The decision was published on the project webpage, here: [attachment 1] The following documents have also been published on the project webpage: • The application documents; • Any Adequacy of Consultation Representations submitted by relevant local authorities; • The Planning Inspectorate’s Acceptance Checklist. In order to make comments about the merits of the Proposed Development to an appointed Examining Authority, you will need to register as an Interested Party by making a Relevant Representation. You have until the 27 January 2020 to register as an Interested Party and can do so on the project website now: [attachment 2] 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 3] If you wish to have your say on East Anglia ONE North and East Anglia TWO you must register for each application separately. Kind regards, Liam

02 December 2019
Thomas O'Brien
East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Subject: Suffolk Coastal Energy Projects Letter attached to Andrea Leadsom but please be noted by the Planning Inspectorate. Christine Ive
Dear Christine, Thank you for contacting the Planning Inspectorate about the application by East Anglia TWO Limited for an Order granting development consent for the East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm. The application was submitted on 25 October 2019. The decision to accept the application was made on the 22 November 2019. The decision was published on the project webpage, here: [attachment 1] The following documents have also been published on the project webpage: • The application documents; • Any Adequacy of Consultation Representations submitted by relevant local authorities; • The Planning Inspectorate’s Acceptance Checklist. In order to make comments about the merits of the Proposed Development to an appointed Examining Authority, you will need to register as an Interested Party by making a Relevant Representation. You have until the 27 January 2020 to register as an Interested Party and can do so on the project website now: [attachment 2] 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 3] If you wish to have your say on East Anglia ONE North and East Anglia TWO you must register for each application separately. Kind regards, Liam

02 December 2019
Christine Ive
East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Subject: Scottish Power Renewables - Proposed Friston substations Please note my objections to the above proposals as set out in the attached copy letter. Tony Morley
Dear Tony, Thank you for contacting the Planning Inspectorate about the application by East Anglia TWO Limited for an Order granting development consent for the East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm. The application was submitted on 25 October 2019. The decision to accept the application was made on the 22 November 2019. The decision was published on the project webpage, here: [attachment 1] The following documents have also been published on the project webpage: • The application documents; • Any Adequacy of Consultation Representations submitted by relevant local authorities; • The Planning Inspectorate’s Acceptance Checklist. In order to make comments about the merits of the Proposed Development to an appointed Examining Authority, you will need to register as an Interested Party by making a Relevant Representation. You have until the 27 January 2020 to register as an Interested Party and can do so on the project website now: [attachment 2] 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 3] If you wish to have your say on East Anglia ONE North and East Anglia TWO you must register for each application separately. Kind regards, Liam

02 December 2019
Tony Morley
East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Subject: SPR East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm - Non-Technical Summary This document brutally exposes the injustice of the planning process for this and the accompanying East Anglia ONE North Windfarm. - The brutality is all on pages 33 and 34 of the Summary. This is the very first time that the vulnerable community of Friston have been shown the sheer scale and magnitude of the disfigurement of their landscape. - The landscape visuals seem deliberately to obscure the proximity of the site to the village. - There is not the slightest acknowledgment of the potential human impact on the community. - It is dismissive of the potential impact on tourism and employment. - It refers to scoping reports in 2017, yet the first Friston heard of the proposals was Spring 2018. - Since then we have been aware of discussions covered by confidentiality agreements with our local councils. - Alarmingly the Strategic Planning Committee of East Suffolk Council is meeting on 9th December presumably to formulate its recommendations to the full Council in the New Year. Meanwhile, the community is expected to wade through some 17,000 pages for each project to assess the real issues over Christmas and submit first representations by the end of January. At the time of writing physical copies of the documentation have not been delivered. Instead we have to rely on the PINS website which is not easy to navigate for such complex developments. Simon Ive Secretary and Treasurer, Friston Parochial Church Council
Dear Simon, Thank you for contacting the Planning Inspectorate about the application by East Anglia TWO Limited for an Order granting development consent for the East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm. The application was submitted on 25 October 2019. The decision to accept the application was made on the 22 November 2019. The decision was published on the project webpage, here: [attachment 1] The following documents have also been published on the project webpage: • The application documents; • Any Adequacy of Consultation Representations submitted by relevant local authorities; • The Planning Inspectorate’s Acceptance Checklist. In order to make comments about the merits of the Proposed Development to an appointed Examining Authority, you will need to register as an Interested Party by making a Relevant Representation. You have until the 27 January 2020 to register as an Interested Party and can do so on the project website now: [attachment 2] 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 3] If you wish to have your say on East Anglia ONE North and East Anglia TWO you must register for each application separately. Kind regards, Liam

02 December 2019
Friston Parochial Church Council - Simon Ive
East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Dear Secretary of State, Please find attached letter concerning the above. Nick Winter
Dear Nick, Thank you for contacting the Planning Inspectorate about the application by East Anglia TWO Limited for an Order granting development consent for the East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm. The application was submitted on 25 October 2019. The decision to accept the application was made on the 22 November 2019. The decision was published on the project webpage, here: [attachment 1] The following documents have also been published on the project webpage: • The application documents; • Any Adequacy of Consultation Representations submitted by relevant local authorities; • The Planning Inspectorate’s Acceptance Checklist. In order to make comments about the merits of the Proposed Development to an appointed Examining Authority, you will need to register as an Interested Party by making a Relevant Representation. You have until the 27 January 2020 to register as an Interested Party and can do so on the project website now: [attachment 2] 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 3] If you wish to have your say on East Anglia ONE North and East Anglia TWO you must register for each application separately. Kind regards, Liam

02 December 2019
Nick Winter
East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Dear Secretary of State & Minister of State I am writing to you both to draw your attention to the energy chaos affecting the Suffolk Coast. It is essential that some sense and reasoning is established concerning proposals for up to 7 NSIP energy projects in pre-planning, consultation, or, shortly to apply for a DCO. National Grid appears to have been directing all these projects to the Sizewell/Leiston area, whilst ignoring that the coast here is a designated AONB. These concerns have been highlighted many times by hundreds of people but National Grid, the network operator, seems complicit in causing maximum damage and destruction by ignoring the protected landscapes, the small vulnerable communities and pursuing the path they have chosen as network operator; one that damages the sustainability and viability of the Suffolk Heritage Coast and its AONB. This coast as a destination, is vital to the success of the tourism industry here, tourism is the biggest employment sector, the coast and tourism supports so many small & medium businesses here. National Grid are surely failing in their remit as network operator in what is increasingly being seen locally as a collaboration with energy companies to exploit and savage the Suffolk Coast & Heaths AONB. National Grid and the energy companies are ignoring the clear damage that will be done to tourism, local businesses and the communities that live here. The energy proposals could include some of Europe’s biggest industrial builds, for example EDF propose to build Sizewell C, within the Suffolk Coast & Heaths AONB and Sandlings SSSI. In the case of Scottish Power’s EA1N & EA2 cable routes, these will run across the AONB landscape with 60m wide, 10km long cable trenches, en-route to the massive onshore substations they propose to build less than 500 metres from the small village of Friston. Not only blighting residents in Friston, but other communities with years of noise, dust, light pollution and increased traffic, and longer-term: constant noise from the moisture on the power-connectors; loss of recreational land; the ever-present threat that as more Windfarms are approved, the site could grow astronomically. I am a resident, who has recently moved to retire to the tranquillity of the Suffolk Coast: a coastline that has inspired Composers, Artists, Poets and Writers alike. However, it is clear that the cumulative effects of numerous energy projects will be too great for such a fragile coastline and its sensitive ecological location which also encompasses the RSPB reserve at Minsmere. If something is not done and fast, National Grid and your government could be responsible for a man-made ecological and localised economic disaster here on the Suffolk Coast. Residents, communities and local businesses have called for a thorough investigation and a full assessment and report on the ‘cumulative impact’ that multiple energy developments will have in this relatively confined rural/coastal location; nothing has happened. Scottish Power’s consultation and EDF’s Sizewell C consultation do not adequately assess each other’s proposals, let alone, the impacts of National Grid’s own massive convertor station and National Grid Ventures euro-connectors ‘Nautilus’ & ‘Eurolink’ bringing further concrete and industrial buildings. Please act now to ensure you are not labelled as the ministers, in a government that allowed National Grid and these energy companies to destroy the once beautiful Suffolk Coast & Heaths AONB and our peaceful communities living here. Therese Coffey our local MP has, on a number of occasions, called for the National Grid and energy companies to explore brownfield options and locations. Dr Coffey and others have questioned why locations like Bradwell in Essex or other brownfield sites have not been upgraded and used. – Why was Scottish Power not forced to connect these projects EA1N & EA2 at Bramford as originally planned? – Why did Scottish Power not consider a single brownfield site? – Why is National Grid not investing in existing gird infrastructure at Bradwell and other similar locations that are not AONB or protected landscapes? – How can this be allowed to happen without any form of alternative being explored like an ‘offshore ring main’ or developing brownfield locations? – Why destroy an AONB and greenfield sites here in Suffolk? – Who polices the decisions and actions of National Grid? – Why are the cumulative impacts not being assessed and acted upon now with 7 projects muted? National Grid make billions in annual profit but they are not investing in old redundant brownfield sites, they are complicit by encouraging Scottish Power and other energy companies to join them in systematic destruction of the Suffolk AONB and surrounding countryside. It seems hypocritical that Designated Land/Greenfield sites are even allowed to be considered as an option when planning to build a Green-Energy site? I am in fully agreement that we need to provide sustainable, low/non-CO2 generated source of power, however, it seems that we in Suffolk are going to have to pay the cost of this dearly in our everyday lives. Why should we be targeted with both Sizewell C and the EA1N & EA2 cable routes? To me it would make more sense to scrap the building of Sizewell C in Suffolk, and instead, if these substations really do warrant to be situated on the Suffolk coastline, build the substations on the 'brownfield' land intended for Sizewell C: - Minimum damage to the AONB; - Infrastructure is already there; - Important Agricultural land is saved (land that as we enter Brexit, we are going to need to rely on more and more for production of meat/crops); - Minimal effect on tourism; - And sets a precedence for future Green-Energy projects that Designated Land & Greenfield sites are not an option when considering their location for building. Yours Sincerely Robert Brundle
Dear Robert, Thank you for contacting the Planning Inspectorate about the application by East Anglia TWO Limited for an Order granting development consent for the East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm. The application was submitted on 25 October 2019. The decision to accept the application was made on the 22 November 2019. The decision was published on the project webpage, here: [attachment 1] The following documents have also been published on the project webpage: • The application documents; • Any Adequacy of Consultation Representations submitted by relevant local authorities; • The Planning Inspectorate’s Acceptance Checklist. In order to make comments about the merits of the Proposed Development to an appointed Examining Authority, you will need to register as an Interested Party by making a Relevant Representation. You have until the 27 January 2020 to register as an Interested Party and can do so on the project website now: [attachment 2] 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 3] If you wish to have your say on East Anglia ONE North and East Anglia TWO you must register for each application separately. Kind regards, Liam

02 December 2019
Robert Brundle
East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Dear Secretary of State & Minister of State I am writing to you both to draw your attention to the energy chaos affecting the Suffolk Coast. It is essential that some sense and reasoning is established concerning proposals for up to 7 NSIP energy projects in pre-planning, consultation, or, shortly to apply for a DCO. National Grid appears to have been directing all these projects to the Sizewell/Leiston area, whilst ignoring that the coast here is a designated AONB. These concerns have been highlighted many times by hundreds of people but National Grid, the network operator, seems complicit in causing maximum damage and destruction by ignoring the protected landscapes, the small vulnerable communities and pursuing the path they have chosen as network operator; one that damages the sustainability and viability of the Suffolk Heritage Coast and its AONB. This coast as a destination, is vital to the success of the tourism industry here, tourism is the biggest employment sector, the coast and tourism supports so many small & medium businesses here. National Grid are surely failing in their remit as network operator in what is increasingly being seen locally as a collaboration with energy companies to exploit and savage the Suffolk Coast & Heaths AONB. National Grid and the energy companies are ignoring the clear damage that will be done to tourism, local businesses and the communities that live here. The energy proposals could include some of Europe’s biggest industrial builds, for example EDF propose to build Sizewell C, within the Suffolk Coast & Heaths AONB and Sandlings SSSI. In the case of Scottish Power’s EA1N & EA2 cable routes, these will run across the AONB landscape with 60m wide, 10km long cable trenches, en-route to the massive onshore substations they propose to build less than 500 metres from the small village of Friston. Not only blighting residents in Friston, but other communities with years of noise, dust, light pollution and increased traffic, and longer-term: constant noise from the moisture on the power-connectors; loss of recreational land; the ever-present threat that as more Windfarms are approved, the site could grow astronomically. I am a resident, who has recently moved to retire to the tranquillity of the Suffolk Coast: a coastline that has inspired Composers, Artists, Poets and Writers alike. However, it is clear that the cumulative effects of numerous energy projects will be too great for such a fragile coastline and its sensitive ecological location which also encompasses the RSPB reserve at Minsmere. If something is not done and fast, National Grid and your government could be responsible for a man-made ecological and localised economic disaster here on the Suffolk Coast. Residents, communities and local businesses have called for a thorough investigation and a full assessment and report on the ‘cumulative impact’ that multiple energy developments will have in this relatively confined rural/coastal location; nothing has happened. Scottish Power’s consultation and EDF’s Sizewell C consultation do not adequately assess each other’s proposals, let alone, the impacts of National Grid’s own massive convertor station and National Grid Ventures euro-connectors ‘Nautilus’ & ‘Eurolink’ bringing further concrete and industrial buildings. Please act now to ensure you are not labelled as the ministers, in a government that allowed National Grid and these energy companies to destroy the once beautiful Suffolk Coast & Heaths AONB and our peaceful communities living here. Therese Coffey our local MP has, on a number of occasions, called for the National Grid and energy companies to explore brownfield options and locations. Dr Coffey and others have questioned why locations like Bradwell in Essex or other brownfield sites have not been upgraded and used. – Why was Scottish Power not forced to connect these projects EA1N & EA2 at Bramford as originally planned? – Why did Scottish Power not consider a single brownfield site? – Why is National Grid not investing in existing gird infrastructure at Bradwell and other similar locations that are not AONB or protected landscapes? – How can this be allowed to happen without any form of alternative being explored like an ‘offshore ring main’ or developing brownfield locations? – Why destroy an AONB and greenfield sites here in Suffolk? – Who polices the decisions and actions of National Grid? – Why are the cumulative impacts not being assessed and acted upon now with 7 projects muted? National Grid make billions in annual profit but they are not investing in old redundant brownfield sites, they are complicit by encouraging Scottish Power and other energy companies to join them in systematic destruction of the Suffolk AONB and surrounding countryside. It seems hypocritical that Designated Land/Greenfield sites are even allowed to be considered as an option when planning to build a Green-Energy site? I am in fully agreement that we need to provide sustainable, low/non-CO2 generated source of power, however, it seems that we in Suffolk are going to have to pay the cost of this dearly in our everyday lives. Why should we be targeted with both Sizewell C and the EA1N & EA2 cable routes? To me it would make more sense to scrap the building of Sizewell C in Suffolk, and instead, if these substations really do warrant to be situated on the Suffolk coastline, build the substations on the 'brownfield' land intended for Sizewell C: - Minimum damage to the AONB; - Infrastructure is already there; - Important Agricultural land is saved (land that as we enter Brexit, we are going to need to rely on more and more for production of meat/crops); - Minimal effect on tourism; - And sets a precedence for future Green-Energy projects that Designated Land & Greenfield sites are not an option when considering their location for building. Yours Sincerely Robert Brundle
Dear Robert, Thank you for contacting the Planning Inspectorate about the application by East Anglia ONE North Limited for an Order granting development consent for the East Anglia North Offshore Windfarm. The application was submitted on 25 October 2019. The decision to accept the application was made on the 22 November 2019. The decision was published on the project webpage, here: [attachment 1] The following documents have also been published on the project webpage: • The application documents; • Any Adequacy of Consultation Representations submitted by relevant local authorities; • The Planning Inspectorate’s Acceptance Checklist. In order to make comments about the merits of the Proposed Development to an appointed Examining Authority, you will need to register as an Interested Party by making a Relevant Representation at the appropriate time. You have until the 27 January 2020 to register as an Interested Party and can do so on the project website now: [attachment 2] 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 3] If you wish to have your say on East Anglia TWO and East Anglia ONE North you must register for each application separately. Kind regards

02 December 2019
Robert Brundle
East Anglia ONE North Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Dear National Infrastructure Planning, I am a resident from East Suffolk and I am opposed to the planned windfarm electrical distribution centre and underground cabling in Friston for the East Anglia ONE North Offshore Windfarm. Firstly I must say I attended many of the Planning Inspectorate meetings for East Anglia One power cable and sub station works at Bramford a few years ago. I was bitterly disappointed by the outcome. The project planning process seemed rushed through, the power developers seemed to control the agenda, the Planning Inspectorate adjudicators had little influence, and their final report did not comment on any requirement of mitigation for the local population and only small mention in passing of the concerns of local people. Further to this, right at the end of the process when the project had already been rubber stamped, the power in the cables was changed from DC to AC, giving little time for discussion and comment. Given this lack of visibility and chance to comment I believe this final change was implemented illegally. The whole process (or shambles) set an unfortunate precedent which has resulted in the proposals now under discussion. During the earlier EA1 planning process it was made to look like enough cable ducts would be provided underground for all further Scottish Renewables windfarm requirements. But now I realise that this wasn't true. So how can we believe anything Scottish Renewables says about future plans. So what is next on the agenda? I agree with the comments stated by government MPs and Ministers that the development of windfarms in the North Sea are being implemented in an ad-hoc fashion with cabling and substations being implemented all over East Anglia, each causing distress and annoying people who live all over the region. A proposal has been made to route all windfarm power to Bradwell power station which I agree is the correct way to go. In any case since Friston is squeezed between areas of natural beauty I would have thought that any areas not designated as such would be better preserved for developments which are associated with the local communities themselves. Not massive national infrastructure projects. Yours sincerely Thomas O'Brien
Dear Thomas, Thank you for contacting the Planning Inspectorate about the application by East Anglia ONE North Limited for an Order granting development consent for the East Anglia North Offshore Windfarm. The application was submitted on 25 October 2019. The decision to accept the application was made on the 22 November 2019. The decision was published on the project webpage, here: [attachment 1] The following documents have also been published on the project webpage: • The application documents; • Any Adequacy of Consultation Representations submitted by relevant local authorities; • The Planning Inspectorate’s Acceptance Checklist. In order to make comments about the merits of the Proposed Development to an appointed Examining Authority, you will need to register as an Interested Party by making a Relevant Representation at the appropriate time. You have until the 27 January 2020 to register as an Interested Party and can do so on the project website now: [attachment 2] 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 3] If you wish to have your say on East Anglia TWO and East Anglia ONE North you must register for each application separately. Kind regards

02 December 2019
Thomas O'Brien
East Anglia ONE North Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Dear sir/madam, I have been approached by the Emergency Planner for Suffolk County Council, Andy Osman, about ONR’s response to the Consultation regarding the DCO application for EA1N & EA2 offshore windfarms. ONR has a role as a statutory consultee under the Planning Act 2008 via the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 and the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009 (as amended) - Reg. 3 states the persons prescribed for the purposes of section 42(a) of the Planning Act (duty to consult) are those listed in column 1 of the table in Schedule 1 to these Regulations, who must be consulted in the circumstances specified in relation to each such person in column 2 of that table. Column 1 of schedule 1 includes ONR as a consultee for [column 2] ‘all proposed applications likely to affect matters relevant to the ONR's purposes within the meaning of Part 3 of the Energy Act 2013’. I have not been able to confirm whether ONR has been formally consulted regarding this application but we would wish to be, due to the proximity of the offshore cables which appear to come onshore at Thorpeness, just outside the DEPZ for Sizewell B and within the ONR 8km Outer Consultation Zone. You may find the information included on our webpage useful [attachment 1]. If a request for ONR consultation has been sent, I would be grateful if you could inform me to whom the request was sent. Best regards and many thanks.
Dear Nicola, Pre-application consultation is undertaken by the Applicant rather than the Planning Inspectorate (the Inspectorate). The documents provided by the Applicant indicate that it had consulted the ONR. The ONR should directly contact the Applicant to confirm contact details and information in regards to how it has been consulted. If you continue to have concerns about how the ONR has been consulted, after you have contacted the Applicant, then please write to the Inspectorate again. The decision to accept the application was made on the 22 November 2019. The decision was published on the project webpage, here: [attachment 2] The following documents have also been published on the project webpage: • The application documents; • Any Adequacy of Consultation Representations submitted by relevant local authorities; • The Planning Inspectorate’s Acceptance Checklist. In order to make comments about the merits of the Proposed Development to an appointed Examining Authority, you will need to register as an Interested Party by making a Relevant Representation at the appropriate time. You have until the 27 January 2020 to register as an Interested Party and can do so on the project website now: [attachment 3] 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] If you wish to have your say on East Anglia TWO and East Anglia ONE North you must register for each application separately. If you wish to contact the Inspectorate about East Anglia TWO, please email [email protected] Kind regards

02 December 2019
Office for Nuclear Regulation - Nicola Jaynes
East Anglia ONE North Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please see attached.
Hi Tony, Thank you for contacting the Planning Inspectorate about the application by East Anglia ONE North Limited for an Order granting development consent for the East Anglia North Offshore Windfarm. The application was submitted on 25 October 2019. The decision to accept the application was made on the 22 November 2019. The decision was published on the project webpage, here: [attachment 1] The following documents have also been published on the project webpage: • The application documents; • Any Adequacy of Consultation Representations submitted by relevant local authorities; • The Planning Inspectorate’s Acceptance Checklist. In order to make comments about the merits of the Proposed Development to an appointed Examining Authority, you will need to register as an Interested Party by making a Relevant Representation at the appropriate time. You have until the 27 January 2020 to register as an Interested Party and can do so on the project website now: [attachment 2] 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 3] If you wish to have your say on East Anglia TWO and East Anglia ONE North you must register for each application separately. Kind regards

02 December 2019
Tony Morley
East Anglia ONE North Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please see attached.
Dear Nick, Thank you for contacting the Planning Inspectorate about the application by East Anglia ONE North Limited for an Order granting development consent for the East Anglia North Offshore Windfarm. The application was submitted on 25 October 2019. The decision to accept the application was made on the 22 November 2019. The decision was published on the project webpage, here: [attachment 1] The following documents have also been published on the project webpage: • The application documents; • Any Adequacy of Consultation Representations submitted by relevant local authorities; • The Planning Inspectorate’s Acceptance Checklist. In order to make comments about the merits of the Proposed Development to an appointed Examining Authority, you will need to register as an Interested Party by making a Relevant Representation at the appropriate time. You have until the 27 January 2020 to register as an Interested Party and can do so on the project website now: [attachment 2] 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 3] If you wish to have your say on East Anglia TWO and East Anglia ONE North you must register for each application separately. Kind regards

02 December 2019
Nick Winter
East Anglia ONE North Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please see attached.
Dear Christine, Thank you for contacting the Planning Inspectorate about the application by East Anglia ONE North Limited for an Order granting development consent for the East Anglia North Offshore Windfarm. The application was submitted on 25 October 2019. The decision to accept the application was made on the 22 November 2019. The decision was published on the project webpage, here: [attachment 1] The following documents have also been published on the project webpage: • The application documents; • Any Adequacy of Consultation Representations submitted by relevant local authorities; • The Planning Inspectorate’s Acceptance Checklist. In order to make comments about the merits of the Proposed Development to an appointed Examining Authority, you will need to register as an Interested Party by making a Relevant Representation at the appropriate time. You have until the 27 January 2020 to register as an Interested Party and can do so on the project website now: [attachment 2] 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 3] If you wish to have your say on East Anglia TWO and East Anglia ONE North you must register for each application separately. Kind regards

02 December 2019
Christine Ive
East Anglia ONE North Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Subject: PINS ref: EA1N / EA2 Substations PINS Ref: EN010077 + EN010078 Please find attached a copy of my letter to Dept of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy regarding PINS ref: EA1N / EA2 Substations PINS Ref: EN010077 + EN010078. Thank you for your time. Nichola Winter
Dear Nichola, Thank you for contacting the Planning Inspectorate about the application by East Anglia TWO Limited for an Order granting development consent for the East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm. The application was submitted on 25 October 2019. The decision to accept the application was made on the 22 November 2019. The decision was published on the project webpage, here: [attachment 1] The following documents have also been published on the project webpage: • The application documents; • Any Adequacy of Consultation Representations submitted by relevant local authorities; • The Planning Inspectorate’s Acceptance Checklist. In order to make comments about the merits of the Proposed Development to an appointed Examining Authority, you will need to register as an Interested Party by making a Relevant Representation at the appropriate time. 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 2] If you wish to have your say on East Anglia ONE North and East Anglia TWO you must register for each application separately. Kind regards, Liam

28 November 2019
Nichola Winter
East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please see attached.
Dear Nichola, Thank you for contacting the Planning Inspectorate about the application by East Anglia ONE North Limited for an Order granting development consent for the East Anglia North Offshore Windfarm. The application was submitted on 25 October 2019. The decision to accept the application was made on the 22 November 2019. The decision was published on the project webpage, here: [attachment 1] The following documents have also been published on the project webpage: • The application documents; • Any Adequacy of Consultation Representations submitted by relevant local authorities; • The Planning Inspectorate’s Acceptance Checklist. In order to make comments about the merits of the Proposed Development to an appointed Examining Authority, you will need to register as an Interested Party by making a Relevant Representation at the appropriate time. 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 2] If you wish to have your say on East Anglia TWO and East Anglia ONE North you must register for each application separately. Kind regards

28 November 2019
Nichola Winter
East Anglia ONE North Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via phone
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see the attachment

28 November 2019
Orsted - anon.
Hornsea Project Four Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Note of the inception meeting for Galloper Offshore Windfarm Extension project
Please see attached

28 November 2019
Innogy Renewables UK - anon.
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Inception Meeting
Please see attached.

28 November 2019
Innogy Renewables UK - anon.
Five Estuaries Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please see attached document
Please see attached document

27 November 2019
Derby City Council - Sara Claxton
General
Enquiry received via email
As there will be neither Government nor MPs as from Wednesday of this week, how might this affect the standard timetable for an NSIP application?
During the election period the Government retains its responsibility to govern, and Ministers remain in charge of their departments. The Planning Inspectorate, acting on behalf of the Secretary of State, has a statutory duty to decide whether or not to accept the applications for Examination within 28 days of submission. As you may have seen, our decision to accept the applications was issued on Friday 22 November. The Examination timetable, will not be affected by the General Election.

25 November 2019
Paul Spendlove
East Anglia ONE North Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
As there will be neither Government nor MPs as from Wednesday of this week, how might this affect the standard timetable for an NSIP application?
During the election period the Government retains its responsibility to govern, and Ministers remain in charge of their departments. The Planning Inspectorate, acting on behalf of the Secretary of State, has a statutory duty to decide whether or not to accept the applications for Examination within 28 days of submission. As you may have seen, our decision to accept the applications was issued on Friday 22 November. The Examination timetable, will not be affected by the General Election.

25 November 2019
Paul Spendlove
East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Dear Sir/Madam, I understand that you are the Examining Authority for National Infrastructure Planning and as such recommend projects that are submitted to the National Infrastructure Planning in relation to Rail Freight Interchange applications. I am interested to know what factors you take into consideration when arriving at a decision to recommend or not, if there is a specific framework you follow and in particular whether these include local conditions. My questions arise specifically in relation to an application due to be submitted to the Inspectorate in Q4 2019 by db Symmetry for the proposed Hinckley National Railfreight interchange. Do you consider the following factors: Number of existing Railfreight terminals in the immediate vicinity - in this area there are already 3 rail freight terminals within proximity of this site in operation or being constructed, Daventry International Railfreight Terminal , ‘DIRFT’, (18 miles away), Associated British Port Authority already operate freight along this line from Felixstowe which it delivers to its centrally placed Hams Hall Railfreight Terminal, 24 miles from this site, very close to the automotive industry and East Midlands Gateway Railfreight Interchange (28 miles away). There are 3 others which are either in pre- application, decision or pre- examination stage within a 35 mile radius, namely East Midlands Intermodal Park, Northampton Gateway Railfreight Interchange and Rail Central (Strategic Railfreight Interchange). In addition to this the the construction of DIRFT stage 3 approved in 2014 on a brown field site appears to be progressing very slowly which might suggest demand for this facility is not great. I believe, as the law stands, there is no legal requirement for either a minimum amount or any rail freight to actually be processed at these sites which seems a loophole in the plans of this nature. Rail network factors - use of a dual track cross country line carrying passengers from Leicester to Birmingham with a recent proposal to improve and extend these services to Coventry and Nottingham- can this reliably also service a further Railfreight terminal in addition to the terminals at Hams Hall, East Midlands and DIRFT? There is a level crossing on the line at Narborough which already causes traffic congestion in the area. Warehouses - why is it necessary to have warehouses if this is simply a railfreight terminal - surely goods should be delivered directly to the end point or as close as is possible. They are not planning to start building the railfreight terminal for 4-5 years and then only with a limited train service. Will you examine the need for an area of 327.59 acres of farmland to be covered by 14 warehouses providing 5077 car parking and 1013 lorry parking spaces resulting in increased traffic in an area where there are empty warehouses advertised by junction 20 and 21 of the M1, at Magna Park and junction 2 of the M6. The new Coventry and Warwickshire Gateway Park, which is currently being developed, together with Hams Hall Ralfreight Terminal are in optimal locations to service the Midlands automotive industry directly and indeed formed part of the planning application for the former. As the development consists largely of warehouses one would normally expect local people to have some input via the normal planning application route. Both Blaby District and Hinckley and Bosworth Borough Councils and our local MP’s Mr Alberto Costa and Mr David Tredinnick have all spoken out against this development in this locarion in addition to the large number of local people and others who visit Burbage Common and oppose this development. Location - on over 400 acres of agricultural farmland crossed by footpaths, bridleways and a public road all giving access to the immediately adjacent Burbage Common and wood - a SSSI and ancient woodland. This farmland also provides a habitat for many ground nesting birds such as skylarks, pheasants, lapwings and partridge, tree sparrows, buzzards and other bird, insect and animal species inhabit the dense hedgerows and old oak and ash trees growing there. These green spaces containing a number of small ponds provide much needed wildlife corridors to support animals such as brown hares, badgers, foxes, bats, insects, amphibians, reptiles and other small mammals as well as an area where people can walk and ride their horses - the benefits of which to both physical and mental wellbeing are well known. The loss of this green field space and footpaths to warehousing and proposed replacement access paths to the Common through an industrial site will expose people and animals to constant 24 hour a day noise, air and light pollution. This 24 hour exposure has been shown to disrupt Circadian rhythms causing physiological changes and has been shown to be detrimental to both people and wildlife. Employment- the levels of unemployment in Blaby and Hinckley and Bosworth are both below the national average at 3.8% according to Nomis so presumably people will have to travel by car to work, causing further congestion and pollution. On one recruitment site alone there are 225 warehouse jobs advertised within 10 miles of Hinckley today. There is also a growing trend for automation of warehouses which will eventually remove any temporary increase in employment that maybe produced. In conclusion I sincerely hope that if this plan is submitted to you that the local situation in relation to the above factors and the long term future health and well-being of both people and wildlife is seriously considered before Burbage Common and the surrounding environment is damaged irrevocably. The bypassing of the local authorities and local population by this submission to the Planning Inspectorate through the thinly disguised application for a rail freight terminal is regrettable and seems a loophole for more warehouse development in an inappropriate place. Yours Sincerely Dr Barbara Lees
Dr Lees, Thank you for your email. Examining Authorities are appointed after the submission of an application, if the application is accepted for examination. As you note in your letter the application for Hinckley National Rail Freight Interchange has not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate. Section 104 of the Planning Act 2008 indicates what factors the Secretary of State must have regard to in deciding applications where a national policy statement has effect. Until the applications are submitted, your first point of contact should be the developer. I would therefore encourage you to contact DB Symmetry (Hinckley) 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 applications to the Planning Inspectorate. If you would like more information about the Planning Act 2008 process, please see “Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others” which can be found along with other advice notes, here: [attachment 1] I hope you find this information to be useful. Yours faithfully, Liam

18 November 2019
Dr Barbara Lees
Hinckley National Rail Freight Interchange
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting (post-EIA Scoping)
Please see attached.

15 November 2019
Gatwick Airport Limited - anon.
Gatwick Airport Northern Runway
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
See attached
See attached

14 November 2019
Ward Farming Limited - India Bacon
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
See attached.
See attached.

14 November 2019
Deborah Bragg
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
See attached
See attached

14 November 2019
Bill Parker
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Draft Document Review Meeting
Please see attached

13 November 2019
Highways England - anon.
M54 to M6 Link Road
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Nuclear Build Development Meeting between the Environment Agency and the Planning Inspectorate
See Attached

11 November 2019
The Environment Agency - anon.
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via email
Comments on the Equinor Scoping Report
Thanks for your email and letter, the contents of which I have noted. We have double checked the boundary of your town council, and as High Kelling Parish Council is not within the boundary of the proposed DCO application, you are not a statutory consultee and as such your response will not be appended to the Planning Inspectorate’s Scoping Opinion. However, you of course may contact the developer directly during pre-application process if you wish to get involved at that time. If an application is submitted and accepted by the Planning Inspectorate you will then have an opportunity to register as an interested party.

07 November 2019
High Kelling Parish Council - Gemma Harrison
Sheringham and Dudgeon Extension Projects
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Meeting with the Heathrow Community Engagement Board to discuss the Planning Act 2008 process
Please see meeting note

07 November 2019
Heathrow Community Engagement Board - anon.
Expansion of Heathrow Airport (Third Runway)
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

06 November 2019
Highways England - anon.
M25 junction 28 improvements
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Technical meeting 2 discussing further detail on elements of the masterplan submitted as part of the Applicant's Preliminary Environmental Information Report (PEIR)
Please see meeting note attached

06 November 2019
Heathrow Airport Limited - anon.
Expansion of Heathrow Airport (Third Runway)
Enquiry received via phone
response has attachments
Evidence Plan teleconference with Ørsted, East Riding of Yorkshire Council, Natural England, Historic England, GoBe Consultants, RHDHV
Please see attached

06 November 2019
Ørsted, ERYC, NE, HE,GoBe Consultants, RHDHV - anon.
Hornsea Project Four Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via email
Application by Equinor New Energy Limited (the Applicant) for an Order granting Development Consent for the Dudgeon and Sheringham Shoal Offshore Wind Farm Extensions (the Proposed Development) With reference to the above proposal the Town Council have no comment to make at the moment but would like to be added as a consultee for future information on the development Sue Lake Aylsham Town Clerk Aylsham Town Council Town Hall, Market Place Aylsham, Norwich NR11 6EL
Dear Ms Lake, Thanks for your email. We note that you currently have no comment to make. We have double checked the boundary of your town council, and as Aylsham Town Council is not within the boundary of the proposed DCO application, you are not a statutory consultee and as such your response will not be appended to the Planning Inspectorate’s Scoping Opinion. However, you of course may contact the developer directly during pre-application process if you wish to get involved at that time. We are not currently inviting interested parties to register at this early stage. However, if an application is submitted and accepted by the Planning Inspectorate you will then have an opportunity to register as an interested party. I hope this clarifies things.

05 November 2019
Aylsham Town Council - Sue Lake
Sheringham and Dudgeon Extension Projects
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

05 November 2019
NNB Generation Company (HPC) Limited - anon.
Hinkley Point C New Nuclear Power Station Material Change 1
Enquiry received via phone
1) How are consultees, particularly Parish Councils, identified for notification and consultation on the Scoping Report? Who identifies them? 2) Can Parish Councils that are not consulted by PINS comment on the Scoping Report? 3) Will the bodies that were notified and consulted be informed when the Scoping Opinion is adopted?
1) The Planning Inspectorate identifies consultation bodies in accordance with legislation (Schedule 1 of The Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009). Any parish council within which the Proposed Development would be located (ie the ‘scoping area’ identified in the Scoping Report) would be notified and consulted. A list of all consultation bodies will be included in the Scoping Opinion, once adopted. 2) Only responses received from consultation bodies that were notified and consulted will be included in the Scoping Opinion. If a Parish Council that has not been notified and consulted wishes to comment on the Scoping Report, it is recommended that they send their comments directly to the applicant. 3) The Inspectorate has 42 days from receipt of a scoping request to adopt a Scoping Opinion and will publish it on the project page of the website. Consultation bodies will not be individually notified of its publication.

31 October 2019
Oulton Parish Council - Alison Shaw
Sheringham and Dudgeon Extension Projects
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Dear Sir/Madam, I have been liaising with a developer in respect of a potential project for electricity generation utilising compressed air which would be stored underground using pre-existing caverns which would be modified. My question is whether the proposal, in your view, falls within the definition of an NSIP. Below is the developers reasoning for why they believe it does not. Can I get your view on this please? 3/ Concerning the Planning Act 2008 and the generation threshold, it would be good to get your legal guys to check/confirm we are still within local planning jurisdiction , the following i hope helps clarify our position • In our opinion, consideration of our facility with regards planning would fall solely under section 15 of the Act (generating stations) and not under section 17 (underground gas storage) because the purpose of the facility is electricity storage (which currently has no legal definition and is therefore consumption plus generation) not gas storage. • In our opinion a 50MW generation capacity falls within local planning jurisdiction, because 14.2.c states "more than 50MW" (my emphasis). • 49MW net Generation capacity (into the distribution grid), using existing caverns (only changes to above ground equipment - all underground expected to remain exactly the same), We would use compressors for charging only (no generation) between 50-70MW. o our view is we do not fall under Part 3 clause 15.2 -> Generating Stations as our output will be less than 50MW o our view is we would be assessed under clause 15 Generating Stations if anything and not assessed under clause 17 “ Underground storage facilities” since we a/ are not storing gas (as in natural gas which is what we assume the word gas refers to) b/ we are not creating underground gas storage as the caverns already exist c/any caverns would in any case be auxiliary (or secondary) to the main purpose of generation • 49MW net Generation capacity (into the distribution grid), using NEW caverns, we would use compressors for charging only (not for generation) between 50-70MW maximum electricity consumption. o our view is we do not fall under Part 3 clause 15.2 -> Generating Stations as our output will be less than 50MW and this is regardless of consumption size o our view is we would be assessed under clause 15 Generating Stations if anything and not assessed under clause 17 “ Underground storage facilities” since we a/ are not storing gas (as in natural gas which is what we assume the word gas refers to) b/any caverns would in any case be auxiliary (or secondary) to the main purpose of generation
Dear Mr Holmes Thank you for your query regarding the proposed potential project for electricity generation utilising compressed air. 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(2) of PA 2008 provides that the construction or extension of an onshore generating station in England is within section 14(1)(a) only if the generating station is, or (when constructed or extended) is expected: not to generate electricity from wind; and to have a capacity of more than 50 megawatts. The definition of extension is set out in Section 235(1) of PA 2008 which provides that, in relation to a generating station, it has the meaning given by Section 36(9) of the Electricity Act 1989. That provision of the Electricity Act states that ““extension”, in relation to a generating station, includes the use by the person operating the station of any land or area of waters (wherever situated) for a purpose directly related to the generation of electricity by that station…”. The Council will need to satisfy itself, taking its own legal advice if appropriate, as to whether or not any proposal submitted to it can be considered and determined by the local planning authority under any regime other than the development consent regime provided for by 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”. If the Council are minded to conclude that the project is an NSIP, you need to explain to the Applicant why you consider this proposal to be an NSIP and suggest the Applicant contact the Inspectorate to discuss the NSIP process. However, the Applicant may choose to ignore such advice and lodge them as two separate TCPA applications. Please note that the Inspectorate has a statutory duty to record and make publicly available any advice 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 such an order. The inspectorate has previously issued advised to the developer for this project which has been published on the Inspectorate’s National Infrastructure website. [attachment 1] If you wish to seek any further advice in relation to the NSIP planning regime and these proposals, please contact me using the above contact details. Thank you

29 October 2019
Cheshire West and Chester Borough Council - Steven Holmes
General
Enquiry received via email
I am writing to enquire as to whether you would accept a response from The Wildlife Trusts on the Scoping Report for Sheringham and Dudgeon Offshore Wind Farm Extension? Kind regards Tania Tania Davey Living Seas Sustainable Development Officer The Wildlife Trusts
Dear Tania Thank you for your email. In forming it’s opinion as to the scope of the information that the Applicant should include in its Environmental Statement, the Inspectorate consults with a number of consultation bodies as listed in Schedule 1 of The Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009. Wildlife Trusts are not listed as consultation bodies and therefore any comments you have would not be included in the Scoping Opinion. However, we would strongly encourage you to send any comments that you may have directly to the developer, as the Applicant has a statutory duty to take your views into account.

29 October 2019
The Wildlife Trusts - Tania Davey
Sheringham and Dudgeon Extension Projects
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Good afternoon I understand that the submission of this application by Scottish Power is imminent I think I am right in saying that you then decide in 28 days whether or not to accept the application I would submit that you should not accept this application for the following reasons - This is the first of a series of applications for bringing ashore the electricity generated by windfarms. Government has given permission for the construction of the windfarms but has not developed any strategy for how the power should be brought ashore. It is imperative that there is such a strategy otherwise each windfarm will act in isolation and the damage done to the countryside will be immense and uncontrolled. In this case, Scottish Power and National Grid have unilaterally decided upon Friston without reference to anyone else. They have not even considered a development that could be shared with the next windfarm to be completed. We need a national strategy for how best, and where, to bring power ashore taking into account all of the technical possibilities such as the offshore ringmain. And we need this fast. We all need the offshore wind power. - I am told by Scottish Power that once you have accepted their application then the public will not be allowed to argue that it is the wrong location. If this is correct then it renders the whole process meaningless. How else can the public have a say? We are supposed to live in a democracy. - The so called consultation process carried out by Scottish Power has been a farce. Many, many members of the public have commented and made suggestions. All have been ignored. I therefore ask that you refuse their application and ask the appropriate government department to put in place an urgent programme to develop a strategy in conjunction with the various windfarm developers and National Grid Thankyou David Gordon
Dear Mr Gordon Thank you for contacting the Planning Inspectorate about the application by ScottishPower Renewables for an order granting development consent for the East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm. The Acceptance stage The application was submitted on 25 October 2019. The Acceptance decision must be taken on or before 22 November 2019. The decision will be published on the project webpage, here: [attachment 1] If the application is accepted, the following documents will also be published on the project webpage: • The application documents (if they are not already published); • Any Adequacy of Consultation Representations submitted by relevant local authorities; • The Planning Inspectorate’s Acceptance Checklist. The Acceptance tests Section 55 of the Planning Act 2008 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. The following must be considered when making the decision: a) The Consultation Report received with the application; b) Any Adequacy of Consultation Representations received by the Planning Inspectorate from a local authority consultee; c) The extent to which the Applicant has had regard to government guidance. If you have sent comments about the pre-application consultation, these can be considered in addition to the statutorily required Acceptance tests when making the decision about whether or not to accept the application. However, it will be for the decision maker (the Planning Inspectorate on behalf of the Secretary of State) to decide the weight to give to the views expressed based on the individual facts of the case. However you may also wish to submit any comments you have on the consultation to your local authority as relevant local authorities have been asked to submit their views on the adequacy of the Applicant’s consultation to us by 8 November 2019. If you have sent comments about the merits of the Proposed Development (eg setting out support for or objection to the principle of the Proposed Development) these cannot be considered at the Acceptance stage. If the application is accepted for Examination, in order to make comments about the merits of the Proposed Development to an appointed Examining Authority, you will need to register as an Interested Party by making a Relevant Representation at the appropriate time. 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 2] Kind regards

29 October 2019
David Gordon
East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Good afternoon I understand that the submission of this application by Scottish Power is imminent I think I am right in saying that you then decide in 28 days whether or not to accept the application I would submit that you should not accept this application for the following reasons - This is the first of a series of applications for bringing ashore the electricity generated by windfarms. Government has given permission for the construction of the windfarms but has not developed any strategy for how the power should be brought ashore. It is imperative that there is such a strategy otherwise each windfarm will act in isolation and the damage done to the countryside will be immense and uncontrolled. In this case, Scottish Power and National Grid have unilaterally decided upon Friston without reference to anyone else. They have not even considered a development that could be shared with the next windfarm to be completed. We need a national strategy for how best, and where, to bring power ashore taking into account all of the technical possibilities such as the offshore ringmain. And we need this fast. We all need the offshore wind power. - I am told by Scottish Power that once you have accepted their application then the public will not be allowed to argue that it is the wrong location. If this is correct then it renders the whole process meaningless. How else can the public have a say? We are supposed to live in a democracy. - The so called consultation process carried out by Scottish Power has been a farce. Many, many members of the public have commented and made suggestions. All have been ignored. I therefore ask that you refuse their application and ask the appropriate government department to put in place an urgent programme to develop a strategy in conjunction with the various windfarm developers and National Grid Thankyou David Gordon
Dear Mr Gordon Thank you for contacting the Planning Inspectorate about the application by Scottish Power Renewables for an order granting development consent for the East Anglia ONE Offshore Windfarm. The Acceptance stage The application was submitted on 25 October 2019. The Acceptance decision must be taken on or before 22 November 2019. The decision will be published on the project webpage, here: [attachment 1] If the application is accepted, the following documents will also be published on the project webpage: • The application documents (if they are not already published); • Any Adequacy of Consultation Representations submitted by relevant local authorities; • The Planning Inspectorate’s Acceptance Checklist. The Acceptance tests Section 55 of the Planning Act 2008 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. The following must be considered when making the decision: a) The Consultation Report received with the application; b) Any Adequacy of Consultation Representations received by the Planning Inspectorate from a local authority consultee; c) The extent to which the Applicant has had regard to government guidance. If you have sent comments about the pre-application consultation, these can be considered in addition to the statutorily required Acceptance tests when making the decision about whether or not to accept the application. However, it will be for the decision maker (the Planning Inspectorate on behalf of the Secretary of State) to decide the weight to give to the views expressed based on the individual facts of the case. However you may also wish to submit any comments you have on the consultation to your local authority as relevant local authorities have been asked to submit their views on the adequacy of the Applicant’s consultation to us by 8 November 2019. If you have sent comments about the merits of the Proposed Development (eg setting out support for or objection to the principle of the Proposed Development) these cannot be considered at the Acceptance stage. If the application is accepted for Examination, in order to make comments about the merits of the Proposed Development to an appointed Examining Authority, you will need to register as an Interested Party by making a Relevant Representation at the appropriate time. 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 2] I note that your email below is in relation to the East Anglia ONE North application. An application for the East Anglia TWO offshore windfarm has been submitted at the same time. These are two separate applications and therefore if you wish your comments to be taken into account for both applications you should also email your comments to [email protected]. Regards

28 October 2019
David Gordon
East Anglia ONE North Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via meeting
Advice regarding the status of notifications made in accordance with the 2009 EIA Regulations and the applicability with likewise requirements in the 2017 EIA Regulations.
Following our discussion last week, the Inspectorate understands that you do not intend to rely upon transitional provisions provided within the 2017 EIA Regulations. Instead you intend to submit a 2017 EIA Regulations compliant Environmental Statement (ES) to accompany the proposed Metrowest project application. You have requested advice regarding the status of notifications made in accordance with the 2009 EIA Regulations and the applicability with likewise requirements in the 2017 EIA Regulations. The Inspectorate is unable to provide legal advice, however, we do acknowledge that the notification requirements set out in Regulation 6 of the 2009 EIA Regulations (under which you have previously notified the Inspectorate of your intent to provide an ES) are essentially analogous with those specified in Regulation 8 of the 2017 EIA Regulations. The Inspectorate will have regard to these matters when the application is made. However, the Applicant should ensure that the application documents clearly explain the relationship between notifications made under the 2009 EIA Regulations and those under the 2017 EIA Regulations.

24 October 2019
Womble Bond Dickison LLP/ North Somerset Council - anon.
Portishead Branch Line - MetroWest Phase 1
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Please see Attached
Please see Attached

23 October 2019
Anglia Water - anon.
Cambridge Waste Water Treatment Plant Relocation
Enquiry received via email
Dear Inspectorate. I am a planning officer working for the Medway Council. I am writing to seek your advice with regard to the above proposal. Medway Council is about to receive two separate planning applications for two 49.99MW gas fired electricity generating units. These two units will be located side by side within a large compound and share some facilities like site office car parking , see attached site location and layout plans. Having regard to the section 15(2)(c ) of the Planning Act 2008, it appears to us that although individually these gas fired electricity generating units will be within the threshold of the section 15(2) (c ) of the Act; due to their proximity to each other and their combined MW electricity generating powers they would exceed the Acts threshold limit and as such they should be considered under the NSIP regime. However, in response to the Medway Council challenge that the proposals together will exceed the threshold for the application to be determined under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 the applicant, SEATERA ENERGY has provided a legal opinion in support of their assertion that the proposed Gas Fired electricity generators ought to be regarded as a separate generating station and thus that the proposed development was properly to be regarded as falling below the threshold set by the section 15(2)(c ) of the Planning Act 2008. In addition the applicant has also cited decisions by Stoke on Tees Borough Council to grant planning permissions for two similar 49.9MW gas fired electricity power stations on 4th January 2019 under ref 18/2079/FUL and 18/2082/FUL. I have enclosed for your info proposed layout of the proposed 49.9MW Gas fired electricity stations. I am writing to seek your considered views as whether we should treat these applications as two separate standalone gas fired electricity power station with 49.9MW each and consider them under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 or advise the applicant that due to the proximity of the power station to each other and sharing compound and some facilities these projects should be regarded as a combined units that exceed the threshold set by the Planning Act 2008. Therefore, the proposals represent a Nationally Significant Infrastructure project and require a Development Consent Order under the Planning Act 2008. Looking forward to your considered opinion and help in this matter. Yours sincerely M. Harouni Senior Planning Officer
Dear Mr Harouni Thank you for your query regarding the proposed development of two 49.99MW gas fired electricity generating units which are due to be submitted to Medway Council. You request the Inspectorate’s view on whether they be should treated as two separate standalone gas fired electricity power stations with 49.9MW each and consider them under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, or advise the Applicant that due to the proximity of the power stations to each other and sharing compound and some facilities that they should be regarded as a combined units that exceed the threshold set by the Planning Act 2008. 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(2) of PA 2008 provides that the construction or extension of an onshore generating station in England is within section 14(1)(a) only if the generating station is, or (when constructed or extended) is expected: not to generate electricity from wind; and to have a capacity of more than 50 megawatts. The definition of extension is set out in Section 235(1) of PA 2008 which provides that, in relation to a generating station, it has the meaning given by Section 36(9) of the Electricity Act 1989. That provision of the Electricity Act states that ““extension”, in relation to a generating station, includes the use by the person operating the station of any land or area of waters (wherever situated) for a purpose directly related to the generation of electricity by that station…”. You state that the Applicant, Statera Energy, have indicated that they have sought their own legal advice in support of their view that the proposal ought to be regarded as a separate generating station and that it should properly to be regarded as falling below the threshold set by the Section 15(2)(c ) of PA 2008, also citing recent decisions by Stoke on Tees Borough Council to grant planning permissions for two similar 49.9MW gas fired electricity power stations on 4 January 2019 under ref 18/2079/FUL and 18/2082/FUL. The Council will need to satisfy itself, taking its own legal advice if appropriate, as to whether or not any proposal submitted to it can be considered and determined by the local planning authority under any regime other than the development consent regime provided for by 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”. If the Council are minded to conclude that these two applications are interconnected you will need to explain to the Applicant why you consider this proposal to be an NSIP and suggest the Applicant contact the Inspectorate to discuss the NSIP process. However, the Applicant may choose to ignore such advice and lodge them as two separate TCPA applications. Please note that the Inspectorate has a statutory duty to record and make publicly available any advice 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 such an order. If you wish to seek any further advice in relation to the NSIP planning regime and these proposals, please contact me using the above contact details. Thank you Tracey Williams Case Manager National Infrastructure Planning The Planning Inspectorate,Temple Quay House,Temple Quay, Bristol BS1 6PN Direct Line: 0303 444 5085 Helpline: 0303 444 5000 Email: [email protected]

22 October 2019
Medway Council - Majid Harouni
General
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please see attached
Please see attached

22 October 2019
Paul Spendlove
East Anglia ONE North Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please see attached
Please see attached

22 October 2019
Paul Spendlove
East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please see attached
Please see attached

22 October 2019
Alan Bullard
East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please see attached
Please see attached

22 October 2019
Alan Bullard
East Anglia ONE North Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Tripartite meeting to discuss and understand each participants role in relation to Heathrow Airport Limited’s Development Consent Order (DCO) and Airspace Change Process applications
Please see attached note

21 October 2019
Heathrow Airport Ltd and Civil Aviation Authority - anon.
Expansion of Heathrow Airport (Third Runway)
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Dear Rt Hon. Andrea Leadsom MP, Councillors, Sir/Madam, I am writing to express my ongoing anger and disbelief at the Scottish Power Renewable EA1N and EA2 planning proposals at Friston, Suffolk. I have written before for each consultation and will be registering as relevant representation with PINs at the relevant stage. I want to reaffirm my shock at the scale; threat to the village of Friston and surrounding area; and precedent to other huge energy developments. Renewable energy is a vital part of our ongoing national commitments to delivering carbon neutral energy supplies. However it is the lack of Government planning to this development and future developments that are destroying the East Anglian Coastline. The government have a duty to protect communities, the environment and wellbeing of residents from vast onshore infrastructures related to offshore wind farms. There are many brownfield sites that could be used for onshore infrastructure but energy companies are planning to destroy pristine coastal communities, AONB land and amenity land. The Government, OFGEM and National Grid have no accountability or interest in developing a sustainable approach to onshore developments for onshore infrastructure. Outlined below are the main concerns I have in relation to building the EA1N and EA2 substations in the village Friston: - flooding. The village is build around a watercourse that has had extensive flooding over the years with many properties flooded. The scale of the substations will turn high value agricultural land into a concrete development. The flood assessments by SPR are desk based, and unconvincing given the level of historic flooding in the village. Mitigation shows further amenity and agricultural land loss but shows little evidence of mapping and investigating the whole village to address the threats from flooding. -noise pollution. The PEIR shows that there will be permanent noise pollution by the substations. Given that SPR have not included the National Grid substation and future Nautilus Substations in their cumulative impact assessment I can only see that the noise will be greater than indicated. The substations are within 350metres of the village where there is currently no background noise. This cannot be mitigated against, there is no noise in the village. -damage to the landscape. At present the proposed site is a mixture of high agricultural land, public footpaths and woodlands. The 30+ acres of industrial development 15-18metres high cannot be mitigated against. The setting of the village, listed buildings and closure of public footpaths will be damaged irreversibly. The area also contains a number of important wildlife including skylarks and bats. The skylarks have only just started reappearing on the fields where the substations will be built. Mitigation will be over 25 years as tree growth will be slow and long lasting, given the life span of the substations, I will be over 100 by the time the trees are doing their job. It is also about the generations that are yet to come. Destroying parts of the AONB for cable routes, destroying amenity land and access, and ruining the heritage and archaeological of the village cannot be mitigated against. I hope you understand the damage these piecemeal approaches to energy developments will have on local communities, with particular damage to the village of Friston. Regards Rosemary Kersey
Dear Rosemary, Planning Act 2008 (as amended) Proposals by ScottishPower Renewables (UK) Limited for the East Anglia ONE North Windfarm (EN010077). I am writing regarding your correspondence sent to the Planning Inspectorate dated 15 October 2019 in relation to the above proposal. The proposed application is at the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 process. The Planning Inspectorate is unable to consider representations about the merits of any application until it is accepted for Examination. Further information about the process can be found in the link below to the National Infrastructure Planning website: [attachment 1]. From your email I can see that you are aware that should the application be submitted and accepted the ‘Registration and Relevant Representation form’ will be made available on the project page of the National Infrastructure Planning website during the Pre-examination stage. 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’: [attachment 2]. Please note that, should both applications be submitted and accepted, to become an Interested Party in each examination you must register for both applications separately. Kind regards, Liam

21 October 2019
Rosemary Kersey
East Anglia ONE North Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Dear sirs, We are writing to you as residents of Knodishall whose property and holiday accommodation business is situated contiguous to a section of the cable route/haul road and in close proximity to a proposed site compound. The proposed siting of the Friston sub-station is going to have a devasting effect on our holiday cottage business. Our guests, along with the majority of visitors to the Suffolk Coast, choose our properties for their tranquil location with unspoilt views, dark skies and ease of access. All of this will disappear with the above project and the siting of the haul road and compound within metres of our boundary. Access to our property, will at times be closed off whilst initially constructing the haul road and subsequently very difficult with the continual movement of construction traffic. The impact to routes leading to our property and the Suffolk Coast will be catastrophic. The addition of 100 HGV movements a day along the already overloaded A1094 Aldeburgh Road will be dangerous and off-putting to visitors. Relative ease of access to the Suffolk Coast is a contributing factor to the area being chosen as a destination. Given that EA1N and EA2 are not the only projects proposed for the area, in what seems to be a disjointed and inefficient energy plan, the cumulative effect on people’s lives, tourism and the environment is going to blight our beautiful Suffolk Coast for many years. The location and timing of these and inevitable subsequent projects needs to be carefully considered. We hope all involved are doing this. Yours faithfully Jan Packard and Mark Haines
The proposed application is at the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 process. The Planning Inspectorate is unable to consider representations about the merits of any application until it is accepted for Examination. Further information about the process can be found in the link below to the National Infrastructure Planning website: [attachment 1]. Should the application be submitted and accepted the ‘Registration and Relevant Representation form’ will be made available on the project page of the National Infrastructure Planning website during the Pre-examination stage. 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’: [attachment 2].

21 October 2019
Jan Packard
East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Dear Secretary of State & Minister of State, I am writing to you both to draw your attention to the stupidity of siting a new sub station for the North Sea East Anglia Two and One windfarms in or near Friston. The power generated by the windfarms will far exceed the power required by the homes and businesses near Friston and consequently it will be exported to where it is needed by the National Grid. One of the reasons for choosing Friston was because it had access to the National Grid nearby. However, wherever the power is used, the losses to get it there will be in excess of the benefits of choosing Friston as a site of connection. Let me give an example with the sub station in Friston, consider 1Kw of electricity generated in the North Sea at the new windfarm. This 1Kw will travel say 70km on the Submarine High Voltage Direct Current (HVDC) cable proposed, then be converted to High Voltage Alternating Current at the Friston sub station. This conversion will cause about .7-.8% loss (3). Then the reduced power will travel 160 km on the above ground grid to where it will be used in London. For this example using the figures in National Grids document (1) Resistance is .064(2) Ohms for HVDC and 1.62(2) Ohm for the HVAC circuit, Total 1.68 Ohms. Now consider if the sub station was in the Thames estuary, The same 1 Kw of electricity will travel say 140 km via a new submarine HVDC cable to a new sub station in the Thames estuary. There will be no requirement to bury this cable in 64m wide trenches that pass through an AONB as the cable can be laid on the sea bed. Once at the substation the power can be converted with the same losses (.7%)(3) as in the Friston example and then travel 30km via HVAC overhead to be used in London. The loss figures for this example are Resistance for HVDC 1.28(2) Ohms and HVAC .3 (2) Ohms. Total Resistance 1.58 Ohms. From this example it can be seen that there is a significant saving in power losses and as importantly the destruction to the environment is substantially reduced. From National Grids own document (3) it can be seen that the submarine HVDC is preferred for an even longer route of 385 km. There is a growing need for a strategic plan to site a new UK connector sub station so that subsequent windfarms in the North Sea and International power connectors such as Viking, NueConnect and NEMO (5) can connect to The National Grid near where the power is needed and I would suggest that location should be in the Thames estuary. Yours Sincerely Alan Hatfield References (1) National Grid Strategy Paper National Grid’s Strategy Paper to address Transmission Licence Special Condition 2K: Electricity Transmission Losses Reporting Period: 1 April 2013 to 31 March 2021 (2) Given that a typical DC resistance at 90°C of a 2500mm² copper conductor is 9.18µO/m and the AC resistance is 10.25µO/m it can be seen, by comparison with the DC resistance values in the table of section 3.2.2, that the overall resistances (and therefore losses) of cable conductors are generally considerably lower than those for overhead lines outlined in section 3.2.2. (3)The major sources of losses in HVDC converter stations are; the valves, converter transformers, ac filters, other reactive compensation plant, DC smoothing reactors and auxiliaries / station service losses. Typical converter losses are 0.7 – 0.8% of the transmitted power. (4)Over long distances, DC transmission losses (including conversion Losses) are lower than AC losses at higher voltages. A typical application for the preference of HVDC connections over AC circuits are where long cable circuits are required - for example the Western HVDC Link, which provides 2.2GW capacity at 600kV, via a 385km undersea cable connection8 . Transmission of power at DC overcomes the effect of capacitive charging current, which reduces the effective rating of cables in AC applications and makes the use of AC circuits increasingly impractical for long distances. In DC applications, there is no technical limit on cable length. (5) [attachment 1]
Dear Alan, Planning Act 2008 (as amended) Proposals by ScottishPower Renewables (UK) Limited for the East Anglia TWO Windfarm (EN010078). I am writing regarding your correspondence sent to the Planning Inspectorate dated 20 October 2019 in relation to the above proposal. The proposed application is at the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 process. The Planning Inspectorate is unable to consider representations about the merits of any application until it is accepted for Examination. Further information about the process can be found in the link below to the National Infrastructure Planning website: [attachment 2]. Should the application be submitted and accepted the ‘Registration and Relevant Representation form’ will be made available on the project page of the National Infrastructure Planning website during the Pre-examination stage. 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’: [attachment 3]. Please note that, should the applications for East Anglia ONE North and East Anglia TWO be submitted and accepted, to become an Interested Party in each examination you must register for both applications separately. Kind regards, Liam

21 October 2019
Alan Hatfield
East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Dear Rt Hon. Andrea Leadsom MP, Councillors, Sir/Madam, I am writing to express my ongoing anger and disbelief at the Scottish Power Renewable EA1N and EA2 planning proposals at Friston, Suffolk. I have written before for each consultation and will be registering as relevant representation with PINs at the relevant stage. I want to reaffirm my shock at the scale; threat to the village of Friston and surrounding area; and precedent to other huge energy developments. Renewable energy is a vital part of our ongoing national commitments to delivering carbon neutral energy supplies. However it is the lack of Government planning to this development and future developments that are destroying the East Anglian Coastline. The government have a duty to protect communities, the environment and wellbeing of residents from vast onshore infrastructures related to offshore wind farms. There are many brownfield sites that could be used for onshore infrastructure but energy companies are planning to destroy pristine coastal communities, AONB land and amenity land. The Government, OFGEM and National Grid have no accountability or interest in developing a sustainable approach to onshore developments for onshore infrastructure. Outlined below are the main concerns I have in relation to building the EA1N and EA2 substations in the village Friston: - flooding. The village is build around a watercourse that has had extensive flooding over the years with many properties flooded. The scale of the substations will turn high value agricultural land into a concrete development. The flood assessments by SPR are desk based, and unconvincing given the level of historic flooding in the village. Mitigation shows further amenity and agricultural land loss but shows little evidence of mapping and investigating the whole village to address the threats from flooding. -noise pollution. The PEIR shows that there will be permanent noise pollution by the substations. Given that SPR have not included the National Grid substation and future Nautilus Substations in their cumulative impact assessment I can only see that the noise will be greater than indicated. The substations are within 350metres of the village where there is currently no background noise. This cannot be mitigated against, there is no noise in the village. -damage to the landscape. At present the proposed site is a mixture of high agricultural land, public footpaths and woodlands. The 30+ acres of industrial development 15-18metres high cannot be mitigated against. The setting of the village, listed buildings and closure of public footpaths will be damaged irreversibly. The area also contains a number of important wildlife including skylarks and bats. The skylarks have only just started reappearing on the fields where the substations will be built. Mitigation will be over 25 years as tree growth will be slow and long lasting, given the life span of the substations, I will be over 100 by the time the trees are doing their job. It is also about the generations that are yet to come. Destroying parts of the AONB for cable routes, destroying amenity land and access, and ruining the heritage and archaeological of the village cannot be mitigated against. I hope you understand the damage these piecemeal approaches to energy developments will have on local communities, with particular damage to the village of Friston. Regards Rosemary Kersey
Dear Rosemary, Planning Act 2008 (as amended) Proposals by ScottishPower Renewables (UK) Limited for the East Anglia TWO Windfarm (EN010078). I am writing regarding your correspondence sent to the Planning Inspectorate dated 15 October 2019 in relation to the above proposal. The proposed application is at the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 process. The Planning Inspectorate is unable to consider representations about the merits of any application until it is accepted for Examination. Further information about the process can be found in the link below to the National Infrastructure Planning website: [attachment 1]. From your email I can see that you are aware that should the application be submitted and accepted the ‘Registration and Relevant Representation form’ will be made available on the project page of the National Infrastructure Planning website during the Pre-examination stage. 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’: [attachment 2]. Kind regards, Liam Liam Fedden

21 October 2019
Rosemary Kersey
East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Dear Secretary of State & Minister of State, I am writing to you both to draw your attention to the stupidity of siting a new sub station for the North Sea East Anglia Two and One windfarms in or near Friston. The power generated by the windfarms will far exceed the power required by the homes and businesses near Friston and consequently it will be exported to where it is needed by the National Grid. One of the reasons for choosing Friston was because it had access to the National Grid nearby. However, wherever the power is used, the losses to get it there will be in excess of the benefits of choosing Friston as a site of connection. Let me give an example with the sub station in Friston, consider 1Kw of electricity generated in the North Sea at the new windfarm. This 1Kw will travel say 70km on the Submarine High Voltage Direct Current (HVDC) cable proposed, then be converted to High Voltage Alternating Current at the Friston sub station. This conversion will cause about .7-.8% loss (3). Then the reduced power will travel 160 km on the above ground grid to where it will be used in London. For this example using the figures in National Grids document (1) Resistance is .064(2) Ohms for HVDC and 1.62(2) Ohm for the HVAC circuit, Total 1.68 Ohms. Now consider if the sub station was in the Thames estuary, The same 1 Kw of electricity will travel say 140 km via a new submarine HVDC cable to a new sub station in the Thames estuary. There will be no requirement to bury this cable in 64m wide trenches that pass through an AONB as the cable can be laid on the sea bed. Once at the substation the power can be converted with the same losses (.7%)(3) as in the Friston example and then travel 30km via HVAC overhead to be used in London. The loss figures for this example are Resistance for HVDC 1.28(2) Ohms and HVAC .3 (2) Ohms. Total Resistance 1.58 Ohms. From this example it can be seen that there is a significant saving in power losses and as importantly the destruction to the environment is substantially reduced. From National Grids own document (3) it can be seen that the submarine HVDC is preferred for an even longer route of 385 km. There is a growing need for a strategic plan to site a new UK connector sub station so that subsequent windfarms in the North Sea and International power connectors such as Viking, NueConnect and NEMO (5) can connect to The National Grid near where the power is needed and I would suggest that location should be in the Thames estuary. Yours Sincerely Alan Hatfield References (1) National Grid Strategy Paper National Grid’s Strategy Paper to address Transmission Licence Special Condition 2K: Electricity Transmission Losses Reporting Period: 1 April 2013 to 31 March 2021 (2) Given that a typical DC resistance at 90°C of a 2500mm² copper conductor is 9.18µO/m and the AC resistance is 10.25µO/m it can be seen, by comparison with the DC resistance values in the table of section 3.2.2, that the overall resistances (and therefore losses) of cable conductors are generally considerably lower than those for overhead lines outlined in section 3.2.2. (3)The major sources of losses in HVDC converter stations are; the valves, converter transformers, ac filters, other reactive compensation plant, DC smoothing reactors and auxiliaries / station service losses. Typical converter losses are 0.7 – 0.8% of the transmitted power. (4)Over long distances, DC transmission losses (including conversion Losses) are lower than AC losses at higher voltages. A typical application for the preference of HVDC connections over AC circuits are where long cable circuits are required - for example the Western HVDC Link, which provides 2.2GW capacity at 600kV, via a 385km undersea cable connection8 . Transmission of power at DC overcomes the effect of capacitive charging current, which reduces the effective rating of cables in AC applications and makes the use of AC circuits increasingly impractical for long distances. In DC applications, there is no technical limit on cable length. (5) [attachment 1]
Dear Alan, Planning Act 2008 (as amended) Proposals by ScottishPower Renewables (UK) Limited for the East Anglia ONE North Windfarm (EN010077). I am writing regarding your correspondence sent to the Planning Inspectorate dated 20 October 2019 in relation to the above proposal. The proposed application is at the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 process. The Planning Inspectorate is unable to consider representations about the merits of any application until it is accepted for Examination. Further information about the process can be found in the link below to the National Infrastructure Planning website: [attachment 2]. Should the application be submitted and accepted the ‘Registration and Relevant Representation form’ will be made available on the project page of the National Infrastructure Planning website during the Pre-examination stage. 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’: [attachment 3]. Please note that, should the applications for East Anglia ONE North and East Anglia TWO be submitted and accepted, to become an Interested Party in each examination you must register for both applications separately. Kind regards, Liam

21 October 2019
Alan Hatfield
East Anglia ONE North Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The following persons sent responses to the Applicant’s 2019 statutory consultation, including comments on the standard of consultation, to the Planning Inspectorate between August and September 2019: Mr J Alexander, Ian Rose, Carol Rose, Vicky Arlidge, Thea Ward Alsabti, Helen Storey, Dagmar Vesely, Mr and Mrs C.C. Whitbread, Dr David H.F. Robb, Bob Hoggar, Laura Bonnett, David Boden, Jessie Boden, Valeria Ward, John Walford, John Parsons and Julia Brown.
The proposed application is 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 Applicant is expecting to submit the application in Q1 2020. As the application has not yet been formally submitted to the Inspectorate your first point of contact should be the Applicant and we would encourage you to contact them directly by email to - [email protected]. It is important that the Applicant 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 Inspectorate. Please note the Applicant’s Stage 4 Consultation closed on 27 September 2019. The Inspectorate is unable to consider your comments at this time however please note that, should the application be received and accepted by the Inspectorate for Examination, the National Infrastructure Planning website will be updated accordingly and you may submit comments to us at that time: [attachment 2] If you have concerns about the Applicant’s pre-application consultation you should contact the Applicant in the first instance to enable them to address the issues ([email protected]). If you have contacted the Applicant but you are not satisfied that the Applicant has, or will, take account of your comments you can make your comments to the relevant local authority. The local authority can consider them as part of their Adequacy of Consultation Representation submission to the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) at the application stage of the process. Further information about Community Consultation can be found here: [attachment 3] The Planning Inspectorate has published a series of Advice Notes about the Planning Act 2008 process. ‘Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others’ can be found here:https://infrastructure.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/legislation-and-advice/advice-notes/

18 October 2019
Various Enquiries - anon.
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The following persons sent responses to the Applicant’s 2019 statutory consultation, including comments on the lack on environmental information, to the Planning Inspectorate between August and September 2019: Morwenna Orton, Christina Hildrey and James Rene.
The proposed application is 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 Applicant is expecting to submit the application in Q1 2020. As the application has not yet been formally submitted to the Inspectorate your first point of contact should be the Applicant and we would encourage you to contact them directly by email to - [email protected]. It is important that the Applicant 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 Inspectorate. Please note the Applicant’s Stage 4 Consultation closed on 27 September 2019. The Inspectorate is unable to consider your comments at this time however please note that, should the application be received and accepted by the Inspectorate for Examination, the National Infrastructure Planning website will be updated accordingly and you may submit comments to us at that time: [attachment 2]. At the point you submit these comments an environmental statement will be available on the Inspectorate website, further information about this can be found in the Advice Notes linked below. The Planning Inspectorate has published a series of Advice Notes about the Planning Act 2008 process. ‘Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others’ can be found here:https://infrastructure.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/legislation-and-advice/advice-notes/

18 October 2019
Various Enquiries - anon.
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Dear Liam, Thank you for your response. I have sent my letter to EDF and our local authority. Perhaps you could keep my response below for use by yourselves when the application arrives in your 'in tray'. I can't imagine that my response will change from what I've written! With thanks John Parsons
Hi John, We will keep your response, however you’ll still need to submit a Relevant Representation (this can just be a copy of what you’ve already submitted to us) on the prescribed form to be an Interested Party in the examination. You can sign up for alerts on the Sizewell C project page on our website which will let you know when the application is submitted to us, if we accept it for examination and when you can submit a Relevant Representation: [attachment 1] Thanks, Liam Liam Fedden Case Officer Sizewell C Case Team

18 October 2019
John Parsons
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Dear Sir or Madam, Please find attached the response sent today on behalf of Marlesford Parish Council to EDF Energy, replying to their Stage 4 consultation on their proposals for Sizewell C. Can I draw your attention to the penultimate paragraph of our Conclusion on page 17 of our Stage 4 response in which we say, “A theme running through this response is our inability to comment constructively on many of EDF’s proposals because they have not supplied the detail that we and other consultees have asked for, neither have they engaged with local communities in any meaningful way. We want to put on record our dissatisfaction with the consultation process and we will ensure that this is made known to the Inspector when he or she is appointed”. Our own views about a lack of detail in the consultation documents and the unwillingness of EDF to engage over legitimate concerns is echoed by many consultees both statutory and non-statutory and we are fearful that the detail we have been requesting for months will only emerge at the DCO stage, by which time we will have entered a tightly scheduled timetable. Particularly for parishes, who by and large have limited resources, this will pose a massive challenge and we do not think that the consultation process will be well served by consultees having to face a welter of technical information from EDF which will have to be digested and commented upon in a short space of time. If EDF are serious about their intention to submit their DCO application in Q1 2020, we believe that they will by now have much of the technical information required to respond in detail to all the issues raised, particularly at Stage 3 and 4 consultation. We would ask PINS to put pressure on EDF to more fully address consultees concerns before they embark on the DCO process, even if this has to result in EDF having to put back their own timetable. Kind Regards, Richard Cooper (On behalf of Marlesford Parish Council)
Dear Richard, Planning Act 2008 (as amended) Proposed application by NNB Nuclear Generation (SZC) Limited (EDF Energy2) for an Order Granting Development Consent for a new nuclear power station development at Sizewell in Suffolk (Sizewell C) I am writing regarding your correspondence sent to the Planning Inspectorate (the Inspectorate) dated 26 September 2019 in relation to the above proposals. If you have concerns about the Applicant’s pre-application consultation you should contact the Applicant in the first instance to enable them to address the issues ([email protected]). If you have contacted the Applicant but you are not satisfied that the Applicant has, or will, take account of your comments you can make your comments to the relevant local authority. The local authority can consider them as part of their Adequacy of Consultation Representation submission to the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) at the application stage of the process. Further information about Community Consultation can be found here: [attachment 1] The Planning Inspectorate has published a series of Advice Notes about the Planning Act 2008 process. ‘Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others’ can be found here:https://infrastructure.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/legislation-and-advice/advice-notes/ I hope you find this information to be helpful. Yours sincerely, Liam Liam Fedden Case Officer Sizewell C Case Team

18 October 2019
Marlesford Parish Council - Richard Cooper
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The following persons sent responses to the Applicant’s 2019 statutory consultation to the Planning Inspectorate between August and September 2019: Derek Green, Mick Purkiss, Diana Hinton, B.V. Taylor, L.J. Taylor, Carline Ogilvie, Ben Horwood, John Ward-Hunt, Jennifer Wilson, Miss K Elvin, Mr J Ward, Mrs A L Ward, Audrey West, Jac Berry, Dr Quetta Kaye, Lucy Horward, Catherine Alridge, June Holmes, Nicholas JA Ward, Hilary Ward, Virginia Storey, Dr Anna Checkley, Joan Harvey, Richard Nichols, Carolyn Nichols, Fiona Ireland, Nick Scarr, Philippe Taylor, Carole Taylor and David Snowden.
The proposed application is 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 Applicant is expecting to submit the application in Q1 2020. As the application has not yet been formally submitted to the Inspectorate your first point of contact should be the Applicant and we would encourage you to contact them directly by email to - [email protected]. It is important that the Applicant 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 Inspectorate. Please note the Applicant’s Stage 4 Consultation closed on 27 September 2019. The Inspectorate is unable to consider your comments at this time however please note that, should the application be received and accepted by the Inspectorate for Examination, the National Infrastructure Planning website will be updated accordingly and you may submit comments to us at that time: [attachment 2] The Planning Inspectorate has published a series of Advice Notes about the Planning Act 2008 process. ‘Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others’ can be found here:https://infrastructure.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/legislation-and-advice/advice-notes/

18 October 2019
Various Enquiries - anon.
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
CPRE Warwickshire wrote on 6 October to both Examining Inspectors with several enclosures and a set of three A1 plans provided by AECOM. The package would have been received at PINS by 9 October and the covering compliments slip asked for acknowledgement and confirmation that they have been sent on to Mr Cullingford and Mr Jones. You have also received a letter dated 10 October from Catherine de Barnes Residents Association supporting CPRE Warwickshire's letter, and asking that this and other Changes to the Application be examined, and representations made possible, by means of an Issue Specific Hearing on Changes before the end of the Examination process. Can you please acknowledge receipt of CPRE's letters and attached papers? As there are some detailed papers and plans provided by AECOM, it is important to know that they have been received.
Please see attached.

18 October 2019
CPRE - Mark Sullivan
M42 Junction 6 Improvement
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached.

18 October 2019
Network Rail - anon.
Western Rail Link to Heathrow
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Inception Meeting
Please see attached Meeting Note

18 October 2019
MVV Environment Ltd
Medworth Energy from Waste Combined Heat and Power Facility
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Technical meeting 1 discussing further detail on elements of the masterplan submitted as part of the Applicant's Preliminary Environmental Information Report (PEIR)
Please see meeting note attached

18 October 2019
Heathrow Airport Limited - anon.
Expansion of Heathrow Airport (Third Runway)
Enquiry received via phone
Query about the type of information that should be included in the parish council's response to the consultation on the Applicant's scoping report.
The scoping opinion is issued by the Inspectorate on behalf of the Secretary of State. It advises the Applicant on what environmental aspects and matters should be covered in the environmental statement. The Applicant's scoping report and National Policy Statement EN-1 describe the aspects of the environment which will be covered in the environmental statement. It would be helpful if the parish council's response could advise on particular local issues such as construction traffic or effects on tourism which they feel should be included in the environmental statement.

17 October 2019
Weybourne Parish Council - Catherine Fletcher
Sheringham and Dudgeon Extension Projects
Enquiry received via email
Dear Sir/Madam, Ref Planning Application No DC/19/1637/FUL Relocation of Sizewell B Power Station Complex and use of Adjoining land. Please may I strongly object to the planning application for above application, as I believe this application should be part of the overall Sizewell C planning application? It appears to me that EDF are misusing the planning system and trying to sneakily get this through pretending this as merely a matter of good housekeeping and tidying up the legacy of Sizewell A & B, whereas in effect they are attempting to pre-empt the Sizewll C application and make room for the massive two new reactors. This is a cynical and manipulative way to get what they want without proper consideration to the local community, if you allow them to succeed with this application they will immediately start to destroy woodland and other areas. Why did they build all of these buildings if they knew about Sizewell C and why if there is ample room for Sizewell C do they need to process this anyway? My understanding is that Hinckley point is on a 400 acre site and bursting at the seams whereas the proposed Sizewell C nearer 200 acres, no wonder they need to demolish/destroy existing buildings to even get anywhere near a big enough site. I have asked EDF for the size of their only existing two reactor site in Taishan and (Norway) the appropriate site size and they will not reveal this to me, do you know? In my opinion you should decline this application and make them do the right thing and make it part of their full application which they will have be under the full scrutiny of the inspectorate, environment agency etc etc as well as public scrutiny. Once an environment such a woodland is destroyed it takes years to regrow and flora and fauna may never return SO PLEASE PLEASE do not let a large company with fancy lawyers and surveyors and ample resources hoodwink us by allowing this to go ahead. If they need this area to build Sizewell C then they should rightly say so and apply to the Planning Inspectorate. My concerns extend to the environmental impact of the Proposed Sizewell C, the exorbitant cost the RAB finance initiative, the prolonged clean water supply, the traffic chaos, the However I must again say this cannot be decided locally the project is too immense for us to decide, it must be looked at nationally especially as we have the other major power projects from wind farms locally too. Yours sincerely Paul Tillcock Kelsale Suffolk
Dear Paul, I am writing regarding your correspondence sent to the Planning Inspectorate (the Inspectorate) dated 14 August 2019 in relation to the above proposals. The Inspectorate is the government agency responsible for examining applications for Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects. It will, if submitted and accepted, examine the application for an Order Granting Development Consent for a new nuclear power station development at Sizewell in Suffolk (Sizewell C). You may want to contact the relevant Local Planning Authority in regards to the Sizewell B Planning Application. I hope you find this information to be helpful. Yours sincerely, Liam Liam Fedden Case Officer Sizewell C Case Team

17 October 2019
Paul Tillcock
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Please see the attachment
Please see the attachment

17 October 2019
North Somerset Council - anon.
Portishead Branch Line - MetroWest Phase 1
Enquiry received via post
response has attachments
Please see attached correspondence.
Please see attached Planning Inspectorate's response

16 October 2019
Carol Ford
Hinckley National Rail Freight Interchange
Enquiry received via post
response has attachments
Please see attached correspondence.
Please see attached Planning Inspectorate's response.

16 October 2019
Stan Ford
Hinckley National Rail Freight Interchange
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Inception meeting
Please see attached

16 October 2019
Bradwell B - anon.
Bradwell B new nuclear power station
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting.
Please see attached meeting note.

15 October 2019
London Luton Airport Limited - anon.
London Luton Airport Expansion
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
A project update meeting with the Applicant
Please see the attached note.

11 October 2019
Highways England - Tim Wright - anon.
Lower Thames Crossing
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Please see attached.
Please see attached

09 October 2019
A66 Northern Trans-Pennine Project
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Inception Meeting.
Please See Attached.

09 October 2019
Highways England
A66 Northern Trans-Pennine Project
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached Meeting Note

08 October 2019
London Resort Company Holdings
The London Resort
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Dear Mr Johannson as promised my notes to the C&W planning office, just to clarify the base application uses a compressor of under 50MW and generation is under 50MW, in this case we see no problem and the jurisdiction falls under the LPA. The question we have is if and only if we increase the compressor size to around 60MW (i.e demand side) but generation remaining at under 50MW are we still under the LPA jurisdiction, the council as we thought yes but were not 100% sure. • Sizing of main equipment (including sizing of compressor - see point below in view of the 50MW threshold) • Concerning the Planning Act 2008 and the generation threshold, it would be good to get your legal guys to check/confirm we are still within local planning jurisdiction, the following i hope helps clarify our position o In our opinion, consideration of our facility with regards planning would fall solely under section 15 of the Act (generating stations) and not under section 17 (underground gas storage) because the purpose of the facility is electricity storage (which currently has no legal definition and is therefore consumption plus generation) not gas storage. o In our opinion a 50MW generation capacity falls within local planning jurisdiction, because 14.2.c states "more than 50MW" (my emphasis). o 49MW net Generation capacity (into the distribution grid), We would use compressors for charging only (no generation) between 50-70MW. § our view is we do not fall under Part 3 clause 15.2 -> Generating Stations as our output will be less than 50MW § our view is we would be assessed under clause 15 Generating Stations if anything and not assessed under clause 17 “Underground storage facilities” since we a/ are not storing gas (as in natural gas which is what we assume the word gas refers to) b/ we are not creating underground gas storage as the caverns already exist c/any caverns would in any case be auxiliary (or secondary) to the main purpose of generation Please note in all scenarios we are under 50MW generation, the compressor if slightly higher sized means we would need less hours in the early morning to compress all the air we needed and less hours means a lower price of off peak electricity can be secured improving our economics. Hope this helps Kind regards Tallat Azad
Dear Mr Tallat, Under section 14(1)(a) of the Planning Act, 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 clarifies that the construction or an extension of a generating station is within section 14(1)(a) only if the generating station is or (when constructed or extended) is expected to be, amongst other things, a generating station that is in England or Wales, not an offshore generating station, and its capacity is more than 50 megawatts. In your email dated 26 September 2019 you expressed a wish for legal advice whether your project would be classified as an NSIP if the compressor size was increased to 60MW but the output remained under 50MW. As mentioned during our telephone conversation the Planning Inspectorate does not have the power to give a legally binding interpretation on whether the potential generating station proposal to which you refer would be classed as a National Significant Infrastructure Project. Only the Courts can ultimately determine the interpretation of legislation, and to date there has been no case law on this point under the 2008 Planning Act. It will of course be for the developer who wants to construct the generating station to decide whether or not to apply for development consent taking their own legal advice which they can rely on. The Planning Inspectorate has previously issued advice regarding the definition of capacity which might be of benefit to you. The advice has been published here: [attachment 1] 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 44 of PA 2008, once an application has been formally submitted.

03 October 2019
Storelectric Ltd - Tallat Azad
General
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
My name is Peter Fife and I live at (Redacted) . My telephone number is (Redacted). I am writing to Register my utter dismay about the proposal to construct a massive series of linked transformer stations covering many acres of beautiful farmland in Friston for Scottish Power Renewables and National Grid. When I first heard about the proposals, I thought, naively, that the organisations – just Scottish Power initially – were proposing to construct a transformer station about the size of a double garage or a modest farm building, but I have now discovered the enormous geographical extent of the proposed development on the edge of our ancient village. The whole project would alter, permanently, the character of the village and much of the local countryside in what is now largely unspoiled farmland. I have lived in Friston for nearly 15 years and my roots are in this area, having grown up nearby where my parents lived until they died. I am a warden of our village church, a Grade II* listed building which would be overlooked by the proposed development. We are now faced with many years of wholesale disruption to our lives. There will be enormous increase in traffic and associated noise, some of which would continue indefinitely. I have been told that no regard will be given to suggestions of alternative sites for these works and so I will not do so, but I will leave it to appropriate people and bodies, none of whom live in this area, to find those out for themselves. It will be no good saying, during the wholesale destruction of this area, that nobody thought of these things. Much work has already been done,but little thought appears to have been given to the effect these proposals will have upon the lives of ordinary local people. I have deliberately made this letter short because I am aware that you must be receiving many letters of this kind about the proposals, but I would appreciate an acknowledgement and any comments you may be able to make. Yours faithfully PETER FIFE
Dear Peter Thank you for your email regarding the East Anglia ONE North and East Anglia TWO Offshore Wind Farms. The Developer ScottishPower Renewables has indicated that they expect to submit to The Planning Inspectorate a Development Consent Order application under the Planning Act 2008 (PA 2008), for the proposed East Anglia ONE North project which is currently in the pre-application stage of the process. If the application satisfies the tests, set out in PA 2008, the application will go through the process as a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project. The Developer ScottishPower Renewables has indicated that they expect to submit to The Planning Inspectorate a Development Consent Order application under the PA 2008, for the proposed East Anglia TWO project which is currently in the pre-application stage. If the application satisfies the tests, set out in PA 2008, the application will go through the process as a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project. During the pre-application stage of the process, the Developer may hold several rounds of consultation, not all of which are required to be statutory. The duties of the Developer during statutory consultation are set out in PA 2008. Any responses to pre-application consultation should be addressed to the Developer. If the application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate there will be 28 days for the Planning Inspectorate to review the application and decide whether or not to accept it for examination. If the application is accepted to proceed to examination, there will be an opportunity for people to register to participate in the examination of the application. The examination period has a statutory maximum of six months, which is followed by a three month period for the Examining Authority to prepare their recommendation, and a three month period for the relevant Secretary of State to make a decision. If you would like more information about the examination process, please see the “Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others” which can be found along with other advice and guidance on the Planning Inspectorate website, here: [attachment 1] Kind regards Kate Kate Mignano Case Manager National Infrastructure Planning The Planning Inspectorate, Temple Quay House, Temple Quay, Bristol BS1 6PN Direct Line: 0303 444 5652 Helpline: 0303 444 5000 Email: [email protected] Web: [attachment 2] (National Infrastructure Planning) Web: www.gov.uk/government/organisations/planning-inspectorate (The Planning Inspectorate) Twitter: @PINSgov This communication does not constitute legal advice. Please view our Privacy Notice before sending information to the Planning Inspectorate.

03 October 2019
Peter Fife
East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Dear Sirs East Anglia One & Two – Location of substations I wish to register my deep concern over the potential siting of the substations required in connection with your East Anglia One and Two projects. In particular, I see no rational reasons for locating one of the substations at Friston. This is unnecessarily close to the village of Friston and other small settlements. It would be a blot that would severely dominate this pleasant countryside. I believe that Sizewell is a much preferable alternative because: 1. It would be adjacent to the existing power station at Sizewell, so it would not alter the aesthetic environment in that region as dramatically as at Friston. The impact on Friston will be deeply destructive due to the visual impact and close proximity of the buildings and infrastructure, the severe damage caused by the roadworks and HGV traffic, and noise. 2. Sizewell is far and away our preferred option for the location of the buildings, etc. The great advantage of this is the already-established presence of the EDF power station, the simpler and less-disruptive adaptation of the road network and infrastructure and, above all, the minimised impact on the local communities in the entire area that is under consideration. 3. The land at Sizewell is right under the existing power lines of the National Grid, so it would be more easily and economically connected to the Grid. 4. A problem of flooding already exists in the village of Friston. Taking into account the contours of the region, and the clay substrata at the proposed site, I believe that the development at Friston is highly likely to exacerbate the problem and lead to severe and frequent flooding of the vicinity. This is not true of Sizewell. 5. The new road required to service Friston would have an even deeper impact on the communities and wildlife of the region than siting the substation at Sizewell. 6. Scottish Power raised an objection based on the AONB status that has been assigned to heathland at Sizewell. They are fond of referring to protecting the reptile population at Sizewell. As a local, I can assure you that the AONB is barely used by the public. In contrast, nearby Dunwich Heath is a large existing AONB and it would seem likely that the reptiles could be relocated from Sizewell to a section of the Heath. In short, I believe that Scottish Power are attempting to steamroller the development through for the benefit of their shareholders, with no consideration toward the interests of the community. Yours faithfully H.J. Turner
Dear Helen Thank you for your email regarding the East Anglia ONE North and East Anglia TWO Offshore Wind Farms. The Developer ScottishPower Renewables has indicated that they expect to submit to The Planning Inspectorate a Development Consent Order application under the Planning Act 2008 (PA 2008), for the proposed East Anglia ONE North project which is currently in the pre-application stage of the process. If the application satisfies the tests, set out in PA 2008, the application will go through the process as a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project. The Developer ScottishPower Renewables has indicated that they expect to submit to The Planning Inspectorate a Development Consent Order application under the PA 2008, for the proposed East Anglia TWO project which is currently in the pre-application stage. If the application satisfies the tests, set out in PA 2008, the application will go through the process as a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project. During the pre-application stage of the process, the Developer may hold several rounds of consultation, not all of which are required to be statutory. The duties of the Developer during statutory consultation are set out in PA 2008. Any responses to pre-application consultation should be addressed to the Developer. If the application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate there will be 28 days for the Planning Inspectorate to review the application and decide whether or not to accept it for examination. If the application is accepted to proceed to examination, there will be an opportunity for people to register to participate in the examination of the application. The examination period has a statutory maximum of six months, which is followed by a three month period for the Examining Authority to prepare their recommendation, and a three month period for the relevant Secretary of State to make a decision. If you would like more information about the examination process, please see the “Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others” which can be found along with other advice and guidance on the Planning Inspectorate website, here: [attachment 1] Kind regards Kate Kate Mignano Case Manager National Infrastructure Planning The Planning Inspectorate, Temple Quay House, Temple Quay, Bristol BS1 6PN Direct Line: 0303 444 5652 Helpline: 0303 444 5000 Email: [email protected] Web: [attachment 2] (National Infrastructure Planning) Web: www.gov.uk/government/organisations/planning-inspectorate (The Planning Inspectorate) Twitter: @PINSgov This communication does not constitute legal advice. Please view our Privacy Notice before sending information to the Planning Inspectorate.

03 October 2019
H J Turner
East Anglia ONE North Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Dear Sirs East Anglia One & Two – Location of substations I wish to register my deep concern over the potential siting of the substations required in connection with your East Anglia One and Two projects. In particular, I see no rational reasons for locating one of the substations at Friston. This is unnecessarily close to the village of Friston and other small settlements. It would be a blot that would severely dominate this pleasant countryside. I believe that Sizewell is a much preferable alternative because: 1. It would be adjacent to the existing power station at Sizewell, so it would not alter the aesthetic environment in that region as dramatically as at Friston. The impact on Friston will be deeply destructive due to the visual impact and close proximity of the buildings and infrastructure, the severe damage caused by the roadworks and HGV traffic, and noise. 2. Sizewell is far and away our preferred option for the location of the buildings, etc. The great advantage of this is the already-established presence of the EDF power station, the simpler and less-disruptive adaptation of the road network and infrastructure and, above all, the minimised impact on the local communities in the entire area that is under consideration. 3. The land at Sizewell is right under the existing power lines of the National Grid, so it would be more easily and economically connected to the Grid. 4. A problem of flooding already exists in the village of Friston. Taking into account the contours of the region, and the clay substrata at the proposed site, I believe that the development at Friston is highly likely to exacerbate the problem and lead to severe and frequent flooding of the vicinity. This is not true of Sizewell. 5. The new road required to service Friston would have an even deeper impact on the communities and wildlife of the region than siting the substation at Sizewell. 6. Scottish Power raised an objection based on the AONB status that has been assigned to heathland at Sizewell. They are fond of referring to protecting the reptile population at Sizewell. As a local, I can assure you that the AONB is barely used by the public. In contrast, nearby Dunwich Heath is a large existing AONB and it would seem likely that the reptiles could be relocated from Sizewell to a section of the Heath. In short, I believe that Scottish Power are attempting to steamroller the development through for the benefit of their shareholders, with no consideration toward the interests of the community. Yours faithfully H.J. Turner
Dear Helen Thank you for your email regarding the East Anglia ONE North and East Anglia TWO Offshore Wind Farms. The Developer ScottishPower Renewables has indicated that they expect to submit to The Planning Inspectorate a Development Consent Order application under the Planning Act 2008 (PA 2008), for the proposed East Anglia ONE North project which is currently in the pre-application stage of the process. If the application satisfies the tests, set out in PA 2008, the application will go through the process as a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project. The Developer ScottishPower Renewables has indicated that they expect to submit to The Planning Inspectorate a Development Consent Order application under the PA 2008, for the proposed East Anglia TWO project which is currently in the pre-application stage. If the application satisfies the tests, set out in PA 2008, the application will go through the process as a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project. During the pre-application stage of the process, the Developer may hold several rounds of consultation, not all of which are required to be statutory. The duties of the Developer during statutory consultation are set out in PA 2008. Any responses to pre-application consultation should be addressed to the Developer. If the application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate there will be 28 days for the Planning Inspectorate to review the application and decide whether or not to accept it for examination. If the application is accepted to proceed to examination, there will be an opportunity for people to register to participate in the examination of the application. The examination period has a statutory maximum of six months, which is followed by a three month period for the Examining Authority to prepare their recommendation, and a three month period for the relevant Secretary of State to make a decision. If you would like more information about the examination process, please see the “Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others” which can be found along with other advice and guidance on the Planning Inspectorate website, here: [attachment 1] Kind regards Kate Kate Mignano Case Manager National Infrastructure Planning The Planning Inspectorate, Temple Quay House, Temple Quay, Bristol BS1 6PN Direct Line: 0303 444 5652 Helpline: 0303 444 5000 Email: [email protected] Web: [attachment 2] (National Infrastructure Planning) Web: www.gov.uk/government/organisations/planning-inspectorate (The Planning Inspectorate) Twitter: @PINSgov This communication does not constitute legal advice. Please view our Privacy Notice before sending information to the Planning Inspectorate.

03 October 2019
H J Turner
East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
My name is Peter Fife and I live at (Redacted). My telephone number is (Redacted). I am writing to Register my utter dismay about the proposal to construct a massive series of linked transformer stations covering many acres of beautiful farmland in Friston for Scottish Power Renewables and National Grid. When I first heard about the proposals, I thought, naively, that the organisations – just Scottish Power initially – were proposing to construct a transformer station about the size of a double garage or a modest farm building, but I have now discovered the enormous geographical extent of the proposed development on the edge of our ancient village. The whole project would alter, permanently, the character of the village and much of the local countryside in what is now largely unspoiled farmland. I have lived in Friston for nearly 15 years and my roots are in this area, having grown up nearby where my parents lived until they died. I am a warden of our village church, a Grade II* listed building which would be overlooked by the proposed development. We are now faced with many years of wholesale disruption to our lives. There will be enormous increase in traffic and associated noise, some of which would continue indefinitely. I have been told that no regard will be given to suggestions of alternative sites for these works and so I will not do so, but I will leave it to appropriate people and bodies, none of whom live in this area, to find those out for themselves. It will be no good saying, during the wholesale destruction of this area, that nobody thought of these things. Much work has already been done, but little thought appears to have been given to the effect these proposals will have upon the lives of ordinary local people. I have deliberately made this letter short because I am aware that you must be receiving many letters of this kind about the proposals, but I would appreciate an acknowledgement and any comments you may be able to make. Yours faithfully PETER FIFE
Dear Peter Thank you for your email regarding the East Anglia ONE North and East Anglia TWO Offshore Wind Farms. The Developer ScottishPower Renewables has indicated that they expect to submit to The Planning Inspectorate a Development Consent Order application under the Planning Act 2008 (PA 2008), for the proposed East Anglia ONE North project which is currently in the pre-application stage of the process. If the application satisfies the tests, set out in PA 2008, the application will go through the process as a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project. The Developer ScottishPower Renewables has indicated that they expect to submit to The Planning Inspectorate a Development Consent Order application under the PA 2008, for the proposed East Anglia TWO project which is currently in the pre-application stage. If the application satisfies the tests, set out in PA 2008, the application will go through the process as a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project. During the pre-application stage of the process, the Developer may hold several rounds of consultation, not all of which are required to be statutory. The duties of the Developer during statutory consultation are set out in PA 2008. Any responses to pre-application consultation should be addressed to the Developer. If the application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate there will be 28 days for the Planning Inspectorate to review the application and decide whether or not to accept it for examination. If the application is accepted to proceed to examination, there will be an opportunity for people to register to participate in the examination of the application. The examination period has a statutory maximum of six months, which is followed by a three month period for the Examining Authority to prepare their recommendation, and a three month period for the relevant Secretary of State to make a decision. If you would like more information about the examination process, please see the “Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others” which can be found along with other advice and guidance on the Planning Inspectorate website, here: [attachment 1] Kind regards Kate Kate Mignano Case Manager National Infrastructure Planning The Planning Inspectorate, Temple Quay House, Temple Quay, Bristol BS1 6PN Direct Line: 0303 444 5652 Helpline: 0303 444 5000 Email: [email protected] Web: [attachment 2] (National Infrastructure Planning) Web: www.gov.uk/government/organisations/planning-inspectorate (The Planning Inspectorate) Twitter: @PINSgov This communication does not constitute legal advice. Please view our Privacy Notice before sending information to the Planning Inspectorate.

03 October 2019
Peter Fife
East Anglia ONE North Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Dear Sirs As a permanent resident for over 10 years in peaceful Friston, I am writing to express my horror and disbelief at the proposal to build a huge industrial substation here. The site chosen is totally unsuitable and unacceptable, being far too close to residential properties (at I understand in some places 200 meters) and our beautiful 12th century church. Not only will we be forced to live for many years with the construction noise and dust, but also with the large amount of extra heavy traffic and ensuing road chaos along very small country roads. This is dangerous for cyclists and pedestrians. We have always enjoyed walking in freedom on the footpaths and fields surrounding the village and this too could soon be a thing of the past. Our community is close knit and we have many activities involving residents and holiday-makers alike. The tourist industry here is an important part of village life and income. Who would want to take a holiday next to a substation? Few people I imagine. Also of great concern to me is the risk of flooding in the village. Recent plans suggest a drainage pool on the left of the project. This is sited at the top of the hill which could add greater risk to the flood problems already in the village. Following heavy rain, water and mud pour down the paths from the hill regularly causing damage to properties, something which happened again this year. Some companies will make huge profits if this project goes ahead, and we who live here will have NO benefit whatsoever, just the legacy of large very unsightly buildings and a forest of ironmongery. Our peace and village life will be destroyed FOR EVER. Please THINK VERY CAREFULLY before you impose such devastating action on our village. Yours faithfully Margaret Fife (Mrs)
Dear Margaret, Planning Act 2008 (as amended) Proposals by ScottishPower Renewables for the East Anglia ONE North and East Anglia TWO Offshore Wind farms I am writing in regard to your e-mail sent to the Planning Inspectorate on the 25 September 2019. The applications have not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, the proposals are currently at the pre-application stage of the planning process, the developer is expecting to submit the applications on the 25 October 2019. Until the applications are submitted, your first point of contact should be the developer. I would therefore encourage you to contact ScottishPower Renewables directly ([email protected] and [email protected]). 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 applications to the Planning Inspectorate. If you would like more information about the Planning Act 2008 process, please see “Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others” which can be found along with other advice notes, here: [attachment 1] As the applications will be submitted shortly I would particularly draw your attention to Advice Note 8.2 which will be of use if the either or both of the applications are accepted for examination. I hope you find this information to be helpful. Kind regards, Liam

27 September 2019
Margaret Fife
East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Dear Sirs As a permanent resident for over 10 years in peaceful Friston, I am writing to express my horror and disbelief at the proposal to build a huge industrial substation here. The site chosen is totally unsuitable and unacceptable, being far too close to residential properties (at I understand in some places 200 meters) and our beautiful 12th century church. Not only will we be forced to live for many years with the construction noise and dust, but also with the large amount of extra heavy traffic and ensuing road chaos along very small country roads. This is dangerous for cyclists and pedestrians. We have always enjoyed walking in freedom on the footpaths and fields surrounding the village and this too could soon be a thing of the past. Our community is close knit and we have many activities involving residents and holiday-makers alike. The tourist industry here is an important part of village life and income. Who would want to take a holiday next to a substation? Few people I imagine. Also of great concern to me is the risk of flooding in the village. Recent plans suggest a drainage pool on the left of the project. This is sited at the top of the hill which could add greater risk to the flood problems already in the village. Following heavy rain, water and mud pour down the paths from the hill regularly causing damage to properties, something which happened again this year. Some companies will make huge profits if this project goes ahead, and we who live here will have NO benefit whatsoever, just the legacy of large very unsightly buildings and a forest of ironmongery. Our peace and village life will be destroyed FOR EVER. Please THINK VERY CAREFULLY before you impose such devastating action on our village. Yours faithfully Margaret Fife (Mrs)
Dear Margaret, Planning Act 2008 (as amended) Proposals by ScottishPower Renewables for the East Anglia ONE North and East Anglia TWO Offshore Wind farms I am writing in regard to your e-mail sent to the Planning Inspectorate on the 25 September 2019. The applications have not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, the proposals are currently at the pre-application stage of the planning process, the developer is expecting to submit the applications on the 25 October 2019. Until the applications are submitted, your first point of contact should be the developer. I would therefore encourage you to contact ScottishPower Renewables directly ([email protected] and [email protected]). 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 applications to the Planning Inspectorate. If you would like more information about the Planning Act 2008 process, please see “Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others” which can be found along with other advice notes, here: [attachment 1] As the applications will be submitted shortly I would particularly draw your attention to Advice Note 8.2 which will be of use if the either or both of the applications are accepted for examination. I hope you find this information to be helpful. Kind regards, Liam

27 September 2019
Margaret Fife
East Anglia ONE North Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Teleconference to discuss anticipated s53 applications
Please see attached meeting note

27 September 2019
Heathrow West Limited - anon.
Heathrow West
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Please see attached.
Please see attached.

26 September 2019
Solar 21 - anon.
North Lincolnshire Green Energy Park
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Meeting Note
Please see attached

24 September 2019
ScottishPower Renewables (UK) Limited and Suffolk County Council
East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Meeting Note
Please see attached

24 September 2019
ScottishPower Renewables (UK) Limited and Suffolk County Council
East Anglia ONE North Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Meeting Note
Please see attached

20 September 2019
Thurrock Power Ltd
Thurrock Flexible Generation Plant
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Meeting Note
Please see attached

19 September 2019
Equinor UK
Sheringham and Dudgeon Extension Projects
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Meeting to discuss Airspace matters specifically in respect of NSIP aviation projects
Please see meeting note

17 September 2019
Civil Aviation Authority - anon.
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Please see Attached
Please see Attached

11 September 2019
Boston Alternative Energy Facility Limited - anon.
Boston Alternative Energy Facility (BAEF)
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Meeting held with the Planning Inspectorate
See attached note

10 September 2019
Sunnica Limited - Sunnica Limited
Sunnica Energy Farm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached meeting note

05 September 2019
Heathrow Airport Limited - anon.
Expansion of Heathrow Airport (Third Runway)
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Meeting Note
Please see attached

04 September 2019
ScottishPower Renewables (UK) Limited
East Anglia ONE North Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Meeting Note
Please see attached

04 September 2019
ScottishPower Renewables (UK) Limited
East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Please see Attached
Please see Attached

03 September 2019
FCC Environment - anon.
General
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
At the MetroWest Phase 1 meeting with you on 25th June we asked whether PINS required notification under Regulation 8 of the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 of the Applicant's intention that the project be progressed as EIA development under the EIA Regulations 2017 rather than under the EIA Regulations 2009 by relying on the transitional arrangements. You took the question away from the meeting. Have you had a chance to consider this?
Thank you for your inquiry. The Inspectorate cannot provide legal advice, the advice contained in this email is intended to support with the preparation of the application and is regarded as being advice provided in accordance with s51 of the Planning Act 2008. The Applicant notified the Secretary of State in writing on 23 June 2016 that it proposed to provide an environmental statement in respect of the Proposed Development in accordance with Regulation 6(1)(b) of the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2009 and provided the information required under Regulation 6(3) as part of its request for a Scoping Opinion under Regulation 8(1) of the same regulations. The Inspectorate understands that the Applicant now intends to submit an environmental statement (ES) that is compliant with the requirements of the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 (the 2017 EIA Regulations) and has asked whether PINS require notification under Regulation 8 of the 2017 EIA Regulations in order for them to do so. In short the Inspectorate is aware that notification in accordance with Regulation 8 of the 2017 EIA Regulations is a necessary requirement when maintaining compliance with those Regulations and is also linked to compliance with s42 of the Planning Act 2008. However, the Applicant should be aware that the Inspectorate has previously received applications under the transitional provisions that have included a 2017 EIA Regulations compliant ES in absence of a notification made under Regulation 8 of the 2017 EIA Regulations. A typical approach in this regard is set out in the Thanet Extension Offshore Windfarm ES chapter 2 section 2.4 [attachment 1] On a precautionary basis we would advise all Applicants to adopt the publicity requirements of the 2017 EIA Regulations which impose a 30 day rather 28 day duration for publicity.

02 September 2019
Womble Bond Dickison LLP (WBD) - anon.
Portishead Branch Line - MetroWest Phase 1
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please see attached.
Dear Nick, Planning Act 2008 (as amended) Proposal by EDF Energy for the Sizewell C New Nuclear Power Station I am writing regarding your correspondence sent to the Planning Inspectorate dated 18 and 19 June 2019 in relation to the above proposals. The application has not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, the proposal is currently at the pre-application stage of the planning process, the developer is expecting to submit the applications in Q1 2020. Until the applications are submitted, your first point of contact should be the developer. As you may know consultation is ongoing. I would therefore encourage you to contact EDF Energy directly ([email protected]). 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 applications to the Planning Inspectorate. If you would like more information about the Planning Act 2008 process, please see “Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others” which can be found along with other advice notes, here: [attachment 1] I hope you find this information to be helpful.

30 August 2019
Nick Scarr
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Please see attached
Please see attached

29 August 2019
Ørsted - anon.
Hornsea Project Four Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting and review of draft documents
Please see the attached meeting note

28 August 2019
AQUIND Limited
AQUIND Interconnector
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Material Change Process Meeting
Please see attached.

23 August 2019
Environment Agency - anon.
Hinkley Point C New Nuclear Power Station Material Change 1
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

22 August 2019
Highways England - anon.
M54 to M6 Link Road
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
A1 - Morpeth to Felton Draft Document Advice
Please see attached.

22 August 2019
Highways England - anon.
A1 in Northumberland - Morpeth to Ellingham
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
A1 - Morpeth to Felton Draft Document Advice
Please see attached.

22 August 2019
Highways England - anon.
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Please see attached.
Please see attached.

20 August 2019
Environment Agency
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting teleconference.
Please see attached meeting note.

15 August 2019
London Luton Airport Ltd - anon.
London Luton Airport Expansion
Enquiry received via phone
response has attachments
Telecon to discuss landowner consultation regarding the Aquind Interconnector proposal
Please see the attached meeting note

09 August 2019
AQUIND Limited
AQUIND Interconnector
Enquiry received via email
The applicant raised the following enquiries pertaining to their proposed DCO application expected for submission in September 2019: a. Could you please confirm you would like to see a revised version of the HRA and Avon Gorge Vegetation Management Plan? b. Are you happy with our proposal that we submit a Statement of Common Ground signed by both ourselves and Natural England in October/November 2019 given that we would hope by then to be just post-acceptance? c. Do you have any thoughts on our adaptive approach at this point? d. Given that the scheme is required to go into largely untested territory of IROPI and given some of the complexities of the context we have sought advice from Stephen Tromans QC on our approach to the HRA and the adaptive approach. We think it would be beneficial for all parties for us to include his advice in our application
a. The Inspectorate would be happy to review a revised draft of the HRA and Avon Gorge Vegetation Management Plan documents if the Applicant wishes to submit copies. We note previous discussions about summer leave and that our normal review timescales are up to 6 weeks from the point of submission but will endeavour to respond within your indicated timescales. b. The timescale for submission of the Statement of Common Ground is a matter for the Applicant and the relevant statutory consultee to agree, however the Inspectorate encourages early submission of Statement’s of Common Ground, where possible, to enable Interested Parties and the Examining Authority to take account of this information in their formulation of representations and examination questions. c. In the absence of the detailed approach and methodology in relation to the adaptive approach and without sight of Natural England’s comments in respect of the approach, the Inspectorate is unable to make any comment at this time. Any comments made would necessarily be without prejudice to the Examining Authority’s views during examination. d. The Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009 require submission of sufficient information that will enable the Examining Authority to make an appropriate assessment of the implications for a European Designated site. It is for the Applicant to determine whether the legal opinion comprises part of the ‘sufficient information’.

08 August 2019
Womble Bond Dickison LLP (WBD) - anon.
Portishead Branch Line - MetroWest Phase 1
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
In the context of the submissions of Highways England, multiple individual IPs and Wiltshire and the TRF, we are concerned with the section 51 advice letter does not address the submissions previously made that the changes proposed by Wiltshire and the TRF need to be accompanied by an assessment of their impact to matters such as heritage and equalities, to enable them to be considered fully by all parties – the changes are more than just a consideration of the changes to the drafting of the DCO. This is something that the Examining Authority is well placed to ask for, whether through a Procedural Decision under rule 8(3) to vary the timetable to provide for it; through rule 17 by asking for more information from Wiltshire Council in the form of such assessments, or through section 89 of the Planning Act 2008 which gives the Examining Authority wide discretion to make such procedural decisions as the Examining Authority thinks appropriate. Indeed, if felt appropriate, section 89 would also allow the Examining Authority to make a procedural decision which determines that no additional submissions are required on the point as that would still be a decision about how the Examination is carried out, in light of the submissions that have been made by various parties. As such, and in light of the proposed scope of the proposed hearing on 22 August, we would repeat our request for the ExA to make a procedural decision in some form, of how it considers that it will deal with this issue in the rest of the Examination. In respect of consultation, whilst we note the section 51 advice, we also consider that a procedural decision is able to be made by the ExA in terms of requiring consultation to be undertaken by Interested Parties, pursuant to section 89. There is nothing in the ambit of that section which requires decisions to be directed only at Applicants. We would grateful for any clarity on why it is considered that such a decision is not able to be made? In conclusion therefore, we would be assisted if an indication could be given as to whether the Examining Authority will make any form of procedural decision in respect of what further submissions it expects to see from relevant parties on this AMES 11 and 12 issue.
See attached letter.

07 August 2019
Highways England - anon.
A303 Stonehenge
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project introduction and inception meeting
Please see attached

01 August 2019
EP Waste Management Limited - anon.
South Humber Bank Energy Centre
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached meeting note

01 August 2019
Heathrow West Limited - anon.
Heathrow West
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Request for determination by the Examining Authority in respect of changes to the application proposed by Wiltshire Council.
See attached letter.

29 July 2019
Wiltshire Council - anon.
A303 Stonehenge
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

29 July 2019
WTI/EFW Holdings Limited - anon.
General
Enquiry received via email
Request for clarification in respect of s51 advice issued to enquirer on 19 July 2019.
The request by Stone Hill Park Ltd (SHP) to withdraw its representations was made less than five hours before the Examination closed at 23:59 on 9 July 2019. On that basis it was received too late in the Examination for the Examining Authority (ExA) to properly consider the request or the implications for other Interested Parties. SHP’s representations therefore remain part of the Examination Library. The ExA will explain how it considered the SHP representations in its Recommendation Report which will be published on the National Infrastructure Planning website at the same time as the Secretary of State’s decision.

25 July 2019
Barry James
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
As I hope you can imagine, the decision by the owners of the site to sell the land to the applicants at the eleventh hour is causing some consternation in the areas which are likely to be most seriously affected. Member of the organised group which has been campaigning for the airport to be reopened have been partying and using social media to imply that the Development Consent Order is now a "slam-dunk." One particular area causing confusion is the decision by the owners of the site to withdraw their objections to the plans. Throughout the process, the owners of the site had been adamant that they had no intention of selling and were committed to the redevelopment plans which they had submitted to Thanet District Council. Therefore, it came as something of a shock when they sold. In the course of the acceptance and examination process, the owners of the site raised numerous objections to the proposal. Where they had accurately and concisely set out an objection, many other interested parties did not bother to make the same point. I don't think anybody foresaw that they would sell and certainly did not foresee that they would be allowed to withdraw all of the evidence they had submitted at the last minute, thereby preventing anyone else from making the same objection. In addition, there is a further area of concern. Being professional developers, the owners of the site had access to funds which they were able to use to employ professional advisors. For example, they commissioned some detailed work about the viability of the proposed airport from York Aviation. Needless to say, although many local people shared their concerns about viability, they did not have the resources to commission a piece of work like this. In any event, they saw no need to commission another study when the York Aviation study had already been submitted. When the owners of the site withdrew all of their objections to the DCO, does this mean that all of the evidence they submitted will also be deleted? Many individuals used data from the York Aviation study in submitting their own objections. Will all of those objections now be ignored? In light of the decision by the owners of the site to withdraw their own objections to the DCO, will PINS be producing a summary to show which pieces of evidence will now be ignored? Will PINS be writing to all of those who have raised objections to clarify which of their objections will be taken into account and which ones will now be ignored?
The request by Stone Hill Park Ltd (SHP) to withdraw its representations was made less than five hours before the Examination closed at 23:59 on 9 July 2019. On that basis it was received too late in the Examination for the Examining Authority (ExA) to properly consider the request or the implications for other Interested Parties. SHP’s representations therefore remain part of the Examination Library. The ExA will explain how it considered the SHP representations in its Recommendation Report which will be published on the National Infrastructure Planning website at the same time as the Secretary of State’s decision.

25 July 2019
Peter Binding
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
I would be grateful if you could update me on the position with regard tot he SHP evidence submitted during the course of the Inquiry and whether this still falls to be considered by the Examining Authority following the recent withdrawal of their objection to the proposal by SHP.
The request by Stone Hill Park Ltd (SHP) to withdraw its representations was made less than five hours before the Examination closed at 23:59 on 9 July 2019. On that basis it was received too late in the Examination for the Examining Authority (ExA) to properly consider the request or the implications for other Interested Parties. SHP’s representations therefore remain part of the Examination Library. The ExA will explain how it considered the SHP representations in its Recommendation Report which will be published on the National Infrastructure Planning website at the same time as the Secretary of State’s decision.

25 July 2019
John Walker
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
Please tell us will the examiners still consider all the oral and written submissions to the DCO enquiry made by SHP as we believe most of it is still relevant to the application by RSP?
The request by Stone Hill Park Ltd (SHP) to withdraw its representations was made less than five hours before the Examination closed at 23:59 on 9 July 2019. On that basis it was received too late in the Examination for the Examining Authority (ExA) to properly consider the request or the implications for other Interested Parties. SHP’s representations therefore remain part of the Examination Library. The ExA will explain how it considered the SHP representations in its Recommendation Report which will be published on the National Infrastructure Planning website at the same time as the Secretary of State’s decision.

25 July 2019
Ian Scott
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached.

24 July 2019
Highways England - anon.
A417 Missing Link
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
A project update meeting took place on 24th July 2019
A note of that meeting is attached.

24 July 2019
Highways England - anon.
Lower Thames Crossing
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see meeting note attached

19 July 2019
IAMP LLP - anon.
International Advanced Manufacturing Park TWO (IAMP TWO)
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
We have just read SHP’s latest letter to the examiners regarding the sale to RSP in which they state they wish to withdraw their objections & representations on completion of the sale. We understand why they would want to withdraw their objection as they will no longer own the land but can they withdraw their representations at this late stage, especially as completion will be after the closure of the examination period. Please tell us will the examiners still consider all the oral & written submissions to the DCO enquiry made by SHP as we believe most of it is still relevant to the application by RSP?
Please see the recently published advice to Stone Hill Park Ltd, here: [attachment 1] When an Examining Authority accepts a request for evidence to be withdrawn, the evidence is marked as withdrawn under the ‘Documents’ tab on the project webpage and within the Examination Library document.

19 July 2019
Ian Scott
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
As per the 3rd paragraph of this letter could you confirm whether every submission from SHP and their associates will remain on the PINS website for the full 5 years as per your original response Letter here: [attachment 1]
Please see the recently published advice to Stone Hill Park Ltd, here: [attachment 2] When an Examining Authority (ExA) accepts a request for evidence to be withdrawn, the evidence is marked as withdrawn under the ‘Documents’ tab on the project webpage and within the Examination Library document. The following documents are removed from the website after the Judicial Review period has expired ie circa six weeks after the Secretary of State’s (SoS) decision: - Book of Reference. - Any tables dealing with land interests eg in this case, all iterations of the Applicant’s ‘Compulsory Acquisition Status Report’. - Relevant Representations. After five years all other documents are removed, save for: - S51 advice. - The SoS decision letter. - The ExA’s Recommendation Report. - The DCO (if made). - Any documents relating to change applications (material/non-material). - Correction notices.

19 July 2019
Barry James
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
i. Will RSP's interactions with the SoS be transparent? If not why not? ii. Can people opposed to RSP's cargo hub plans comment on RSP's submissions to the SoS and/or lobby the SoS? If so, will the SoS take any notice - will we get replies?”
i. It is for the Secretary of State (SoS) to decide how he/she handles any submissions made directly to him/her after the close of the Examination. You can refer to SoS decisions issued in relation to other NSIP applications for explanations of how the SoS treated these types of submissions in those cases: [attachment 1] (select ‘Decided’). Any submissions sent directly to the SoS will be provided to the Inspectorate with the SoS’s decision and published alongside it on the National Infrastructure Planning website. ii. The Planning Inspectorate cannot control whether an applicant, or any other Interested Party, decides to submit evidence to the Secretary of State after the close of an Examination.

19 July 2019
Alan Welcome
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I have just seen the letter from SHP in which it says that, subject to satisfactory completion of its land sale to RSP, it will withdraw its submissions/objections to the Manston DCO. Surely this cannot mean that everything submitted thus far by SHP is erased and will not be considered by the ExA? I'd be glad if you would confirm that all evidence submitted by SHP will still be taken into consideration during this final process of consideration and recommendation. If for any bizarre reason the SHP evidence/submissions/objections are now to be regarded as null and void, can you please explain the best way for residents and residents' groups to resubmit that evidence themselves at this late stage. By which I mean, how could a late submission by NNF or a resident attach all of SHP's work to date as our/their own submission to ensure that this work is included?
Please see the recently published advice to Stone Hill Park Ltd, here: [attachment 1] When an Examining Authority accepts a request for evidence to be withdrawn, the evidence is marked as withdrawn under the ‘Documents’ tab on the project webpage and within the Examination Library document.

19 July 2019
Susan Kennedy
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Can you please confirm the SHP’s submissions posted to your website are a matter of public record and cannot be withdrawn or ‘unknown’ by yourselves and will continued to be relied- upon?
Please see the recently published advice to Stone Hill Park Ltd, here: [attachment 1] When an Examining Authority (ExA) accepts a request for evidence to be withdrawn, the evidence is marked as withdrawn under the ‘Documents’ tab on the project webpage and within the Examination Library document. The following documents are removed from the website after the Judicial Review period has expired ie circa six weeks after the Secretary of State’s (SoS) decision: - Book of Reference. - Any tables dealing with land interests eg in this case, all iterations of the Applicant’s ‘Compulsory Acquisition Status Report’. - Relevant Representations. After five years all other documents are removed, save for: - S51 advice. - The SoS decision letter. - The ExA’s Recommendation Report. - The DCO (if made). - Any documents relating to change applications (material/non-material). - Correction notices.

19 July 2019
Georgina Rooke
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I have just seen the letter from SHP in which it says that, subject to satisfactory completion of its land sale to RSP, it will withdraw its objections to the DCO. What does this mean? The evidence submitted by SHP and its consultants has been a key part to this process. It has highlighted the many factual flaws in RSP’s evidence. Whether or not SHP continues to object to the DCO, that evidence has been submitted and should be material to the ExA’s consideration. Is it all just to be winked out of existence? If so, that will place the public at a tremendous disadvantage as we have been operating in the knowledge that those documents have been submitted and accepted as part of the examination process, and so we do not need to cover the same ground. Surely I have got this wrong? SHP cannot simply unsay what it has said and retract what it has submitted now that the ExA has considered it, can it?
Please see the recently published advice to Stone Hill Park Ltd, here: [attachment 1] When an Examining Authority accepts a request for evidence to be withdrawn, the evidence is marked as withdrawn under the ‘Documents’ tab on the project webpage and within the Examination Library document.

19 July 2019
Ros McIntyre
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I understand that following the sale by SHP to RSP last week, SHP are obliged to withdraw all their evidence and objections to the DCO. Can you tell me whether they are able to do this and if so does it mean that all the comments they made and evidence they provided will be ignored by the examiners and it the Secretary of State. If so this seems highly irregular as this evidence was assessed and supported by many other interested parties and would certainly be adopted and presented by many of them, including me, as their own. Surely evidence once submitted must remain evidence? I will be grateful if you can advise what action other interested parties can take to ensure the SHP evidence including that from highly respected aviation consultants York Aviation is retained for reference regarding this DCO.
Please see the recently published advice to Stone Hill Park Ltd, here: [attachment 1] When an Examining Authority accepts a request for evidence to be withdrawn, the evidence is marked as withdrawn under the ‘Documents’ tab on the project webpage and within the Examination Library document.

19 July 2019
Adem Mehmet
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Could you please confirm that a) all Stone Hill Park's submissions will stand and be used by the Examiners in making their recommendation; and b) that Stone Hill Park's submissions will still carry the same weight as they did before?
Please see the recently published advice to Stone Hill Park Ltd, here: [attachment 1] When an Examining Authority accepts a request for evidence to be withdrawn, the evidence is marked as withdrawn under the ‘Documents’ tab on the project webpage and within the Examination Library document.

19 July 2019
Samara Jones-Hall
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I am writing seeking reassurance that the written submissions by Stone Hill Park already submitted to you, and posted on your website, will remain in the public domain.
Please see the recently published advice to Stone Hill Park Ltd, here: [attachment 1] When an Examining Authority (ExA) accepts a request for evidence to be withdrawn, the evidence is marked as withdrawn under the ‘Documents’ tab on the project webpage and within the Examination Library document. The following documents are removed from the website after the Judicial Review period has expired ie circa six weeks after the Secretary of State’s (SoS) decision: - Book of Reference. - Any tables dealing with land interests eg in this case, all iterations of the Applicant’s ‘Compulsory Acquisition Status Report’. - Relevant Representations. After five years all other documents are removed, save for: - S51 advice. - The SoS decision letter. - The ExA’s Recommendation Report. - The DCO (if made). - Any documents relating to change applications (material/non-material). - Correction notices.

19 July 2019
Christabel Bradley
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I raise two important Issues on which we need clarification, as follows: 1) The ExA policy regarding, and the status of, late (post 9/7/19) submissions accepted after the close of the examination. 2) The ExA policy regarding SHP evidence presented to the ExA during the EIP, following the withdrawal of their opposition to the DCO. Is it still permissible evidence in your consideration of the DCO? Do you know of any valid legal argument, or even a legal precedent, that this evidence has now to be ignored by you or by third parties? It would be helpful to all interested parties if PINS and the ExA could make a clear statement on each of these matters.
1. Any submissions received after the 23:59 deadline on 9 July 2019 will be filed by the Inspectorate and sent to the Secretary of State with the Examining Authority’s (ExA) Recommendation Report. These submissions are not read by the ExA. 2. Please see the recently published advice to Stone Hill Park Ltd, here: [attachment 1] When an ExA accepts a request for evidence to be withdrawn, the evidence is marked as withdrawn under the ‘Documents’ tab on the project webpage and within the Examination Library document.

19 July 2019
The Ramsgate Society - anon.
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I understand that it is the intention of the Applicant to make subsequent submissions directly to the SoST. Will these submissions be published on the Project website in a timely manner? Will IPs be able to respond to and comment on any submissions so made by the Applicant directly to the SoST? If so, how? If not, what?
i. Any submissions sent directly to the Secretary of State (SoS) will be provided to the Inspectorate with the SoS’s decision and published alongside it on the National Infrastructure Planning website. ii. It is for the SoS to decide how he/she handles any submissions made directly to him/her after the close of the Examination. You can refer to SoS decisions issued in relation to other NSIP applications for explanations of how the SoS treated these types of submissions in those cases: [attachment 1] (select ‘Decided’).

19 July 2019
James Chappell
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Whilst I am pleased that EDF have been forced to add an additional consultation phase to their plans for Sizewell C&D I am disappointed that the notice period for this consultation is so short and that the period for the consultation stretches over the summer holidays. Could you please use your powers to make EDF extend the consultation period to give everyone a fair chance to participate, otherwise it gives the impression that EDF are not serious about consulting and are trying to slip it in during the summer holidays.
The application has not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, the proposal is currently at the pre-application stage of the planning process, the developer is expecting to submit the applications in Q1 2020. Until the applications are submitted, your first point of contact should be the Applicant. I would therefore encourage you to contact EDF Energy directly ([email protected]). I note you have concerns about the way in which the Applicant is carrying out the pre-application consultation. You should let them know as soon as possible and allow them the opportunity to respond to any issues you raise. You can also make your local authority aware of your concerns. The Inspectorate will request the relevant local authorities’ view on the adequacy of the consultation at the point the application is submitted. Your email setting out your concerns will be kept on file. If you would like more information about the Planning Act 2008 process, please see “Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others” which can be found along with other advice notes, here: [attachment 1]

19 July 2019
Louise Fincham
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Request for confirmation of receipt and acceptance into Examination of letters from Stone Hill Park Ltd and Kent Facilities Ltd, both dated 9 July 2019.
We confirm safe receipt of: i. the submission by Stone Hill Park Ltd dated 9 July 2019; and ii. the submission by Kent Facilities Ltd dated 9 July 2019. The Examining Authority (ExA) exercised its discretion and the two letters have been published on the Manston Airport webpage (Additional Submissions AS-437 and AS-552). The Examination Library is now finalised. It is the definitive record of the evidence submitted to, and accepted into, the Examination and which is before the ExA in preparing its report and recommendations to the Secretary of State: [attachment 1]

18 July 2019
Stone Hill Park Ltd - anon.
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
As you may be aware, there has been an active campaign on Anglesey against National Grid's proposals for a second line of pylons across Anglesey. Although the project is now officially cancelled, I am fearful that when the power station project is resurrected, or there is significant development of renewables, National Grid will return with exactly the same proposals. I want to make sure that doesn't happen, and see that the Planning Inspectorate, being ultimately responsible for making a recommendation to the Secretary of State, has a significant role to play. In general, the people of Anglesey are supportive of inward investment, so this is not a NIMBY campaign. I would like to see greater investment, so that electricity transmission does not harm other industries such as tourism and agriculture or effect house values. When you wrote the North Wales Connection Scoping Opinion, of behalf of the Secretary of State, you explicitly put impact on property value out of scope. However, when you wrote the similar Opinion for the similar project in Cumbria, there was no mention of property value being out of scope (so, therefore, was in scope). It strikes me as fundamentally unfair that you should treat Anglesey this way. The vast majority of the impact from the Wylfa Newydd project on property value derives from the grid connection. It is recognised in the Assessment of Sustainability for National Policy Statement EN-5 that electricity infrastructure can have a negative impact on property value, and this contributes to the negative socio-economic impact, estimated at £500 million. I request that in future the impact on property value is explicitly in scope. When National Grid financially appraise alternative options for the connection, they do so using a methodology of their own design. This does not follow the rigour of similar appraisals arising from Government policy. For example, the business case for the proposed deposit return scheme for plastic bottles puts a financial value to improved visual amenity from reduced littering. However, National Grid do not put a financial value to reduced visual amenity caused by pylons. If you, as the examiner of National Grid’s proposals, were to insist that the Treasury Green Book be used as the basis for all their financial analysis, I am convinced that the underground option would be selected. The public consultation was unsatisfactory. If you, as examiner, had engaged during the project development process, and understood the strength of feeling against pylons voiced during the consultation, I feel National Grid might have actually listened, and, more importantly, acted on that feedback. If you were to “host” the consultation feedback process, just as you host the Relevant and Written Representations, I think the public would have greater confidence in being given a “fair trial”. National Grid have way too much control over how they "play" the development process within existing guidelines, and I hope that you, and Ofgem, are able to rein them in, and in the process protect Anglesey.
Fel y gwyddoch, tynnwyd Prosiect Cysylltiad Gogledd Cymru (NWC) yn ôl gan yr Ymgeisydd ym mis Chwefror 2019; felly, o ganlyniad, nid yw’r Arolygiaeth Gynllunio yn cymryd unrhyw gamau pellach ar y cais hwnnw. Os bydd y Grid Cenedlaethol yn penderfynu dilyn cynnig ar gyfer Prosiect Cysylltiad Gogledd Cymru, neu gynnig tebyg, bydd Tudalen Prosiect newydd yn ymddangos ar wefan yr Arolygiaeth Gynllunio, lle bydd yr holl ddogfennau’n cael eu cyhoeddi. Bydd yn ofynnol, ymhlith pethau eraill, i’r Ymgeisydd gynnal ymgynghoriad statudol cyn cyflwyno cais i’w archwilio. Mewn perthynas â’r sylwadau sydd wedi’u cynnwys yn eich e-bost, rydym yn eich cynghori i’w codi’n uniongyrchol â’r Grid Cenedlaethol os bydd unrhyw gynnig yn codi yn y dyfodol. Nid yw Rheoliadau Cynllunio Seilwaith (Asesu Effeithiau Amgylcheddol) 2017 yn ei gwneud yn ofynnol i Ymgeisydd ofyn am Farn Gwmpasu gan yr Ysgrifennydd Gwladol. Fodd bynnag, gall Ymgeisydd ofyn am un os yw’n credu bod angen hynny. Os gwneir cais o’r fath, bydd yr Arolygiaeth Gynllunio, ar ran yr Ysgrifennydd Gwladol, yn ceisio barn ymgyngoreion statudol (megis Cyngor Sir Ynys Môn a Chyfoeth Naturiol Cymru) ynghylch yr hyn y maent yn ystyried y dylid ei gynnwys yn Natganiad Amgylcheddol yr Ymgeisydd. Rhoddir ystyriaeth lawn i’r ymatebion hyn wrth gwblhau’r Adroddiad Cwmpasu ac fe’u cynhwysir fel atodiad. Yn amlwg, gan nad oes cais gerbron yr Arolygiaeth, ni ellir gwneud unrhyw sylwadau ar gynnwys unrhyw Farn Gwmpasu yn y dyfodol, os gofynnir am un. Nid oes gan yr Arolygiaeth unrhyw awdurdodaeth i “gynnal” ymgynghoriad cyn ymgeisio gan Ymgeisydd. Mae’r gofyniad i ymgynghori, a’r holl faterion cysylltiedig, yn gorwedd gyda’r Ymgeisydd yn unig, o dan Ddeddf Cynllunio 2008, ac mae hyn yn helpu i sicrhau bod yr Ymgeisydd yn derbyn adborth uniongyrchol ar eu cynigion, gan eu galluogi, felly, i ystyried y sylwadau a wnaed. As you are aware, the North Wales Connection (NWC) Project was withdrawn by the Applicant in February 2019; therefore, as a result, no further action is being taken by the Planning Inspectorate on that application. Should National Grid decide to pursue a proposal for the North Wales Connection Project, or a similar proposal, a new Project Page will appear on the Planning Inspectorate’s website where all documents will be published. The Applicant will be required, amongst other things, to carry out statutory consultation before an application is submitted for examination. In relation to the comments included in your email, we advise you to raise them directly with National Grid if any future proposal arises. The Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 do not require an Applicant to request a Scoping Opinion from the Secretary of State (SoS). However, an Applicant may seek one if it considers necessary. If such a request is made, the Planning Inspectorate, on behalf of the SoS, will seek the views of statutory consultees (such as the Isle of Anglesey County Council and Natural Resources Wales) about what they consider should be included in the Applicant’s Environmental Statement. These responses are fully considered when finalising the Scoping Report and are included as an appendix. Clearly, as there is no application before the Inspectorate, no comments can be made on the contents of any future Scoping Opinion, if one is requested. The Inspectorate has no jurisdiction to “host” an Applicant’s pre-application consultation. The requirement to consult, and all associated matters, lies solely with the Applicant, under the Planning Act 2008, this helps to ensure that the Applicant receives direct feedback on their proposals, therefore enabling them to take account of the comments made.

16 July 2019
Anglesey Says No to Pylons - Various Parties
North Wales Connection
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

16 July 2019
ScottishPower Renewables (UK) Limited - anon.
East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

16 July 2019
ScottishPower Renewables (UK) Limited - anon.
East Anglia ONE North Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I am contacting you about the timing of the Stage 4 Consultation. Not only have Public Exhibitions been left out in Theberton, Middleton, Darsham and Saxmundham but the main thrust of the Consultation coincides with the start of the School Holidays. Many people will have already booked Holidays who should be at the Public Exhibitions and will most likely be away due to the announcement of the Consultation occurring with almost no notice. This will mean that there will be reduced involvement by local Residents, Parish and Town Councillors, The Environment Agency, RSPB etc etc. The timing makes a very clear statement that EDF does not have a serious Commitment to hearing peoples views and also is not holding to Good Practices that underpins the Consultation process. Please register and listen to my concerns.
The application has not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, the proposal is currently at the pre-application stage of the planning process, the developer is expecting to submit the applications in Q1 2020. Until the applications are submitted, your first point of contact should be the developer. I would therefore encourage you to contact EDF Energy directly ([email protected]). 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 applications to the Planning Inspectorate. I note you have concerns about the way in which the developer is carrying out the pre-application consultation. You should let them know as soon as possible and allow them the opportunity to respond to any issues you raise. You can also make your local authority aware of your concerns. The Inspectorate will request the relevant local authorities’ view on the adequacy of the consultation at the point the application is submitted. Your email setting out your concerns will be kept on file. If you would like more information about the Planning Act 2008 process, please see “Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others” which can be found along with other advice notes, here: [attachment 1]

11 July 2019
Nicola Pilkington
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please see attached.
I note you have concerns about the way in which the Applicant is carrying out the pre-application consultation. You should let them know as soon as possible and allow them the opportunity to respond to any issues you raise. You can also make your local authority aware of your concerns. The Inspectorate will request the relevant local authorities’ view on the adequacy of the consultation at the point the application is submitted. When deciding whether to accept an application for examination, the Inspectorate considers whether an Applicant has complied with the Pre-application procedure. In making this decision the Inspectorate takes into account any Adequacy of Consultation Representations from relevant local authorities Further to this, as you may be aware the Applicant is now undertaking a further round of consultation from 18 July 2019 to 27 September 2019.

11 July 2019
Minsmere Levels Stakeholders Group - anon.
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Advice sought in relation to the applicant’s proposed approach for the draft DCO and Works Plans.
Please see the attachment

10 July 2019
DHA Planning - David Harvey
Wheelabrator Kemsley Generating Station (K3) and Wheelabrator Kemsley North (WKN) Waste to Energy Facility
Enquiry received via post
response has attachments
See attached letter
See attached letter

09 July 2019
Parliament for South Northamptonshire - Andrea Leadsom MP
Rail Central (Strategic Rail Freight Interchange)
Enquiry received via email
Further clarification sought on the restructuring of the Environmental Statement relating to the Wheelabrator Kemsley Generating Station (K3) and Wheelabrator Kemsley North (WKN) Waste to Energy Facility application.
As previously discussed it is not appropriate for the Inspectorate to provide an opinion on the scope of the ES outside of the formal process for doing so, which is established in accordance with the EIA Regulations. On that basis and for the avoidance of doubt the information contained in this email is not a formal scoping opinion on which you can rely but is provided in accordance with s51 of the Planning Act 2008. At the meeting held on 19 June 2019 the Inspectorate explained that it would be necessary to ensure that the ES submitted with the application for Wheelabrator Kemsley (K3) and Wheelabrator Kemsley North (WKN) includes an assessment which robustly assesses the likely significant effects associated with the execution of powers included within the DCO. Due to the nuances of the PA2008 it is important that the application DCO includes powers to both construct and operate K3 even though in reality the construction of K3 is already underway and largely complete (albeit through consent under the Town and Country Planning Act (TCPA)). It is therefore necessary that the ES assesses the likely significant effects occurring during the construction (accepting that this will quite likely be a theoretical exercise) and the operation of K3 since they need to be examined and considered by the decision maker. You have suggested including the K3 2010 ES (as amended) as an assessment of the construction related significant effects for K3 and supplementing this assessment with the relevant additional aspects occurring in response to the EIA Regulations 2017. This appears to be a pragmatic approach and I note the reference to human health and climate change as being additional aspects not previously considered, you may also want/need to consider addressing the vulnerability of the proposed development to major accidents or disasters. I also understand that the DCO application may include powers to construct features associated with or ancillary to K3 and which were not included in the previous TCPA application, assuming this is the case the ES should assess any significant effects associated with such features again with reference to the theoretical baseline position. Your enquiry also proposes an approach to addressing what is (I appreciate) a tricky position with regard to environmental baseline for the purposes of the assessment. The Inspectorate has already advised that since the application requires the inclusion of powers to construct K3 it is necessary to include an assessment of the likely significant effects associated with that construction. The ES should therefore assess impacts that occur from a pre K3 baseline this would include the construction and operational effects associated with K3 operating at 75MW, however since the assessment must include the theoretical baseline prior to the TCPA consent the ES may also benefit from also including an assessment using the more representative operational baseline of K3 operating at 49.9MW. This would perhaps enable the examination and decision maker to focus on matters which may be considered of most relevance to those participating in the process. I appreciate that the approach is complicated and slightly irregular when compared with more traditional applications. I think the description of the development and overall approach to the assessment usually contained in the front end of the ES is probably of key importance since this will act to frame the approach and explain the structure of the assessment. On that basis we would be happy to have a look at those sections through our review of draft docs and provide comments and feedback as appropriate.

09 July 2019
DHA Planning - Tim Spicer
Wheelabrator Kemsley Generating Station (K3) and Wheelabrator Kemsley North (WKN) Waste to Energy Facility
Enquiry received via email
I note that RSP have said they will make further representations directly to the Secretary of State after the 9 July closing. Is this possible and if so are other interested parties also able to make further representations in the same way ?
The Planning Inspectorate cannot control whether an applicant, or any other Interested Party, decides to submit evidence to the Secretary of State after the close of an Examination. I would emphasise however that an Examining Authority’s Recommendation Report can only be based on the evidence submitted before the close of an Examination. Any evidence received by the Inspectorate in the period after the close of an Examination and before a Recommendation Report is submitted to the Secretary of State (during the three-month ‘Recommendation stage’) is collated and submitted to the Secretary of State at the same time as the Report. It is for the Secretary of State to decide how to handle this evidence in the course of the three-month ‘Decision stage’. Similarly, any evidence sent directly to the Secretary of State during either the ‘Recommendation stage’ or the ‘Decision stage’ is for the Secretary of State to decide how to handle.

09 July 2019
Adem Mehmet
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting and site visit.
Please see attached meeting note.

09 July 2019
Gatwick Airport Limited - anon.
Gatwick Airport Northern Runway
Enquiry received via email
On further reading of BDB’s letter to PINS regarding the sale of Manston to RSP they seem to be inferring RSP will be dealing with the Secretary of State directly. Could you tell me if that is a correct understanding of the situation and is this acceptable as part of an on going DCO application.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot control whether an applicant, or any other Interested Party, decides to submit evidence to the Secretary of State after the close of an Examination. I would emphasise however that an Examining Authority’s Recommendation Report can only be based on the evidence submitted before the close of an Examination. Any evidence received by the Inspectorate in the period after the close of an Examination and before a Recommendation Report is submitted to the Secretary of State (during the three-month ‘Recommendation stage’) is collated and submitted to the Secretary of State at the same time as the Report. It is for the Secretary of State to decide how to handle this evidence in the course of the three-month ‘Decision stage’. Similarly, any evidence sent directly to the Secretary of State during either the ‘Recommendation stage’ or the ‘Decision stage’ is for the Secretary of State to decide how to handle.

08 July 2019
Ian Scott
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
How long do submissions stay up on the Planning Inspectorate website? And, secondly is it all submissions that stay up?
The following documents are removed from the website after the Judicial Review period has expired ie six weeks after the SoS decision: - Book of Reference. - Any tables dealing with land interests eg in this case, all iterations of the Applicant’s ‘Compulsory Acquisition Status Report’. - Relevant Representations. After five years all other documents are removed, save for: - S51 advice. - The SoS decision letter. - The ExA’s Recommendation Report. - The DCO (if made). - Any documents relating to change applications (material/non-material). - Correction notices. Note if a DCO is made, the documents certified within it remain available at the location specified in the Explanatory Note at the end of the DCO.

08 July 2019
Samara Jones-Hall
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project and Local Area Impact Update Meeting with NNB Nuclear Generation (SZC) Limited and Suffolk County Council and East Suffolk Council
Please see attached.

02 July 2019
Applicant and local Authorities - anon.
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Comments regarding the ASI due to take place on 3 and 4 July 2019
Please see attachment

28 June 2019
Mr M Sullivan, CPRE Warwickshire
M42 Junction 6 Improvement
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached.

27 June 2019
Ørsted - anon.
Hornsea Project Four Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

25 June 2019
North Somerset Council - anon.
Portishead Branch Line - MetroWest Phase 1
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Evidence Plan Steering Group meeting with Ørsted, East Riding of Yorkshire Council, Natural England and the Marine Management Organisation
Please see attached

25 June 2019
Ørsted et al - anon.
Hornsea Project Four Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Please see Attached
Please see Attached

21 June 2019
Oikos South Side Development (OSSD) - anon.
Oikos Marine & South Side Development
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

19 June 2019
ScottishPower Renewables (UK) Limited - anon.
East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

19 June 2019
Wheelabrator Technologies Holdings Inc - anon.
Wheelabrator Kemsley Generating Station (K3) and Wheelabrator Kemsley North (WKN) Waste to Energy Facility
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

19 June 2019
ScottishPower Renewables (UK) Limited - anon.
East Anglia ONE North Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see the attached meeting note

18 June 2019
AQUIND Limited
AQUIND Interconnector
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached meeting note

06 June 2019
Heathrow Airport Limited - anon.
Expansion of Heathrow Airport (Third Runway)
response has attachments
Please see attached.
Clarification on Scoping Opinion

04 June 2019
Highways England
A428 Black Cat to Caxton Gibbet Road Improvement scheme
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached

29 May 2019
Planning Inspectorate, BEIS and the Applicant - anon.
Wheelabrator Kemsley Generating Station (K3) and Wheelabrator Kemsley North (WKN) Waste to Energy Facility
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Please see attached
Please see attached

24 May 2019
NNB Generation Company (HPC) Limited - anon.
Hinkley Point C New Nuclear Power Station Material Change 1
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Dear Sir/Madame, Further to my email sent on the 26th of April, there is one additional item I would wish to bring to your attention when considering the SPR application for EA1N & EA2 wind farms. There are two additional energy infrastructure project under consideration for this immediate area. One is EDF’s Sizewell C nuclear power station and the other is The National Grid Interconnector project (the later which may not be considered as a DCO). There is also talk of a requirement for battery storage units for when there is excess energy generated off shore. It remains unclear to us if the battery storage units will be under SPR’s or National Grid’s remit. While under construction the Sizewell C project will have an enormous effect on the local area for well over a decade. The interconnector project appears to have a direct relationship to the on shore wind farm infrastructure and will mean more cable trenching and further structures on shore to be located adjacent to SPR's sub-stations. Any proposals for batter storage units will also need to be located in the vicinity of the sub-stations. To be able to evaluate the EAST ANGLIA 1N & EAST ANGLIA 2 WIND FARMS PROPOSALS you need to take into account all of the other proposal concurrently under consideration for this area. You will need to understand the magnitude of all these developments on the local area in order to evaluate SPR’s proposal. One can not pretend that they do not exist and view each proposal in isolation. I kindly ask that you urge central government in conjunction with the local authorities to devise a coherent and comprehensive energy strategy for the infrastructure developments required to serve the nation's future energy needs. If these projects are left to private companies to prescribe in a free-for-all manor vast sections of the countryside and local communities will be needlessly devastated. I trust that you will not be able to accept for Examination the SPR application, until the cumulative impact of all the projects proposed for this area have been understood. Kind regards, Mya Manakides
The energy National Policy Statements (NPS) set out mitigation for cumulative negative effects by requiring the Secretary of State to consider accumulation of effects as a whole in their decision-making on individual applications for development consent. I would draw your attention to NPS EN-1 which provides more information in relation to relevant policy, particularly chapter 4.2 Environmental Statement. And to Advice Note 17, which is available with the other advice notes linked below, which provides more information on the legal context and obligations for cumulative effects assessment (CEA). As well as an overview of the CEA process the developer may adopt. If you would like more information about the Planning Act 2008 process, please see “Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others” which can be found along with other advice notes, here: [attachment 1]

22 May 2019
Mya Manakides
East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Dear Sir/Madame, Further to my email sent on the 26th of April, there is one additional item I would wish to bring to your attention when considering the SPR application for EA1N & EA2 wind farms. There are two additional energy infrastructure project under consideration for this immediate area. One is EDF’s Sizewell C nuclear power station and the other is The National Grid Interconnector project (the later which may not be considered as a DCO). There is also talk of a requirement for battery storage units for when there is excess energy generated off shore. It remains unclear to us if the battery storage units will be under SPR’s or National Grid’s remit. While under construction the Sizewell C project will have an enormous effect on the local area for well over a decade. The interconnector project appears to have a direct relationship to the on shore wind farm infrastructure and will mean more cable trenching and further structures on shore to be located adjacent to SPR's sub-stations. Any proposals for batter storage units will also need to be located in the vicinity of the sub-stations. To be able to evaluate the EAST ANGLIA 1N & EAST ANGLIA 2 WIND FARMS PROPOSALS you need to take into account all of the other proposal concurrently under consideration for this area. You will need to understand the magnitude of all these developments on the local area in order to evaluate SPR’s proposal. One can not pretend that they do not exist and view each proposal in isolation. I kindly ask that you urge central government in conjunction with the local authorities to devise a coherent and comprehensive energy strategy for the infrastructure developments required to serve the nation's future energy needs. If these projects are left to private companies to prescribe in a free-for-all manor vast sections of the countryside and local communities will be needlessly devastated. I trust that you will not be able to accept for Examination the SPR application, until the cumulative impact of all the projects proposed for this area have been understood. Kind regards, Mya Manakides
The energy National Policy Statements (NPS) set out mitigation for cumulative negative effects by requiring the Secretary of State to consider accumulation of effects as a whole in their decision-making on individual applications for development consent. I would draw your attention to NPS EN-1 which provides more information in relation to relevant policy, particularly chapter 4.2 Environmental Statement. And to Advice Note 17, which is available with the other advice notes linked below, which provides more information on the legal context and obligations for cumulative effects assessment (CEA). As well as an overview of the CEA process the developer may adopt. If you would like more information about the Planning Act 2008 process, please see “Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others” which can be found along with other advice notes, here: [attachment 1]

22 May 2019
Mya Manakides
East Anglia ONE North Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Alongside my colleague, Mr Kaye Squires, I wish to register as an Interested Party in wishing to be a participant in the above Planning Process Inquiry. You should also receive a register of interest from the Heronscourt Residents' Association, of which Kaye Squires and I are members. I am aware that you are not concerned with the content of our challenge to decisions made, but in case you are asked, our reasons are: 1. Our properties directly impinge upon the recently revised pipeline route; in my case for 140 metres. 2. Even though a properly structured consultation has taken place, we believe that it was inefficiently communicated, by the applicants and our elected representatives, and as such, did not constitute an open public consultation. 3. In choosing the newly revised route alongside our properties, the balance between the SSSI and the Public Amenity that is Turfhill Park in Lightwater, has been inadequately debated, and has arrived at the wrong conclusion.
The application for the Southampton to London Pipeline project, submitted on 14th May 2019, is currently being reviewed. The acceptance decision will be made by 11th June 2019. Registration to become an Interested Party to any application opens only when / if an application is accepted for an Examination. Advice Note 8.2 provides further information on how to register to participate in an Examination: [attachment 1] The following paragraphs from the Advice Note 8.2 should be helpful: 2. When can I become an Interested Party to an application? 2.1 Once the Planning Inspectorate has accepted an application for Examination, it is the applicant’s duty to advertise the Relevant Representation period and provide details about how to register to become an Interested Party. The Relevant Representation period is the time you have to register to become an Interested Party. The registration period must be at least 28 days and the publicity notice will tell you when the deadline is ? An applicant’s newspapers advert; ? An applicant’s site notice; ? Information on the relevant project page of the National Infrastructure Planning website; ? Via Twitter or email alert if you have signed up for this service on the relevant project page of the National Infrastructure Planning website. 3. How do I become an Interested Party? 3.1 During the registration period you must fill in a Relevant Representation form in full. It is not possible to participate in this process anonymously if you are registering as an individual. The easiest way to become an Interested Party is to complete the form online via the relevant project page of the National Infrastructure Planning website. If you would prefer to fill in a paper form you can contact the Planning Inspectorate during the registration period to request one. Please make sure there is enough time for the form to be sent to you and for you to post it back to the Planning Inspectorate before the deadline for responding expires. 3.2 The Examining Authority will be appointed soon after the application is accepted and will use the views put forward in the Relevant Representations, to carry out an initial assessment of the principal issues. Therefore, even if you are automatically an Interested Party because you have an interest in land affected by the application or your organisation is on a list of prescribed bodies, you should still complete a Relevant Representation form so that your views can be made available to the Examining Authority at an early stage. 3.3 If you are interested in more than one project, you will need to register for each project separately. You may also wish to register to receive e-mail updates which will ensure that you are kept up to date on the progress of the application. You can register your e-mail address on the project page, on the link here: [attachment 2]

21 May 2019
Clive H Thompson CBE
Southampton to London Pipeline Project
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached Meeting Note

21 May 2019
Highways England
M25 junction 28 improvements
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please See attached

21 May 2019
ScottishPower Renewables (UK) Limited - anon.
East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

21 May 2019
ScottishPower Renewables (UK) Limited - anon.
East Anglia ONE North Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached

16 May 2019
Planning Inspectorate, BEIS and the Applicant - anon.
Wheelabrator Kemsley Generating Station (K3) and Wheelabrator Kemsley North (WKN) Waste to Energy Facility
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Site Visit
Please see attached

16 May 2019
Highways England - anon.
M54 to M6 Link Road
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
We are writing to express our interest in, and concerns over, this proposal. We live in the centre of Cawston and our house fronts onto the B1145, very close to the traffic. The impact of this scheme, together with the Vattenfall Vanguard scheme and Orsted’s Hornsea 3, will be devastating to our quality of life and enjoyment of our property. In principle we are strongly in favour of schemes such as renewable energy which serve to protect and improve the environment, but we do feel that the philosophy of protecting the wider environment should not rest on destroying some local environments, which is what will happen if this proposal goes ahead in its current form. We do not feel that alternative approaches, and routes avoiding Cawston have been properly assessed. The B1145 and other roads in this area are simply unsuitable for the types and volumes of traffic proposed. The levels of noise and vibration in the centre of the village will be intolerable and there are real road safety concerns. Several of these houses date from the 18th Century, some are subject to Preservation Orders, and there has to be a likelihood of major structural damage. there is a village junior school, buses, school buses collecting senior pupils, and a busy centre with shops, pub and houses close to the narrow road - a constant need for pedestrians to be able to cross the road throughout the day. air quality in the centre of the village would be another concern, as is light pollution this is a twisty B road, unsuitable for HGVs, narrow and very difficult in many places for two vehicles to pass one another safely. in the village there are narrow pavements and several blind junctions, where traffic on the side road has to creep into the main road to see what is coming. The old railway bridge near the village hall is also on a blind bend with no pavement for pedestrians. a double bend between Cawston and Salle is exceptionally tight, you often need to stop and back up to allow a non HGV lorry to get round. We get no sense that factors like these have been considered sufficiently in the proposal. We note that Vattenfall suggest that some mitigation can be achieved by driver training; this is absurd. Surely drivers should be properly trained in any event, and in fact a failure to adhere to high standards would be an exacerbation. We hope that you are able to include these views in your assessments, and look forward to hearing from you. Kind regards Helen & Chris Monk
Dear Helen and Chris Monk Thank you for your email in relation to the proposed Norfolk Boreas Wind Farm proposed application. I apologise for the delay in this email reaching you as it would appear that you did not receive a direct response from us at the time. Please note, this application is due to be submitted to the Planning Inspectorate in mid-June 2019. Upon receipt there will be a 28 day acceptance period and should the application be accepted for examination, there will be an opportunity for interested parties to submit a relevant representation. I would encourage you to monitor the project webpage and sign up to email updates. As the application has not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, the proposal is currently at pre-application stage of the planning process and therefore until the application is submitted, your first point of contact should be the developer. You may have already done so however I would encourage you to contact Vattenfall Offshore Wind Ltd directly ([email protected]) as 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 applications to the Planning Inspectorate. If you would like more information about the Planning Act 2008 process, please see “Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others” which can be found along with other advice notes, here: [attachment 1] Kind regards Kay Kay Sully (This advice was also given to – Matthew Attewell)

15 May 2019
Chris and Helen Monk
Norfolk Boreas
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Dear Sir / Madam, The purpose of my email is following a recent document received through the post regarding the Vallenhall Boreas Project outlining public consultation times and deadlines regarding this project. Due to recently moving to the area I was not aware of either the Boreas or Vanguard Projects and subsequently I have investigated on your website regarding the proposed onshore works for both Boreas and Vanguard projects. Upon my initial investigation it appears that the proposed works would be within approximately 150m of our property and the subsequent increase in HGV traffic and the proposed access route both during and after the initial construction will be within 20m of our dwelling. Due to this I would therefore like to formally register my interest regarding Vanguard and its sister project Boreas. I thank you for your understanding regarding this matter. I am aware that the registration for interested parties has closed but do hope that due to our circumstance you will be able to assist. I awaiting your response by return of email.
Dear Mr Attewell Thank you for your email in relation to the proposed Norfolk Boreas Wind Farm proposed application. I apologise for the delay in this email reaching you as it would appear that you did not receive a direct response from us at the time in relation this project. Norfolk Vanguard is a separate application and so I have removed their email address from this thread. Please note, this application is due to be submitted to the Planning Inspectorate in mid-June 2019. Upon receipt there will be a 28 day acceptance period and should the application be accepted for examination, there will be an opportunity for interested parties to submit a relevant representation. I would encourage you to monitor the project webpage and sign up to email updates. As the application has not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, the proposal is currently at pre-application stage of the planning process and therefore until the application is submitted, your first point of contact should be the developer. You may have already done so however I would encourage you to contact Vattenfall Offshore Wind Ltd directly ([email protected]) as 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 applications to the Planning Inspectorate. If you would like more information about the Planning Act 2008 process, please see “Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others” which can be found along with other advice notes, here: [attachment 1]

15 May 2019
Mr M J Attewell
Norfolk Boreas
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see the attachment

15 May 2019
Highways England
A1 Birtley to Coal House Improvement Scheme
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
A12 Chelmsford to A120 project update meeting
Please see attachment

15 May 2019
Highways England - anon.
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
A12 Chelmsford to A120 project update meeting.
Please see attachment.

15 May 2019
Highways England - anon.
A12 Chelmsford to A120 Widening Scheme
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see the attached note.

10 May 2019
Network Rail - anon.
Western Rail Link to Heathrow
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Please see attached
Please see attached

10 May 2019
Intertek - anon.
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting Note
Please see Attached

09 May 2019
Vattenfall Wind Power Ltd - anon.
Norfolk Boreas
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
We respond to Phase 4 of SPR's windfarm consultation, objecting very strongly to proposals to site Substations for the windfarms in Friston. Our letter of objection is attached, together with our responses to earlier consultations. The most important points we make now are that the Planning Inspectorate should assess the cumulative impact of multiple energy related projects proposed for this part of east Suffolk, and that all developments should take place in Sizewell. We respond to Phase 4 of SPR's windfarm consultation, objecting very strongly to proposals to site Substations for the windfarms in Friston. Our letter of objection is attached, together with our responses to earlier consultations. The most important points we make now are that the Planning Inspectorate should assess the cumulative impact of multiple energy related projects proposed for this part of east Suffolk, and that all developments should take place in Sizewell. We trust you will take our views and those of local people and authorities into account.
In reference to your e-mail of 20 March 2019. I draw your attention to Advice Note 17 ([attachment 1]) on the Planning Inspectorate website. This provides more information about cumulative effects assessment.

07 May 2019
Louise and Derek Chadwick Chadwick
East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
We respond to Phase 4 of SPR's windfarm consultation, objecting very strongly to proposals to site Substations for the windfarms in Friston. Our letter of objection is attached, together with our responses to earlier consultations. The most important points we make now are that the Planning Inspectorate should assess the cumulative impact of multiple energy related projects proposed for this part of east Suffolk, and that all developments should take place in Sizewell. We trust you will take our views and those of local people and authorities into account.
In reference to your e-mail of 20 March 2019. I draw your attention to Advice Note 17 ([attachment 1]) on the Planning Inspectorate website. This provides more information about cumulative effects assessment.

07 May 2019
Louise and Derek Chadwick
East Anglia ONE North Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached.

07 May 2019
ScottishPower Renewables (UK) Limited - anon.
East Anglia ONE North Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached.

07 May 2019
ScottishPower Renewables (UK) Limited - anon.
East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
My question is what is the range of issues that the Planning Inspectorate will consider in the course of the examination of Heathrow's application? Is it just any potential impact, or are is their jurisdiction limited in any way? For example, we would want I am sure to raise issues regarding noise and air quality, compensation for adverse impacts, and compliance with airspace design principles. Would all of these fall within the Planning Inspectorate's jurisdiction? If not, which would?
Firstly, the Examining Authority (ExA) that will be appointed to examine the application for the expansion of Heathrow Airport (Third Runway) will do so in an inquisitorial manner. This means that they are not restricted to only considering what is included in representations made to them. Once an application has been formally submitted and accepted for examination, members of the public will have the opportunity to register to become ‘Interested Parties’ by completing the registration form and submitting a ‘Relevant Representation’; a provisional written representation setting out the key issues they believe the ExA should consider as part of the Examination. Following a review of the issues raised in the suite of Relevant Representations, alongside the contents of the application itself (what is actually being applied for) and the content of the Airports National Policy Statement (ANPS), the ExA will prepare it’s ‘Initial Assessment of Principal Issues’ which will then act to frame the six-month Examination period. There will then be further opportunity to expand on those issues/ arguments set out by submitting Written Representations once the Examination formally begins. However, there will not be scope to dispute of the contents of the ANPS/ other policy framework or discuss compensation with regards to Compulsory Acquisition during the Examination. If you register to become an Interested Party, you will be able to raise such issues as noise, air quality and compliance with airspace design principles within your Relevant Representation. As the application is currently anticipated for submission in 2020, I recommend you register for the email update feature (on the right-hand side of the overview page of the project website) to be notified of the registration period when the time comes.

03 May 2019
Raj Parkash
Expansion of Heathrow Airport (Third Runway)
Enquiry received via post
response has attachments
Please see attached letter.
Please see attached response.

03 May 2019
Leigh Day - anon.
Expansion of Heathrow Airport (Third Runway)
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Please see attached.
Please see attached.

03 May 2019
Solar 21
North Lincolnshire Green Energy Park
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
My wife and I live at {Redacted} We are concerned that the proposed plans to replace the old roundabout with the new signalled junction will bring traffic closer to our house leading to increased noise and devalue our property. In particular the proposed new "slipway" from Skippool Road onto the Amounderness way-will it be constructed nearer to us? Will the house Throstles Nest be demolished to use its land? Would you let me have detailed plans of the proposed new junction-the plans I can see online are not detailed enough.
Dear Mr and Mrs Evans, Thank you for your email in relation to the above project. All application plans submitted by Highways England, the Applicant, have been published on the project’s page, please see the link: [attachment 1];stage=app&filter1=Plans If you require further information on the proposed development we would suggest that you approach the Applicant who is copied in this email.

02 May 2019
Graham and Heather Evans
A585 Windy Harbour to Skippool Improvement Scheme
Enquiry received via email
Clarification on how the transmission system issue will be represented to the Secretary of State In the early stages of this enquiry N2RS - along with North Norfolk District Council, Norfolk County Council, the CPRE and others – asked the applicant to counteract suggestions that the HVDC transmission system which formed part of the project design might not be deliverable. Reassurances were subsequently given along with confirmation that any U-turn back to the more environmentally damaging HVAC system would require a material change and interested parties were left in little doubt about the applicant’s intention to honour its much welcomed commitment to HVDC. As the examination nears an end N2RS would like to understand whether the final report to be submitted to the Secretary of State will include reference to the choice of transmission system and the discussions that ensued? We feel it is important that the Secretary of State is fully aware of the extent to which this decision to use HVDC technology has informed public opinion, increased acceptability and shaped the examination. Although a number of other unresolved issues are now, quite rightly, taking centre stage, we should not lose sight of the significance of this commitment to less environmentally damaging technology and the role it will play in mitigation. Conversely if its importance is not appreciated, the impact of any reversal to HVAC could not be fully understood by the Secretary of State. Could the Planning Inspectorate also advise whether the final report with its recommendations and accompanying detail will be in the public domain?
The Examining Authority’s (ExA) report will consider the application as submitted, along with proposed changes to the application accepted by the ExA on 25 April 2019, as well as submissions from parties made throughout the Examination. The ExA’s Recommendation Report will be published on the Norfolk Vanguard project page of the National Infrastructure Planning website at the same time as the Secretary of State’s decision.

02 May 2019
N2RS - Beverley Wigg
Norfolk Vanguard
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I am writing to raise my concerns about the number of examiners assigned to the Cleve Hill Solar Park case. I have checked the Manston Airport case and notice that 4 examiners are assigned to that case, yet only 2 have been assigned to the Cleve Hill case. The reason for my concerns are: 1. The application for Manston Airport is, as I understand it, to reopen it as an airport. Manston has for many years been an airport, albeit with periods of time where it was unused. I can't see the comparison to the number of examiners needed for that to the situation at Cleve Hill which: a. is a completely new development on valued landscape, b. adjacent to three important wildlife designated areas, c. adjacent to an important walking path that is shortly going to be designated as a National Path, d. will be the largest solar park in Europe with an east-west orientation which is unprecedented in the UK, e. will have huge battery storage with untested technology on this scale, f. will cause serious disturbance to the wildlife and local areas for two and half years during the construction period and during the life of its operation g. is on land identified by the Environment Agency as being required for managed retreat when they cease maintaining the sea defences along that stretch of coast 2. Having only 2 examiners does not allow for consensus and a majority decision on the recommendation that will be put to the Secretary of State. As you will be aware, most panels in business and law are made up on an uneven number of panelists to allow a majority decision to be made, e.g. magistrates. 3. Having only 2 examiners makes it appear that the decision is an easy one to make with limited investigations and reviews needed. Is this application considered to be a 'done-deal' simply because it is for 'green' energy? I am sure I will not be the only person concerned about this situation so would appreciate your explanation on: 1. how the number of examiners is decided, and 2. how they will come to a majority decision which is the right decision for the local area.
Thank you for your email dated 25th April 2019 in relation to the appointment of the Examining Authority for the Cleve Hill Solar Park project. Each Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP) submitted to the Planning Inspectorate under the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) is assessed on its own merits. The Examining Authority (ExA) prepares a Recommendation Report for the relevant Secretary of State who is the decision maker; it is important to note that the ExA is not the decision maker. The appointment of the ExA is based on the assessment of the each project and specific issues relating to it, such as complexity of the case, the level of public interest, analysis of policy and any novel issues. Whilst it is considered that a panel of 2 is an appropriate ExA for this case, section 68 of the PA2008 provides for the additional appointments to the Panel, at any time, should it become necessary. In appointing a Panel of two members for the Cleve Hill Solar Park project the SoS considered the CLG Guidance which identifies criteria relevant to appointing an Examining Authority. Further information on the CLG Guidance for the examination of applications for development consent for nationally significant infrastructure projects March 2015, particularly paragraphs12-14, can be found here: [attachment 1] . In regards to the environmental issues that you have listed, please be assured that all matters will be carefully considered, tested and probed during the six-month examination of the application. The Rule 6 letter issued on 18th April 2019 includes the draft timetable for the Examination of the application. The letter also includes the Initial Assessment of Principal Issues (Annex B) which at this stage is not a comprehensive or exclusive list of all relevant matters. However, they relate to the Environmental Statement in general; landscape and visual effects, noise; water, flooding and coastal defences; and socio-economic amongst others. The proposed timetable (Annex C) provides for the Issue Specific Hearings (ISHs) on Biodiversity / Nature Conservation Matters (ISH1 on 17th July) and on Landscape and Visual Amenity Matters (ISH3 on 23rd July). This will allow all parties to fully engage in the process and can make written and oral representations about the application to the Examining Authority on all matters that they are concerned about. Additionally, all documents submitted by the Applicant and Interested Parties will be published on project page. In conclusion, the Planning Inspectorate is satisfied that the appointment of a panel of 2 is appropriate for this case. However, if it transpires at a later date that it is not suitable, additional resources can be allocated.

01 May 2019
Tom King
Cleve Hill Solar Park
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The following persons sent responses to the Applicant’s 2019 statutory consultation, including comments on the standard of consultation, to the Planning Inspectorate between January and April 2019: Vivienne Saunders, Alison Norman, Gerard Linehan, James and Gihan Burch, Charles Courage, Susan Jackson, David Jackson, Anthony and Louise Fincham, Nick Matthew, Kevin and Joanna Hoffman, Ian Cook, Tony and Christine Munden, Rosamond Castle, Christopher Matthew, Michael Allen, Lesley Walduck, Lin Patrick, Richard Bertram, Ellen Nall, Linda Grover, John Brown, Emma Chichester Clark, Karen Flower and Amanda Churchill.
The applications have not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, the proposals are currently at the pre-application stage of the planning process, the developer is expecting to submit the applications in Q4 2019. Until the applications are submitted, your first point of contact should be the developer. I would therefore encourage you to contact ScottishPower Renewables directly ([email protected] and [email protected]). 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 applications to the Planning Inspectorate. If you have concerns about the way in which the developer is carrying out the pre-application consultation, you should let them know as soon as possible and allow them the opportunity to respond to any issues you raise. You can also make your local authority aware of your concerns. The Inspectorate will request the relevant local authorities’ view on the adequacy of the consultation at the point the application is submitted. If you would like more information about the Planning Act 2008 process, please see “Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others” which can be found along with other advice notes, here: [attachment 1]

30 April 2019
Various Enquiries - Anon - anon.
East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The following persons sent responses to the Applicant’s 2019 statutory consultation, including comments on the standard of consultation, to the Planning Inspectorate between January and April 2019: Vivienne Saunders, Alison Norman, Gerard Linehan, James and Gihan Burch, Charles Courage, Susan Jackson, David Jackson, Anthony and Louise Fincham, Nick Matthew, Kevin and Joanna Hoffman, Ian Cook, Tony and Christine Munden, Rosamond Castle, Christopher Matthew, Michael Allen, Lesley Walduck, Lin Patrick, Richard Bertram, Ellen Nall, Linda Grover, John Brown, Emma Chichester Clark, Karen Flower and Amanda Churchill.
The applications have not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, the proposals are currently at the pre-application stage of the planning process, the developer is expecting to submit the applications in Q4 2019. Until the applications are submitted, your first point of contact should be the developer. I would therefore encourage you to contact ScottishPower Renewables directly ([email protected] and [email protected]). 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 applications to the Planning Inspectorate. If you have concerns about the way in which the developer is carrying out the pre-application consultation, you should let them know as soon as possible and allow them the opportunity to respond to any issues you raise. You can also make your local authority aware of your concerns. The Inspectorate will request the relevant local authorities’ view on the adequacy of the consultation at the point the application is submitted. If you would like more information about the Planning Act 2008 process, please see “Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others” which can be found along with other advice notes, here: [attachment 1]

30 April 2019
Various Enquiries - Anon - anon.
East Anglia ONE North Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The following persons sent responses to the Applicant’s 2019 statutory consultation to the Planning Inspectorate and to the Applicant between January and April 2019: Michael Mahony on behalf of Substation Action Save East Suffolk, Mark Saunders, James Kemp, Brian Roger and Mark Hopkins.
The applications have not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, the proposals are currently at the pre-application stage of the planning process, the developer is expecting to submit the applications in Q4 2019. I note you have contacted ScottishPower Renewables. 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 applications to the Planning Inspectorate. If you would like more information about the Planning Act 2008 process, please see: “Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others” which can be found along with other advice notes, here: [attachment 1]

30 April 2019
Various Enquiries - Anon - anon.
East Anglia ONE North Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The following persons sent responses to the Applicant’s 2019 statutory consultation to the Planning Inspectorate and to the Applicant between January and April 2019: Michael Mahony on behalf of Substation Action Save East Suffolk, Mark Saunders, James Kemp, Brian Roger and Mark Hopkins.
The applications have not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, the proposals are currently at the pre-application stage of the planning process, the developer is expecting to submit the applications in Q4 2019. I note you have contacted ScottishPower Renewables. 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 applications to the Planning Inspectorate. If you would like more information about the Planning Act 2008 process, please see: “Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others” which can be found along with other advice notes, here: [attachment 1]

30 April 2019
Various Enquiries - anon - anon.
East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The following persons sent responses to the Applicant’s 2019 statutory consultation to the Planning Inspectorate between January and April 2019: Mary Shipman, Tony Morley, Alan Bullard, Jan Bullard, Michael Shorrock, Elizabeth Clark, Josef Wondrak, Julie Tooke, Edmond Fivet, David Worrall, Nichola J Winter, Elizabeth Jarret, Nicholas Winter, Kay and Karl Moore, Jennifer Joyce, Andrew Bell, Jill Hills, John Walker and Kate Drayton.
The applications have not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, the proposals are currently at the pre-application stage of the planning process, the developer is expecting to submit the applications in Q4 2019. Until the applications are submitted, your first point of contact should be the developer. I would therefore encourage you to contact ScottishPower Renewables directly ([email protected] and [email protected]). 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 applications to the Planning Inspectorate. If you have concerns about the way in which the developer is carrying out the pre-application consultation, you should let them know as soon as possible and allow them the opportunity to respond to any issues you raise. You can also make your local authority aware of your concerns. The Inspectorate will request the relevant local authorities’ view on the adequacy of the consultation at the point the application is submitted. If you would like more information about the Planning Act 2008 process, please see “Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others” which can be found along with other advice notes, here: [attachment 1]

30 April 2019
Various enquiries - anon - anon.
East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The following persons sent responses to the Applicant’s 2019 statutory consultation to the Planning Inspectorate and to the Applicant, including comments on the standard of consultation, between January and April 2019: William Matthew, Leonard and Anita Johnson, Martin Cotter and John Grover.
The applications have not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, the proposals are currently at the pre-application stage of the planning process, the developer is expecting to submit the applications in Q4 2019. I note you have contacted ScottishPower Renewables. 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 applications to the Planning Inspectorate. If you have concerns about the way in which the developer is carrying out the pre-application consultation, you should let them know as soon as possible and allow them the opportunity to respond to any issues you raise. You can also make your local authority aware of your concerns. The Inspectorate will request the relevant local authorities’ view on the adequacy of the consultation at the point the application is submitted. If you would like more information about the Planning Act 2008 process, please see: “Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others” which can be found along with other advice notes, here: [attachment 1]

30 April 2019
Various Enquiries - anon.
East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The following persons sent responses to the Applicant’s 2019 statutory consultation to the Planning Inspectorate and to the Applicant, including comments on the standard of consultation, between January and April 2019: William Matthew, Leonard and Anita Johnson, Martin Cotter and John Grover.
The applications have not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, the proposals are currently at the pre-application stage of the planning process, the developer is expecting to submit the applications in Q4 2019. I note you have contacted ScottishPower Renewables. 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 applications to the Planning Inspectorate. If you have concerns about the way in which the developer is carrying out the pre-application consultation, you should let them know as soon as possible and allow them the opportunity to respond to any issues you raise. You can also make your local authority aware of your concerns. The Inspectorate will request the relevant local authorities’ view on the adequacy of the consultation at the point the application is submitted. If you would like more information about the Planning Act 2008 process, please see: “Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others” which can be found along with other advice notes, here: [attachment 1]

30 April 2019
Various Enquiries - anon - anon.
East Anglia ONE North Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The following persons sent responses to the Applicant’s 2019 statutory consultation to the Planning Inspectorate between January and April 2019: Mary Shipman, Tony Morley, Alan Bullard, Jan Bullard, Michael Shorrock, Elizabeth Clark, Josef Wondrak, Julie Tooke, Edmond Fivet, David Worrall, Nichola J Winter, Elizabeth Jarret, Nicholas Winter, Kay and Karl Moore, Jennifer Joyce, Andrew Bell, Jill Hills, John Walker and Kate Drayton.
The applications have not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, the proposals are currently at the pre-application stage of the planning process, the developer is expecting to submit the applications in Q4 2019. Until the applications are submitted, your first point of contact should be the developer. I would therefore encourage you to contact ScottishPower Renewables directly ([email protected] and [email protected]). 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 applications to the Planning Inspectorate. If you have concerns about the way in which the developer is carrying out the pre-application consultation, you should let them know as soon as possible and allow them the opportunity to respond to any issues you raise. You can also make your local authority aware of your concerns. The Inspectorate will request the relevant local authorities’ view on the adequacy of the consultation at the point the application is submitted. If you would like more information about the Planning Act 2008 process, please see “Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others” which can be found along with other advice notes, here: [attachment 1]

30 April 2019
Various enquiries - anon - anon.
East Anglia ONE North Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The following persons sent responses to the Applicant’s 2019 statutory consultation, including comments on the standard of consultation, to the Planning Inspectorate between January and April 2019: Paul Collins, Mrs CA and Mr GR Morling, Roy Dowding on behalf of Middleton Parish Council, Philippe Taylor, Kate Thompson, Mary Anne Woolf, Helen Isaac, Ian and Carol Rose, Anne Macdowell, Simon Ilet, Peter Macintosh, John Parsons and Audrey West.
The application has not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, the proposal is currently at the pre-application stage of the planning process, the developer is expecting to submit the applications in Q1 2020. Until the applications are submitted, your first point of contact should be the developer. I would therefore encourage you to contact EDF Energy directly ([email protected]). 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 applications to the Planning Inspectorate. If you have concerns about the way in which the developer is carrying out the pre-application consultation, you should let them know as soon as possible and allow them the opportunity to respond to any issues you raise. You can also make your local authority aware of your concerns. The Inspectorate will request the relevant local authorities’ view on the adequacy of the consultation at the point the application is submitted. If you would like more information about the Planning Act 2008 process, please see “Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others” which can be found along with other advice notes, here: [attachment 1]

30 April 2019
Various Enquiries - Anon - Catherine Aldridge
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The following persons sent responses to the Applicant’s 2019 statutory consultation to the Planning Inspectorate between January and April 2019: Clive Tickner, Barry N and Monica J Osborn, Dave Robb, Sue Manning, Peter and June Smith, Sharon Quilter, Virginia Stanley, Sue Tugwell, Stuart Brown, P.V.J Sanders and C.D. Sanders, Charles Macdowell, Chris Fox, Bryn Raven, Mrs Crouch, D.A. Surfling, Brian Lowry, Dawn Lacey, Harry Smith, Chris Macdowell, Joyce and Alana Griffiths, Laurence,Maggie Frith ,John Rea Price and Judith Croton.
The application has not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, the proposal is currently at the pre-application stage of the planning process, the developer is expecting to submit the applications in Q1 2020. Until the applications are submitted, your first point of contact should be the developer. I would therefore encourage you to contact EDF Energy directly ([email protected]), as you may have done. 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 applications to the Planning Inspectorate. If you would like more information about the Planning Act 2008 process, please see “Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others” which can be found along with other advice notes, here: [attachment 1]

30 April 2019
Various enquiries - anon - anon.
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The Planning Inspectorate Dear Sir/Madam, SCOTTISHPOWER RENEWABLE- EAST ANGLIA 1N & EAST ANGLIA 2 WIND FARMS I understand that you are not in a position to respond to our concerns regarding the proposal to build the required sub-stations for the off shore wind farms of EA1N & EA2 in the village of Friston until an application has been made. However, as you meet with SPR on a regular basis, there is certain information that I want to make sure you are aware of: 1. On the 11th of March the House of Commons discussed the fact that the free-for-all siting of these sub-stations causes needless damage to large swathes of the country side. Proposals for a strategic policy in order to coordinate a rational program for the siting of sub-stations are under discussion. You can listen to this session on George Freeman MP web site, link below. [attachment 1] 2. Phase 4 of the consultation period revealed that EA1N & EA2 may not be developed simultaneously the consequence being that the construction process could be extended from 3 to 6 years. Add onto this the interconnector projects and you could be talking about 9-10 years of construction and disruption from the coast to Friston. 3. Phase 4 consultation period presented the traffic plan for the proposal. This plan will have a seriously detrimental effect on the access roads into Aldeburgh, Snape and particularly Thorpness. These areas are the heart of and vital to the tourist economy of the area. SPR is not taking this effect into consideration. 4. The Friston site has received universal objection from all authorities. 5. The accepted Rochdale model allows for SPR’s proposals to remain vague until after permission is received. This opens up the potential for all sorts of changes to be made by SPR post permission. Exemplar to this is the change SPR made at Bawdsey. By changing the to the transmission system SPR rendered the cable routing facilities extremely limited in capacity and created the requirement for additional land fall, trenching and sub-stations site, hardly a non-material change. What could they get up to in and around Friston? Due to the DCO procedure you alone sit in judgement of SPR’s proposal. This is an arduous and unenviable position that is now being questioned by Parliament. As it stands the consultation procedure appears to be a box ticking exercise leading to a predetermined conclusion. I trust that this is not the case and that you are truly in a position to scrutinise SPR’s proposal. I have a few questions that SPR has not been able to answer. They are with regards to how the land-fall and on-shore site was chosen. I believe that it is important that you, too have answers to these questions. 1. Why did SPR decide that the sub-stations should be to the south of the pillions closest to the village of Friston as opposed to the north of the pillions and further away from the village? 2. What is the relationship between landowners in the Bawdsey area and Friston? 3. With regards to the initial search areas 1-7 what contact did SPR make with landowners in these zones and to what result? 4. How and when did they meet the owner of the property they are proposing to purchase in Friston? When was the deal made? 5. Who controls the site to the north of the pillions and what is proposed for this area? 6. We know in that in phase 3.5 SPR rejected the Broom Covert site because of what can be summarised as possible unacceptable commercial terms. The fact the area is deemed an AONB is not particularly relevant as permissible with-in the AONB are projects of national importance. The advantages of the Broom Covert site are well known: adjacent to a nuclear power plant & other sub-stations, road access, security facilities, very limited cable trenching required, etc. EDF obviously finds it difficult to ‘share’ the Broom Covert site but what has SPR done to secure land with-in their original zones 1-2? These too, have the advantage of the Broom Covert site but are not under EDF’s control. 7. The proposed Land Fall site is now in question. It was originally deemed by National Grid that SPR could make land fall at Sizewell. We now know that this is not Sizwell but the cliffs of Thorpness Heath and that access to this area is proposed through the holiday village of Thorpness. The stability of these cliffs are questionable. Throughout this process SPR has used the National Grid as an excuse for many of its proposals. To whom is National Grid accountable? Does the National Grid or SPR understand the effect that the construction traffic will have to Thorpness for a period of 3 - 9 years? Has there been a study to show how long it will take Thorpness to recover its reputation as a holiday destination once the works are finally completed? 8. I trust that before SPR submits its application in the 4th quarter of this year, that there will be a change in legislation and that a strategy will emerge for the location of the of sub-stations and items related to them that is not needlessly devastating to the country side. However, could you please make it evident to us how we register as an interested party once an application has been made, as I understand that there is a limited period for us to do so. I hope that part of your remit is to visit the area. It would be very nice for you to meet with the local community. Our concerns will then be very obvious to you. I attach my comments to SPR and our MP’s subsequent to the Stage 4 of the Consultation period. Kind regards, Mya Manakides
Dear Mya Manakides As you are aware the proposed applications by ScottishPower Renewables are at the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 process. The Planning Inspectorate is unable to consider representations about the merits of any application until it is accepted for Examination. Further information about the process can be found in the link below to the National Infrastructure Planning website: [attachment 2] Further information about Community Consultation, including who you should contact if you are not satisfied that the Applicant has or will take account of your comments (FAQ 2) can be found here: [attachment 3] As the applications have not yet been formally submitted at this time we are unable to consider your comments however please note that, should the application be received, the National Infrastructure Planning website will be updated accordingly and you may submit comments to us at that time. Should the application be accepted the ‘Registration and Relevant Representation form’ will be made available on the project page of the National Infrastructure Planning website during the Pre-examination stage. 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’: [attachment 4] Finally, I can confirm that should the application be accepted the appointed Examining Authority will visit the site of the proposed development in order to fully understand the proposal. Please see the link below to ‘Advice Note 8.5: The Examination; hearings and site inspections’ which provides further information: [attachment 5] Kind regards

29 April 2019
Mya Manakides
East Anglia ONE North Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The following persons sent responses to the Applicant’s 2019 statutory consultation to the Planning Inspectorate between January and April 2019: Mary Shipman, Tony Morley, Alan Bullard, Jan Bullard, Michael Shorrock, Elizabeth Clark, Josef Wondrak, Julie Tooke, Edmond Fivet, David Worrall, Nichola J Winter, Elizabeth Jarret, Nicholas Winter, Kay and Karl Moore, Jennifer Joyce, Andrew Bell, Jill Hills, John Walker and Kate Drayton.
The applications have not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, the proposals are currently at the pre-application stage of the planning process, the developer is expecting to submit the applications in Q4 2019. Until the applications are submitted, your first point of contact should be the developer. I would therefore encourage you to contact ScottishPower Renewables directly ([email protected] and [email protected]). 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 applications to the Planning Inspectorate. If you would like more information about the Planning Act 2008 process, please see “Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others” which can be found along with other advice notes, here: [attachment 1]

29 April 2019
Various enquiries - anon - anon.
East Anglia ONE North Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The following persons sent responses to the Applicant’s 2019 statutory consultation to the Planning Inspectorate between January and April 2019: Mary Shipman, Tony Morley, Alan Bullard, Jan Bullard, Michael Shorrock, Elizabeth Clark, Josef Wondrak, Julie Tooke, Edmond Fivet, David Worrall, Nichola J Winter, Elizabeth Jarret, Nicholas Winter, Kay and Karl Moore, Jennifer Joyce, Andrew Bell, Jill Hills, John Walker and Kate Drayton.
The applications have not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, the proposals are currently at the pre-application stage of the planning process, the developer is expecting to submit the applications in Q4 2019. Until the applications are submitted, your first point of contact should be the developer. I would therefore encourage you to contact ScottishPower Renewables directly ([email protected] and [email protected]). 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 applications to the Planning Inspectorate. If you would like more information about the Planning Act 2008 process, please see “Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others” which can be found along with other advice notes, here: [attachment 1]

29 April 2019
Various enquiries - anon - anon.
East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The Planning Inspectorate Dear Sir/Madam, SCOTTISHPOWER RENEWABLE- EAST ANGLIA 1N & EAST ANGLIA 2 WIND FARMS I understand that you are not in a position to respond to our concerns regarding the proposal to build the required sub-stations for the off shore wind farms of EA1N & EA2 in the village of Friston until an application has been made. However, as you meet with SPR on a regular basis, there is certain information that I want to make sure you are aware of: 1. On the 11th of March the House of Commons discussed the fact that the free-for-all siting of these sub-stations causes needless damage to large swathes of the country side. Proposals for a strategic policy in order to coordinate a rational program for the siting of sub-stations are under discussion. You can listen to this session on George Freeman MP web site, link below. [attachment 1] 2. Phase 4 of the consultation period revealed that EA1N & EA2 may not be developed simultaneously the consequence being that the construction process could be extended from 3 to 6 years. Add onto this the interconnector projects and you could be talking about 9-10 years of construction and disruption from the coast to Friston. 3. Phase 4 consultation period presented the traffic plan for the proposal. This plan will have a seriously detrimental effect on the access roads into Aldeburgh, Snape and particularly Thorpness. These areas are the heart of and vital to the tourist economy of the area. SPR is not taking this effect into consideration. 4. The Friston site has received universal objection from all authorities. 5. The accepted Rochdale model allows for SPR’s proposals to remain vague until after permission is received. This opens up the potential for all sorts of changes to be made by SPR post permission. Exemplar to this is the change SPR made at Bawdsey. By changing the to the transmission system SPR rendered the cable routing facilities extremely limited in capacity and created the requirement for additional land fall, trenching and sub-stations site, hardly a non-material change. What could they get up to in and around Friston? Due to the DCO procedure you alone sit in judgement of SPR’s proposal. This is an arduous and unenviable position that is now being questioned by Parliament. As it stands the consultation procedure appears to be a box ticking exercise leading to a predetermined conclusion. I trust that this is not the case and that you are truly in a position to scrutinise SPR’s proposal. I have a few questions that SPR has not been able to answer. They are with regards to how the land-fall and on-shore site was chosen. I believe that it is important that you, too have answers to these questions. 1. Why did SPR decide that the sub-stations should be to the south of the pillions closest to the village of Friston as opposed to the north of the pillions and further away from the village? 2. What is the relationship between landowners in the Bawdsey area and Friston? 3. With regards to the initial search areas 1-7 what contact did SPR make with landowners in these zones and to what result? 4. How and when did they meet the owner of the property they are proposing to purchase in Friston? When was the deal made? 5. Who controls the site to the north of the pillions and what is proposed for this area? 6. We know in that in phase 3.5 SPR rejected the Broom Covert site because of what can be summarised as possible unacceptable commercial terms. The fact the area is deemed an AONB is not particularly relevant as permissible with-in the AONB are projects of national importance. The advantages of the Broom Covert site are well known: adjacent to a nuclear power plant & other sub-stations, road access, security facilities, very limited cable trenching required, etc. EDF obviously finds it difficult to ‘share’ the Broom Covert site but what has SPR done to secure land with-in their original zones 1-2? These too, have the advantage of the Broom Covert site but are not under EDF’s control. 7. The proposed Land Fall site is now in question. It was originally deemed by National Grid that SPR could make land fall at Sizewell. We now know that this is not Sizwell but the cliffs of Thorpness Heath and that access to this area is proposed through the holiday village of Thorpness. The stability of these cliffs are questionable. Throughout this process SPR has used the National Grid as an excuse for many of its proposals. To whom is National Grid accountable? Does the National Grid or SPR understand the effect that the construction traffic will have to Thorpness for a period of 3 - 9 years? Has there been a study to show how long it will take Thorpness to recover its reputation as a holiday destination once the works are finally completed? 8. I trust that before SPR submits its application in the 4th quarter of this year, that there will be a change in legislation and that a strategy will emerge for the location of the of sub-stations and items related to them that is not needlessly devastating to the country side. However, could you please make it evident to us how we register as an interested party once an application has been made, as I understand that there is a limited period for us to do so. I hope that part of your remit is to visit the area. It would be very nice for you to meet with the local community. Our concerns will then be very obvious to you. I attach my comments to SPR and our MP’s subsequent to the Stage 4 of the Consultation period. Kind regards, Mya Manakides
Dear Mya Manakides As you are aware the proposed applications by ScottishPower Renewables are at the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 process. The Planning Inspectorate is unable to consider representations about the merits of any application until it is accepted for Examination. Further information about the process can be found in the link below to the National Infrastructure Planning website: [attachment 2] Further information about Community Consultation, including who you should contact if you are not satisfied that the Applicant has or will take account of your comments (FAQ 2) can be found here: [attachment 3] As the applications have not yet been formally submitted at this time we are unable to consider your comments however please note that, should the application be received, the National Infrastructure Planning website will be updated accordingly and you may submit comments to us at that time. Should the application be accepted the ‘Registration and Relevant Representation form’ will be made available on the project page of the National Infrastructure Planning website during the Pre-examination stage. 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’: [attachment 4] Finally, I can confirm that should the application be accepted the appointed Examining Authority will visit the site of the proposed development in order to fully understand the proposal. Please see the link below to ‘Advice Note 8.5: The Examination; hearings and site inspections’ which provides further information: [attachment 5] Kind regards

26 April 2019
Mya Manakides
East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting.
Please see attachment.

25 April 2019
Arora Group - anon.
Heathrow West
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Response to the Applicants 2019 consultation sent to the Planning Inspectorate with a request for comments.
The applications have not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, the proposals are currently at the pre-application stage of the planning process, the developer is expecting to submit the applications in Q4 2019. Until the applications are submitted, your first point of contact should be the developer. I note that you have already contacted ScottishPower Renewables. 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 applications to the Planning Inspectorate. In reference to your point about cumulative impact, the energy National Policy Statements (NPS) set out mitigation for cumulative negative effects by requiring the Secretary of State to consider accumulation of effects as a whole in their decision-making on individual applications for development consent. I would draw your attention to NPS EN-1 which provides more information in relation to policy, particularly chapter 4.2 Environmental Statement. And to Advice Note 17 on the Planning Inspectorate website, which is available with the other advice notes linked below, which provides more information on the legal context and obligations for cumulative effects assessment (CEA). As well as an overview of the CEA process the developer may adopt. If you would like more information about the Planning Act 2008 process, please see “Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others” which can be found along with other advice notes, here: [attachment 1]

24 April 2019
Mark Lowthers
East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Response to the Applicants 2019 consultation sent to the Planning Inspectorate with a request for comments.
The applications have not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, the proposals are currently at the pre-application stage of the planning process, the developer is expecting to submit the applications in Q4 2019. Until the applications are submitted, your first point of contact should be the developer. I note that you have already contacted ScottishPower Renewables. 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 applications to the Planning Inspectorate. In reference to your point about cumulative impact, the energy National Policy Statements (NPS) set out mitigation for cumulative negative effects by requiring the Secretary of State to consider accumulation of effects as a whole in their decision-making on individual applications for development consent. I would draw your attention to NPS EN-1 which provides more information in relation to policy, particularly chapter 4.2 Environmental Statement. And to Advice Note 17 on the Planning Inspectorate website, which is available with the other advice notes linked below, which provides more information on the legal context and obligations for cumulative effects assessment (CEA). As well as an overview of the CEA process the developer may adopt. If you would like more information about the Planning Act 2008 process, please see “Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others” which can be found along with other advice notes, here: [attachment 1]

24 April 2019
Mark Lowthers
East Anglia ONE North Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Please see the Attachment
Please see the Attachment

18 April 2019
Orstead Hornsea Project Four Limited - anon.
Hornsea Project Four Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please see my personal response to the Sizewell C third stage consultation. I am particularly concerned that we are still waiting for the revised EN6 Nuclear Policy and understand that the Government intends to bring out an energy white paper and yet I note that the developer intends to apply for a DCO Q1 next year.
We have recently responded to a query in relation to the continuing application of EN-6, which can be found here: [attachment 1];ipcadvice=66ee8866cc

17 April 2019
Mike Taylor
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
My name is Thomas Sweet and I am a local resident and long-standing member of the local community in Aldeburgh, Suffolk. I have a number of objections and concerns on Scottish Power Renewables proposed construction and operation of 2 further windfarms namely East Anglia ONE North and East Anglia TWO offshore windfarm and the onshore facilities that support the supply and transport of power onshore and onward connection to the National Grid at Friston in Suffolk. I have sent my concerns in this email to the relevant depts. of Scottish Power Renewables, Therese Coffey MP, the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, East Suffolk council memebers and Aldeburgh Town Council to consider and revise the proposals being touted by SPR as a Nationally Signficant Infrastructure Project (NSIP). I have read all of the relevant information and attended Phase 3 and 4 consultative presentations by Scottish Power Renewables (SPR) and various local action groups with the conclusion that I am completely against the development proposals for East Anglia ONE North and East Anglia TWO onshore development proposals The lengthy construction and operation of this facility will cause significant damage and disruption to our local communities and our unique and valuable asset, the Suffolk Coast & Heaths AONB which is a nationally protected landscape enjoyed by human and animal visitors and residents. These proposals are totally unacceptable and present serious risks which will undermine and destroy our local economic and ecological endeavours in the region to the extent the impacted area will suffer extensive damage and decline to the point it effectively becomes a coastal wasteland and forgotten backwater like, it seems, many of our other coastal communities. The impact of these proposals will destroy the local business and social infrastructure which the local communities have worked long and hard to establish and which, coupled with the AONB we all enjoy, make for a unique, attractive, enjoyable, well-managed and balanced environment which sustains a significant level of active interest and tourism with all that it brings with it. In my opinion the early stage consultation for project was poorly managed by SPR with inadequate and misleading communciation to our communities and other interested parties. Failures in scoping, consultation and significant discrepancies in the RAG risk management methodology deployed in the early stages have resulted in an unfair, biased and inconistent onshore appraisal presented in the Preliminary Environmental Information Report (PEIR) which underpins the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). My view is that the published assessment and presentations are skued towards a low-impact proposal hoping to get through the approval process under the guise of a "green Initiative" of renewable energy initiatives or Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIP) as stated by SPR in response to a request from Secretary of State for Busines, Energy and Industrial Strategy The impact is significant and needs to be considered as a whole with serious attention paid to other energy developments scheduled to occur simultaneously namely additional SPR initiatives, National Grid, NGV Inter-connectors and Sizewell C. Over the next 10 years or more, the local region will be laid waste and made dangerous with increased construction traffic as it is industrialised on a major scale. There have been unreasonable, broad assumptions made and the absence of mitigating risks have resulted in a totally unsuitable set of development sites and locations.My main concerns are: 1. SPR have continually failed to acknowledge the views, concerns and objections of the the residents of the affected areas of development namely, the residents of Friston affected by siting fof the substation and connection to National Grid and those along the areas of landfall, onshore cable corridor and road / routing alterations. It also appears that the statements from local authorities and MP questioning the rationale behind SPR indiviual and cumulative proposals have also been ignored or skimmed over in any consultation reports or assessments. 2. Construction traffic and proposed access via minor roads and by-ways is extremely disruptive and poses an unacceptable increase in danger to life and limb of local people and especially visitors to the area. Proposed changes to roads and environment to accommodate cable routes and large numbers of HGVs over a lengthy period of time will create immediate and ongoing danger and risks to the daily lives of residents, tourists and local businesses 3. SPR have failed to adequately consider and identify the cumulative combined impact that this proposal will have when the other simultaneous overlapping developments for other SPR initiatives, National Grid, NGV Inter-connectors and Sizewell C are taken into account. The overall impact is a damaging, shameful industrialisation of the Suffolk Heritage Coast. 4.The onshore components of this proposal would not have had to be pursued if SPR had successfully managed the existing Bawdsey to Bramford cable routes and substations in such a way that additional requirements and capacity arising from East Anglia ONE North and TWO could have been absorbed and integrated within the existing infrastructure. If SPR had real structured plans and strategy for renewable energy projects in the region then the Bawdsey to Bramford cabe route and substations could and should have been designed and implemented to accommodate all of the current and future SPR wind farm projects and output. SPR must be held accountable for this lack of foresight and planning and held to task by the Planning Inspectorate at the appropriate phase in the planning process for these new sets of proposals. From the information I have received from SPR and other relevant balanced sources, I believe this proposal displays SPR's opportunistic approach and lack of strategic planning of renewables projects from the start with submission of commercial bids and economic analysis for the relevant government bodies along with the contents of the PEIR and the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process for this development proposal whilst showing total disregard for the local environment AONB and its residents, visitors and supporters. I request that my concerns and objections are carefully considered and SPR take appropriate actions to revise the plans in response to the Secretary of State's request and develop and use the existing newly-built facilities between Bawdsey and Bramford.
I am writing in regard to your e-mail sent to the Planning Inspectorate on 26 March 2019. The applications have not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, the proposals are currently at the pre-application stage of the planning process, the developer is expecting to submit the applications in Q4 2019. I note you have contacted the developer as well as a number of other parties. 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 applications to the Planning Inspectorate. In reference to your point about cumulative impact, the energy National Policy Statements (NPS) set out mitigation for cumulative negative effects by requiring the Secretary of State to consider accumulation of effects as a whole in their decision-making on individual applications for development consent. I would draw your attention to NPS EN-1 which provides more information in relation to policy, particularly chapter 4.2 Environmental Statement. And to Advice Note 17, which is available with the other advice notes linked below, which provides more information on the legal context and obligations for cumulative effects assessment (CEA). As well as an overview of the CEA process the developer may adopt. If you would like more information about the Planning Act 2008 process, please see “Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others” which can be found along with other advice notes, here: [attachment 1]

16 April 2019
Thomas Sweet
East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
My name is Thomas Sweet and I am a local resident and long-standing member of the local community in Aldeburgh, Suffolk. I have a number of objections and concerns on Scottish Power Renewables proposed construction and operation of 2 further windfarms namely East Anglia ONE North and East Anglia TWO offshore windfarm and the onshore facilities that support the supply and transport of power onshore and onward connection to the National Grid at Friston in Suffolk. I have sent my concerns in this email to the relevant depts. of Scottish Power Renewables, Therese Coffey MP, the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, East Suffolk council memebers and Aldeburgh Town Council to consider and revise the proposals being touted by SPR as a Nationally Signficant Infrastructure Project (NSIP). I have read all of the relevant information and attended Phase 3 and 4 consultative presentations by Scottish Power Renewables (SPR) and various local action groups with the conclusion that I am completely against the development proposals for East Anglia ONE North and East Anglia TWO onshore development proposals The lengthy construction and operation of this facility will cause significant damage and disruption to our local communities and our unique and valuable asset, the Suffolk Coast & Heaths AONB which is a nationally protected landscape enjoyed by human and animal visitors and residents. These proposals are totally unacceptable and present serious risks which will undermine and destroy our local economic and ecological endeavours in the region to the extent the impacted area will suffer extensive damage and decline to the point it effectively becomes a coastal wasteland and forgotten backwater like, it seems, many of our other coastal communities. The impact of these proposals will destroy the local business and social infrastructure which the local communities have worked long and hard to establish and which, coupled with the AONB we all enjoy, make for a unique, attractive, enjoyable, well-managed and balanced environment which sustains a significant level of active interest and tourism with all that it brings with it. In my opinion the early stage consultation for project was poorly managed by SPR with inadequate and misleading communciation to our communities and other interested parties. Failures in scoping, consultation and significant discrepancies in the RAG risk management methodology deployed in the early stages have resulted in an unfair, biased and inconistent onshore appraisal presented in the Preliminary Environmental Information Report (PEIR) which underpins the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). My view is that the published assessment and presentations are skued towards a low-impact proposal hoping to get through the approval process under the guise of a "green Initiative" of renewable energy initiatives or Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIP) as stated by SPR in response to a request from Secretary of State for Busines, Energy and Industrial Strategy The impact is significant and needs to be considered as a whole with serious attention paid to other energy developments scheduled to occur simultaneously namely additional SPR initiatives, National Grid, NGV Inter-connectors and Sizewell C. Over the next 10 years or more, the local region will be laid waste and made dangerous with increased construction traffic as it is industrialised on a major scale. There have been unreasonable, broad assumptions made and the absence of mitigating risks have resulted in a totally unsuitable set of development sites and locations.My main concerns are: 1. SPR have continually failed to acknowledge the views, concerns and objections of the the residents of the affected areas of development namely, the residents of Friston affected by siting fof the substation and connection to National Grid and those along the areas of landfall, onshore cable corridor and road / routing alterations. It also appears that the statements from local authorities and MP questioning the rationale behind SPR indiviual and cumulative proposals have also been ignored or skimmed over in any consultation reports or assessments. 2. Construction traffic and proposed access via minor roads and by-ways is extremely disruptive and poses an unacceptable increase in danger to life and limb of local people and especially visitors to the area. Proposed changes to roads and environment to accommodate cable routes and large numbers of HGVs over a lengthy period of time will create immediate and ongoing danger and risks to the daily lives of residents, tourists and local businesses 3. SPR have failed to adequately consider and identify the cumulative combined impact that this proposal will have when the other simultaneous overlapping developments for other SPR initiatives, National Grid, NGV Inter-connectors and Sizewell C are taken into account. The overall impact is a damaging, shameful industrialisation of the Suffolk Heritage Coast. 4.The onshore components of this proposal would not have had to be pursued if SPR had successfully managed the existing Bawdsey to Bramford cable routes and substations in such a way that additional requirements and capacity arising from East Anglia ONE North and TWO could have been absorbed and integrated within the existing infrastructure. If SPR had real structured plans and strategy for renewable energy projects in the region then the Bawdsey to Bramford cabe route and substations could and should have been designed and implemented to accommodate all of the current and future SPR wind farm projects and output. SPR must be held accountable for this lack of foresight and planning and held to task by the Planning Inspectorate at the appropriate phase in the planning process for these new sets of proposals. From the information I have received from SPR and other relevant balanced sources, I believe this proposal displays SPR's opportunistic approach and lack of strategic planning of renewables projects from the start with submission of commercial bids and economic analysis for the relevant government bodies along with the contents of the PEIR and the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process for this development proposal whilst showing total disregard for the local environment AONB and its residents, visitors and supporters. I request that my concerns and objections are carefully considered and SPR take appropriate actions to revise the plans in response to the Secretary of State's request and develop and use the existing newly-built facilities between Bawdsey and Bramford.
I am writing in regard to your e-mail sent to the Planning Inspectorate on 26 March 2019. The applications have not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, the proposals are currently at the pre-application stage of the planning process, the developer is expecting to submit the applications in Q4 2019. I note you have contacted the developer as well as a number of other parties. 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 applications to the Planning Inspectorate. In reference to your point about cumulative impact, the energy National Policy Statements (NPS) set out mitigation for cumulative negative effects by requiring the Secretary of State to consider accumulation of effects as a whole in their decision-making on individual applications for development consent. I would draw your attention to NPS EN-1 which provides more information in relation to policy, particularly chapter 4.2 Environmental Statement. And to Advice Note 17, which is available with the other advice notes linked below, which provides more information on the legal context and obligations for cumulative effects assessment (CEA). As well as an overview of the CEA process the developer may adopt. If you would like more information about the Planning Act 2008 process, please see “Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others” which can be found along with other advice notes, here: [attachment 1]

16 April 2019
Thomas Sweet
East Anglia ONE North Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting.
Please see attached.

16 April 2019
Highways England - anon.
M54 to M6 Link Road
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Query about updates to the DCO and opportunities to respond
Please see Attached

12 April 2019
Lut Stewart
Cleve Hill Solar Park
Enquiry received via email
I am unclear as to how the published documents display the new scoping request information and previous scoping opinion and in particular “ the interaction between the previous opinion and the new scoping exercise. “ Can you also confirm the following has taken place? The Developer confirmed it will provide narrative and justification in the scoping request “ This is after all a response to the PI’s own requirement and so an answer to both these questions must surely be to hand?
As set out in Regulation 8 of the 2017 EIA regulations prior to consultation the applicant must: (a) ask the Secretary of State to adopt a screening opinion in respect of the development to which the application relates; or (b) notify the Secretary of State in writing that the person proposes to provide an environmental statement in respect of that development. The documents I have previously directed you towards contain information on how the Applicant has acted in accordance with this. The Inspectorate is still awaiting the new scoping request.

12 April 2019
Chris Edwards
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
See Attached
See Attached

10 April 2019
Emma Bateman
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
To whom it may concern, I am writing to you on behalf of my constituent Miss Emma Bateman, who has raised concerns regarding the planning of Sizewell C. Miss Bateman is concerned that the National Policy Statements for Energy, namely EN1 and EN6, that are the basis for the planning of Sizewell C conflict with the National Infrastructure Commission’s recommendation that only one nuclear station after Hinkley should be commissioned before 2025. The reason that the planning of Sizewell C and the National Infrastructure Commission’s recommendation may conflict is due to the fact that EDF and China General Nuclear Power Corporation are planning Sizewell C alongside a site at Bradwell. The National Infrastructure Commission had also recommended that any further sites commissioned should be done on a one by one basis rather than planning for a set. Hence, Miss Bateman is concerned about the impact this may have on the proposed Sizewell C site. I would be grateful if you could outline what steps are being taken by the Sizewell Planning Inspectorate to resolve this seeming dilemma, of having plans for two nuclear sites but only the ability to build one.
Thank you for your email. Ms Bateman also wrote directly to us on this matter and we responded today with the information below, including an apology for the delay in our response: We note that the Government has committed to making a response in 2019 to the recommendations outlined in the National Infrastructure Assessment (NIA) dated July 2018, this will be ahead of an application being made by EDF Energy for the Sizewell C New Nuclear Power Station, which is due to be submitted in Q1 2020. In the meantime, ahead of the Government’s response to the NIA, it is for the Environment Agency and other statutory consultees to decide how they wish to consider the NIA recommendations within their responses. As you may be aware, the Government is working to produce a new National Policy Statement for Nuclear Power, and in December 2017 it published a ‘consultation on the siting criteria and process for a new national policy statement for nuclear power with single reactor capacity over 1 gigawat beyond 2025’ which can be found on this link: [attachment 1] In July 2018, the Government published its response to this consultation, which can be found on this link: [attachment 2] on page 40 of this document it states: ‘3.9 Government continues to believe nuclear has an important role to play in the UK’s energy future as we transition to the low-carbon economy. The public will have an opportunity to comment on the ongoing need for nuclear as part of the consultation on the draft new nuclear NPS. Continuing application of EN-6 3.10 EN-6 remains in force in its entirety for use in development consent applications for new nuclear power stations on sites listed in EN-6 that are capable of deployment before the end of 2025. Sites listed in EN-6 on which a new nuclear power station is anticipated to deploy after 2025 will continue to be considered appropriate sites and retain strong Government support during the designation of the new NPS. 3.11 The owners of such sites are able to make development consent applications, and a decision on whether to grant consent will be made under section 105 of the Planning Act 2008. Government is confident that both EN-1 and EN-6 incorporate information, assessments and statements which will continue to be important and relevant to the Secretary of State’s development consent decision for projects which will deploy after 2025. This includes statements of the need for nuclear power, as well as environmental and other assessments that continue to be relevant for projects which will deploy after 2025. As such, in deciding whether or not to grant consent to such a development the Secretary of State would, under section 105(2)(c) of the Planning Act 2008 , have regard to the content of EN1 and EN-6. Where there is no relevant change in circumstances it is likely that significant weight would be given to the policy in EN-1 and EN-6. 3.12 When designated, the new NPS will have effect for the purposes of section 104 of the Planning Act 2008 for listed sites capable of deploying between 2026-2035. Furthermore, a published new NPS in draft form would be an important and relevant consideration under section 105(2)(c) of the Planning Act 2008 in relation to any a decision is taken on an application for Development Consent before the new NPS is designated.’ I hope you find this information to be helpful.

10 April 2019
Peter Aldous MP
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
To whom it may concern. I copy below an email i have just sent to SPR with regard to their controversial planning process for on shore sub stations in East Suffolk. There is little point in me writing huge amounts about this as its a simple matter. This project will KILL this part of the country...which may not be of concern to some but it is to the people who live here. The cumulative effect of this and 6 repeat 6 other projects condensed into one region by dint of a combination of a cynical or disinterested private sector and Government inefficiency on a grand scale is beyond belief or tolerance of our society ( or should be !) I hope most sincerely that in the execution of your public duty you will find time to appreciate that common sense should prevail , and prevent what will be one of the largest destructions of our country since the Second World War- the difference here being that this will be permanent !! Yours sincerely
Advice given: I am writing in regard to your e-mail sent to the Planning Inspectorate on 25 March 2019. The applications have not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, the proposals are currently at the pre-application stage of the planning process, the developer is expecting to submit the applications in Q4 2019. Until the applications are submitted, your first point of contact should be the developer. I note that you have already contacted ScottishPower Renewables. 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 applications to the Planning Inspectorate. If you would like more information about the Planning Act 2008 process, please see “Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others” which can be found along with other advice notes, here: [attachment 1] Of the advice notes linked above of particular interest to you may be “Advice Note 17: Cumulative Effects Assessment”. This provides a description of the legal context and obligations placed on an applicant, with respect to cumulative effects under national planning policy and the Environmental Impact Assessments Regulations.

08 April 2019
Graeme Murray
East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
To whom it may concern. I copy below an email i have just sent to SPR with regard to their controversial planning process for on shore sub stations in East Suffolk. There is little point in me writing huge amounts about this as its a simple matter. This project will KILL this part of the country...which may not be of concern to some but it is to the people who live here. The cumulative effect of this and 6 repeat 6 other projects condensed into one region by dint of a combination of a cynical or disinterested private sector and Government inefficiency on a grand scale is beyond belief or tolerance of our society ( or should be !) I hope most sincerely that in the execution of your public duty you will find time to appreciate that common sense should prevail , and prevent what will be one of the largest destructions of our country since the Second World War- the difference here being that this will be permanent !! Yours sincerely
I am writing in regard to your e-mail sent to the Planning Inspectorate on 25 March 2019. The applications have not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, the proposals are currently at the pre-application stage of the planning process, the developer is expecting to submit the applications in Q4 2019. Until the applications are submitted, your first point of contact should be the developer. I note that you have already contacted ScottishPower Renewables. 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 applications to the Planning Inspectorate. If you would like more information about the Planning Act 2008 process, please see “Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others” which can be found along with other advice notes, here: [attachment 1] Of the advice notes linked above of particular interest to you may be “Advice Note 17: Cumulative Effects Assessment”. This provides a description of the legal context and obligations placed on an applicant, with respect to cumulative effects under national planning policy and the Environmental Impact Assessments Regulations.

08 April 2019
Graeme Murray
East Anglia ONE North Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
This is now my third response to the consultations. I do not feel any of my detailed concerns have been addressed to my satisfaction. The consultation process is clearly regarded as nothing more than a box ticking exercise. Furthermore, the Sizewell Cx2 phase 4 consultations are ongoing, adding a very concrete dimension to the cumulative impacts which have not been addressed. To be brief: 1. I do not agree with the landfall site at Sizewell / Thorpeness selected for connection to the National Grid. This must be urgently reviewed. 2. No brownfield sites have been proposed. National Grid must be held to account for their grid connection proposal. There appears to be absolutely no oversight of their role in these proposals. 3. No consideration has been given to the cumulative impacts of the proposed new nuclear Sizewell Cx2. 4. There is a petition for an offshore ringmain to connect all North Sea windfarms to the grid. The original proposal in 2012 could not justify the cost for just a few windfarms. This has now dramatically changed and the proposal must be reconsidered and taken forward. 5. The Bawdsey to Bramford fiasco is a disgrace. SPR explanation of why this route was rejected is not satisfactory. 6. Scottish Power has not given sufficient consideration to all the responses that say Friston is not a suitable site. In conclusion I would like to say that the Government needs to take charge of the all the various energy proposals and provide a coherent strategic plan. It is simply not acceptable to allow rampant and uncontrolled industrialisation of our increasingly precious countryside and protected nature reserves. There are clear alternatives and in this area the costs do not justify any benefits. I sincerely hope that these proposals will be reconsidered.
I am writing in regard to your e-mail sent to the Planning Inspectorate on 26 March 2019. The applications have not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, the proposals are currently at the pre-application stage of the planning process, the developer is expecting to submit the applications in Q4 2019. Until the applications are submitted, your first point of contact should be the developer. I note that you have already contacted ScottishPower Renewables. 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 applications to the Planning Inspectorate. If you would like more information about the Planning Act 2008 process, please see “Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others” which can be found along with other advice notes, here: [attachment 1] Of the advice notes linked above of particular interest to you may be “Advice Note 17: Cumulative Effects Assessment”. This provides a description of the legal context and obligations placed on an applicant, with respect to cumulative effects under national planning policy and the Environmental Impact Assessments Regulations.

08 April 2019
Andrea Smith
East Anglia ONE North Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
This is now my third response to the consultations. I do not feel any of my detailed concerns have been addressed to my satisfaction. The consultation process is clearly regarded as nothing more than a box ticking exercise. Furthermore, the Sizewell Cx2 phase 4 consultations are ongoing, adding a very concrete dimension to the cumulative impacts which have not been addressed. To be brief: 1. I do not agree with the landfall site at Sizewell / Thorpeness selected for connection to the National Grid. This must be urgently reviewed. 2. No brownfield sites have been proposed. National Grid must be held to account for their grid connection proposal. There appears to be absolutely no oversight of their role in these proposals. 3. No consideration has been given to the cumulative impacts of the proposed new nuclear Sizewell Cx2. 4. There is a petition for an offshore ringmain to connect all North Sea windfarms to the grid. The original proposal in 2012 could not justify the cost for just a few windfarms. This has now dramatically changed and the proposal must be reconsidered and taken forward. 5. The Bawdsey to Bramford fiasco is a disgrace. SPR explanation of why this route was rejected is not satisfactory. 6. Scottish Power has not given sufficient consideration to all the responses that say Friston is not a suitable site. In conclusion I would like to say that the Government needs to take charge of the all the various energy proposals and provide a coherent strategic plan. It is simply not acceptable to allow rampant and uncontrolled industrialisation of our increasingly precious countryside and protected nature reserves. There are clear alternatives and in this area the costs do not justify any benefits. I sincerely hope that these proposals will be reconsidered.
I am writing in regard to your e-mail sent to the Planning Inspectorate on 26 March 2019. The applications have not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, the proposals are currently at the pre-application stage of the planning process, the developer is expecting to submit the applications in Q4 2019. Until the applications are submitted, your first point of contact should be the developer. I note that you have already contacted ScottishPower Renewables. 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 applications to the Planning Inspectorate. If you would like more information about the Planning Act 2008 process, please see “Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others” which can be found along with other advice notes, here: [attachment 1] Of the advice notes linked above of particular interest to you may be “Advice Note 17: Cumulative Effects Assessment”. This provides a description of the legal context and obligations placed on an applicant, with respect to cumulative effects under national planning policy and the Environmental Impact Assessments Regulations.

08 April 2019
Andrea Smith
East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Comments on the draft Development Consent Order (DCO)
Please see attached

05 April 2019
DB Symmetry (Hinckley) Limited - anon.
Hinckley National Rail Freight Interchange
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
See meeting note attached

03 April 2019
Highways England - anon.
M3 Junction 9 Improvement
response has attachments
s51 advice to the Applicant
Please see attached

27 March 2019
Immingham B Ltd - anon.
VPI Immingham OCGT
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please can you guide me to the new scoping information request and explanation of difference, and also the Planning Inspectorate’s response to this? I understand this is a requirement for the pre consultation process.
The S46 Notification and the Acknowledgment of this, both published on the website: [attachment 1] should provide the necessary information.

27 March 2019
Chris Edwards
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
response to the Applicant’s 2019 statutory consultation, including comments on the standard of consultation, sent to the Planning Inspectorate on 25 March 2019
The applications have not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, the proposals are currently at the pre-application stage of the planning process, the developer is expecting to submit the applications in Q4 2019. Until the applications are submitted, your first point of contact should be the developer. I would therefore encourage you to contact ScottishPower Renewables directly ([email protected] and [email protected]). 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 applications to the Planning Inspectorate. If you have concerns about the way in which the developer is carrying out the pre-application consultation, you should let them know as soon as possible and allow them the opportunity to respond to any issues you raise. You can also make your local authority aware of your concerns. The Inspectorate will request the relevant local authorities’ view on the adequacy of the consultation at the point the application is submitted. If you would like more information about the Planning Act 2008 process, please see: “Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others” which can be found along with other advice notes, here: [attachment 1]

26 March 2019
E Thomas
East Anglia ONE North Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached meeting notes

26 March 2019
Wheelabrator Technologies Inc (WTI) - anon.
Wheelabrator Kemsley Generating Station (K3) and Wheelabrator Kemsley North (WKN) Waste to Energy Facility
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
See attached meeting note

26 March 2019
Highways England - anon.
M25 junction 10/A3 Wisley interchange improvement
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
response to the Applicant’s 2019 statutory consultation, including comments on the standard of consultation, sent to the Planning Inspectorate on 25 March 2019
The applications have not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, the proposals are currently at the pre-application stage of the planning process, the developer is expecting to submit the applications in Q4 2019. Until the applications are submitted, your first point of contact should be the developer. I would therefore encourage you to contact ScottishPower Renewables directly ([email protected] and [email protected]). 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 applications to the Planning Inspectorate. If you have concerns about the way in which the developer is carrying out the pre-application consultation, you should let them know as soon as possible and allow them the opportunity to respond to any issues you raise. You can also make your local authority aware of your concerns. The Inspectorate will request the relevant local authorities’ view on the adequacy of the consultation at the point the application is submitted. If you would like more information about the Planning Act 2008 process, please see: “Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others” which can be found along with other advice notes, here: [attachment 1]

26 March 2019
E Thomas
East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting regarding the proposed London Resort
See meeting note attached

22 March 2019
London Resort Company Holdings - anon.
The London Resort
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update Meeting.
Please see attached meeting note

22 March 2019
DB Symmetry (Hinckley) Limited - anon.
Hinckley National Rail Freight Interchange
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Pre-Submission Meeting with Norfolk County Council
Please see attached

21 March 2019
Norfolk County Council - anon.
Great Yarmouth Third River Crossing
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I wish to object to the following project, could you please help me as how I can do this
Thank you for contacting the Planning Inspectorate regarding the Wheelabrator Harewood Waste to Energy Facility.

The application has not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate for examination and as such we don’t hold any jurisdiction over it.

Please, at this stage, make your views available to the developer whose details are on the letter you enclosed with your email dated 14 March 2019.

If the application is accepted by the Planning Inspectorate for examination, the public will be able to register with the Planning Inspectorate and provide a summary of their views of the application in writing by submitting a ‘Relevant Representation’ in order to inform the Examining Authority.

Advice Note 8 on the Planning Inspectorate’s website provides an overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public. The Advice Note can be accessed following the below link:
[attachment 1]

20 March 2019
Michael Prydderch
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached meeting note.

19 March 2019
Highways England - anon.
A38 Derby Junctions
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Meeting Note
Please see attached

18 March 2019
Equinor UK
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Inception Meeting
Please see attached.

18 March 2019
Equinor UK
Sheringham and Dudgeon Extension Projects
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see meeting note attached

15 March 2019
Heathrow Airport Limited - anon.
Expansion of Heathrow Airport (Third Runway)
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting.
Please see attachment.

12 March 2019
London Luton Airport Limited - anon.
London Luton Airport Expansion
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I have received a slew of documents, apparently from Heathrow Airport Limited, insisting that I complete a questionnaire and return it to an obscure company which hides behinds the initials WSP. Their website ([attachment 1]) reveals nothing. A Wikipedia page ([attachment 2]) states that they are based in Canada, and have a breathtaking history of mergers and takeovers since 2012, but fails to disclose either the work they do (if any) or their reputation. I am told they will publish my personal data in a "Book of Reference" for public inspection, and that examples may be found on your website. However, they do not say where on your website: and neither your FAQ page nor your search engine have been of any assistance. 1. Please can you point me at something which explains (for the general public) what your understanding of these "books" is? 2. Do you consider it acceptable for a company (Heathrow Airport Ltd.) to insist that UK residents supply personal data to companies outside the European Economic Area (EEA), with NO assurance about data protection? 3. What is your estimation of WSP's reputation, reliability, and trustworthiness? 4. Where would you advise members of the public to check the trustworthiness and probity of companies, whether based in the UK or elsewhere, demanding personal data? 5. Can you clarify to what extent Heathrow Airport is a British company, since the takeover by the Spanish firm Ferrovial, and how this will be affected by Brexit?
By way of background, where a Development Consent Order (DCO) would seek powers of Compulsory Acquisition and/ or Temporary Possession, sections 44, 57 and 59 of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) establish that in seeking to identify all land interests and persons who may be entitled to make a relevant claim an applicant must make diligent inquiry. Paragraph 50 of the Department for Communities and Local Government’s Planning Act 2008: Guidance on the pre-application process explains (available here: [attachment 3] “It is the applicant’s responsibility to demonstrate at submission of the application that due diligence has been undertaken in identifying all land interests and applicants should make every reasonable effort to ensure that the Book of Reference (which records and categorises those land interests) is up to date at the time of submission.” In this respect, issuing land referencing questionnaires in the format provided by Heathrow Airport Ltd is one of a number of approaches routinely applied by DCO applicants in seeking to identify all land interests and therefore satisfy the due diligence test set out in the PA2008. In consideration of this test, the land referencing process, from an applicant’s perspective, has an important role in the preparation of an application for a DCO which would seek powers of Compulsory Acquisition and/ or Temporary Possession. From the perspective of a person with an interest in the land, volunteering details about their interest(s) in land to a DCO applicant will help to ensure that their interest(s) are reflected accurately in any application, and ensure that their ability to engage in the examination of that application is not compromised. Notwithstanding this, questionnaire recipients are not mandated to volunteer information about their interest(s) in land to a DCO applicant, if they do not wish to do so. Importantly choosing not to volunteer land interest information to a DCO applicant would have no implications for a person’s status and ability to take part in the examination of an application for a DCO, or for any future claims by a person for compensation under the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965; the Land Compensation Act 1973; and/ or s152 of the PA2008. The term ‘Book of Reference’ is defined in Regulation 7 of The Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009 (available here: [attachment 4]) and at Annex D of the Department for Communities and Local Government’s Planning Act 2008: guidance related to procedures for the compulsory acquisition of land (available here: [attachment 5]). There are examples of this type of document attached to each relevant live project on the National Infrastructure Planning website, for example: • A303 Amesbury to Berwick Down (‘A303 Stonehenge’): [attachment 6] • Thanet Extension Offshore Wind Farm: [attachment 7] Please contact Heathrow Airport Ltd directly with any questions about its (i) status, (ii) data protection policies and (iii) consultants.

12 March 2019
John Hunt
Expansion of Heathrow Airport (Third Runway)
response has attachments
a meeting was held between the applicant and the Inspectorate to discuss a delay to the preliminary meeting
please see attached meeting note

01 March 2019
Gazeley and Ashfield - anon.
Rail Central (Strategic Rail Freight Interchange)
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Inception meeting
Please see attached note

28 February 2019
Invicta - Yasin Ramadan
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting with Thurrock Council
Please see the attached meeting note

28 February 2019
Thurrock Council - anon.
Lower Thames Crossing
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting.
Please see attached.

28 February 2019
Highways England - anon.
M54 to M6 Link Road
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting Note
Please see attached.

28 February 2019
Highways England - anon.
A1 Birtley to Coal House Improvement Scheme
response has attachments
Please see attached
Please see attached

27 February 2019
Substation Action Save East Suffolk - anon.
East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm
response has attachments
Please see attached
Please see attached

27 February 2019
Substation Action Save East Suffolk - anon.
East Anglia ONE North Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
You wrote the following in your email below. “Please note, the Planning Inspectorate had a meeting last week with EDF, a copy of the note for this meeting will be shortly be published on the Sizewell C project webpage. “ However I cannot find this. I am writing directly because on previous occasions I did not receive a response when addressing the mailbox and had to press for one. Please can you provide this not of the meeting above? Many thanks
I can confirm that the meeting note you refer to has now been published. It can be found here: [attachment 1];ipcadvice=29da8ba7a2

27 February 2019
Chris Edwards
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

26 February 2019
Norfolk County Council - anon.
Great Yarmouth Third River Crossing
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached

25 February 2019
Ørsted Hornsea Project Four Limited - anon.
Hornsea Project Four Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting with ScottishPower Renewables, East Suffolk Council and Suffolk County Council
Please see Attached

25 February 2019
anon.
East Anglia ONE North Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting with ScottishPower Renewables, East Suffolk Council and Suffolk County Council
Please see attached

25 February 2019
anon.
East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
EN010012 - EDF Sizewell C/D EN010077 & EN010078 - Scottish Power EA1N & EA2 I am writing to request extensions to consultations for the above Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects in East Suffolk All projects are in final stage consultation and all consulting February & March 2019. I am a tourism business manager (Beach View Holiday Park) and local resident at Friston. It is physically impossible to have fair consultation and fair feedback for these NSIPs as there is simply too much going on, too much to digest and too much to consider. Please advise how this request can/will be considered? These proposals and the stress of these consultations are making people ill. All this while the local authority is also consulting on a final draft Local Plan, which, by the way I have not had a chance to fully digest or comment on either. Please take this as a formal complaint on final stage NSIP consultations listed above.
Dear Mr Thorp Request to Extend NSIP Pre-Application Consultations Thank you for your email dated 23 February 2019 addressed to Sarah Richards, the Planning Inspectorate’s Chief Executive. Your email has been passed to myself for response, as I am part of the Planning Inspectorate’s case team. I apologise for the delay in our response. The Planning Inspectorate is aware that several Developers are currently undertaking pre-application consultation in the area. In respect of the duration of the consultation period, section 45 of the Planning Act 2008 prescribes that a Developer’s statutory pre-application consultation must run for a minimum of 28 days. We are aware of the following consultation periods: - Sizewell C: 4th January 2019 – 29th March 2019 - East Anglia One North: 11th February 2019 – 26th March 2019 - East Anglia Two: 11th February 2019 – 26th March 2019. In this instance we therefore advise you to contact the Developers directly with your request for an extension. Once an application for a Development Consent Order is submitted (following the pre- application stage), the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State), has a statutory duty to invite comments from all relevant Local Authorities about whether a Developer has complied with its statutory pre-application consultation duties (see sections 42, 47 and 48 of the Planning Act 2008). Responses received are referred to as ‘Adequacy of Consultation Representations’. All applications for a Development Consent Order must be accompanied by a ‘Consultation Report’. The Consultation Report is prepared under section 37 of the Planning Act 2008 and must give details of: a) what has been done in compliance with sections 42, 47 and 48 of the Planning Act 2008 in relation to a proposed application that has become the application; b) any relevant responses; and c) the account taken of any relevant responses. In the Acceptance period (ie the 28 days following the formal submission of an application) the Planning Inspectorate will scrutinise all the application documents, including the evidence provided in the Consultation Report, applying the statutory tests set out in the Planning Act 2008. By the end of the Acceptance period the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) must decide, in accordance with the tests in section 55 of the Planning Act 2008, whether or not to accept an application for examination. In reaching this decision, section 55(4) makes explicit that the Planning Inspectorate must have regard to the Consultation Report and any Adequacy of Consultation Representations made by Local Authority consultees. In this instance it is normal practise for the Planning Inspectorate to advise you to also provide your comments on the consultation undertaken to the Local Authority, to make them aware of your points, ahead of providing their Adequacy of Consultation Representation; however we note that you have already copied the Local Authorities into your email. I hope you find the above information to be helpful. Yours sincerely Kathryn Dunne Infrastructure Planning Lead

23 February 2019
Nicholas Thorp
East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
EN010012 - EDF Sizewell C/D EN010077 & EN010078 - Scottish Power EA1N & EA2 I am writing to request extensions to consultations for the above Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects in East Suffolk All projects are in final stage consultation and all consulting February & March 2019. I am a tourism business manager (Beach View Holiday Park) and local resident at Friston. It is physically impossible to have fair consultation and fair feedback for these NSIPs as there is simply too much going on, too much to digest and too much to consider. Please advise how this request can/will be considered? These proposals and the stress of these consultations are making people ill. All this while the local authority is also consulting on a final draft Local Plan, which, by the way I have not had a chance to fully digest or comment on either. Please take this as a formal complaint on final stage NSIP consultations listed above.
Dear Mr Thorp Request to Extend NSIP Pre-Application Consultations Thank you for your email dated 23 February 2019 addressed to Sarah Richards, the Planning Inspectorate’s Chief Executive. Your email has been passed to myself for response, as I am part of the Planning Inspectorate’s case team. I apologise for the delay in our response. The Planning Inspectorate is aware that several Developers are currently undertaking pre-application consultation in the area. In respect of the duration of the consultation period, section 45 of the Planning Act 2008 prescribes that a Developer’s statutory pre-application consultation must run for a minimum of 28 days. We are aware of the following consultation periods: - Sizewell C: 4th January 2019 – 29th March 2019 - East Anglia One North: 11th February 2019 – 26th March 2019 - East Anglia Two: 11th February 2019 – 26th March 2019. In this instance we therefore advise you to contact the Developers directly with your request for an extension. Once an application for a Development Consent Order is submitted (following the pre- application stage), the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State), has a statutory duty to invite comments from all relevant Local Authorities about whether a Developer has complied with its statutory pre-application consultation duties (see sections 42, 47 and 48 of the Planning Act 2008). Responses received are referred to as ‘Adequacy of Consultation Representations’. All applications for a Development Consent Order must be accompanied by a ‘Consultation Report’. The Consultation Report is prepared under section 37 of the Planning Act 2008 and must give details of: a) what has been done in compliance with sections 42, 47 and 48 of the Planning Act 2008 in relation to a proposed application that has become the application; b) any relevant responses; and c) the account taken of any relevant responses. In the Acceptance period (ie the 28 days following the formal submission of an application) the Planning Inspectorate will scrutinise all the application documents, including the evidence provided in the Consultation Report, applying the statutory tests set out in the Planning Act 2008. By the end of the Acceptance period the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) must decide, in accordance with the tests in section 55 of the Planning Act 2008, whether or not to accept an application for examination. In reaching this decision, section 55(4) makes explicit that the Planning Inspectorate must have regard to the Consultation Report and any Adequacy of Consultation Representations made by Local Authority consultees. In this instance it is normal practise for the Planning Inspectorate to advise you to also provide your comments on the consultation undertaken to the Local Authority, to make them aware of your points, ahead of providing their Adequacy of Consultation Representation; however we note that you have already copied the Local Authorities into your email. I hope you find the above information to be helpful. Yours sincerely Kathryn Dunne Infrastructure Planning Lead

23 February 2019
Nicholas Thorp
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
EN010012 - EDF Sizewell C/D EN010077 & EN010078 - Scottish Power EA1N & EA2 I am writing to request extensions to consultations for the above Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects in East Suffolk All projects are in final stage consultation and all consulting February & March 2019. I am a tourism business manager (Beach View Holiday Park) and local resident at Friston. It is physically impossible to have fair consultation and fair feedback for these NSIPs as there is simply too much going on, too much to digest and too much to consider. Please advise how this request can/will be considered? These proposals and the stress of these consultations are making people ill. All this while the local authority is also consulting on a final draft Local Plan, which, by the way I have not had a chance to fully digest or comment on either. Please take this as a formal complaint on final stage NSIP consultations listed above.
Dear Mr Thorp Request to Extend NSIP Pre-Application Consultations Thank you for your email dated 23 February 2019 addressed to Sarah Richards, the Planning Inspectorate’s Chief Executive. Your email has been passed to myself for response, as I am part of the Planning Inspectorate’s case team. I apologise for the delay in our response. The Planning Inspectorate is aware that several Developers are currently undertaking pre-application consultation in the area. In respect of the duration of the consultation period, section 45 of the Planning Act 2008 prescribes that a Developer’s statutory pre-application consultation must run for a minimum of 28 days. We are aware of the following consultation periods: - Sizewell C: 4th January 2019 – 29th March 2019 - East Anglia One North: 11th February 2019 – 26th March 2019 - East Anglia Two: 11th February 2019 – 26th March 2019. In this instance we therefore advise you to contact the Developers directly with your request for an extension. Once an application for a Development Consent Order is submitted (following the pre- application stage), the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State), has a statutory duty to invite comments from all relevant Local Authorities about whether a Developer has complied with its statutory pre-application consultation duties (see sections 42, 47 and 48 of the Planning Act 2008). Responses received are referred to as ‘Adequacy of Consultation Representations’. All applications for a Development Consent Order must be accompanied by a ‘Consultation Report’. The Consultation Report is prepared under section 37 of the Planning Act 2008 and must give details of: a) what has been done in compliance with sections 42, 47 and 48 of the Planning Act 2008 in relation to a proposed application that has become the application; b) any relevant responses; and c) the account taken of any relevant responses. In the Acceptance period (ie the 28 days following the formal submission of an application) the Planning Inspectorate will scrutinise all the application documents, including the evidence provided in the Consultation Report, applying the statutory tests set out in the Planning Act 2008. By the end of the Acceptance period the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) must decide, in accordance with the tests in section 55 of the Planning Act 2008, whether or not to accept an application for examination. In reaching this decision, section 55(4) makes explicit that the Planning Inspectorate must have regard to the Consultation Report and any Adequacy of Consultation Representations made by Local Authority consultees. In this instance it is normal practise for the Planning Inspectorate to advise you to also provide your comments on the consultation undertaken to the Local Authority, to make them aware of your points, ahead of providing their Adequacy of Consultation Representation; however we note that you have already copied the Local Authorities into your email. I hope you find the above information to be helpful. Yours sincerely Kathryn Dunne Infrastructure Planning Lead

23 February 2019
Nicholas Thorp
East Anglia ONE North Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
See meeting note attached

22 February 2019
Highways England - anon.
M3 Junction 9 Improvement
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached.

18 February 2019
ScottishPower Renewables (UK) Limited - anon.
East Anglia ONE North Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached.

18 February 2019
ScottishPower Renewables (UK) Limited - anon.
East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Inception Meeting Note
Please see attached

14 February 2019
Island Green Power
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
A meeting was held between Highways England and the Inspectorate.
A note of the meeting is attached.

12 February 2019
Highways England - anon.
A38 Derby Junctions
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting

11 February 2019
IRNG Solar (Little Crow) Ltd - anon.
Little Crow Solar Park
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting and Draft Documents review
Please see attached

08 February 2019
Norfolk Boreas Limited - anon.
Norfolk Boreas
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Meeting to discuss Airspace matters specifically in respect of NSIP aviation projects
Please see attached meeting note

01 February 2019
Civil Aviation Authority - anon.
General
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
PINS comments on draft application documents
See attached

31 January 2019
Esso Petroleum Company, Limited - anon.
Southampton to London Pipeline Project
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see document attached.

31 January 2019
Thurrock Power Ltd - anon.
Thurrock Flexible Generation Plant
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Draft documents and submission meeting
Please see the attached note of the meeting

31 January 2019
Highways England - anon.
M25 junction 10/A3 Wisley interchange improvement
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached meeting note

31 January 2019
Arora Group - anon.
Heathrow West
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Inception meeting.
Please see attached meeting note.

31 January 2019
Gatwick Airport Limited - anon.
Gatwick Airport Northern Runway
Enquiry received via email
I read that failure to adhere to a voluntary scoping opinion is conclusively fatal to a DCO in terms of the new EU settlement. Is that PINS's understanding too?
The Inspectorate is unable to provide any further comment on this matter, which relates to the current examination process and would rightly be addressed by the Examining Authority. Noting your status as an Interested Party to the Manston Airport examination, if you wish to make further representations on this matter the Inspectorate would encourage you to make such representations at the appropriate time, to the Examining Authority, through the examination process.

25 January 2019
Mark de Pulford
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
In a previous question, I asked whether a development consent obligation could be imposed upon the applicant during or as a result of the examination.

Could you also tell me whether it might be PINS that would initiate this or whether other parties could do so such as local authorities?
An Examining Authority (ExA) may consider that a development consent obligation is necessary to make a development acceptable (eg in order to mitigate impacts) and could ask an Applicant during an Examination to enter into/provide one. If the Applicant refused to enter into/provide one, and the ExA considered it so material to the acceptability of the development, then this could lead to a recommendation for refusal of development consent.

Other parties such as local authorities could make representations to an ExA about the need for an obligation which would be considered during the Examination.

24 January 2019
David Green
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached meeting note

24 January 2019
Boston Energy Alternative Facility - anon.
Boston Alternative Energy Facility (BAEF)
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Meeting with the No Third Runway Coalition to discuss the Planning Act 2008 process.
Please see meeting note.

22 January 2019
No Third Runway Coalition - anon.
Expansion of Heathrow Airport (Third Runway)
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
A project update meeting took place on 22nd January 2019
A note of that meeting is attached

22 January 2019
OGCI - anon.
The Net Zero Teesside Project
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

18 January 2019
Sunnica Ltd - anon.
Sunnica Energy Farm
response has attachments
Inception meeting between Cierco ,The Planning Inspectorate and The Welsh Government
See attached meeting note

17 January 2019
Cierco and the Welsh Government - anon.
General
Enquiry received via email
Dear Adem,

Thank you for your enquiry regarding statutory requirements for applicants.

Statutory requirements are in regards to funding. Please see Regulation 5 (h) — ‘Applications for orders granting development consent’, of The Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009.

You may also wish to review DCLG guidance:
•https://infrastructure.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/legislation-and-advice/guidance/
•https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/236454/Planning_Act_2008_-_Guidance_related_to_procedures_for_the_compulsory_acquisition_of_land.pdf

Best wishes,
Dear Sirs,

I am considering making an application for a DCO for what I consider to be a nationally important strategic project. Please can you tell me the statutory requirements that I/my company will need to fulfil as an applicant (e.g. financial standing, relevant experience in the sector etc.).

Regards

15 January 2019
Adem Mehmet
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Site visit and project update meeting
Please see attached

15 January 2019
Arora Group - anon.
Heathrow West
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Meeting Update
Please see attached

10 January 2019
Highways England - anon.
M25 junction 10/A3 Wisley interchange improvement
Enquiry received via email
I am writing to ask about the stage 3 consultation for sizewell C which is due to begin on January 4th 2019. EDF have a statutory obligation to adhere to the Statement of Community Consultation (SoCC) during the Sizewell C preparations. "Section 47 of the PA2008 requires applicants to conduct its consultation in line with the SoCC. " In the SOCC, it says " It is intended that all stakeholders (i.e. local community, statutory stakeholders and other interested parties) will be consulted at each of the three formal stages of consultation." It goes on to say that "Public and stakeholder engagement will also be undertaken in the Outer Area " . The outer area plan for the Sizewell C development has a 20 mile radius around the site and includes lowestoft, felixtowe and ipswich . These towns were consulted with during the first 2 stages of the consultation, but there are no plans to hold any public exhibitions in any of these 3 towns during the 3rd stage of the consultation. I think that this is remiss of EDF as they have not answered many of the questions that have been asked by residents during the first 2 stages of the consultation. Please can I ask what the statutory requirement is in accordance with the SoCC. Are EDF obliged to consult in all the areas they suggested in the SoCC.
As you note the statutory requirement for an Applicant in regards to its Statement of Community Consultation (SoCC) is set out in section(s) 47 of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008). Specifically s47(7) states the applicant must carry out consultation in accordance with the proposals set out in the statement. Further to this, in the Acceptance period (i.e. the 28 days following the formal submission of an application) the Planning Inspectorate will scrutinise all of the application documents, including the evidence provided in the Consultation Report, applying the statutory tests set out in s55 of the PA2008. By the end of the Acceptance period the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) must decide, in accordance with the tests in s55 of the PA2008, whether or not an application should be accepted for Examination. In reaching the above decision, s55(4) of the PA2008 makes explicit that the Planning Inspectorate must have regard to the Consultation Report and any Adequacy of Consultation Representations made by local authority consultees. Adequacy of Consultation Representations are defined by s55(5) of the PA2008 as representations about whether the Applicant complied with its duties under sections 42, 47 and 48. They are requested from all relevant local authorities on receipt of an application for development consent

21 December 2018
Emma Bateman
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Enquiry from Sim Evan-Jones by email on 25 November 2018:

Hi,

I live in faversham and I’m really not happy about Cleve Hill Solar ‘Park’. It an amazing unspoilt location that will be devastated. Its way too big a development and Faversham is already losing acres and acres of farm land to the building of 1000 homes across 4 massive Greenfield sites.
Advice given by email on 19 December 2018:

Dear Sim Evan-Jones,

Thank you for your recent email where you indicate that you are not happy about the Cleve Hill Solar Park application.

On the 14 December the 2018 the Secretary of State decided that the application for the proposed Cleve Hill Solar Park satisfied the acceptance tests under section 55 of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) and was accepted for Examination.

If you would like to register your views on this application we recommend that you register as an Interested Party (IP). This means that you will be invited to the Preliminary Meeting where you can ask to speak about the timetable for the Examination and other important organisational details.

Once the examination of the application has started, as an Interested Party, you will also then have an opportunity to provide further written evidence on any issues that concern you and will be able to speak at hearings. If registered as an Interested Party you will be informed of the progress of the examination, and once it is concluded, you will be notified of the decision.

If you do not register as an Interested Party, there is no guarantee that your representation will be taken into account. Whilst the Examining Authority does have discretion to accept written representations even from people who have not submitted a valid relevant representation, this should not be relied upon because people who are not Interested Parties have no legal entitlement to participate.

We strongly advise that the registration process is used by all persons wishing to be involved in the examination. Unfortunately it is not possible for us to register on your behalf therefore we recommend that you register online through our website:

[attachment 1]

Please note that the deadline to submit a relevant representation is on Monday 28 January 2019.

Further information on how to get involved in the planning process, and register and become an interested party, can be found in the Planning Inspectorate’s Advice Note 8.3 available at: [attachment 2].

Advice on participating in the examination can also be found in Advice Note 8.5 available at: [attachment 3].

DCLG Guidance Planning Act 2008: Guidance for the examination of applications for development consent is also available at:

[attachment 4].

This guidance sets out in paragraphs 15-34 guidance on who can take part in examining the application

If you have any further queries please do not hesitate to contact the Cleve Hill Solar Park Case team at the project's mailbox at the following email address [email protected]

19 December 2018
Sim Evan-Jones
Cleve Hill Solar Park
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Enquiry from Michael Wilcox by email on 13 December 2018:

Hi,

I have a few questions about registering as an Interested Party. I know the registration period is not yet open pending acceptance.

1. If the project is accepted (tomorrow), am I right in thinking that the registration period is likely to open within a couple of days?

2. I have noticed that on some NSIPs the registration period doesn't open until a few weeks after acceptance. What is the most likely timescale for this project?

3. Please can you tell me about registering as an Interested Party for the CHSP project by post? Does everyone who wants to do it by post have to call the phone number on the site, or can you make a printable form available online?

4. Will paper forms be returnable by freepost or will people have to pay for stamps?

5. What consideration will be given if the period of registration spans the Christmas break? Does the 28 days include bank holidays?

6. Do you have any examples of what the paper form looks like?
Advice given by email on 19 December 2018:

Dear Mr Wilcox,

Thank you for your email of 13 December 2018 where you enquired about how to submit a Relevant Representation on a paper form.

As you are aware the Application was submitted to the Planning Inspectorate on the 16 November 2019. On the 14 December 2018 the Secretary of State decided that the application for the proposed Cleve Hill Solar Park satisfied the acceptance tests under section 55 of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) and it was accepted for Examination.

If you would like to register your views on this application we recommend that you register as an Interested Party (IP). This means that you will be invited to the Preliminary Meeting where you can ask to speak about the timetable for the Examination and other important organisational details.

Once the Examination of the application has started, as an IP, you will also then have an opportunity to provide further written evidence on any issues that concern you and will be able to speak at hearings. If registered as an IP you will be informed of the progress of the examination, and once it is concluded, you will be notified of the decision.

If you do not register as an IP there is no guarantee that your representation will be taken into account. Whilst the Examining Authority does have discretion to accept written representations even from people who have not submitted a valid relevant representation, this should not be relied upon because people who are not Interested Parties have no legal entitlement to participate.

We strongly advise that the registration process is used by all persons wishing to be involved in the examination. You can submit a Relevant Representation and request as an IP either electronically or by post. If you wish to register online you can do this through our website see link below;

[attachment 1]

If you wish to submit a Relevant Representation and register as an IP on a paper form you will need to either call the Planning Inspectorate on 0303 444 5000, or contact the Cleve Hill Case Team via the project mailbox [email protected]. Then a paper form containing a unique reference will be sent to you. The form askes the same questions as the online form.

If you wish to have a paper form sent to you please can you submit your let us have your address. The Planning Inspectorate does not provide a Freepost envelope.

The Relevant Representation period ends on Monday 28 January 2019.

Further information on how to get involved in the planning process, and register and become an interested party, can be found in the Planning Inspectorate’s Advice Note 8.3 available at: [attachment 2].

Advice on participating in the examination can also be found in Advice Note 8.5 available at: [attachment 3].

DCLG Guidance Planning Act 2008: Guidance for the examination of applications for development consent is also available at:

[attachment 4].

This guidance sets out in paragraphs 15-34 guidance on who can take part in examining the application

If you have any further queries please do not hesitate to contact the Cleve Hill Solar Park Case team at the project's mailbox at the following email address:
[email protected]

19 December 2018
Michael Wilcox
Cleve Hill Solar Park
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Enquiry from Stephen Ledger by email on 08 December 2018:

Dear Sir/Madam,

I have attended open sessions and read the November 2018 Cleve Hill Solar Park Community Newsletter with their final changes and have concluded that I am against their proposals based on the following:-

In summary the proposal takes away agricultural land which is used for growing grain and creates an inappropriate industrial type site on the Internationally important North Kent Marshes. These two strategic disadvantages outweigh the benefits gained from solar power which are more appropriately sited on land which has less agricultural production capabilities and do not impact on such an Internationally important wildlife area.

I farm on some of the other North Kent Marshes and the new Agricultural Bill is all about increasing productivity, which I have planned to do. To take away so much agricultural land from grain production works against the strategy being established by the new Agricultural Bill.

The proposed area has Ramsar Wetlands to its West, North and East with designations of Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and Special Protection Area (SPA). Taking an overview, by looking at a the map of the wider area, the site forms part of the North Kent Marshes unbroken rural landscape. This extends to the east of the Ramsar designation even though not included in its designation. If approved it will mean that this unbroken rural landscape will be fragmented with too large an industrial area.

I find the late inclusion of the seawall area in the proposal inappropriate. Undue influence may/has be/been put on the Environment Agency (EA) who had already published their Medway Estuary and Swale Strategy (MEASS). There is now a mention of a plan B which was not in the EA's original plan. The EA must remain totally independent to follow through on their own plans rather than now come under undue pressure to work with the narrower needs of a Solar Farm.

The Cleve Hill Solar Park newsletter reads as though many local concerns have been taken into consideration, which no doubt some have. However, to extend the area and then state that the area to be covered by solar panels is reduced to 45.5% of the development area is simply a play on words and does not change the fact that, if approved, an enormous rural/wildlife area will be covered by solar panels which, in my view, is simply too high a cost. The benefit is only around half a percentage of the UK's energy needs, for houses, and less when other energy needs are taken into consideration.

We need to increase renewable energy but to use the capacity of the Cleve Hill station for solar power is perhaps the wrong strategy when this capacity should be reserved for the needs of a future off-shore wind farm as that technology develops.

In more detail I believe that the type of solar panels are far too high for such a flat area and hence will have a significant adverse impact on the rural area.
Advice given by email on 19 December 2018:

Dear Mr Ledger

Thank you for your recent email in which you give your reasons why you are against the Cleve Hill Solar Park proposals.

The Application was submitted to the Planning Inspectorate on the 16 November 2019, and on the 14 December the 2018 the Secretary of State decided that the application for the proposed Cleve Hill Solar Park satisfied the acceptance tests under section 55 of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) and was accepted for Examination.

If you would like to register your views on this application we recommend that you register as an Interested Party (IP). This means that you will be invited to the Preliminary Meeting where you can ask to speak about the timetable for the Examination and other important organisational details.

Once the examination of the application has started, as an Interested Party, you will also then have an opportunity to provide further written evidence on any issues that concern you and will be able to speak at hearings. If registered as an Interested Party you will be informed of the progress of the examination, and once it is concluded, you will be notified of the decision.

If you do not register as an Interested Party, there is no guarantee that your representation will be taken into account. Whilst the Examining Authority does have discretion to accept written representations even from people who have not submitted a valid relevant representation, this should not be relied upon because people who are not Interested Parties have no legal entitlement to participate.

We strongly advise that the registration process is used by all persons wishing to be involved in the examination. Unfortunately it is not possible for us to register on your behalf therefore we recommend that you register online through our website:

[attachment 1]

Please note that the deadline to submit a relevant representation is on Monday 28 January 2019.

Further information on how to get involved in the planning process, and register and become an interested party, can be found in the Planning Inspectorate’s Advice Note 8.3 available at: [attachment 2].

Advice on participating in the examination can also be found in Advice Note 8.5 available at: [attachment 3].

DCLG Guidance Planning Act 2008: Guidance for the examination of applications for development consent is also available at:

[attachment 4].

This guidance sets out in paragraphs 15-34 guidance on who can take part in examining the application

If you have any further queries please do not hesitate to contact the Cleve Hill Solar Park Case team at the project's mailbox at the following email address:
[email protected]

19 December 2018
Stephen Ledger
Cleve Hill Solar Park
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Inception and project overview meeting
Please see attached

18 December 2018
Highways England and representatives - anon.
M3 Junction 9 Improvement
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

18 December 2018
Highways England - anon.
Great Yarmouth Third River Crossing
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
A meeting was held between the Applicant and the Inspectorate
Please see that attached note of the meeting

18 December 2018
AQUIND Limited
AQUIND Interconnector
Enquiry received via post
The enquirer asked why she had received correspondence from the Planning Inspectorate and made reference to potential claims for compensation.
You have received a letter from the Planning Inspectorate inviting you to the Preliminary Meeting because the Applicant (Suffolk County Council) has identified you as a person who may be entitled to make a relevant claim as a result of the Development Consent Order being implemented.

Claims for compensation are dealt with outside of the Planning Act 2008 process and therefore do not fall within the remit of the Planning Inspectorate.

In order to make an enquiry about a claim for compensation, please contact Suffolk County Council directly using the details below:

Jon Barnard
Suffolk County Council
8 Russell Road
Ipswich
Suffolk
IP1 2DH

Tel. 01473 264279

Notwithstanding the issue of compensation, because you have been identified by Suffolk County Council on the basis described above, you have the right to participate in the Examination of the application for the Lake Lothing Third Crossing. Our letter confirming the Examination Timetable has been sent to you today under cover of a separate letter. Please do not hesitate to contact us again if you need advice about the decision-making process under the Planning Act 2008, and in particular the opportunities for you to engage.

17 December 2018
Jean Read
Lake Lothing Third Crossing
response has attachments
Project meeting update
Please see attached

17 December 2018
Ørsted Hornsea Project Four Limited - anon.
Hornsea Project Four Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer wrote to the Planning Inspectorate setting out an objection to the Proposed Development.
The proposed application by Norfolk County Council is at the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 process. Please see our website for information about the process including how, when and with whom to engage: [attachment 1]

The Planning Inspectorate cannot consideration representations about the merits of an application until it is accepted for Examination and the ‘Registration and Relevant Representation Form’ is made available in the Pre-examination stage. For more information in this respect see in particular our ‘Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination’: [attachment 2]. Based on current information we expect the application to be submitted to the Inspectorate in Q1 2019.

In the meantime please engage with Norfolk County Council directly in respect of any concerns you have about the Proposed Development.

13 December 2018
UK Power Networks - anon.
Great Yarmouth Third River Crossing
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Evidence Plan Steering Group Meeting with Ørsted, East Riding of Yorkshire Council, Natural England and the Marine Management Organisation, GoBe Consultants, Royal HaskoningDHV
Please see attached

12 December 2018
anon.
Hornsea Project Four Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Meeting Update
Please see attached

11 December 2018
EDF Energy - anon.
Hinkley Point C New Nuclear Power Station Material Change 1
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Enquiry sent to the Secretary of State
I am writing in regard to your correspondence sent to the Secretary of State dated 17 November 2018 in relation to the above proposals. Your letter has been passed to the Planning Inspectorate for response as we administer the Planning Act 2008 process under which these proposals will be considered.
The applications have not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, the proposals are currently at the pre-application stage of the planning process, the developer is expecting to submit the applications in Q4 2019.
Until the applications are submitted, your first point of contact should be the developer. I would therefore encourage you to contact Scottish Power Renewables directly ([email protected] and [email protected]). 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 applications to the Planning Inspectorate.
If you would like more information about the Planning Act 2008 process, please see “Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning
process for members of the public and others” which can be found along with other advice notes, here: [attachment 1]

10 December 2018
Elaine Hunt
East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Enquiry sent to the Secretary of State
I am writing in regard to your correspondence sent to the Secretary of State dated 17 November 2018 in relation to the above proposals. Your letter has been passed to the Planning Inspectorate for response as we administer the Planning Act 2008 process under which these proposals will be considered.
The applications have not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, the proposals are currently at the pre-application stage of the planning process, the developer is expecting to submit the applications in Q4 2019.
Until the applications are submitted, your first point of contact should be the developer. I would therefore encourage you to contact Scottish Power Renewables directly ([email protected] and [email protected]). 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 applications to the Planning Inspectorate.
If you would like more information about the Planning Act 2008 process, please see “Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning
process for members of the public and others” which can be found along with other advice notes, here: [attachment 1]

10 December 2018
Elaine Hunt
East Anglia ONE North Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting 10 December 2018
See attached meeting note

10 December 2018
Scottish Power Renewables - anon.
East Anglia ONE North Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting 10 December 2018
See attached meeting note

10 December 2018
Scottish Power Renewables - anon.
East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please see attached
Dear Mr Edwards

Thank you for your emails dated 23 November, 29 November and 3 December regarding EDF Energy’s proposal for Sizewell C, and Suffolk Coastal District Council’s (SCDC) Local Plan consultation.

In your emails you refer to Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) screening. The purpose of the screening process is to establish whether a proposal is considered to be EIA development or not. Under the 2009 and 2017 EIA regulations, nuclear power stations are ‘Schedule 1’ developments and are therefore automatically considered to be EIA development, therefore these types of development do not require to be ‘screened’ at the pre-application stage.

The EIA Regulations require a developer, prior to undertaking their statutory (section 42 of the Planning Act 2008) consultation, to either request a screening opinion, or to notify the Secretary of State that their proposal is EIA development. The Planning Inspectorate acknowledged (in paragraph 1.2 of the EIA Scoping Opinion dated June 2014), that EDF Energy made this notification.

EIA is a process which developers undertake at the pre-application stage, the result of which is an Environmental Statement (ES) which is submitted with their application. Therefore the environmental work/assessments are an ongoing process at this stage, however the developer is required to consult on their Preliminary Environmental Information which will be included in their consultation documents at the start of 2019.

The Planning Inspectorate does not host developer’s pre-application consultation material on our website, we publish EIA screening and scoping documents in addition to requests for advice and our responses, however you are advised to use the developer’s website and to liaise directly with the developer at the pre-application stage to inform them of the comments you have on their proposal, this will enable them to consider your comments prior to finalising their proposal and submitting their application.

In regard to the land which you refer to in your email which is included in both EDF Energy’s and SCDC’s consultations, both parties will have the opportunity to provide comments to each other on their proposals.

Please note, the Planning Inspectorate had a meeting last week with Edf, a copy of the note for this meeting will be shortly be published on the Sizewell C project webpage.

As per your previous emails, I would be grateful if you could please ensure that all future correspondence continues to be sent to the Sizewell C mailbox rather than individual mailboxes.

I hope you find this information to be helpful.

07 December 2018
Leave the Layers Alone - Chris Edwards
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Enquiry sent to the Secretary of State
I am writing in regard to your email sent to the Secretary of State dated 11 November 2018 in relation to the above proposals. Your email has been passed to the Planning Inspectorate for response as we administer the Planning Act 2008 process under which these proposals will be considered.
The applications have not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, the proposals are currently at the pre-application stage of the planning process, the developer is expecting to submit the applications in Q4 2019.
I note you have already submitted your comments to ScottishPower Renewables ( the developer ), this is important to enable your views to be considered before their proposals are finalised and the applications submitted. As you may already be aware, the developer is intending to undertake further pre-application consultation in early 2019.
If you would like more information about the Planning Act 2008 process, please see the “Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others” which can be found along with other advice notes, here: [attachment 1]

06 December 2018
Karen and Andrew Lewis
East Anglia ONE North Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Enquiry sent to the Secretary of State.
I am writing in regard to your email sent to the Secretary of State dated 11 November 2018 in relation to the above proposals. Your email has been passed to the Planning Inspectorate for response, as we administer the Planning Act 2008 process under which these proposals will be considered.
The Applications have not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, the proposals are currently at the pre-application stage of the planning process, the developer is expecting to submit the applications in Q4 2019.
It is important that the developer is made aware of your comments at the pre-application stage, to enable them to consider these points before finalising their proposals and submitting the applications. I therefore strongly encourage you to contact Scottish Power Renewables directly on [email protected] and [email protected] if you haven’t already done so, with your comments on their proposals.
If you would like more information about the Planning Act 2008 process, please see the “Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others” which can be found along with other advice, here: [attachment 1]

06 December 2018
Jennifer Hall
East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Enquiry sent to the Secretary of State
I am writing in regard to your email sent to the Secretary of State and others dated 11 November 2018 in relation to the above proposals. Your email has been passed to the Planning Inspectorate for response as we administer the Planning Act 2008 process under which these proposals will be considered.
The applications have not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, the proposals are currently at the pre-application stage of the planning process, the developer is expecting to submit the applications in Q4 2019.
I note you have already submitted your comments to ScottishPower Renewables (the developer), this is important to enable your views to be considered before their proposals are finalised and the applications submitted. As you may already be aware, the developer is intending to undertake further pre-application consultation in early 2019.
If you would like more information about the Planning Act 2008 process, please see the “Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others” which can be found along with other advice notes, here: [attachment 1]

06 December 2018
Peter Mayo
East Anglia ONE North Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Enquiry sent to the Secretary of State.
I am writing in regard to your email sent to the Secretary of State and others dated 11 November 2018 in relation to the above proposals. Your email has been passed to the Planning Inspectorate for response as we administer the Planning Act 2008 process under which these proposals will be considered.
The applications have not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, the proposals are currently at the pre-application stage of the planning process, the developer is expecting to submit the applications in Q4 2019.
I note you have already submitted your comments to ScottishPower Renewables (the developer), this is important to enable your views to be considered before their proposals are finalised and the applications submitted. As you may already be aware, the developer is intending to undertake further pre-application consultation in early 2019.
If you would like more information about the Planning Act 2008 process, please see the “Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others” which can be found along with other advice notes, here: [attachment 1]

06 December 2018
Peter Mayo
East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Enquiry sent to the Secretary of State
I am writing in regard to your email sent to the Secretary of State dated 11 November 2018 in relation to the above proposals. Your email has been passed to the Planning Inspectorate for response as we administer the Planning Act 2008 process under which these proposals will be considered.
The applications have not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, the proposals are currently at the pre-application stage of the planning process, the developer is expecting to submit the applications in Q4 2019.
I note you have already submitted your comments to ScottishPower Renewables, this is important to enable your views to be considered before their proposals are finalised and the applications submitted. As you may already be aware, the developer is intending to undertake further pre-application consultation in early 2019.
If you would like more information about the Planning Act 2008 process, please see the “Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others” which can be found along with other advice notes, here: [attachment 1]

06 December 2018
Karen and Andrew Lewis
East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Enquiry sent to the Secretary of State
I am writing in regard to your email sent to the Secretary of State dated 11 November 2018 in relation to the above proposals. Your email has been passed to the Planning Inspectorate for response, as we administer the Planning Act 2008 process under which these proposals will be considered.
The Applications have not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, the proposals are currently at the pre-application stage of the planning process, the developer is expecting to submit the applications in Q4 2019.
It is important that the developer is made aware of your comments at the pre-application stage, to enable them to consider these points before finalising their proposals and submitting the applications. I therefore strongly encourage you to contact Scottish Power Renewables directly on [email protected] and [email protected] if you haven’t already done so, with your comments on their proposals.
If you would like more information about the Planning Act 2008 process, please see the “Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others” which can be found along with other advice, here: [attachment 1]

06 December 2018
Michael Bowkis
East Anglia ONE North Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Enquiry sent to the Secretary of State
I am writing in regard to your email sent to the Secretary of State dated 11 November 2018 in relation to the above proposals. Your email has been passed to the Planning Inspectorate for response as we administer the Planning Act 2008 process under which these proposals will be considered.
The applications have not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, the proposals are currently at the pre-application stage of the planning process, the developer is expecting to submit the applications in Q4 2019.
I note you have already submitted your comments to ScottishPower Renewables ( the developer ), this is important to enable your views to be considered before their proposals are finalised and the applications submitted. As you may already be aware, the developer is intending to undertake further pre-application consultation in early 2019.
If you would like more information about the Planning Act 2008 process, please see the “Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others” which can be found along with other advice notes, here: [attachment 1]

06 December 2018
Bridget Barclay
East Anglia ONE Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Enquiry sent to the Secretary of State
I am writing in regard to your email sent to the Secretary of State dated 11 November 2018 in relation to the above proposals. Your email has been passed to the Planning Inspectorate for response as we administer the Planning Act 2008 process under which these proposals will be considered.
The applications have not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, the proposals are currently at the pre-application stage of the planning process, the developer is expecting to submit the applications in Q4 2019.
I note you have already submitted your comments to Scottish Power Renewables (the developer), this is important to enable your views to be considered before their proposals are finalised and the applications submitted. As you may already be aware, the developer is intending to undertake further pre-application consultation in early 2019.
If you would like more information about the Planning Act 2008 process, please see the “Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others” which can be found along with other advice notes, here: [attachment 1]

06 December 2018
Oka Last
East Anglia ONE North Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Enquiry sent to the Secretary of State.
I am writing in regard to your email sent to the Secretary of State dated 11 November 2018 in relation to the above proposals. Your email has been passed to the Planning Inspectorate for response as we administer the Planning Act 2008 process under which these proposals will be considered.
The applications have not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, the proposals are currently at the pre-application stage of the planning process, the developer is expecting to submit the applications in Q4 2019.
I note you have already submitted your comments to ScottishPower Renewables (the developer), this is important to enable your views to be considered before their proposals are finalised and the applications submitted. As you may already be aware, the developer is intending to undertake further pre-application consultation in early 2019.
If you would like more information about the Planning Act 2008 process, please see the “Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others” which can be found along with other advice notes, here: [attachment 1]

06 December 2018
Deborah Bowkis
East Anglia ONE North Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Enquiry sent to the Secretary of State
I am writing in regard to your correspondence sent to the Secretary of State dated 12 November 2018 in relation to the above proposals. Your e-mail has been passed to the Planning Inspectorate for response as we administer the Planning Act 2008 process under which these proposals will be considered.
The applications have not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, the proposals are currently at the pre-application stage of the planning process, the developer is expecting to submit the applications in Q4 2019.
I note you have already submitted your comments to ScottishPower Renewables, this is important to enable your views to be considered before their proposals are finalised and the applications submitted. As you may already be aware, the developer is intending to undertake further pre-application consultation in early 2019.
If you would like more information about the Planning Act 2008 process, please see “Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others” which can be found along with other advice notes, here: [attachment 1]

06 December 2018
Graham Noye
East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Enquiry sent to the Secretary of State
I am writing in regard to your email sent to the Secretary of State dated 11 November 2018 in relation to the above proposals. Your email has been passed to the Planning Inspectorate for response, as we administer the Planning Act 2008 process under which these proposals will be considered.
The Applications have not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, the proposals are currently at the pre-application stage of the planning process, the developer is expecting to submit the applications in Q4 2019.
It is important that the developer is made aware of your comments at the pre-application stage, to enable them to consider these points before finalising their proposals and submitting the applications. I therefore strongly encourage you to contact Scottish Power Renewables directly on [email protected] and [email protected] if you haven’t already done so, with your comments on their proposals.
If you would like more information about the Planning Act 2008 process, please see the “Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others” which can be found along with other advice, here: [attachment 1]

06 December 2018
Michael Bowkis
East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Enquiry sent to the Secretary of State.
I am writing in regard to your email sent to the Secretary of State dated 12 November 2018 in relation to the above proposals. Your email has been passed to the Planning Inspectorate for response as we administer the Planning Act 2008 process under which these proposals will be considered.
The applications have not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, the proposals are currently at the pre-application stage of the planning process, the developer is expecting to submit the applications in Q4 2019.
I note you have already submitted your comments to ScottishPower Renewables (the developer), this is important to enable your views to be considered before their proposals are finalised and the applications submitted. As you may already be aware, the developer is intending to undertake further pre-application consultation in early 2019.
If you would like more information about the Planning Act 2008 process, please see the “Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others” which can be found along with other advice notes, here: [attachment 1]

06 December 2018
Meg Amsden
East Anglia ONE Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Enquiry sent to the Secretary of State
I am writing in regard to your correspondence sent to the Secretary of State dated 5 November 2018 in relation to the above proposals. Your letter has been passed to the Planning Inspectorate for response as we administer the Planning Act 2008 process under which these proposals will be considered.
The applications have not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, the proposals are currently at the pre-application stage of the planning process, the developer is expecting to submit the applications in Q4 2019.
Until the applications are submitted, your first point of contact should be the developer. I would therefore encourage you to contact ScottishPower Renewables directly ([email protected] and [email protected]). 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 applications to the Planning Inspectorate.
If you would like more information about the Planning Act 2008 process, please see “Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others” which can be found along with other advice notes, here: [attachment 1]

06 December 2018
Ann Townell
East Anglia ONE North Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Enquiry sent to the Secretary of State.
I am writing in regard to your email sent to the Secretary of State dated 10 November 2018 in relation to the above proposals. Your email has been passed to the Planning Inspectorate for response as we administer the Planning Act 2008 process under which these proposals will be considered.
The applications have not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, the proposals are currently at the pre-application stage of the planning process, the developer is expecting to submit the applications in Q4 2019.
I note you have already submitted your comments to ScottishPower Renewables (the developer), this is important to enable your views to be considered before their proposals are finalised and the applications submitted. As you may already be aware, the developer is intending to undertake further pre-application consultation in early 2019.
If you would like more information about the Planning Act 2008 process, please see the “Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others” which can be found along with other advice notes, here: [attachment 1]

06 December 2018
Jenny Labbett
East Anglia ONE North Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Enquiry sent to the Secretary of State.
I am writing in regard to your email sent to the Secretary of State dated 11 November 2018 in relation to the above proposals. Your email has been passed to the Planning Inspectorate for response, as we administer the Planning Act 2008 process under which these proposals will be considered.
The Applications have not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, the proposals are currently at the pre-application stage of the planning process, the developer is expecting to submit the applications in Q4 2019.
It is important that the developer is made aware of your comments at the pre-application stage, to enable them to consider these points before finalising their proposals and submitting the applications. I therefore strongly encourage you to contact Scottish Power Renewables directly on [email protected] and [email protected] if you haven’t already done so, with your comments on their proposals.
If you would like more information about the Planning Act 2008 process, please see the “Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others” which can be found along with other advice, here: [attachment 1]

06 December 2018
Jennifer Hall
East Anglia ONE North Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Enquiry sent to the Secretary of State
I am writing in regard to your email sent to the Secretary of State dated 11 November 2018 in relation to the above proposals. Your email has been passed to the Planning Inspectorate for response as we administer the Planning Act 2008 process under which these proposals will be considered.
The applications have not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, the proposals are currently at the pre-application stage of the planning process, the developer is expecting to submit the applications in Q4 2019.
I note you have already submitted your comments to Scottish Power Renewables (the developer), this is important to enable your views to be considered before their proposals are finalised and the applications submitted. As you may already be aware, the developer is intending to undertake further pre-application consultation in early 2019.
If you would like more information about the Planning Act 2008 process, please see the “Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others” which can be found along with other advice notes, here: [attachment 1]

06 December 2018
Oka Last
East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Enquiry sent to the Secretary of State.
I am writing in regard to your email sent to the Secretary of State and others, dated 11 November 2018 in relation to the above proposals. Your email has been passed to the Planning Inspectorate for response as we administer the Planning Act 2008 process under which these proposals will be considered.
The applications have not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, the proposals are currently at the pre-application stage of the planning process, the developer is expecting to submit the applications in Q4 2019.
I note you have already submitted your comments to ScottishPower Renewables, this is important to enable your views to be considered before their proposals are finalised and the applications submitted. The developer is intending to undertake further pre-application consultation in early 2019, I therefore hope this addresses your concerns in relation to the consultation undertaken to date. I note you have also sent your comments to the local authority, who will have the opportunity to submit a representation on the adequacy of the developer’s consultation, once the applications are submitted.
If you would like more information about the Planning Act 2008 process, please see the “Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others” which can be found along with other advice notes, here: [attachment 1]

06 December 2018
Peter Chadwick
East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Enquiry sent to the Secretary of State
I am writing in regard to your email sent to the Secretary of State and others dated 11 November 2018 in relation to the above proposals. Your email has been passed to the Planning Inspectorate for response as we administer the Planning Act 2008 process under which these proposals will be considered.
The applications have not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, the proposals are currently at the pre-application stage of the planning process, the developer is expecting to submit the applications in Q4 2019.
I note you have already submitted your comments to ScottishPower Renewables (the developer), this is important to enable your views to be considered before their proposals are finalised and the applications submitted. As you may already be aware, the developer is intending to undertake further pre-application consultation in early 2019.
If you would like more information about the Planning Act 2008 process, please see the “Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others” which can be found along with other advice notes, here: [attachment 1]

06 December 2018
William Haward Patricia Davidson
East Anglia ONE Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Enquiry sent to the Secretary of State
I am writing in regard to your correspondence sent to the Secretary of State dated 11 November 2018 in relation to the above proposals. Your e-mail has been passed to the Planning Inspectorate for response as we administer the Planning Act 2008 process under which these proposals will be considered.
The applications have not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, the proposals are currently at the pre-application stage of the planning process, the developer is expecting to submit the applications in Q4 2019.
Until the applications are submitted, your first point of contact should be the developer. I would therefore encourage you to contact ScottishPower Renewables directly ([email protected] and [email protected]). 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 applications to the Planning Inspectorate. As you may already be aware, the developer is proposing to undertake further pre-application consultation in early 2019.
If you would like more information about the Planning Act 2008 process, please see “Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others” which can be found along with other advice notes, here: [attachment 1]

06 December 2018
Nicola Turland-Noble
East Anglia ONE North Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Enquiry sent to the Secretary of State
I am writing in regard to your correspondence sent to the Secretary of State dated 12 November 2018 in relation to the above proposals. Your e-mail has been passed to the Planning Inspectorate for response as we administer the Planning Act 2008 process under which these proposals will be considered.
The applications have not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, the proposals are currently at the pre-application stage of the planning process, the developer is expecting to submit the applications in Q4 2019.
I note you have already submitted your comments to ScottishPower Renewables, this is important to enable your views to be considered before their proposals are finalised and the applications submitted. As you may already be aware, the developer is intending to undertake further pre-application consultation in early 2019.
If you would like more information about the Planning Act 2008 process, please see “Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others” which can be found along with other advice notes, here: [attachment 1]

06 December 2018
Graham Noye
East Anglia ONE North Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Enquiry sent to the Secretary of State
I am writing in regard to your correspondence sent to the Secretary of State dated 5 November 2018 in relation to the above proposals. Your letter has been passed to the Planning Inspectorate for response as we administer the Planning Act 2008 process under which these proposals will be considered.
The applications have not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, the proposals are currently at the pre-application stage of the planning process, the developer is expecting to submit the applications in Q4 2019.
Until the applications are submitted, your first point of contact should be the developer. I would therefore encourage you to contact ScottishPower Renewables directly ([email protected] and [email protected]). 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 applications to the Planning Inspectorate.
If you would like more information about the Planning Act 2008 process, please see “Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others” which can be found along with other advice notes, here: [attachment 1]

06 December 2018
Ann Townell
East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Enquiry sent to the Secretary of State.
I am writing in regard to your email sent to the Secretary of State dated 11 November 2018 in relation to the above proposals. Your email has been passed to the Planning Inspectorate for response as we administer the Planning Act 2008 process under which these proposals will be considered.
The applications have not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, the proposals are currently at the pre-application stage of the planning process, the developer is expecting to submit the applications in Q4 2019.
I note you have already submitted your comments to ScottishPower Renewables (the developer), this is important to enable your views to be considered before their proposals are finalised and the applications submitted. As you may already be aware, the developer is intending to undertake further pre-application consultation in early 2019.
If you would like more information about the Planning Act 2008 process, please see the “Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others” which can be found along with other advice notes, here: [attachment 1]

06 December 2018
Deborah Bowkis
East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Enquiry sent to the Secretary of State
I am writing in regard to your correspondence sent to the Secretary of State dated 11 November 2018 in relation to the above proposals. Your e-mail has been passed to the Planning Inspectorate for response as we administer the Planning Act 2008 process under which these proposals will be considered.
The applications have not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, the proposals are currently at the pre-application stage of the planning process, the developer is expecting to submit the applications in Q4 2019.
Until the applications are submitted, your first point of contact should be the developer. I would therefore encourage you to contact ScottishPower Renewables directly ([email protected] and [email protected]). 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 applications to the Planning Inspectorate. As you may already be aware, the developer is proposing to undertake further pre-application consultation in early 2019.
If you would like more information about the Planning Act 2008 process, please see “Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others” which can be found along with other advice notes, here: [attachment 1]

06 December 2018
Nicola Turland-Noble
East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Enquiry sent to the Secretary of State.
I am writing in regard to your email sent to the Secretary of State dated 12 November 2018 in relation to the above proposals. Your email has been passed to the Planning Inspectorate for response as we administer the Planning Act 2008 process under which these proposals will be considered.
The applications have not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, the proposals are currently at the pre-application stage of the planning process, the developer is expecting to submit the applications in Q4 2019.
I note you have already submitted your comments to ScottishPower Renewables (the developer), this is important to enable your views to be considered before their proposals are finalised and the applications submitted. As you may already be aware, the developer is intending to undertake further pre-application consultation in early 2019.
If you would like more information about the Planning Act 2008 process, please see the “Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others” which can be found along with other advice notes, here: [attachment 1]

06 December 2018
Meg Amsden
East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Enquiry sent to the Secretary of State.
I am writing in regard to your email sent to the Secretary of State and others dated 11 November 2018 in relation to the above proposals. Your email has been passed to the Planning Inspectorate for response as we administer the Planning Act 2008 process under which these proposals will be considered.
The applications have not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, the proposals are currently at the pre-application stage of the planning process, the developer is expecting to submit the applications in Q4 2019.
I note you have already submitted your comments to ScottishPower Renewables (the developer), this is important to enable your views to be considered before their proposals are finalised and the applications submitted. As you may already be aware, the developer is intending to undertake further pre-application consultation in early 2019.
If you would like more information about the Planning Act 2008 process, please see the “Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others” which can be found along with other advice notes, here: [attachment 1]

06 December 2018
William Haward Patricia Davidson
East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Enquiry sent to the Secretary of State.
I am writing in regard to your email sent to the Secretary of State dated 10 November 2018 in relation to the above proposals. Your email has been passed to the Planning Inspectorate for response as we administer the Planning Act 2008 process under which these proposals will be considered.
The applications have not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, the proposals are currently at the pre-application stage of the planning process, the developer is expecting to submit the applications in Q4 2019.
I note you have already submitted your comments to ScottishPower Renewables (the developer), this is important to enable your views to be considered before their proposals are finalised and the applications submitted. As you may already be aware, the developer is intending to undertake further pre-application consultation in early 2019.
If you would like more information about the Planning Act 2008 process, please see the “Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others” which can be found along with other advice notes, here: [attachment 1]

06 December 2018
Jenny Labbett
East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Enquiry sent to the Secretary of State
I am writing in regard to your email sent to the Secretary of State and others, dated 11 November 2018 in relation to the above proposals. Your email has been passed to the Planning Inspectorate for response as we administer the Planning Act 2008 process under which these proposals will be considered.
The applications have not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, the proposals are currently at the pre-application stage of the planning process, the developer is expecting to submit the applications in Q4 2019.
I note you have already submitted your comments to ScottishPower Renewables, this is important to enable your views to be considered before their proposals are finalised and the applications submitted. The developer is intending to undertake further pre-application consultation in early 2019, I therefore hope this addresses your concerns in relation to the consultation undertaken to date. I note you have also sent your comments to the local authority, who will have the opportunity to submit a representation on the adequacy of the developer’s consultation, once the applications are submitted.
If you would like more information about the Planning Act 2008 process, please see the “Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others” which can be found along with other advice notes, here: [attachment 1]

06 December 2018
Peter Chadwick
East Anglia ONE Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Enquiry sent to the Secretary of State
I am writing in regard to your email sent to the Secretary of State dated 11 November 2018 in relation to the above proposals. Your email has been passed to the Planning Inspectorate for response as we administer the Planning Act 2008 process under which these proposals will be considered.
The applications have not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, the proposals are currently at the pre-application stage of the planning process, the developer is expecting to submit the applications in Q4 2019.
I note you have already submitted your comments to ScottishPower Renewables ( the developer ), this is important to enable your views to be considered before their proposals are finalised and the applications submitted. As you may already be aware, the developer is intending to undertake further pre-application consultation in early 2019.
If you would like more information about the Planning Act 2008 process, please see the “Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others” which can be found along with other advice notes, here: [attachment 1]

06 December 2018
Bridget Barclay
East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via phone
response has attachments
Project update meeting
please see attached

05 December 2018
Highways England - anon.
M42 Junction 6 Improvement
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
To Planning Inspectorate, Case Officer for Sizewell C.

Dear Officer PINs

We have just learnt that EDFE are running their Sizewell C 3rd Consultation for 12 weeks from 4th Jan 2019. Also that they intend to submit their DCO to PINS end of 2019 beginning of 2020. and hope to start building operations in 2021.

During this time BEIS are undertaking a Consultation on NPS for Energy EN6 and we are told that the second round will be in 2019 possibly summer/ autumn.

My question to you is as follows.
1) As SZC cannot be deployed to create electricity by 2025 as required in EN6 am I correct in thinking it will be decided by criteria in the revised EN6 ?


Yours Sincerely

Joan Girling
[Redacted]
The following text has been taken from the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy’s July 2018 document titled: ‘ Government Response: Consultation on the siting criteria and process for a new national policy statement for nuclear power with single reactor capacity over 1 gigawat beyond 2025’, which is available on this link:
[attachment 1]

‘Continuing application of EN-6

3.10 EN-6 remains in force in its entirety for use in development consent applications for new nuclear power stations on sites listed in EN-6 that are capable of deployment before the end of 2025. Sites listed in EN-6 on which a new nuclear power station is anticipated to deploy after 2025 will continue to be considered appropriate sites and retain strong Government support during the designation of the new NPS.
3.11 The owners of such sites are able to make development consent applications, and a decision on whether to grant consent will be made under section 105 of the Planning Act 2008. Government is confident that both EN-1 and EN-6 incorporate information, assessments and statements which will continue to be important and relevant to the Secretary of State’s development consent decision for projects which will deploy after 2025. This includes statements of the need for nuclear power, as well as environmental and other assessments that continue to be relevant for projects which will deploy after 2025. As such, in deciding whether or not to grant consent to such a development the Secretary of State would, under section 105(2)(c) of the Planning Act 2008 , have regard to the content of EN-1 and EN-6. Where there is no relevant change in circumstances it is likely that significant weight would be given to the policy in EN-1 and EN-6.
3.12 When designated, the new NPS will have effect for the purposes of section 104 of the Planning Act 2008 for listed sites capable of deploying between 2026-2035. Furthermore, a published new NPS in draft form would be an important and relevant consideration under section 105(2)(c) of the Planning Act 2008 in relation to any a decision is taken on an application for Development Consent before the new NPS is designated.’

Page 4 of the document states that the Government is proposing to carry over the list of suitable sites from EN-6 to the new NPS, this list includes the Sizewell proposal.

03 December 2018
Joan Girling
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Enquiry sent to the Secretary of State
I am writing in regard to your email sent to the Secretary of State dated 8 November 2018 in relation to the above proposals. Your email has been passed to the Planning Inspectorate for response, as we administer the Planning Act 2008 process under which these proposals will be considered. The applications have not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, the proposals are currently at the pre-application stage of the planning process, the developer is expecting to submit the applications in Q4 2019. I note that you have already submitted your comments to ScottishPower Renewables, this is important to enable your views to be considered before their proposals are finalised and the applications submitted. As you may already be aware, the developer is intending to undertake further pre-application consultation in early 2019. If you would like more information about the Planning Act 2008 process, please see “Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others” which can be found, along with other advice notes, here: [attachment 1]

30 November 2018
John Heald
East Anglia ONE North Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Enquiry sent to the Secretary of State
I am writing in regard to your email sent to the Secretary of State dated 8 November 2018 in relation to the above proposals. Your email has been passed to the Planning Inspectorate for response, as we administer the Planning Act 2008 process under which these proposals will be considered. The Applications have not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, they are currently at the pre-application stage of the planning process. We note that the developer is expecting to submit the applications in Q4 2019. It is important that the developer is made aware of your comments at the pre-application stage, to enable them to consider these points before finalising their proposals and submitting the applications. I therefore strongly encourage you to contact ScottishPower Renewables directly on [email protected] and [email protected] if you haven’t already done so, with your comments on their proposals. If you would like more information about the Planning Act 2008 process, please see “Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others” which can be found, along with other advice notes, here: [attachment 1]

30 November 2018
Andrew Plant
East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Enquiry sent to the Secretary of State
I am writing in regard to your email sent to the Secretary of State dated 8 November 2018 in relation to the above proposals. Your email has been passed to the Planning Inspectorate for response, as we administer the Planning Act 2008 process under which these proposals will be considered. The applications have not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, the proposals are currently at the pre-application stage of the planning process, the developer is expecting to submit the applications in Q4 2019. I note that you have already submitted your comments to ScottishPower Renewables, this is important to enable your views to be considered before their proposals are finalised and the applications submitted. As you may already be aware, the developer is intending to undertake further pre-application consultation in early 2019. If you would like more information about the Planning Act 2008 process, please see “Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others” which can be found, along with other advice notes, here: [attachment 1]

30 November 2018
John Heald
East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Enquiry sent to the Secretary of State
I am writing in regard to your email sent to the Secretary of State dated 8 November 2018 in relation to the above proposals. Your email has been passed to the Planning Inspectorate for response, as we administer the Planning Act 2008 process under which these proposals will be considered. The Applications have not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, they are currently at the pre-application stage of the planning process. We note that the developer is expecting to submit the applications in Q4 2019. It is important that the developer is made aware of your comments at the pre-application stage, to enable them to consider these points before finalising their proposals and submitting the applications. I therefore strongly encourage you to contact ScottishPower Renewables directly on [email protected] and [email protected] if you haven’t already done so, with your comments on their proposals. If you would like more information about the Planning Act 2008 process, please see “Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others” which can be found, along with other advice notes, here: [attachment 1]

30 November 2018
Andrew Plant
East Anglia ONE North Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting.
Please see attached note.

30 November 2018
Heathrow Airport Ltd - anon.
Expansion of Heathrow Airport (Third Runway)
Enquiry received via email
Enquiry from Les Stevens by email on 23 November 2018:

Could you clarify a couple of points on the Inspectors request for interested parties to work with the Applicant to draw up SoCG please?

One area requires the Applicant to draw up a SoCG with the Parish Councils of Queen Camel, Sparkford and West Camel on a number of issues raised in our formal joint submission or separate individual submissions.

Could you please provide clarification on two areas please -
1) Mott-MacDonald have contacted all three PCs separately offering to draft a SoCG with each - is the Inspectors expectation that this should be a single joint document rather than three separate ones?

2) The Hazelgrove junction appears to be missing from the list of items the Joint PCs are expected to draw up a SoCG with the Applicant - is this an omission or is the Inspectors expectation that this junction would be covered under the SoCG with Heritage England?

Clarification on these points would be helpful.

Many thanks.
Advice given by email on 29 November 2018:

Dear Les Stevens

I can confirm that the Examining Authority are content to receive either a joint SoCG or three individual SoCG’s. There is considerable overlap between the three Parish Councils and therefore a joint SoCG may be the most efficient way forward, this could include any points specific to the individual Parish Councils. The ExA however is content to receive individual SoCG if that proves more efficient for the Parish Councils.

Please note that the matters indicated in Annex G of the Rule 6 letter, dated 14 November 2018, are not the only matters that can be included in the SoCG(s). Should the parties be in a position to agree matters in relation to the Hazelgrove Junction (including identifying areas where there is disagreement), or any other matters, this would be helpful to the examination and should be included in the SoCG.

Kind regards

29 November 2018
Queen Camel, Sparkford & West Camel Parish Council - Les Stevens
A303 Sparkford to Ilchester Dualling
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Inception Meeting
Please see note attached.

28 November 2018
Arora Group - anon.
Heathrow West
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached

27 November 2018
Womble Bond Dickinson LLP (WBD) - anon.
Portishead Branch Line - MetroWest Phase 1
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project meeting update
Please see attached

27 November 2018
EDF Energy - anon.
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Good afternoon.


I feel it is appropriate to bring to your attention the attached letter
that has been sent to our County and District Council leaders and senior
officers, as well as relevant departments in central Government.


Not only has EDFE failed dismally to provide cogent information for us
to meaningfully respond to their consultations at Stage 1 and 2, but the
Councils' Task Group have clearly been discussing some of the most
important issues that will affect the local population in camera. They
are unwilling to share any of the topics discussed or possible outcomes.


Allied to what is now recognised will be a head-on clash between the
building of Sizewell C and the onshore infrastructure for the Scottish
Power Renewables (SPR) windfarms East Anglia ONE north and TWO, we are
very concerned.


SPR are being equally secretive concerning the release of any useful
information, to permit potentially affected residents to effectively
respond to their latest Consultation Stage 3.5. See the Parish Council
notice that Middleton has circulated, also attached.


East Suffolk is already on the verge of being overburdened with the
support of existing major infrastructure that currently overloads our
local roads (particularly the B1122) on a regular basis to the detriment
of everyday life and livelihood. Yet the two power companies are
attempting to simply ride roughshod over us in their quest to build even
more using existing roads - in order to save them expense? In the long
run, they will each get in each others' way and cause both projects to
lose time - and that would be more expensive!


Kind regards,


Cllr Roy Dowding

Middleton Parish Council

On behalf of the B1122 Action Group
Dear Sir,


Thank you for your email and apologies for the delayed reply.


As the project has not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate
(the Inspectorate), the Inspectorate has no formal powers to intervene
on consultees’ behalf and therefore I would encourage you to contact the
developer directly to make your concerns heard as they have a statutory
duty to take your views into account.


Your comments sent to local authorities (LA) should be considered when
the LA’s provide Adequacy of Consultation responses to the Inspectorate
on whether the Applicant has fulfilled its consultation duties.


The Inspectorate can also consider your comments in addition to the
statutorily required Acceptance tests when making the decision about
whether or not to accept the application under section 55 of the
Planning Act 2008. It will be for the decision maker (the Inspectorate
on behalf of the Secretary of State) to decide the weight to give to the
views expressed in your comments based on the individual facts of the
case.


If the application is accepted for examination you will have the
opportunity to make representations about the merits of the application
to an appointed Examining Authority at the appropriate time.


For information, please see link below to Advice Note 8 which sets out
an overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning
process for members of the public and others.

[attachment 1]


A copy of your email and attachments and this response will be published
to the project webpages.


Yours faithfully

26 November 2018
Middleton Parish Council - anon.
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Further to our telephone conversation this morning ,for completeness I would be grateful if you could kindly confirm -:

1. that affected parties (i.e owners and occupiers ) are interested parties and don’t need to register with the Planning Inspectorate (and accordingly will be directly contacted by the Planning Inspectorate to be informed of timescales and given the opportunity to make representations and attend at hearings ? Also, will such contact be made by ordinary post? )

2. whether there is guidance on the requirement for a DCO applicant to -:
a)act reasonably when approaching affected parties and to meaningfully engage to seek consensus on achieving voluntary agreements (on a consensual basis) without any attempt to influence in respect of specifying/imposing time limits (or in any other way) in advance of a DCO being granted (to seek to achieve such voluntary agreements)
b) continue to meaningfully seek reasonable voluntary agreements for a specific period in the event of (and subsequent to ) a DCO being granted (instead of merely going through the motions of issuing voluntary document templates so as to indicate an attempt to comply with the process requirements with little or no intention of entering into purposeful discussions to achieve reasonable consensus on the same, and in the event of no agreement being completed with the premediated aim of imposing compulsory purposes as soon as possible in the event of being granted a Development Consent Order.
c) to duly recompense affected parties (such as landowners & occupiers) in respect of any reasonable loss or expense (including professional fees) incurred in respect of the DCO application (and in the event of the DCO being granted in consequence of scheme operations) without imposing or specifying limits .

3. whether there is any redress /sanctions that are available to be imposed (and/or a dispute resolution process other than in respect of Compensation ) in the event of a DCO being granted and the “applicant “ subsequently acting unreasonably (potentially abusing powers) e.g. by not seeking to achieve voluntary agreements within a specific period on a consensual & reasonable basis.
In relation to point 1, the definition of an Interested Party (IP) is contained within Section 102 of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended). The Planning Inspectorate will write to anyone who it considers to be an IP to invite them to the Preliminary Meeting (PM). We will also provide IP’s with the confirmed timetable following the PM, which will set out the deadlines for the submission of evidence, and they will be invited to attend hearings. Where possible, we will send notification by e-mail. If we do not have an e-mail address we will issue correspondence by post.

In relation to point 2, please see attached guidance issued by the Department of Communities and Local Government relating to procedures for Compulsory Acquisition: [attachment 1].

Finally, in relation to point 3, neither the Planning Inspectorate nor the Secretary of State become involved in disputes relating to the compensation or the implementation of any Compulsory Acquisition powers that may be granted in a Development Consent Order. We would suggest that your clients obtain their own legal advice on such matters if they are of concern.

I hope this is of assistance.

22 November 2018
Davis Meade Property Consultants - Eifion Bibby
North Wales Connection
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached Meeting Note

22 November 2018
Highways England
M25 junction 28 improvements
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
See attached letter.
With the application being accepted for examination last Friday 16 November 2018, the next step in the process for Highways England to provide notice of, and to publicise, the Inspectorate’s decision. That notice will include the dates for the period within which anybody can register with the Inspectorate to become an Interested Party in the future Examination by making a Relevant Representation. The Relevant Representations period must last for a minimum of 30 days. More information is available in our ‘Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination’: [attachment 1]

The Examining Authority, once appointed, will read all Relevant Representations received and consider all relevant and important matters in establishing an Initial Assessment of Principal Issues that will frame the statutory six months Examination.

19 November 2018
Amesbury Museum Heritage Trust - anon.
A303 Stonehenge
Enquiry received via email
I have had very little time to examine the 11,000 pages of the DCO application since it was submitted. My old school, Lord Mayor Treloar College for the Disabled, is implicated in the current infected blood public enquiry and such spare time I have has been focused on this. I guess if I had read all of it that would have been over 600 pages a week from the publication date to now.

I have focused on the main area that I have been asking the applicant about since the first consolation, which is the particulate air pollution as this seems to have potential for a disturbingly high mortality rate.

As far as I can see the applicant has made an error in the dispersion rate for pm2.5 particulates, it may be they have used the dispersion figure, i.e. the distance from the point of aviation fuel burn to the point the level of airborne particulates return to the existing background level, for pm10 particulates or it may be they haven't counted the pm2.5s at all.

This is a fairly technical issue so I wonder if you could be kind enough to put me in touch with the right person to discuss it with.
If you are seeking clarification about the content of the environmental assessment, please contact the Applicant.

Otherwise, there will be various opportunities for you to make representations to the Examining Authority in the course of the six month examination.

We will write to you in due course with your invitation to the Preliminary Meeting which will include a draft Examination Timetable.

16 November 2018
Michael Child
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
Enquiry from Mark Redding by email on 15 November 2018:

Thank you Robert. When I phoned PINs last with a query I was told that there would be another 28 day period to assess whether or not to accept the revised application. 28 days has not passed. Could you please advise why it has been accepted in less than 28 days? Was I given incorrect information?
Advice given by email on 15 November 2018:

Dear Mr Redding,

No, your information was correct. We have a maximum of 28 days to consider whether or not to accept an application. On this occasion, it did not take the full 28 days; we had already seen much of the documentation, from the first application.

If you would like to discuss the process going forward, please do not hesitate to contact me.

15 November 2018
Stop Rail Central Ltd - Mark Redding
Rail Central (Strategic Rail Freight Interchange)
Enquiry received via email
Enquiry from Mark Redding by email on 14 November 2018:

Dear Sirs,

As you know the Rail Central application has been resubmitted and on the current timelines the registration period has the potential to clash with the Christmas holiday period. I would therefore ask whether it is possible to delay that registration period until the new year to give all those who wish to participate a fair chance to do so. December is a time when people are away or their minds are on other things. The Christmas of 2016 was completely ruined by the arrival of Rail Central on our radar so I would ask that we are at least given 2018 in relative peace before we have to recommence our fight in earnest.
Advice given by email on 15 November 2018:

Dear Mr Redding,

Thank you for your email. We do not control when the registration period begins or ends.

The applicant is required to publicise the acceptance of their application and set a deadline for registration. I suggest you contact them urgently, and make your request directly to them.

If you have any other questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.

15 November 2018
Stop Rail Central Ltd - Mark Redding
Rail Central (Strategic Rail Freight Interchange)
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please See Attached

15 November 2018
Equinor UK - anon.
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Please see attached.
Please see attached.

15 November 2018
Equinor UK
Sheringham and Dudgeon Extension Projects
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
What is the process for considering the aggregate impact of non material change requests that may, in aggregate, become material?

Many thanks
Jonathan
Dear Mr Dean

Thank you for your email.

In relation to your query, there is no legal definition of ‘material’ but the tests to apply are whether the change is substantial or whether the development now being proposed is not in substance that which was originally applied for. The former constitutes a material change which – provided there is sufficient time remaining in the Examination stage - can be accommodated as part of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) process. The latter constitutes a different project for which a new application would be required.

Whether a proposed change falls within either of these categories is a question of planning judgment which may be based on criteria including, for example, whether the change would generate a new or different likely significant environmental effect(s). Similarly, whether (and if so the extent to which) a change request involves an extension to the Order land, particularly where this would require additional Compulsory Acquisition powers eg for new plots of land and/ or interests. Further information about making a material change request can be found in paragraphs 109 to 115 of the Examination Guidance.

[attachment 1]

The submission of new or revised information before the Examination starts or during the Examination does not necessarily constitute a request to materially change an application. For example, following a decision to accept an application for examination, applicants are often issued with advice by the Planning Inspectorate which may identify errors, omissions and qualitative issues relating to the submitted application documentation. In response applicants may submit errata, amended application documents, plans or environmental information. During the course of the Examination the Examining Authority (ExA) may also request further information or written comments from an applicant or any Interested Party; new information may also be provided in response to an ExA’s written questions. Changes to the application documents may not necessarily result in changes to the underlying project.

The ExA is ultimately responsible for deciding whether new information submitted into the Examination by an applicant constitutes a material change to the application.

Further information about change requests can be found in the Inspectorate’s Advice Note Sixteen: How to request a change which may be material

14 November 2018
Jonathan Dean
Wylfa Newydd Nuclear Power Station
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please see attached
Dear Mr Wilcox,

Thank you for your email and attached letter of 10 October 2018. Please accept my apologies for the delay in replying.

As explained in our previous reply to you of 13 July 2018 as the project has not yet been submitted to the Inspectorate, the Inspectorate has no formal powers to intervene on consultees’ behalf and we are therefore not in a position to supervise the statutory consultation process conducted by the Applicant.

As you have raised concerns over the Applicant’s consultation, and as the Inspectorate advised previously, if you have not already done so, write to your local authority and set out why you think the Applicant is failing/or has failed to conduct is consultation properly. Your comments sent to local authorities should be considered when they provide Adequacy of Consultation responses to the Inspectorate on whether the Applicant has fulfilled its consultation duties. The local authority’s comments on the Applicant’s consultation will be taken into account when the Examining Inspectors makes his/her decision whether to accept the Application for examination.

The Inspectorate can also consider your comments in addition to the statutorily required Acceptance tests when making the decision about whether or not to accept the application under section 55 of the Planning Act 2008. It will be for the decision maker (the Inspectorate on behalf of the Secretary of State) to decide the weight to give to the views expressed in your comments based on the individual facts of the case.

If the application is accepted for examination you will have the opportunity to make representations about the merits of the application to an appointed Examining Authority at the appropriate time.

For information, please see link below to Advice Note 8 which sets out an overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others. [attachment 1].

We understand that the application is due to be submitted to the Planning Inspectorate on Friday 16 November 2018.

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.

Thank you

13 November 2018
Graveney Rural Environment Action Team - anon.
Cleve Hill Solar Park
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
A meeting was held between Network Rail and the Inspectorate.
Please see attached

13 November 2018
Network Rail - anon.
Western Rail Link to Heathrow
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update meeting
Please see Attached

08 November 2018
Vattenfall Wind Power Ltd - anon.
Norfolk Boreas
Enquiry received via email
What action has or will be taken to ensure that representations (from both sides) are above board and genuine? I sincerely have no problem with genuine representations opposed to the Airport – we live in a democracy and people are entitled to their opinion – provided it is genuine!
What constitutes a Relevant Representation is defined in s102 of the Planning Act 2008:

(4) A representation is a relevant representation for the purposes of subsection (1) to the extent that—
(a) it is a representation about the application,
(b) it is made to the [ Secretary of State ] in the prescribed form and manner,
(c) it is received by the [ Secretary of State ] no later than the deadline that applies under section 56 to the person making it,
(d) it contains material of a prescribed description, and
(e) it does not contain—
(i) material about compensation for compulsory acquisition of land or of an interest in or right over land,
(ii) material about the merits of policy set out in a national policy statement, or
(iii) material that is vexatious or frivolous.

It is not within the remit of the Planning Inspectorate to investigate the source of representations made. The inquisitorial nature of the Planning Act 2008 process means that Examining Authorities examine evidence through questioning. In the examination process, it is the relevance and importance of the issues which carry weight – not the volume of submissions received. On that basis duplicated representations (in support or objection to a Proposed Development) cannot serve to manipulate the decision-making process.

25 October 2018
Michael Grantham
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached meeting note

24 October 2018
Cleve Hill Solar Park Ltd
Cleve Hill Solar Park
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I notice that some of the Wylfa Newydd RRs are over 500 words - is this not a hard limit?
Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination ([attachment 1]) states on page 3 that:

There is no word limit on how much to include in your Relevant Representation; however, the Examining Authority may only have a short period of time to read all the Relevant Representations before the Preliminary Meeting. As such, you should make sure your main points are clearly set out. We recommend the use of bullet points and headings to highlight your main points.

While information on the online registration form states:

Here you must provide an outline of the main points you intend to make in relation to the application. Failure to provide this will mean that we are unable to register you as an Interested Party. Please aim to limit this section to no more than 500 words.

Taking this information in to consideration, there is no maximum word limit; however we encourage parties to provide a concise summary of their opinions.

22 October 2018
Jonathan Dean
North Wales Connection
Enquiry received via phone
response has attachments
Telephone enquiry from Mr Walton on 17 October 2018 regarding Relevant Representations.
Advice given by email on 18 October 2018:

Dear Mr Walton,

Following our telephone conversation yesterday I am emailing to confirm that the relevant representations period for the above mentioned project closes tomorrow Friday 19 October 2018 at 23:59. For information please refer to the project page on the National Infrastructure Planning website, see link below:

[attachment 1]

I also attach a link below to the Planning Inspectorate Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination. This advice note provides practical advice about registering a Relevant Representation in order to become an Interested Party. It also explains that 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.

[attachment 2]

I hope you find the above information useful. Please note the Project Mailbox email address is [email protected]

18 October 2018
Mr Walton
A303 Sparkford to Ilchester Dualling
Enquiry received via phone
response has attachments
A series of telephone calls took place on 16 to 19 October 2018 in order for the Planning Inspectorate to set out some concerns identified with the application, and in order to give the applicant the opportunity to direct the Inspectorate within the application to documents which may address the concerns.
The Planning Inspectorate highlighted some inconsistencies between certain documents and plans, conflicting internal references between and within documents and some inconsistencies between the hard and electronic copy of the submitted application in regard to the following documents:
- Works plans
- Draft DCO
- Environmental Statement
- Parameters plan
Please see the letter confirming that the application was not accepted:
[attachment 1]

16 October 2018
Ashfield Land Management Limited and Gazeley GLP N - anon.
Rail Central (Strategic Rail Freight Interchange)
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
On your web page for this project it states that "The Applicant (RiverOak Strategic Partners Ltd) must certify to the Planning Inspectorate that it has complied with its application notification requirements." Can you please detail exactly what this requirement refers to, what the applicant has to do in order to certify, how long the applicant has to certify, whether he has yet done so and any other information you think would be relevant to the process.
The certificates are published on the project webpage: [attachment 1]

The certificates themselves set out what the Applicant is certifying.

Applicants must provide these certificates within ten working days following the close of the registration (Relevant Representations) period. The registration period closed on 8 October 2018 and the applicant certified two days later on 10 October 2018.

16 October 2018
Adem Mehmet
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Query from Paul Gripton by email on 24 September 2018:

Please find attached a letter detailing the issues and advice sought, mentioned in our previous phone conversation. It is lengthy but evidenced.
Response by email on 15 October 2018:

With apologies for the delay, please see our response to your queries below:

Query 1: Are the discharging authorities and EDF Energy, non-compliant with the DCO and/or the EIA Regulations and Directive if they failed to comply with DCO provisions involving Discharge of Requirement PW 10 (TIMP) Traffic Incident Management Plan?

Response: In the event that requirements of a DCO have not been correctly discharged, and the applicant proceeds with a development, then the applicant may be proceeding to construct an NSIP in the absence of Development Consent. Section 160 of the Planning Act 2008 is clear that a ‘person commits an offence if the 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.’

Query 2: If it were shown that the Councils (as discharging authorities) and the undertaker were non-compliant, would West Somerset and Sedgemoor District Councils be responsible for ‘enforcement’ against themselves and EDF Energy?

Response: The local planning authority would be responsible for enforcing compliance with the requirements of the DCO. If you have raised a matter relating to non-compliance with them, and they have not responded to your satisfaction, you should first exhaust their complaints procedure. If having done that and you are still dissatisfied, you may wish to refer the matter to the Local Government Ombudsman.

Query 3: Do the updated EIA Regulations 2017, apply to change/Requirement Discharges (involving HPC) undertaken after 16th May 2017, including the new provisions regarding ‘risk to human health’ and part 12 concerning ‘objectivity and bias’ regarding an authorities duty including the need for ‘functional separation’ and conflict of interest measures?

Response: The Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 (the EIA Regulations 2017) came into force on the 16th May 2017. At that point and in accordance with Regulation 37 of the EIA Regulations 2017 the previous Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations and Amending legislation were revoked (see Regulation 37 of the EIA Regulations 2017). The EIA Regulations 2017 include a transitional provision (Regulation 37 (2)) which would allow for previous Regulations (as specified) to continue to apply where certain circumstances are met (Regulation 37 (2) (a & b)). The extent to which the transitional provisions apply is a matter for the Competent Authority (for the purposes of the Regulations) in determining their duties in accordance with the EIA Regulations 2017 it will be relevant for any such decision to take into account the specific details of the application as made.

Query 4: Should, the possibility of materially new or materially different environmental effects other than those assessed in the Environmental Statement be identified under subsequent requests for change/discharge, what response is required by the undertaker/authorities, including public involvement?

Response: Section 153 and Schedule 6 of the Planning Act 2008 include provision for changes to, and revocation of, orders granting development consent. An Applicant seeking to make any such change is required to follow the process prescribed by the Planning Act 2008 and any other relevant secondary legislation including the EIA Regulations 2017. The discharge of requirements in a Development Consent Order (DCO) is a matter for the relevant discharging authority. A proposed change to an Order Granting Development consent or request to discharge specific DCO requirement(s) may engage the EIA Regulations 2017 ‘subsequent application’ regulations (Regulation 22-25) although the extent to which they apply will depend upon the specific nature of proposal and decisions to be taken by the relevant Competent Authority for the purposes of the Regulations.

Query 5: When considering if there are materially new or different effects,(with respect to EIA impacts/regulations) do the discharging authorities take mitigation into account or is the ‘test’ as stated in the DCO (Schedule 2 para 4) just to identify (unmitigated?) new or different effects than those included in the Environmental Statement? Whilst identifying and applying mitigation is important, basically is consideration of effects including mitigation preventing identification of significant effects and circumventing the EIA regulations and Directive, including the need for subsequent public participation and possibility to comment?

Response: The approach to be taken to determine the applicability of the EIA Regulations 2017 to the discharge of requirements in a Development Consent Order (DCO) is a matter for the relevant discharging authority.

Query 6: With regard to the updated TIMP and the ‘new’ Section 5 - Which now includes Significant Road Works as an incident and exceptional circumstance, consequently involving compensatory extended HGV delivery periods outside the normal permitted limits during unsocial hours. – The Transport Review Group, (which contains significant EDF Energy representation and voting rights that they have used previously when deciding change on their own proposals) appear to have usurped the role of the discharging authorities contrary to the DCO, carrying out the role and decisions designated to the recognised discharging authorities. Basically are the discharging authorities (West Somerset and Sedgemoor District Councils) allowed to transfer their role and responsibilities for granting agreement or approval designated to them under the DCO to a group under which the proposer has a significant voting right (with a history of using it) on their own proposal?

Response: The Planning Inspectorate does not comment on the role of a local planning authority when performing functions required as a discharging authority. Please see the answer to point 2 regarding the opportunity to raise the matter with the Local Government Ombudsman.

Query 7: The TRG through the S 106 agreement appear to have a different, lower standard than that undertaken by discharging authorities under the DCO requirements when ‘testing’ their satisfaction that there are unlikely to be materially new or different environmental effects . Under the DCO authorities must be ‘satisfied’, which is an absolute obligation. The TRG under the S 106 agreement are required to be ‘reasonably satisfied’ which is a lower qualified obligation. Should the TRG test to the higher standard prescribed under the DCO if they are allowed to grant agreement/approval of exceptional circumstances under Requirement PW10?

Response: The Planning Inspectorate does not comment on the role of the local planning authority when performing functions required as a discharging authority.

15 October 2018
Paul Gripton
Hinkley Point C New Nuclear Power Station
Enquiry received via email
The National Planning Guidance states that section 106 agreements should be used to mitigate the effects of otherwise unacceptable developments.
I know that RSP have argued against a 106 agreement for Manston but this is not unusual from developers. 106 agreements are often imposed upon them
What I don’t understand is at what point PINS would consider such an approach in this case, and what input interested parties would have into any potential 106 agreement.
Under the Planning Act 2008, agreements/ undertakings pursuant to s106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 are known as Development Consent Obligations.

In this case, a Development Consent Obligation does not form part of the application documentation. If a Development Consent Obligation were subsequently submitted to the examination, it would have the same status as all other Examination Documents insofar as Interested Parties would be able to make representations about its content to the Examining Authority.

12 October 2018
David Green
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I have a question regarding whether pins can limit a sponsors project plans when granting a DCO.
All interested parties whether for or against the airport, SMA, SMAA, SUMA, NNF, Craig Mackinlay MP and Sir Roger Gale MP have all stated they are against night flights with both Mr Gale and Mr Mackinlay (in recent letters to his constituents), confirming that RSP do not require night flights. However in their application RSP have specified they would like night flights. Given this wholesale objection, that national policy is considering banning night flights (as they will be at Heathrow), does the inspector have the legal powers to ban them, even though RSP have specified they want them, as a condition of the DCO should they be convinced they would be detrimental to the local community or for any other reason ?
Section 120 of the Planning Act 2008 explains that Development Consent Orders (DCO) may impose Requirements (analogous to ‘conditions’ in conventional planning decisions). The draft Requirements provided in Schedule 2 of the draft Manston Airport DCO are available to view here: [attachment 1];stage=app&filter1=Draft+Development+Consent+Orders

The Examining Authority (ExA) will examine the draft DCO submitted with the application and consider any relevant and important matters raised in representations made about its content. This process can lead to changes being made to a draft DCO (including the Requirements) in the course of an Examination by the Applicant itself or as recommended by the ExA.

In all cases, the Secretary of State (SoS) will take the final decision about whether or not development consent should be granted and finalise the form of the DCO, if it is made. Whether or not an ExA recommends to the SoS that development consent should be granted, its Recommendation Report to the SoS must be accompanied by a final draft DCO. The final draft DCO will include any changes made to the draft DCO in the course of the Examination, and may also include further recommended changes applied by the ExA in the process of reporting. In turn, in consideration of the Recommendation Report and the final draft DCO accompanying it, the SoS may decide to delete or amend certain provisions or make any other changes in order to make the Proposed Development acceptable in planning terms.

12 October 2018
Adem Mehmet
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Meeting Note
Please see Attached

02 October 2018
Highways England - anon.
A417 Missing Link
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please see attached letter from Chris Wheeler (dated 01 August 2018)
Please see attached response from The Planning Inspectorate (dated 27 September 2018)

27 September 2018
Substation Action - Save East Suffolk (SASES) - Chris Wheeler
East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please see attached letter from Chris Wheeler (dated 01 August 2018)
Please see attached response from The Planning Inspectorate (dated 27 September 2018)

27 September 2018
Substation Action - Save East Suffolk (SASES) - Chris Wheeler
East Anglia ONE North Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via post
response has attachments
Please see attached letter from Paul Collins (dated 07 September 2018)
Please see attached response letter from The Planning Inspectorate (dated 27 September 2018)

27 September 2018
Minsmere Levels Stakeholder Group - Paul Collins
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via email
Mock up land plans
Susannah has passed your email to me for response, I will be the Case Manager for this project and my contact details are below. Please accept our apologies for the delay in responding, our initial response to the Land Plans issue is below.

Firstly, in reviewing the plans electronically, the potential ‘cluttered’ appearance is perhaps less that it appears on the hard copy plans.

Secondly, whilst we understand why you have sought to present the Land Plans and Book of Reference in the proposed form we do have some significant reservations about the approach and would like to check some of the following points:

• Are you satisfied that the approach complies with the requirement in the APFP regulations - 5(2)(i)?

• Are you satisfied that the approach complies with the MHCLG guidance? In particular Annex C of the ‘Guidance related to procedures for the compulsory acquisition of land’ provides the following useful tips for dealing with this not uncommon issue, namely:

? In general, the map scale should not be smaller than 1/1250, and for land in a densely populated urban area, the scale should be at least 1/500 and preferably larger. Where the order involves the acquisition of a considerable number of small plots, the use of insets on a larger scale is often helpful.
? It is also important that the plan should show such details as are necessary to relate it to the description of each parcel of land (including land affected by temporary occupation) described in the book of reference. This may involve marking on the map the names of roads and places or local landmarks not otherwise shown.
? The boundaries between plots should be clearly delineated and each plot separately numbered to correspond with the book of reference.
? There should be no discrepancy between the description of the land in the book of reference and the plan, and no room for doubt on anyone’s part as to the precise areas of land which are to be compulsorily acquired. Where uncertainty over the true extent of the land to be acquired causes or may cause difficulties, the Secretary of State may refuse to make the order until this is made clear.
? The descriptions of each plot of land included in parts 1-5 of the book of reference where it is intended that all or part of the proposed development and works shall be carried out, should include the area in square metres of each plot.

We do note that other Highways England project teams have submitted Land Plans which also had a large number of small plots and used scale and insets effectively (A30 Temple to Higher Carblake):https://infrastructure.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/wp-content/ipc/uploads/projects/TR010014/TR010014-000126-2.02%20Land%20Plans.pdf

Finally, have you considered:

• how an Examining Authority would determine which bit of the plot was owned by each person, or the relative size of the sub-plot;
• how owners of the different plots could identify which bits they owned; and
• how compensation claims might be considered without clarity about the individual plots.

In light of the above queries/questions/reservations, this could call in to question the satisfactory nature of the plans if they were to be submitted in the proposed form.

I hope the above is helpful, please let me know if you have any further queries.

27 September 2018
Highways England - David Hopkin
A585 Windy Harbour to Skippool Improvement Scheme
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting and review of the draft application documents
Please see attached

27 September 2018
Cory Riverside Energy – Rob Gully - anon.
Riverside Energy Park
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
From the information in the public domain it is not clear what has changed with regard to RSP's submission that allowed this change of stance where the previous advice, regarding RSP's withdrawn Application of May 2018, was clearly that in PINS view there was insufficient evidence provided by RSP to base any such assessment on. Can this omission be clarified?

On the JR point I understand that an acceptance decision could not actually be JR'd until the examination is concluded. Is this not correct?
In its resubmitted application, RSP provided additional evidence (for example in its updated NSIP Justification Document (Doc 2.3)) which enabled the Planning Inspectorate to reach the conclusion expressed in Box 3 of the Acceptance of Applications Checklist.

Section 118 of the Planning Act 2008 sets out the statutory periods associated with legal challenges. If you require further assistance in respect of this matter, please contact the Administrative Court Office on 0207 947 6655 or follow this link: [attachment 1]

26 September 2018
S Alvers
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
However, you have failed to address the two points I raised, these being :

1. Whether the Planning Inspectorate is concerned about DCO applicants lying about their applications, apparently with the deliberate intention of misleading local residents with regards to the potential impacts of their proposals; and
2. Whether the Planning Inspectorate consider the statement made by Tony Freudmann on KMTV to constitute a "misrepresentation of the Planning Act 2008 process"
The purpose of the forthcoming examination is to investigate the potential impacts of the Proposed Development. If you feel any statements made by the Applicant, either within the application documents or elsewhere, do not accurately represent the potential impacts of the Proposed Development, please articulate your concern and provide supporting evidence in the form of a Relevant Representation: [attachment 1]

26 September 2018
Jon Fowler
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via phone
The enquirer requested information on how a group of persons could register and make representations.
• The Planning Inspectorate encourages individuals with shared interests to form groups, and to register and make representations in the name of the group
• On that basis, it necessary for a group name to be provided and for a named individual to be identified as the leader/ spokesperson for the group
• Only the name of the group leader/ spokesperson needs to be provided on the registration form – all correspondence for the attention of the group in the course of the examination will be sent to the group leader/ spokesperson
• The naming of a group leader/ spokesperson will not preclude other group members from making representations on behalf of the group in the course of the examination
• The above advice is enshrined in the principle that it is the quality of the issues/ evidence put before an examination that will carry weight – not the amount of times the same issue is repeated

26 September 2018
Alan Welcome
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Now that the Manston DCO is entering the examination stage can you tell me if PINS will be calling on experts in the various fields needed to test RSP’s application claims, i.e. their business plan, noise & pollution levels, ATMs, impact on local residents & ecology etc. or is it entirely up to interested parties to do so. It also seems to me that their proposal does not qualify as an NSIP until at least year 2 looking at ATM forecasts. There is a lot of very technical claims that the man on the street will not understand. From what I have been able to understand a lot of RSPs claims seem to have been pulled out of the air with very little evidence to back them up. In many cases there is a lot of evidence to the contrary. There also seems to be information in their application that was not presented to the public.
The application will be examined by an Examining Authority (ExA): either a single appointed person or a Panel of 2, 3, 4 or 5 Examining Inspectors, dependent on the particular circumstances of each the case in question. The ExA for the examination of RSP’s application is yet to be appointed. When the appointment is made by the Secretary of State, notice will published on the project page on the National Infrastructure Planning website.

The way in which the application will be examined will be discussed at the Preliminary Meeting. For more information please read Advice Note 8.3: Influencing how an application is examined – the Preliminary Meeting: [attachment 1]

Section 100 of the Planning Act 2008 sets out the circumstances in which an assessor(s) with specific expertise may be appointed to assist an ExA. Paragraphs 66 to 69 of ‘Planning Act 2008: Guidance for the examination of applications for development consent’ provide more information: [attachment 2]

In respect your comments about ATMs, please consider making these in a Relevant Representation, which will be read by the ExA once appointed: [attachment 3]

26 September 2018
Ian Scott
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
I would like to register as an interested party in the Manston Airport Application for a national infrastructure project and note on your guidance that all contact details that you receive as part of the registration process will be made publicly available, in particular the element in bold below:

In particular, please be aware that we are required by law to make the information that you provide publicly available. Details published on our website will be restricted to your name and the text of your representation. However, any copies made available for inspection at public locations will contain your contact details.

I would like to know how this relates to the new General Data Protection Regulation and your policy?
I write to confirm that none of our current processes would result in your contact information entering the public domain. We will only publish (i) your name and (ii) the text of your representation on the National Infrastructure Planning website. Copies of the Relevant Representations made available for inspection at public locations will be made available via the National Infrastructure Planning website and will therefore contain the same information. If any Relevant Representations are for any reason reproduced in hard copy, that hard copy would comprise a printout from the website.

Our GDPR officer is in the process of updating the wording on the Relevant Representation Form, the latter part of which (bold below) I understand reflects how hard copy Relevant Representations were handled historically.

“In particular, please be aware that we are required by law to make the information that you provide publicly available. Details published on our website will be restricted to your name and the text of your representation. However, any copies made available for inspection at public locations will contain your contact details.” [my emphasis]

24 September 2018
Cathy Rogers
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
We have missed the official deadline (yesterday!) to register as an interested party for the Norfolk Vanguard project.

Equinor is the operator of the Dudgeon windfarm and as such, we have significant interest in the project - in land owned in Necton. And the Dudgeon cable that will be crossed by Vanguard project.

Many thanks and I look forward to hearing back from you.
I confirm receipt of your submission.

As you are aware the opportunity to register and submit a relevant representation has passed.

Your current status in the examination as a party with land affected by the development is an ‘affected person’. As such, you will automatically become registered as an Interested Party.

Details of the land affected by the proposed development can be found in the applicants Book of Reference document.

As this submission was received after the close of the relevant representation period (16 September 2018) it will be presented to the Examining Authority, who has discretion to accept the information into the examination as an additional submission.

Details of the examination process can be found in our advice notes. You may find Advice Note 8.4: The Examination, to be useful as an overview of the examination process.

24 September 2018
Equinor UK Ltd - Hannah Mary Goodlad
Norfolk Vanguard
Enquiry received via phone
response has attachments
Project update meeting - Teleconference
Please see attached meeting note

24 September 2018
SSE Generation Limited - anon.
General
Enquiry received via email
I spoke to a Planning Inspectorate advisor this morning to apologise for Great Yarmouth BC missing last night’s deadline for submitting a registration of interest in the examination (due to an internal misunderstanding). She indicated that it would likely be acceptable for the Council to send its submission this morning, which I am extremely grateful for, and it is attached.
As you are aware the opportunity to register and submit a relevant representation has passed.

Your current status in the examination is a ‘statutory party’ (a Local Authority bordering the Local Authorities in which the development is proposed aka an ‘a’ authority), as such you will not automatically become an Interested Party.

However, as a statutory party you will receive an invitation to the Preliminary Meeting (PM) and a copy of the examination timetable. Following the PM, you will have a further opportunity to notify the ExA that you wish to be treated as an Interested Party. You will then receive all correspondence during the examination.

As this submission was received after the close of the relevant representation period (16 September 2018) it will be presented to the Examining Authority, who has discretion to accept the information into the examination as an additional submission.

21 September 2018
Great Yarmouth Borough Council - Adam Nicholls
Norfolk Vanguard
Enquiry received via email
I have noticed that the relevant representations letter sent 7th Sept was not formatted as I would expect. Please find attached a revised letter which, although the points made are unchanged formatting has been corrected for ease of the reader. I would like to withdraw the earlier letter submitted Sept 7th and replace it with the one attached if this is acceptable?
As this submission was received after the close of the relevant representations period (16 September 2018) it will be presented to the Examining Authority, who has discretion to accept information in to the examination as an additional submission.

21 September 2018
Environment Agency - Barbara Moss-Taylor
Norfolk Vanguard
Enquiry received via email
Query 1 (from Jonathan Dean by e-mail on 12 September 2018)

Many thanks for starting to load the DCO documents. I understand from them that I should now not correspond with them anymore but only with you

I have spotted some errors in the documents:

a link to their old documents on the project website which does not work
the maps for Clorach Fawr do not correspond with emails they have sent me or the land over which they seek rights

These are probably just typos and/or minor errors. Should I provide details now or wait for submitting my written representation?

Query 2 (from Jonathan Dean by e-mail on 17 September 2018)

I am in the process of preparing my Relevant Representation. Will it be possible to include photos and tables?

Query 3 (from Jonathan Dean by e-mail on 18 September 2018)

When will sections 5.2 - 5.9 be loaded? These are some of the ones we have waited a long time for
It is still open to you to correspond directly with the developer, should you wish. However matters relating to the DCO application should be sent to the Planning Inspectorate.

If you feel that there are errors within the Applicant’s documentation you may wish to include these matters in your Relevant Representation (RR).

The purpose of the Relevant Representation is to summarise the points which you agree and/or disagree with about the application. Whilst we do not actively encourage the submission of photos and tables as part of a RR, as there is an opportunity to submit a Written Representation to elaborate on those matters during the course of the Examination, we would not explicitly refuse to accept them at the RR stage.

The views put forward in RR are used by the Examining Authority to help inform their initial assessment of the principal issues.

The application documentation is still in the process of being uploaded; this will be completed as soon as practicable.

20 September 2018
Jonathan Dean
North Wales Connection
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
A project update meeting took place on 20th September 2018
A note of that meeting is attached

20 September 2018
Highways England - anon.
Lower Thames Crossing
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
My questions are as follows:

1. Which of the 4 elements that Riveroak claim limit the existing capability of Manston to zero did you rely on in arriving at you conclusion that its has zero inherent capacity and thus RSP's proposals qualify as a NSIP ?
2. Did the Planning Inspectorate visit the site to verify the claims made by Riveroak and form their own view ? I would think not as you would have likely identified that the Fire station building does appear to have a roof.
3. What implications would there be for Riveroak if the claims they have made in this NSIP justification document are verfiably wrong and you have relied on them in reaching your conlcusions ?
4. What external aviation advice did the Inspectorate take to validate Riveroak's statments?
5. If, ignoring the other 3 elements, the Fire Station did actually have no roof would the sites exisiting owners then need to go through a DCO process to enable them to put the roof back on the building as the capability would then be well beyond 10,000 cargo ATMs needed?
6. Similary, could a third party, akin to Riveroak, launch a second DCO process to simply put a roof back on the Fire Station, release the existing capability of the airport at much lower cost, and obtain compulsory purchase powers over all the land at the airport.
The matters that you raise are now for the examination. On that basis, please consider making your comments about the Proposed Development in a Relevant Representation*.

The process set out in the Planning Act 2008 is inquisitorial, meaning the appointed Examining Authority will ask questions to the Applicant and other Interested Parties based on, amongst other things, the evidence provided in the application documents and any relevant and important matters raised by Interested Parties in any representations received.

Please note that the Relevant Representations period for this project closes at 11.59pm on 8 October 2018.

The decision to accept the application for examination has been made. If you disagree with the way in which the Secretary of State’s decision in this case was taken, the decision may be challenged in the High Court through the process of Judicial Review (JR). For more information about the JR process you will need to seek your own legal advice.

*See Advice Note 8.2 - How to register to participate in an Examination: [attachment 1]

19 September 2018
S Alvers
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
i have just read the explanation given on page 120 of the applicant's Planning Statement regarding his astonishing disregard of the extensive representations made by the host local authority in relation to the final part of the statutory consultation. (I have also read the similar account given on p318 of the Consultation Report).

I am wondering if PINS was aware of this when it took a view on the adequacy of the consultation and the overall compliance of the application with applicable norms and standards?

I ask the question because it seems to me that the applicant's actions were improper: it ought not to have disregarded an important part of the statutory process on the basis of an email from a local politician who very plainly had no authority to issue the instruction he did.

I would like to know why PINS has allowed this abuse to pass.
Section 55 of the Planning Act 2008 sets out what the Planning Inspectorate must have regard to in reaching a decision about whether an applicant has complied with its Pre-application duties, namely:

• The Consultation Report received;
• any Adequacy of Consultation Representations received from local authority consultees; and
• the extent to which an applicant has had regard to statutory guidance.

The decision to accept the application by RiverOak Strategic Partners for examination has been made, and the conclusions reached by the Inspectorate in that respect are expressed in the published Section 55 Acceptance of Application Checklist*. If you disagree with the way in which the Secretary of State’s decision in this case was taken, the decision may be challenged in the High Court through the process of Judicial Review (JR). For more information about the JR process you will need to seek your own legal advice.

* [attachment 1]

19 September 2018
Mark de Pulford
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I am currently reading the Environmental Statement, to ensure that any representations engage directly with what the application.

I find that the problems created by the length and complexity of the Statement are greatly exacerbated by the following:
1. the parts are out of order: your/the Developer's listing of the 45 documents does not appear to be arranged logically - or at least not by any method I have been able to discern - why is this?
2. the titles of many of the individual document listings give no indication of the nature and significance of their contents - why not?
3. problem 2 is compounded because the Developer has in many cases bundled together unrelated documents, so that e.g. a significant appraisal of noise effects is found under scores of historical maps - who does that help?
4. problem 2 is further compounded because the Developer has in some instances used identical titles for different documents - why has that been allowed? (I can see that your listing attempts to overcome that by adding detail but the underlying situation remains unsatisfactory)
5. there are other irritating inconsistencies in the Developer's titling which, though relatively minor, tend to add to an impression of disregard for public accessibility.
In short, the documentation is difficult to access and navigate. The presentation is so opaque that it gives rise to the suspicion that the applicant has got something to hide.

Be that as it may, the problems seem likely to rebound on the relevance of the representations coming to the Examining Authority and ultimately on the purpose of the process.

Mindful that the UK arrangements must comply with European norms and standards governing planning applications of this kind, can you please ask the Developer to sort this out?
The manner in which application documents appear on the National Infrastructure Planning website is an ongoing issue which arises from the way in which our internal databases 'talk' to the website. At present there is not a practical solution.

However, to resolve the issue in principle, for each project we produce an Examination Library which arranges the application documents and all representations etc made to an examination in a logical order. An Examination Library for the Manston Airport application/ examination has been published and can be accessed by clicking the large blue button under the Documents tab: [attachment 1]

You may also be assisted by the Applicant’s Navigation Document (Doc 1.4) available here: [attachment 2];stage=app&filter1=Application+Form

19 September 2018
Mark de Pulford
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
The first question asked what weight, if any, PINS gave to the detailed and substantial factual evidence submitted to it regarding the misrepresentation by the applicant of his proposals during the statutory consultation.

The second question was not about laws of the Council of Europe (i.e. the Convention to which the Human Rights Act 1998 gives further effect), rather it is about the laws of the European Union. I read that the UK Regulations under which you are working seek to give effect to superior EU law and that this Union law is intended to confer rights on the individual citizen. If that is the case, the UK government agencies implementing these laws are obliged to make the public aware of the relevant rights. This question is simply about trying to establish how you see your accountability in relation to EU law regarding the public consultation and if there are rights affecting the ordinary citizen which you could tell us about - as the implementer of those rights.
The s55 Acceptance of Applications Checklist* (the Checklist) records that in reaching its conclusion under s55 of PA2008, the Planning Inspectorate had regard to correspondence received from various persons relating to the Applicant’s Pre-application consultation. The weight attributed to that correspondence was not so great as to outweigh the evidence provided by the Applicant demonstrating that it had acted reasonably in seeking to comply with Chapter 2 of Part 5 (pre-application procedure) of the PA2008; as the conclusion in the Checklist states at Box 25.

Under section 51 of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008), the Planning Inspectorate can issue advice about:

• applying for an order granting development consent; and/ or
• making representations about an application, or a proposed application, for such an order.

Through this process the Planning Inspectorate exercises its duty to make the public aware of its rights by, amongst other things:

• Publishing and maintaining a suite of advice notes informing applicants, consultees, the public and others about a range of process matters in relation to the PA2008;
• responding to enquiries with s51 advice, where applicable, and recording each item of s51 advice given on the National Infrastructure Planning website; and separately
• making relevant legislation and statutory guidance easily accessible on the website.

*https://infrastructure.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/wp-content/ipc/uploads/projects/TR020002/TR020002-002550-TR020002%20Section%2055%20Acceptance%20of%20Applications%20Checklist%20FINAL.pdf

19 September 2018
Mark de Pulford
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Can you confirm that the Planning Inspectorate is not concerned if a DCO applicant makes public statements containing lies, as long as these lies do not directly involve the processes set out in the Planning Act 2008.

Furthermore, can you clarify whether the Planning Inspectorate consider statements regarding to technical details contained within an application to fall outside of any "misrepresentation of the Planning Act 2008 process", if, as in the example I gave in my earlier email, the misinformation is provided during the pre-examination period.
Our previous response to you comprises the Planning Inspectorate’s definitive response in respect of the matter raised [[attachment 1]].

Please consider making these and any further comments about the Proposed Development to the appointed Examining Authority by making a Relevant Representation: [attachment 2].

19 September 2018
Jon Fowler
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I live in Tregele the closest village to wylfa, im horrified by the prospect of a second ungodly row of pylons in my back garden ( literally) , if there is anything the inspectorate can do to assist the local community it will be very welcome, im not againt the wylfa B but for heavens sake get the cables buried
The North Wales Connection application was submitted to the Planning Inspectorate (the Inspectorate) on 7 September 2018. A decision whether the application should be accepted for Examination will be made by no later than Friday 5 October 2018.

If the project is accepted for Examination you will be able to register as an Interested Party.

Becoming an Interested Party gives you the right to make representations about the application, attend meetings and hearings, stay informed of the progress of the Examination and be given notification of the final Decision.

Each individual that wishes to become an Interested Party will need to make a Relevant Representation; the Applicant has a duty to notify the local community on how to register as an Interested Party.

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 1]

[attachment 2]

19 September 2018
Kevin Otten
North Wales Connection
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
What are these ‘hundreds of changes’ Horizon have made to accommodate the second pylon route across Ynys Môn? They only need to make one change - listen to the voice of the Islanders and put the cables underground
The North Wales Connection application was submitted to the Planning Inspectorate (the Inspectorate) on 7 September 2018. A decision whether the application should be accepted for Examination will be made by no later than Friday 5 October 2018. Amongst other matters, the Inspectorate will be considering the adequacy of the Applicant's pre-application consultation.

If the project is accepted for Examination you will be able to register as an Interested Party.

Becoming an Interested Party gives you the right to make representations about the application, attend meetings and hearings, stay informed of the progress of the Examination and be given notification of the final Decision.

Each individual that wishes to become an Interested Party will need to make a Relevant Representation; the Applicant has a duty to notify the local community on how to register as an Interested Party.

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 1]

[attachment 2]

19 September 2018
Gwynfor Roberts
North Wales Connection
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I am very unhappy with the National Grid's proposals for taking electricity from Wylfa Newydd and would like the chance to submit my comments during the Planning Application
The North Wales Connection application was submitted to the Planning Inspectorate (the Inspectorate) on 7 September 2018. A decision whether the application should be accepted for Examination will be made by no later than Friday 5 October 2018.

If the project is accepted for Examination you will be able to register as an Interested Party.

Becoming an Interested Party gives you the right to make representations about the application, attend meetings and hearings, stay informed of the progress of the Examination and be given notification of the final Decision.

Each individual that wishes to become an Interested Party will need to make a Relevant Representation; the Applicant has a duty to notify the local community on how to register as an Interested Party.

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 1]

[attachment 2]

19 September 2018
Andria Massey
North Wales Connection
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Cotswold District Council and Mendip District Council queried why their councils were being contacted with regards to the proposed A303 Stonehenge application.
For avoidance of doubt, the proposed A303 Stonehenge application by Highways England is to be considered under the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) regime. Under that regime, your council has been identified as a neighbouring ‘A’ authority due to sharing a boundary with the host unitary council – Wiltshire Council. Your council is therefore a relevant local authority eligible to submit an Adequacy of Consultation Representation (AoCR) setting out whether your council feels the Applicant has met its duty to consult under sections 42, 47 and 48 of the PA2008.

For more information how relevant local authorities are identified (specifically Figure 4 on page 5) and their role in the process, please follow the link to view our Advice Note two - The role of local authorities in the development consent process:
[attachment 1]

17 September 2018
Various enquiries - anon.
A303 Stonehenge
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting.
Please see meeting note.

13 September 2018
Heathrow Airport Ltd - anon.
Expansion of Heathrow Airport (Third Runway)
Enquiry received via email
I enclose a copy of a meeting note from a project update meeting between the Planning Inspectorate and Ashfield Land, regarding their ongoing proposal for the Rail Central strategic rail freight interchange in my South Northamptonshire constituency
As you will note:

The Inspectorate advised that it would be helpful to see NR’s response to the Applicant’s statutory consultation (which ended on 23/04/18) and enquired whether NR had commented on the rail network’s capacity to accommodate both SRFI proposals. Whilst the Applicant confirmed that it had not, it was satisfied that its own negotiations with NR were progressing well. The Applicant explained that extensive engagement has taken place with Network Rail through their GRIP process over the last 5 years, involving a designated sponsor supported by a NR project team comprising of in-house and outsourced technical specialists. This engagement with NR has informed the design and rail infrastructure and main line connections and the completed work undertaken at GRIP stage 2 has validated the technical and operational feasibility of the proposals. A Statement of Common Ground is at an advanced stage of drafting in order that this can be included within the DCO application.
The Inspectorate noted that two Examinations running simultaneously was likely to put some strain on NR’s resources. The Inspectorate requested that the Applicant provide the contact details for NR in order for the Inspectorate to have an unbiased discussion with NR about the two schemes. The Inspectorate also noted that the examination of both schemes would involve the same Local Authorities (LAs) and other stakeholders and highlighted that the examination of just one proposal can put a strain on the resources of these persons/organisations.

Can I ask for your comments on the above points, particularly whether you have received the information requested from Ashfield Land, and if PINS is satisfied that the rail network could accommodate both SRFI proposals.
Thank you for your letter received on 29 August 2018 regarding the above proposal and the Planning Inspectorate’s meeting with Ashfield Land Management Limited and Gazeley GLP Northampton (the Developer) on 25 May 2018.
In your letter you asked if the Planning Inspectorate is satisfied that the rail network could accommodate both the Rail Central and Northampton Gateway SRFI proposals. This is a matter which is likely to be raised and considered during the examination stages of the Planning Act 2008 process for each of the proposals.
It will be for the relevant appointed Examining Authorities to examine the applications to which they are (or will be) appointed, and to make their recommendations on the decisions to the Secretary of State for Transport. It is then ultimately for the Secretary of State to decide whether development consent can be granted for each scheme.
As you will be aware, the Northampton Gateway SRFI application was submitted by Roxhill (Junction 15) Limited in May 2018; the Examining Authority has been appointed and the examination will commence following the Preliminary Meeting which is due to take place on 9 October 2018. We are expecting to receive the application for the Rail Central SRFI proposal in mid-September 2018.
I can confirm that the Rail Central Developer provided us with the contact details for the relevant Network Rail sponsor and we held a telecon meeting with Network Rail on 11 September 2018 to discuss the Planning Act 2008 process. The Developer answered our question in relation to Network Rail’s consultation response during the meeting on 25 May 2018, and following the meeting they provided us with the link to South Northamptonshire Council’s Officer Report in response to the Rail Central pre-application consultation, which is available on the Council’s website.
I hope you find this information to be helpful.

12 September 2018
The Rt Hon Andrea Leadsom MP
Rail Central (Strategic Rail Freight Interchange)
Enquiry received via email
I enclose a copy of a meeting note from a project update meeting between the Planning Inspectorate and Ashfield Land, regarding their ongoing proposal for the Rail Central strategic rail freight interchange in my South Northamptonshire constituency
As you will note:

The Inspectorate advised that it would be helpful to see NR’s response to the Applicant’s statutory consultation (which ended on 23/04/18) and enquired whether NR had commented on the rail network’s capacity to accommodate both SRFI proposals. Whilst the Applicant confirmed that it had not, it was satisfied that its own negotiations with NR were progressing well. The Applicant explained that extensive engagement has taken place with Network Rail through their GRIP process over the last 5 years, involving a designated sponsor supported by a NR project team comprising of in-house and outsourced technical specialists. This engagement with NR has informed the design and rail infrastructure and main line connections and the completed work undertaken at GRIP stage 2 has validated the technical and operational feasibility of the proposals. A Statement of Common Ground is at an advanced stage of drafting in order that this can be included within the DCO application.
The Inspectorate noted that two Examinations running simultaneously was likely to put some strain on NR’s resources. The Inspectorate requested that the Applicant provide the contact details for NR in order for the Inspectorate to have an unbiased discussion with NR about the two schemes. The Inspectorate also noted that the examination of both schemes would involve the same Local Authorities (LAs) and other stakeholders and highlighted that the examination of just one proposal can put a strain on the resources of these persons/organisations.

Can I ask for your comments on the above points, particularly whether you have received the information requested from Ashfield Land, and if PINS is satisfied that the rail network could accommodate both SRFI proposals.
Thank you for your letter received on 29 August 2018 regarding the above proposal and the Planning Inspectorate’s meeting with Ashfield Land Management Limited and Gazeley GLP Northampton (the Developer) on 25 May 2018.
In your letter you asked if the Planning Inspectorate is satisfied that the rail network could accommodate both the Rail Central and Northampton Gateway SRFI proposals. This is a matter which is likely to be raised and considered during the examination stages of the Planning Act 2008 process for each of the proposals.
It will be for the relevant appointed Examining Authorities to examine the applications to which they are (or will be) appointed, and to make their recommendations on the decisions to the Secretary of State for Transport. It is then ultimately for the Secretary of State to decide whether development consent can be granted for each scheme.
As you will be aware, the Northampton Gateway SRFI application was submitted by Roxhill (Junction 15) Limited in May 2018; the Examining Authority has been appointed and the examination will commence following the Preliminary Meeting which is due to take place on 9 October 2018. We are expecting to receive the application for the Rail Central SRFI proposal in mid-September 2018.
I can confirm that the Rail Central Developer provided us with the contact details for the relevant Network Rail sponsor and we held a telecon meeting with Network Rail on 11 September 2018 to discuss the Planning Act 2008 process. The Developer answered our question in relation to Network Rail’s consultation response during the meeting on 25 May 2018, and following the meeting they provided us with the link to South Northamptonshire Council’s Officer Report in response to the Rail Central pre-application consultation, which is available on the Council’s website.
I hope you find this information to be helpful.

12 September 2018
The Rt Hon Andrea Leadsom MP
Northampton Gateway Rail Freight Interchange
In a planning meeting with the Developer on the 25th May the Inspectorate stated the following:
'The Inspectorate noted that two Examinations running simultaneously was likely to put some strain on NR’s resources. The Inspectorate requested that the Applicant provide the contact details for NR in order for the Inspectorate to have an unbiased discussion with NR about the two schemes. The Inspectorate also noted that the examination of both schemes would involve the same Local Authorities (LAs) and other stakeholders and highlighted that the examination of just one proposal can put a strain on the resources of these persons/organisations.'
In July I formally asked whether or not this had been done but had no reply. On the 28th August I followed up on the phone to be told that this conversation had not taken place (and would most likely not). Would it be possible to publish this query on the web site and then provide the reason as to why it has not when it was specifically requested by yourselves.
This is not a side issue, it is absolutely critical for the whole of the area and local community so I am disappointed that nothing further has happened. I am beginning to wonder at what stage this absolutely critical issue will be addressed. Nobody seems willing to adopt a pro-active approach.
As you may now be aware, the Rail Central Strategic Rail Freight Interchange (SRFI) application is due to be submitted in mid-September 2018. As a result, the level of overlap of the examination stages for both projects (if the Rail Central application is accepted for examination) will be less than initially anticipated, however we note that an overlap towards the latter part of the Northampton Gateway SRFI examination and the start of the Rail Central SRFI examination is still likely.
Whilst it is ultimately for the relevant appointed Examining Authority to determine how to examine each application, there are opportunities for you to have your say on the examination process at the Preliminary Meetings for each project. In addition, as the Northampton Gateway SRFI examination timetable will be finalised by the point at which the Rail Central SRFI draft examination timetable will be produced, efforts will be made to avoid deadline and hearing date clashes where possible.
We held a telecon meeting with Network Rail today to discuss the Planning Act 2008 process, a meeting note will be published on our website in due course.
In regard to the information we publish on our website, The Planning Inspectorate is required to publish advice it provides under section 51 of the Planning Act 2008 which relates to:
- applying for an order granting development consent; or
- making representations about an application, or a proposed application, for such an order.
I hope you find the above information to be helpful.

11 September 2018
Mark Redding
Rail Central (Strategic Rail Freight Interchange)
Enquiry received via email
In a planning meeting with the Developer on the 25th May the Inspectorate stated the following: 'The Inspectorate noted that two Examinations running simultaneously was likely to put some strain on NR’s resources. The Inspectorate requested that the Applicant provide the contact details for NR in order for the Inspectorate to have an unbiased discussion with NR about the two schemes. The Inspectorate also noted that the examination of both schemes would involve the same Local Authorities (LAs) and other stakeholders and highlighted that the examination of just one proposal can put a strain on the resources of these persons/organisations.'
In July I formally asked whether or not this had been done but had no reply. On the 28th August I followed up on the phone to be told that this conversation had not taken place (and would most likely not). Would it be possible to publish this query on the web site and then provide the reason as to why it has not when it was specifically requested by yourselves.
This is not a side issue, it is absolutely critical for the whole of the area and local community so I am disappointed that nothing further has happened. I am beginning to wonder at what stage this absolutely critical issue will be addressed. Nobody seems willing to adopt a pro-active approach.
As you may now be aware, the Rail Central Strategic Rail Freight Interchange (SRFI) application is due to be submitted in mid-September 2018. As a result, the level of overlap of the examination stages for both projects (if the Rail Central application is accepted for examination) will be less than initially anticipated, however we note that an overlap towards the latter part of the Northampton Gateway SRFI examination and the start of the Rail Central SRFI examination is still likely.
Whilst it is ultimately for the relevant appointed Examining Authority to determine how to examine each application, there are opportunities for you to have your say on the examination process at the Preliminary Meetings for each project. In addition, as the Northampton Gateway SRFI examination timetable will be finalised by the point at which the Rail Central SRFI draft examination timetable will be produced, efforts will be made to avoid deadline and hearing date clashes where possible.
We held a telecon meeting with Network Rail today to discuss the Planning Act 2008 process, a meeting note will be published on our website in due course.
In regard to the information we publish on our website, The Planning Inspectorate is required to publish advice it provides under section 51 of the Planning Act 2008 which relates to:
- applying for an order granting development consent; or
- making representations about an application, or a proposed application, for such an order.
I hope you find the above information to be helpful.

11 September 2018
Mark Redding
Northampton Gateway Rail Freight Interchange
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached

11 September 2018
Network Rail - anon.
Northampton Gateway Rail Freight Interchange
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting Note
Please see attached

11 September 2018
Highways England - anon.
A63 Castle Street Improvement-Hull
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Planning Act 2008 process meeting with Network Rail
Please see attached

11 September 2018
Network Rail - anon.
Rail Central (Strategic Rail Freight Interchange)
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Please see attached Meeting Note
Please see attached Meeting Note

11 September 2018
VPI Immingham B Ltd - anon.
VPI Immingham OCGT
Enquiry received via email
I am writing with regard to the North Wales Connection project to express my deepest concern about the actual, potential and perceived negative impacts a second high voltage overhead power line will have on Anglesey. Constructing a second line from Wylfa to Pentir in addition to the existing one will create a ‘no go’ corridor dissecting this beautiful island, not to mention concerns about the adverse effects due to exposure to electro-magnetic pollution. In his scoping opinion the Secretary of State identifies issues that are of deep concern to the island population and also visitors who come to enjoy the natural beauty of Anglesey. They come to escape the industrial environments of Manchester, Liverpool and Warrington not to be confronted by unsightly overhead power cables and monster pylons. The negative visual impact will inevitably threaten the status of Anglesey as a popular tourist destination.

The precise route of the electricity transmission line and location of individual pylons have not been determined and it is therefore of critical importance to fully take into account the island’s opposition to an overhead line. If National Grid ignore the voice of the people directly affected by this project, history will repeat itself again, as so many times before. Over the past three hundred years or so, Wales has made a substantial contribution to the economy of the UK, be it through the extraction of mineral resources (e.g. slate, copper, coal) or the provision of water, and as a consequence has been left with a legacy of industrial pollution and extinction of culture. A second line of monster pylons would be another example. The electricity transported will benefit England, but Anglesey will have to bear the cost. This is grossly unfair and raises the question of equity across the four nations of the UK. For example, an approximately 33km long underground high voltage cable has been installed across the Wirral peninsula. Why can this not be a viable option for Anglesey? This island is unique in terms of its stunning coastline and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty and we therefore have a moral duty to protect this precious asset against increasing industrialisation, not just for now, but for generations to come. Higher costs for the consumer must not be cited as a reason to go for the cheapest option, as many are willing to pay slightly more for their electricity if that means that jewels like Anglesey can be spared a second line of monster pylons.

The Scoping Report raises further issues. For example, in the section ‘Undergrounding cables’ 2.61 Para 2.4.14) it states that the ‘Preferred Route Corridor Report’ concluded that cables would be installed underground through the Anglesey AONB and across the Menai Strait, and yet, there is no further reference within the report to undergrounding within the Anglesey AONB and how users of the Anglesey Coastal Path might be affected. In Appendix 14.2 it is proposed that effects on house prices are scoped out for all components and all stages of the proposed development, as the existing line forms part of the existing baseline and should therefore be considered in that context. I fail to understand the logic of this argument, as two power lines, one even bigger than the first, obviously will have more than twice the negative visual impact.

Another issue relates to the National Grid’s lack of engagement with relevant stakeholders, in particular the Isle of Anglesey County Council and the island population. The role of the tourism sector must be fully recognised as well as the well-being of key natural and historic environment resources. They are crucial to maintain the area's status as a visitor destination. In this respect it is worrying that there is no reference made to: the AONB setting between Wylfa and Rhosgoch, the Mynydd Mechell Special Landscape Area (SLA) within the scoping corridor and the direct impact through the route alignment, Parciau SLA or the AONB setting, Maltraeth Marsh and the surrounding SLA, Southern Anglesey Estateland SLA, important woodlands, topography and the setting of Snowdonia National Park.

Undergrounding high voltage power lines has become the default position in other European Countries, as for example in Germany’s federal state of Bavaria where the people’s concerns have been taken seriously. When will National Grid listen to the people’s voice in Anglesey?
Thank you for your email of 6 September 2018.

The North Wales Connection application was submitted to the Planning Inspectorate (the Inspectorate) on 7 September 2018. A decision whether the application should be accepted for Examination will be made by no later than Friday 5 October 2018.

As part of the acceptance process, the Inspectorate will request the relevant local authorities’ views on adequacy of the consultation. The local authorities should also take into account any comments made by stakeholders to them when they submit their comments on whether the developer has fulfilled its consultation duties. Comments relating to the adequacy of consultation will be taken into account when the Acceptance Inspector decides whether to accept the application for Examination.

Please note that this response relates solely to the comments you have made in relation to the applicant’s consultation; the remainder of your e-mail relates to the merits of the proposed development, which cannot be considered at this stage. Should the application be accepted by the Inspectorate for Examination, the applicant has a duty to notify the local community on how to register as an Interested Party. Comments relating to the merits of the application can be made at that stage.

The process under the Planning Act 2008 (PA 2008) has been designed to allow members of the public and statutory stakeholders to participate in the Examination of all DCO applications so that anyone interested in the proposed developments, their potential impacts and any relevant matters can be fully engaged in the Examination process.

10 September 2018
Dr Marion Jones
North Wales Connection
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached

10 September 2018
Orsted et al - anon.
Hornsea Project Four Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Meeting Update
Please see attached

10 September 2018
Wheelabrator Technologies Inc (WTI) - anon.
Wheelabrator Kemsley Generating Station (K3) and Wheelabrator Kemsley North (WKN) Waste to Energy Facility
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I am writing to ask if it is possible for members of the GREAT campaign and myself to maybe meet with you. I understand you are available to meet with the developers but am unsure if the same offer is extended to residents and stakeholders.
Thank you for your email on behalf of the GREAT campaign group.

Further to our telephone conversation, may I advise you that there is a great deal of information available to members of the public on our website, which includes advice about the nationally significant infrastructure planning process (NSIP) and how they can get involved during the examination stage.

At this stage the Planning Inspectorate can only advise the public on process related queries, and the public should be directing any project related queries to the developer during this current pre-application stage. I would therefore encourage you and the members of the GREAT campaign group to continue to contact the developer directly with regard to concerns you have. The developer has a statutory duty to have regard to all consultation responses received and this should be demonstrated in the Consultation Report they submit as part of their Development Consent Order (DCO) application.

If you have concerns about the way in which the developer is carrying out the pre-application consultation, I would advise you to write to your local authority and set out why you think the developer is failing to conduct its consultation properly. Once the application is submitted the Inspectorate will request the relevant local authorities’ view on the adequacy of the consultation. Your comments should be taken into account when the local authority sends in its comments on whether the developer has fulfilled its consultation duties. The local authority’s comments will be taken into account when the Acceptance Inspector makes their decision whether to accept the application for Examination.

Should the DCO application be accepted by the Inspectorate for examination, the applicant has a duty to notify the local community when providing information on how to register as an Interested Party for the purpose of the process. The process under the Planning Act 2008 (PA 2008) has been designed to allow members of the public and statutory stakeholders to participate in the examination of all DCO applications so that anyone interested in the proposed developments, their potential impacts and any relevant matters can be fully engaged in the examination process.

During the examination, the Examining Authority has a duty to take into account all matters assessed by the applicant in the Environmental Statement and may ask additional questions as required.

The Planning Inspectorate has produced several Advice Notes to help provide an overview of the Planning Act 2008 process and the opportunities to get involved.

They are available at the following link:
[attachment 1]

Of particular relevance is Advice Note 8 ‘Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others’.

At the current pre-application stage we would also recommend Advice Note 8.1: ‘Responding to the developer’s pre-application consultation’ and Advice Note 8.2: ‘How to register to participate in an Examination’.

I can assure you that anyone interested in the proposed developments, their 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.

If you or the GREAT group require any further advice about the National Infrastructure process please contact the Cleve Hill Case team at the Planning Inspectorate. They can be contacted by email via the project mailbox at [email protected] or via the Customer Services Team on telephone number 0303 444 5000.

07 September 2018
Graveney Rural Environment Action Team (GREAT) - Vicky Ellis
Cleve Hill Solar Park
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Inception Meeting
Please see the attached meeting note

07 September 2018
AQUIND Limited
AQUIND Interconnector
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Draft document feedback and project update meeting.
Please see attached meeting note and feedback document.

05 September 2018
Highways England - anon.
A57 Link Roads (previously known as Trans Pennine Upgrade Programme)
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Planning Act 2008 process meeting with Scottish Power Renewables
Please see attached

05 September 2018
Scottish Power Renewables - anon.
East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Planning Act 2008 process meeting with Scottish Power Renewables
Please see attached

05 September 2018
Scottish Power Renewables - anon.
East Anglia ONE North Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via phone
response has attachments
Project update meeting with the representatives of Suffolk Coastal and Waveney District Councils (SC&WDCs) and Suffolk County Council (SCC).
Please see attached

05 September 2018
Local Authorities - anon.
East Anglia ONE North Offshore Windfarm
response has attachments
Project update meeting with the representatives of Suffolk Coastal and Waveney District Councils (SC&WDCs) and Suffolk County Council (SCC).
Please see attached

05 September 2018
Local Authorities - anon.
East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I have been asked to research guidance for the Heathrow Local Impact Report.
Statutory guidance on Local Impact Reports (LIR) is comprised within paras 52 to 57 of Planning Act 2008: Guidance for the examination of applications for development consent: [attachment 1]

The Planning Inspectorate has also produced an advice note (Advice Note One) about the production of LIRs: [attachment 2]

All LIRs submitted to historic and live examinations are available to view on the discrete project pages on the National Infrastructure Planning website. Three in particular have been identified by the Inspectorate as good examples, hosted here: [attachment 3]

03 September 2018
The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead - Holly Campbell
Expansion of Heathrow Airport (Third Runway)
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
As an "Interested party" living within half a mile of the flight path of any proposed cargo aircraft landing at Manston, which they will have to do in my case at a height of some 200meters, at least 32 during any day and night, can you let me know what email address I can use to make my submission, which contains 3 PDF's?
To be deemed valid, Relevant Representations (RRs) must be submitted on a fully completed Planning Inspectorate Registration and Relevant Representation form, which can be completed online here: [attachment 1]

We request that supporting documents are not submitted alongside RRs. The Inspectorate recommends that RRs remain under 500 words and focus on the issues the Examining Authority (ExA) should take account of in its examination of the application. Once the Examination formally begins, there will be further opportunities to provide more detailed written representations, as well as oral representations, that expand on the issues identified at the RR stage.

Please note that once you have registered in the prescribed manner set out above, you will become an Interested Party and will legally be able to participate in the Examination. The deadline to register is 8 October 2018.

If you wish to complete a paper copy of the Registration and Relevant Representation form, please provide your address and we will post one to you.

03 September 2018
Dennis Franklin
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Following the submission for a DCO made by Riveroak I would like to ask about compulsory acquisition.

I believe, as part of their submission Riveroak are asking for a compulsory acquisition of the land currently owned by Stonewall Park and others. If the DCO is successful is the compulsory acquisition also granted as part of that application or are both issues decided separately.

Is it possible that the DCO be granted and the Compulsory acquisition of land be refused, or visa versa?

Are both issues considered together or do objectors need to address each issue separately?
In summary, proposed Compulsory Acquisition powers are subject to discrete tests in the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) - see sections 122 to 134: [attachment 1]. The Secretary of State will therefore necessarily reach discrete conclusions about (i) the case for the development and (ii) the case for Compulsory Acquisition.

If in any applicable case the Secretary of State is not satisfied that it is appropriate to grant some or all of the Compulsory Acquisition powers sought in a Development Consent Order (DCO), the DCO can be made in modified form with some or all of the proposed Compulsory Acquisition powers deleted. Conversely however, a DCO cannot be made if it does not include development for which development consent is required ie a DCO cannot grant Compulsory Acquisition powers alone.

In respect of making a Relevant Representation* about a Proposed Development, it will assist the appointed Examining Authority if comments relating to the potential impacts of proposed Compulsory Acquisition powers are made clear in the Relevant Representation eg under a separate heading. It is not however necessary or encouraged to submit separate Relevant Representations about (i) the case for the development and (ii) the case for Compulsory Acquisition.

* See Advice Note 8.2: [attachment 2]

Please see 'Planning Act 2008: guidance related to procedures for the Compulsory Acquisition of land' for more information: [attachment 3]

03 September 2018
James Hose
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The following persons attempted to make comments to the Inspectorate on the merits of the Proposed Development between 17 and 31 August 2018:
Tony and June Bate; Marc Flint; Margaret and Ken Bolwell; Neil & Sarah Wyllie; John Buttle; hench 595; David Dunkerley; Roger Latchford; Jean Lavington; Ken Richardson; Clive Langley; Raymond Rogers; Pat Griffiths; Stephanie Crow; Richard Brown; Susan Still; Dean Spinks; Gareth Harwood
David Garrod; Guy Topping; Josephine Renton; Terry Cutts; Derek Williams; Anthony Hodges; Ivan Pullen; Peter Szewcuzk; Dr C A Eastman and Mr D RidgwayAlan Martin; Steven East; Richard Eastland; Jane Holden; Sylvie Richardson; Roger Richardson; Julie Older; Tobias Brackett; Roger Kelly; Graham Higgs; Rod Giddins; Marguerite Wilkinson; MG & TJ Houghton; Peter Tye; Joe Bradley; Richard Josey; Margaret Symonds; RL Symonds; Dudley and Patricia Cloake; Paul Whiteside; Judi and Ken Kimble; John Reid; Stephen Samuels; Juliette Baker; Mr and Mrs Andrew Smith; Mr and Mrs Toby Smith; Mr and Mrs Darren Wilson; Peter Harbor; Alwyn and Carole Williams; Laurie Dunn; Paul Smith; Mr and Mrs Haill; Chris Turner; Don Shaw-Case; Paul Machin; Paul Reid; Phill Cavalli.
We cannot consider your comments about the merits of the Proposed Development at this time.

Please read the Planning Inspectorate's 'Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination' for details about how and when you can make a Relevant Representation to the appointed Examining Authority: [attachment 1]

31 August 2018
Various enquiries - anon.
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
About a week ago, the website said that interest could be registered from September 3, but that date has now been removed from the website. Is there a reason for this?
Please see our response to a similar query here: [attachment 1]

We have now published the Applicant’s s56 notice, formally notifying that the application has been accepted for Examination. This notice also confirms when the registration period will open:
[attachment 2]

31 August 2018
Poppy Jeffrey
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I didn't think this would be such a bureaucratic process. I have given my thoughts and there will be nothing more from me.
As previously advised, the comments you have provided will not be considered by the appointed Examining Authority until they are submitted at the correct time in the prescribed manner, as set out in the Planning Inspectorate's 'Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination': [attachment 1]

Once the registration period opens, please complete the Relevant Representation form, either online or on a paper copy by request, to ensure your comments are accepted and included in the Examination of the Manston Airport application.

31 August 2018
Paul Whiteside
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Perhaps there is some way of making RSP put the documents online, on an ordinary, navigable and searchable website.

Online as a serried of pdfs where you can’t really tell what information they contain, I can only say it probably ticks the boxes but isn’t really usable
As my colleague has already advised, the functionality you have described is not available on the National Infrastructure Planning website at the moment. Additionally, there is no prescribed manner in which applicants must display the application documents on their website.

You may have noticed that we have now published the Applicant’s s56 notice, formally notifying that the application has been accepted for Examination. This notice also sets out where members of the public can inspect hard copies of the application, which may be an easier way to navigate it, as well as how copies can be requested directly from the Applicant.

[attachment 1]

31 August 2018
Michael Child
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
Various enquiries by email from Jonathan Dean concerning the scoping opinion
Advice given by email on 30 August 2018:

Enquiry 1: The environmental impact assessment shall identify, describe and assess in an appropriate manner, in the light of each individual case, the direct and indirect significant effects of a project on ... (d) material assets". "material assets" would include property? Please advise if I have interpreted this correctly.

Response: The Inspectorate is unable to provide advice on the interpretation of legislation.

Enquiry 2: Can I make a suggestion to improve the planning process. Before the scope of the Environmental Statement is locked down, the public should be consulted;

Response: The scoping process is governed by the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017. As part of the process the Inspectorate, on behalf of the SoS, is required to consult with the consultation bodies as defined in the regulations. There is no requirement to consult with the public.

Enquiry 3: Is there a process to challenge the scope? If so, I would think it is better to do this before the DCO is submitted so Grid have an opportunity to respond.

Response: The Scoping Opinion is the SoS’s opinion as to the scope, and level of detail, of the information to be provided in the Environmental Statement. There is no process to challenge the SoS’s opinion. Should you have any views on the proposed assessment scope we suggest you contact the Applicant directly.

Enquiry 4: Impact on property value.

Response: It is for the Applicant to interpret the content of the SoS’s Scoping Opinion and undertake the assessment accordingly.

Enquiry 5: I understand from BEIS that the Scoping Opinion is in fact the work of PINS rather than the SoS. Is there not a potential conflict of interest?

Response: The Scoping Opinion is issued by the Planning Inspectorate on behalf of the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government. The decision whether to grant development consent for an energy project is made by the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy.

30 August 2018
Jonathan Dean
North Wales Connection
Enquiry received via email
Enquiry (from Jonathan Dean by email on 16 July 2018):

Can I make a suggestion for a way to improve the overall process for future projects? I am particularly impressed by PINS website presenting all questions etc, such as this, for the public to access. I am now being sent, by various members of the public, their submissions to the three stages of consultation by National Grid. The vast majority of which has not been reported in the consultation reports. Many of these have clearly involved considerable effort and technical, legal and economic consideration. Would it be possible for future projects that either PINS host the consultation repository, or the developer have to maintain a public repository? In this way the consultation would be more collaborative, and may be more acceptable to the public. Currently the vast majority of the public's effort is "lost" into National Grid's archive, and no one knows what others are saying. Collaborative efforts generally result in better acceptance of the outcomes.
Response (by email on 30 August 2018):

Thank you for your suggestion. The pre-application consultation is the responsibility of the applicant and therefore it would not be appropriate for the Planning Inspectorate’s website to host consultation documents. There is a risk that this could cause some confusion as any responses to the consultation should be sent to the applicant, and not the Inspectorate. It is for an applicant to determine the best way of presenting their consultation material and they consult the relevant local authorities on this in their Statement of Community Consultation.

30 August 2018
Jonathan Dean
North Wales Connection
Enquiry received via email
Enquiry (from Jonathan Dean by email on 22 August 2018):

I understand from National Grid that PINS conducted a consultation on the SoS Scoping Opinion. Please could I have more details of that consultation as I do not recall being consulted.
Response (by email on 30 August 2018):

Under the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2009 that were in force at the time of the scoping request for the North Wales Connection (but have since been replaced by the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017), the Planning Inspectorate was required to consult with the person who made the request and the consultation bodies prior to adopting a scoping opinion.

Consultation bodies are defined under the EIA Regulations as:
•a body prescribed under s42(1)(a) of the PA2008 (duty to consult) and listed in column 1 of the table set out at Schedule 1 to the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations where the circumstances set out in column 2 are satisfied in respect of that body;
•each authority that is within s43 of the PA2008 (local authorities for purposes of s42(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 conducted this consultation upon receipt of the North Wales Connection scoping request in May 2016. The consultation bodies are detailed in Appendix 2 of the Scoping Opinion.

The Planning Inspectorate’s approach to identifying scoping consultation bodies is detailed in Advice Note three: EIA consultation and notification.

30 August 2018
Jonathan Dean
North Wales Connection
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Several people have expressed concerns that, should they register as interested parties for the Manston Airport DCO, their names and possibly addresses will be made public on the Planning Inspectorate website. This concern arises because the individuals are worried that they will receive abuse on social media from people who support the reopening of the airport, something which has been prevalent from certain groups/individuals since the closure of the airport.

Can the Planning Inspectorate please advise whether the personal details of interested parties will be kept confidential if they choose to register.
The Planning Inspectorate is required to make Relevant Representations available for public inspection as soon as practicably possible after the close of the registration period. This includes publishing the Interested Party’s name alongside their representation; however, all other information provided on the Relevant Representation form will remain confidential.

The Inspectorate’s Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination: [attachment 1] advises groups of people who share similar views to submit combined representations/ communications to assist the process. Those persons you refer to in your email may be comforted to know that only the organisation name, and not the persons represented, will appear on the website if they participate in a group representation. Persons names provided in the representation itself can be redacted on request.

We offer this advice based on the principle that it is the relevance and importance of the issues raised that will attract weight in an Examining Authority's deliberations at the Examination stage, not the quantity of responses. Therefore persons shall not be prejudice by not submitting individual representations. The Inspectorate recommends that one person from the group is elected to speak if the group wishes to attend and give oral representations at public hearings once the Examination stage formally commences.

30 August 2018
Jonathan Fowler
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update Meeting.
Please see attached meeting note and separate document containing the Planning Inspectorate's comments on draft documents.

30 August 2018
Highways England - anon.
A303 Stonehenge
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Please see attached
Please see attached

28 August 2018
Highways England - anon.
A63 Castle Street Improvement-Hull
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Does PINS routinely accept for examination plans for developments where the money will be raised at a later date?
Did PINS consider how the project would be funded before accepting this application for examination?
Is PINS satisfied that the sources of funding for this project have been made sufficiently clear and that the sources are legitimate sources of funding?
What will happen to the DCO if it emerges that the compensation bill is likely to be far higher than the £7.5 million which RSP have allowed for? Will the examination be stopped or will you allow a hiatus in the process whilst they go off to try to raise further funds?
If the DCO were completed and RSP were able to fund acquisition of the site, what would happen if they were then unable to raise the money to deliver the development they have proposed? At that point, would PINS accept a modified proposal which was not the same in nature or scale to the original proposal?
“Does PINS routinely accept for examination plans for developments where the money will be raised at a later date?”

The test in The Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009 requires that, where a proposed order would authorise the Compulsory Acquisition of land or an interest in or right over land, applicants provide “a statement to indicate how an order that contains the authorisation of compulsory acquisition is proposed to be funded”. RiverOak Strategic Partners provided a Funding Statement setting out how it proposes to fund the order. The content of the Funding Statement can be interrogated by the Examining Authority in the course of the examination.

“Did PINS consider how the project would be funded before accepting this application for examination?”

The Planning Inspectorate issued advice about the content of draft funding statements at the following meetings:

• [attachment 1];ipcadvice=70d0cc5690
• [attachment 1];ipcadvice=11d13371d4

“Is PINS satisfied that the sources of funding for this project have been made sufficiently clear and that the sources are legitimate sources of funding?”

The Planning Inspectorate has not reached any conclusion in this respect. The evidence provided by the Applicant in the application documents will be tested by the appointed Examining Authority, at its own discretion, in a manner that seeks to be fair to all parties and thorough in its examination.

“What will happen to the DCO if it emerges that the compensation bill is likely to be far higher than the £7.5 million which RSP have allowed for? Will the examination be stopped or will you allow a hiatus in the process whilst they go off to try to raise further funds?”

The six month Examination stage is statutory. It has never been extended. If in any case an Examining Authority is not, by the end of the examination, satisfied in respect of one or more of the tests associated with the Compulsory Acquisition of land and rights, a positive recommendation may not be made to the relevant Secretary of State in respect of the Compulsory Acquisition powers sought.

Please see ‘Planning Act 2008: Guidance related to procedures for the compulsory acquisition of land’ for more information: [attachment 3]

“If the DCO were completed and RSP were able to fund acquisition of the site, what would happen if they were then unable to raise the money to deliver the development they have proposed? At that point, would PINS accept a modified proposal which was not the same in nature or scale to the original proposal?”

There is a formal process for requesting changes to Development Consent Orders post-consent. The principles are explained in ‘Planning Act 2008: Guidance on changes to Development Consent Orders’: [attachment 4]

24 August 2018
Peter Binding
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
Up until yesterday, the PINS website showed a date for the opening of registration of interested parties. Today, the website shows that you will publish the date for registration, implying that the original window for registration is no longer available. I am aware that The Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009 prescribe the publication of information regarding accepted DCO applications but am not aware that RSP have met the provisions of these regulations.

Can you please confirm the reason for the suspension of the registration period (and specifically whether this is in relation to the above referenced regulations).

In addition, can you confirm when the registration window is likely to be reopened.
Changes to the Planning Inspectorate’s website were temporary and reflected testing in preparation for the forthcoming registration period.

For definitive information about the dates associated with this period you should await the Applicant’s formal notice of the accepted application under s56 of the Planning Act 2008.

24 August 2018
Jonathan Fowler
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
1. You have decided that the project is a NISP ?
2. That RSP have addressed to your satisfaction on the issues you raised with them regarding their initial submission which they withdrew ?
3. You have decided that the various consultations were of an adequate standing ?
1. On the basis of the information provided in the application documents dated 17 July 2018, the Planning Inspectorate is satisfied that the Draft Development Consent Order includes development for which development consent is required (ie that it is a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project within the meaning of the Planning Act 2008).
2. The Applicant addressed the concerns set out by the Inspectorate to the extent that the application accepted for examination on 14 August 2018 was considered to be of a satisfactory standard.
3. The Planning Inspectorate is satisfied that the Applicant acted reasonably in seeking to comply with Chapter 2 of Part 5 (pre-application procedure) of the PA2008, including in carrying out its statutory consultation duties.

24 August 2018
Adem Mehmet
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I write further to the statement issued by Tony Freudmann to KMTV, which was published yesterday and which is at approximately 19 minutes into the broadcast which can be found at the following link :
[attachment 1]

In this broadcast, Tony Freudmann is quoted as saying, "Some of the people in Ramsgate are just about having no night flights, some just don't want an airport at all and some worried about noise.

If you look at the Planning Inspectorate you will find the impact assessment which concludes there will be no impact, or if there is it will be negligible."

This statement directly contradicts the information regarding noise which is presented in RSP's application, which, for example, includes the following statements :

"During the daytime:
? Moderate adverse impacts are predicted in Ramsgate;
? A moderate adverse impact is predicted at Pegwell Bay; and
? Minor adverse impacts are predicted in Manston."

"Considering that the impact is permanent and that a large number of dwellings within the communities are subject to minor to moderate adverse impacts, significant adverse effects have been identified at the communities of Ramsgate, Pegwell Bay and Manston as a result of the Proposed Development. The effect would be characterised as a perceived change in quality of life for occupants of buildings in these communities or a perceived change in the acoustic character of
shared open spaces within these communities during the daytime."

"During the night-time:
? Moderate adverse impacts are predicted in Ramsgate;
? Minor adverse impacts are predicted in Manston;
? A minor adverse impact is predicted in Wade; and
? A minor adverse impact is predicted in West Stourmouth;"

"Considering that the impact is permanent and that a large number of dwellings within the communities are subject to minor to moderate adverse impacts, significant adverse effects have been identified at the communities of Ramsgate, Manston, Wade and West Stourmouth as a result of the Proposed Development. The effect would be characterised as a perceived change in quality of life for occupants of buildings in these communities or a perceived change in the acoustic character of shared open spaces within these communities during the night-time."

(taken from the Environmental Statement volume which can be found here : [attachment 2])

The impacts listed above are, specifically, identified as not being negligible, and this is made clear in the impact assessment.

Can the Planning Inspectorate please advise whether they consider that it is acceptable for an applicant to publish lies or disinformation, about their proposed development, especially when such lies appear to be designed to downplay the likely impacts of the proposals.

If there is another explanation as to why Mr Freudmann has given such a quote containing incorrect information, then I am more than happy to be informed as to what the explanation is.

I'm sure that RSP and BDB will be more than happy to publish a retraction of Tony Freudmann's statement on their own website. Could BDB, on behalf of RSP, confirm whether this will be done.

This email should be considered as a S. 51 request and should therefore be published in full on the relevant section of the Planning Inspectorate website.
We cannot comment on statements made by applicants, or anybody else, which relate to the impacts of a Proposed Development. In this case, the evidence provided in the application documents dated 17 July 2018 is the definitive evidence provided by the Applicant upon which the appointed Examining Authority will commence its examination.

The Planning Inspectorate may consider seeking to clarify comments made by an applicant in the media if they relate to a misrepresentation of the Planning Act 2008 process.

Helpfully your email is copied to RSP/ BDB.

23 August 2018
Jonathan Fowler
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I note that it is now time for the applicant, RiverOak Strategic Partners Ltd to publicise the fact that its application has been accepted for examination and invite people who are interested in the proposal to register with the Planning Inspectorate as an interested party by making a relevant representation.

Where has this happened it was accepted for examination a week ago on 14 August 2018.?
There is no statutory time limit associated with the Pre-examination stage of the process. On that basis the Applicant can discharge its notification/ publication duties in respect of the accepted application at any time.

That said, the Pre-examination stage usually lasts for around three months (from the date the application is accepted until the Preliminary Meeting*). The aforementioned notification/ publication then is necessarily usually discharged in close proximity to the date of the Acceptance decision.

If you have signed up for updates about the project on the National Infrastructure Planning website, you will be notified when the Relevant Representation form becomes available.

* [attachment 1]

21 August 2018
Samara Jones-Hall
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The Faversham Society's views on the Consultation Process - please see attachment 1
Please see attached advice - attachment 2

20 August 2018
The Faversham Society - Harold Goodwin
Cleve Hill Solar Park
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I am looking for guidance on what role if any the applicant/developer has during the Examination stage of a DCO. For example are they present at all hearings and do they have a right to cross examine those giving evidence against the project?

Your guidance is silent on these matters and those of us opposing the Manston Airport DCO would welcome your advice please as we prepare for the Examination Stage.
The Applicant is an Interested Party. It is therefore afforded the same rights in the examination as anybody else who chooses to register an interest in the examination (by making a Relevant Representation) or who otherwise fall within the definitions in s102 of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008). Interested Parties can attend and provide oral evidence at any hearings and provide written evidence to the appointed Examining Authority (ExA). Generally the Applicant will be in attendance at any hearings, but may not always choose to make oral representations.

The PA2008 sets out an inquisitorial approach to the examination of applications, both in writing and at hearings. At hearings in most cases it will be the appointed ExA that will ask questions of persons making oral representations. In certain circumstances the ExA may allow an Interested Party, or his/ her representative, to question a person making oral representations at a hearing (ie allow cross-examination). The ExA may do so where it considers that this is necessary to ensure the adequate testing of any representations, or where it considers that it is necessary to allow an Interested Party a fair chance to put their case.

For further information please see ‘Planning Act 2008: Guidance for the examination of applications for development consent’: [attachment 1] and Advice note 8.4 and 8.5: [attachment 2]

20 August 2018
Nigel Phethean
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

20 August 2018
Cory Riverside Energy
Riverside Energy Park
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project meeting with Highways England
Please see attached meeting note

20 August 2018
Highways England - anon.
A585 Windy Harbour to Skippool Improvement Scheme
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I must say that my client [Associated British Ports] finds it disappointing that despite what we continue to believe are a number of fundamental defects in the pre-application process as prescribed by the Act, the Secretary of State has still decided to validate the application submitted by Suffolk County Council in relation to the Port of Lowestoft Third Crossing scheme. In the context of your consideration of the application, it would be extremely helpful if you could let me know whether, apart from advice offered by PINS which I appreciate you are required to publish on the web-page, there has been any contact - by way of written correspondence/email, telephone discussion or meetings between PINS and the applicants, their agents or solicitors since 25 July, the date of my original letter to you.

I should explain that my client's outstanding concerns are twofold. They derive first from its belief that the applicants have failed to comply with the required pre-application process, and second, in so doing, that failure has now severely prejudiced my client. You should be aware, incidentally, that according to the applicants' Lake Lothing Third Crossing Community Newsletter, the Council proudly note that the application submission runs to –

"- 14 boxes of folders;
- Approx. 154kg in weight;
- Total of 448 Documents;
- Approx. 26,600 pages the length of 80 football pitches if put together".

We do not think that this weight of documentation is something that should be welcomed and suspect that many interested parties and individuals who wish to participate in the examination process will share our concerns. On our initial review of the mass of application documents we have identified a worryingly large number of documents which we have never seen before and which will require careful consideration and assessment before we will be in a position to submit our relevant representations – if those representations are to be of any genuine value to the Examining Authority.

In this context, we should point out that our client's position has been further prejudiced and undermined by the fact that rather than recognise the clear logistical difficulties that will now face participants required to read and assess the 14 boxes of application folders that have been submitted in the middle of the August holiday season, the County Council have determined that the period for registration and submission of representations merits only a short extension beyond the minimum required, until 24 September.

We do find it difficult to understand how such a process can in any way be seen to be equitable. I would certainly be grateful if you would ensure that our client's concerns are placed before the Examining Authority as appropriate and in the meantime, I would welcome your response to the question raised above as soon as may be practicable.
Since 25 July 2018 we have had no contact with Suffolk County Council (SCC) in respect of any of the issues raised by your client.

Following publication of SCC’s s56 notice, the Registration form became available on the National Infrastructure Planning website today [17 August 2018]: [attachment 1]

The deadline for registration is 11.59pm on 24 September 2018, giving 38 days for parties to make a Relevant Representation.

Please note that an Examining Authority is yet to be appointed to examine this application.

17 August 2018
Clyde and Co LLP - anon.
Lake Lothing Third Crossing
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I note from RSPs submission that they seem to be claiming that with the number of stands they are providing they could support over 83,000 movements, way in excess of the additional 10,000 over whatever the existing capacity of the previous airport was. However their very ambitious and somewhat discredited business plan indicates a maximum number of around 30000 movements. On this basis they should be able to achieve their business plan with about a third of the stands they propose and on that basis do not need the entire site. This seems to be in breach of the requirement for them to modify and moderate their plans such that they only need to compulsorily purchase land required to deliver their business plan. Will this be something you will consider prior to deciding whether to accept the submission for examination or will it only be considered during the examination should the submission be accepted ? Likewise the applicant does not appear to have considered purchasing one of the airfields currently being sold openly in the market, again will this be something you will consider prior to deciding whether to accept the submission for examination or will it only be considered during the examination should the submission be accepted ?
These questions, which deal with the merits of the Proposed Development, are for the examination. To the extent that the Secretary of State has not already drawn conclusions under s55 of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) (ie against the Acceptance tests in s55 of the PA2008, and as expressed in the s55 Checklist), the evidence provided by the Applicant in the application documents will be tested by the appointed Examining Authority, at its own discretion, in a manner that seeks to be fair to all parties and thorough in its examination.

The Applicant is now required to publicise and give notice of the accepted application, providing the dates within which anybody can registered as an Interested Party by making a Relevant Representation. See Advice Note 8.2 for further information: [attachment 1]

If you choose to make a Relevant Representation about the Manston Airport proposals, it will assist the appointed Examining Authority (and all other interested persons) significantly if you refer only to the application documents that are under examination ie those submitted 17 July 2018 and accepted for examination on 14 August 2018, rather than the documents associated with the application withdrawn by letter dated 4 May 2018, which are superseded.

17 August 2018
Adem Mehmet
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I have now disgested much of the RSP application docs for their withdrawn application.

Unfortunately I still have some very significiant gaps in my understanding of how this could ever be made to work. The aviation analysis that has been provided still seems a very flimsy basis on which to proceed given the breadth of unaddressed and conflicting evidence that is available on the matter, the conflicting government forecasts and the acknowledged lack of any material funding that has actually been committed to deliver the project. Simply put there does not seem to be any commercial evidence within RSP's submission that supports a reasonable conclusion that the necessary funding for the project could ever be raised from investors.

Additionally, in an effort to understand the capacity point, which RSP attempt to address in their NSIP justification paper I have researched the historic levels of aircraft movements at Manston which are recorded with the CAA. These indicate that in each year between 2007 and 2011 that Manston catered for between 16,000 and 22,000 movements. Now, it is not clear from the statistics what type of planes that these movement represented - but it seems self evident from these numbers that Manston has signiciant inherent capcacity in its existing infrastructure.

Can you confirm what external advice you have taken in relation to assessing Manston's capacity and RSP's market analysis?
To the extent that the Secretary of State has not already drawn conclusions under s55 of the Planning Act 2008 (ie against the Acceptance tests, and as expressed in the s55 Checklist), the evidence provided by the Applicant in the application documents will be tested by the appointed Examining Authority, at its own discretion, in a manner that seeks to be fair to all parties and thorough in its examination.

The Applicant is now required to publicise and give notice of the accepted application, providing the dates within which anybody can registered as an Interested Party by making a Relevant Representation. See Advice Note 8.2 for further information: [attachment 1]

If you choose to make a Relevant Representation about the Manston Airport proposals, it will assist the appointed Examining Authority (and all other interested persons) significantly if you refer only to the application documents that are under examination ie those submitted 17 July 2018 and accepted for examination on 14 August 2018, rather than the documents associated with the application withdrawn by letter dated 4 May 2018, which are superseded.

17 August 2018
S Alvers
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I note that the application has been accepted for examination and that you decided, overall, that the statutory consultation could be accepted also.

I have looked at what your "application check list" says about the consultation but it is not clear to me if you reached a view about the accuracy of the picture of the proposal, as it was presented, directly to the public.

This concerns me because of the weight of unequivocal evidence that the proposals were not accurately described by the applicant. Can you kindly clarify your view in relation to this issue?
To the extent that the Secretary of State has not already drawn conclusions under s55 of the Planning Act 2008 (ie against the Acceptance tests, and as expressed in the s55 Checklist), the evidence provided by the Applicant in the application documents will be tested by the appointed Examining Authority, at its own discretion, in a manner that seeks to be fair to all parties and thorough in its examination.

The Applicant is now required to publicise and give notice of the accepted application, providing the dates within which anybody can registered as an Interested Party by making a Relevant Representation. See Advice Note 8.2 for further information: [attachment 1]

17 August 2018
Mark de Pulford
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
Please consider the attached detailed comments regarding the adequacy of the applicant's statutory consultation.

Could you also kindly clarify if you regard the statutory consultation processes as satisfying any requirement of Union law regarding local consultation on national infrastructure projects?
Thank you for your comments which were treated in the same way as all previous submissions made to the Planning Inspectorate about the adequacy of the Applicant’s Pre-application consultation.

In respect of the question “Could you also kindly clarify if you regard the statutory consultation processes as satisfying any requirement of Union law regarding local consultation on national infrastructure projects?”, can you please provide further details/ explanation about what this means? If you refer to the statutory consultation processes as set out in the Planning Act 2008, they have been subject to parliamentary scrutiny and brought into force by royal assent. In that respect you would need to take your own legal advice on which you can rely.

17 August 2018
Mark de Pulford
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

17 August 2018
Highways England - anon.
M25 junction 28 improvements
Enquiry received via email
Can you please advise if it possible to extend the time period for implementation of a previously consented DCO scheme?
Thank you for your email. It is possible to amend the terms of a development consent order via an application for a material or non-material change. The Government has published guidance on this, which you can find here.
Without knowledge of the circumstances, that is as much as I am able to say. I suggest that you take your own legal advice if you have any specific circumstances in mind.

16 August 2018
Jacobs Environment, Maritime & Resilience - Ted Keegan
General
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I have just looked on the Companies House website and note that Riveroak Strategic Partners Limited filed accounts for a dormant company in 11 April 2018. How can a dormant company apply for a DCO?

Also, the statutory reporting for persons with significant control statement states that 'the company knows or has reasonable cause to believe there is no registrable person or registrable person or relevant legal entity in relation to this company'. How can a company which has 'no warm body' apply for a DCO?

Further, on the Register of Person(s) with Significant Control it states that the information is not on the public register since 19 April 2018.

Further on the Register of Members it states that the information is not on the public register since 19 April 2018.

How can a company without a register of members apply for a DCO?
Dormant companies are companies that are not trading or do not have investments. See the following link for more information: [attachment 1]. They remain registered as companies and therefore exist as legal entities and can make applications for Development Consent Orders in the same way as any other legal entity.

Please see the following link for information about persons with significant control, in particular paragraph 2.2: [attachment 2]. Making a statement such as “the company knows or has reasonable cause to believe there is no registrable person or registrable person or relevant legal entity in relation to this company” does not affect the legal status of the registered company. A registered company may choose whether or not to keep information about persons with significant control or members on the register: [attachment 3]. None of these choices affect the legal status of the registered company which can make applications for Development Consent Orders in the usual way.

When an application is submitted, the Applicant is required to submit a Funding Statement setting out how the project is proposed to be funded. The appointed Examining Authority (ExA) can examine the content of the Funding Statement to its satisfaction in the examination process. The ExA needs to be satisfied that, amongst other things, adequate funding is likely to be available to enable the Compulsory Acquisition within the statutory period following the order being made, and that the resource implications of a possible acquisition resulting from a blight notice have been taken account of.

16 August 2018
Samara Jones-Hall
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
Could you please advise where and when a hard copy of the Manston DCO Environmental Statement may be viewed.
The Applicant is now required to publicise and provide notice of the accepted application, which must include details about where and when the application and accompaniments (including the Environmental Statement) can be viewed.

Please contact the applicant directly for more information: [email protected]

16 August 2018
Steve Harding
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Can you please confirm whether your decision to accept means that:

1. You have decided that the project is a NISP?
2. That RSP have addressed to your satisfaction on the issues you raised with them regarding their initial submission which they withdrew?
3. You have decided that the various consultations were of an adequate standing?
Please refer to the published Section 55 Acceptance of Applications Checklist for the conclusions drawn by the Planning Inspectorate on behalf of the Secretary of State: [attachment 1];stage=2&filter1=Procedural+Decision

15 August 2018
Adem Mehmet
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I am sure you always aim to act in the best interests of all but i plead with you to pay serious consideration to rejecting the DCO at Manston Airport.

Commercially it has never been a success, mainly due to its locality, being 80 Miles from London and the roads are not geared up for hundreds of freight lorry movements.

RSP through their several unofficial fan clubs and associations are claiming the airport will bring 30,000 local jobs. If this is in anyway true the jobs taken at the airport would need to be backfilled and I don’t believe many would be, and in a largely unskilled population it’s unrealistic to think that the jobs can all be filled from local people which would mean that people moving to the area would need to find housing, schools etc which are already under strain.

On the subject of housing the Local Plan that is offered as an alternative would mean mass housing being built in unsuitable locations with unsuitable infrastructure to support rather than a modern, built for purpose Garden Village on the Manston site.

Finally, RSP have showed themselves to be nothing but amateur throughout the entire process so I cannot even begin to imagine how they could fund and manage a project to the time of half a billion pounds.
We cannot consider your comments about the merits of the Proposed Development at this time.

Please read the Planning Inspectorate's 'Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination' for details about how and when you can make a Relevant Representation to the appointed Examining Authority: [attachment 1]

15 August 2018
Andy Hodder
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please grant the DCO for the reopening of Manston airport.

It is a national asset which can serve the country as a whole for years to come.

I am currently involved in a project which may also reap the benefits of having Manston available as a strategic asset if correctly implemented into our projects long term goals.

Wouldn’t it also be fantastic to give skills and transferable knowledge to the local residence and to also aid the younger generation in having aims and aspirations they can fulfil in following their dreams.

I would also like to add that once strategic assets such as these are built on there is no going back, they are lost forever. We, the nation, can’t allow that to happen to Manston it’s just too important a place with far too much to offer.

So, please save Manston Airport, the gateway to our nation for over 2000 years.
We cannot consider your comments about the merits of the Proposed Development at this time.

Please read the Planning Inspectorate's 'Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination' for details about how and when you can make a Relevant Representation to the appointed Examining Authority: [attachment 1]

15 August 2018
Adam Satchwell
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please can you clarify the situation re advice from pins to rsp. Dco was withdrawn last time so you could advise rsp further. It now seems again that pins are now actively supporting rsp in coaching and gaining extra information that has not been supplied as part of the dco application. To me and others it looks like planning inspectorate are doing all they can to help rsp succeed on the application. Please advise me if this is or is not the case as rsp are boasting via there supporters that pins are bending over backwards in helping rsp. This should not be happenning.
The Planning Inspectorate offered the same Pre-application service to RiverOak Strategic Partners as it does to all potential applicants. The service is set out in our Prospectus for Applicants: [attachment 1]

15 August 2018
Ken Wraight
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
See attached Meeting Note
See attached Meeting Note

15 August 2018
Esso Petroleum Company, Limited - anon.
Southampton to London Pipeline Project
Enquiry received via email
Query about the proposed development
Thank you for your email in relation to the Riverside Energy Park project (EN010093).

Please accept my apology for the delay in responding to your email.

As the project has not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate (the Inspectorate), I would encourage you to contact the developer directly ([email protected]) to make your concerns heard as the Applicant has a statutory duty to take your views into account.

However, if you feel that your comments are not being considered and you need further information, I would advise you to write to your Local Authority (LA) and set out your concerns. Your comments will be considered when the LA provides its comments to the Inspectorate on whether the Applicant has fulfilled its consultation duties. The LA’s comments on the Applicant’s consultation will be taken into account when the Acceptance Inspector makes his/ her decision whether to accept the application for examination.

Should the application be accepted by the Planning Inspectorate for examination, the Applicant has a duty to notify the local community when providing information on how to register as an Interested Party for the purpose of the process.

The process under the Planning Act 2008 (PA 2008) has been designed to allow members of the public and statutory stakeholders to participate in examination of all DCO applications. During the examination of an application the Examining Authority (ExA) has a duty to take into account all matters assessed by the Applicant in the Environmental Statement and may ask additional questions as required.

More information is provided in the Planning Inspectorate’s Advice notes Advice Note 8: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others.

At the current pre-application stage we would recommend you look at Advice note 8.1. Responding to the developer’s pre-application consultation.

If the application is accepted for examination please look at Advice Note 8.2. How to register to participate in an Examination. By submitting a Relevant Representation during the pre-examination stage you as an individual and/or on behalf of a group are in position to highlight particular planning matters.

We have also published a document Section 47 - Community Consultation. Frequently Asked Questions regarding Pre-application consultation which may address some of your queries. However, please note that it is for the Applicant to decide how to carry out non-statutory and statutory consultation, and there is no statutory requirement under PA2008 for the Applicant to consult on the content of a Statement of Community Consultation (SoCC).

Please be assured that anyone interested in the proposed developments, their potential impacts and any planning matters can be fully engaged in the examination process. A copy of your correspondence has been placed on our records and will be presented to the Inspector at acceptance together with the application documents and Local Authorities’ comments on the Applicant’s consultation.

If you require any further advice about the National Infrastructure process please contact the Riverside Energy Park Case team at the Planning Inspectorate. They can be contacted by email via the project mailbox at [email protected] or via the Customer Services Team on telephone number 0303 444 5000.

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.

14 August 2018
Anonymous
Riverside Energy Park
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting.
Please see attached note.

14 August 2018
Highways England - anon.
A303 Stonehenge
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached meeting note

13 August 2018
Cleve Hill Solar Park Ltd
Cleve Hill Solar Park
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer attached correspondence from Suffolk County Council responding to requests for information by the enquirer's client, Associated British Ports. The enquirer stated that "should the current application be [accepted], our client will be significantly prejudiced in terms of timescale when required to submit its representations on the application to the Secretary of State."
The Inspectorate considered whether to accept the Lake Lothing Third Crossing application in accordance with the requirements of Section 55 of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008): [attachment 1]. As ABP will be aware, under s56 of the PA2008 SCC is now required to provide notice of the accepted application, confirming the dates for the Relevant Representation period.

We encourage ABP and SCC to continue negotiations at the Pre-examination stage. In the first instance, ABP will be able to set out its technical concerns in a Relevant Representation at the appropriate time.

10 August 2018
Clyde and Co LLP - anon.
Lake Lothing Third Crossing
Enquiry received via email
My understanding is that the applicant must go through scoping and then conduct impact inquiry taking account of precautionary principle and cumulative effect assessment. This must form part of the PINS application ?

Is it the case that govt toxic legacy tests are scheduled for Manston ? Possibly firefighting foams testing but I am not sure
There is no mandatory requirement to undertake scoping but an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) scoping opinion was sought for the proposed Manston Airport development in 2016. The Proposed Development is classed as EIA development and is therefore required to submit an Environmental Statement and Non-Technical Summary providing the information required in Schedule 4 of the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017. The EIA should be prepared taking into account both the precautionary principle and cumulative effects.

The Applicant will be required to consider ground contamination issues as part of its EIA.

10 August 2018
Richard Card
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached

10 August 2018
Womble Bond Dickinson Osborne Clarke - anon.
Rail Central (Strategic Rail Freight Interchange)
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached Meeting Note.

08 August 2018
Wheelabrator Technologies Inc (WTI) - anon.
Wheelabrator Kemsley Generating Station (K3) and Wheelabrator Kemsley North (WKN) Waste to Energy Facility
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Like many others I am concerned about the planed resurrection of Manston as a cargo hub . Please can you tell me if ( should the dco be granted ) there is an opportunity for people like myself to voice our objections regarding air and noise pollution . I’m sure you will understand the need for debate with something on such a massive scale .
The Manston Airport application is currently in the Acceptance stage following resubmission on 17 July 2018. The Planning Inspectorate (the Inspectorate) is in the process of considering whether to accept the application, in accordance with the requirements of Section 55 of the Planning Act 2008, and will issue a decision on or before 14 August 2018. Please note this decision is whether the application is accepted for examination by the Inspectorate.

If the application is accepted for examination, the Relevant Representation period will be the first time during which comments on an application can be submitted to the Inspectorate for consideration by the Examining Authority. It is the Applicant’s duty to advertise the Relevant Representation period and provide details about how to register to become an Interested Party.

You may wish to sign up to the Inspectorate's email update service to receive updates on the application, which will include when the Relevant Representation period will open. This feature is located on the right-hand side of the project overview page:
[attachment 1]

Please see the following link for information on registering to participate in the Examination:
[attachment 2]

There is also a short video setting out how to participate in the process here:
[attachment 3]

07 August 2018
Allan Tudor
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
I would be grateful if you could help me with some questions relating to land interest questionnaires please.

Please forgive me for giving you all the background information. I wanted to show you how this brings me on to my questions below.

I am Chair of a local residents' group. Through my role, and connection with other groups, I became aware that thousands of residents received Land Interest Questionnaires ("LIQs") from Suffolk County Council who is the applicant of the above stated project.

The areas that received the LIQs are made up of many elderly and vulnerable sectors of society.

I have spoken with many, and been made aware of other recipients of the LIQs that were confused and distressed as they assumed their homes would be subject to compulsory purchase orders as they were asked to volunteer information about their mortgage companies as part of LIQ process.

Following a public outcry of receiving these letter, a newspaper article and radio interview were broadcast as it became clear that the applicant had caused a huge amount of unnecessary panic. Consequently, the local MP was forced to issue a statement that "No residential properties will be compulsory purchased". However, some businesses would be. Had these simple words been incorporated into the LIQs, so many thousands of people would not have had to unnecessarily endure such upset.

This beings me to my questions:-

1. Why would details relating to peoples' mortgages be asked in LIQs when an applicant already knows residential homes would not be the subject of compulsory purchase orders?

2. Does the Planning Inspectorate promote and encourage applicants (in particular applicants who are local authorities), to be sensitive in their questioning and give reasons for their questions to mitigate distress to the public whilst taking into account factors such as race, age, etc.?

3. Does the Planning Inspectorate only require one form of LIQ to be sent to businesses and residential properties? Is this considered best practice?

4. How does the distress and unecessary worry to so many people get documented/recorded when it occurs prior to the consultation period?

I would be very grateful if you could help me understand these points.

Kind regards,

Nicky Wilson
Dear Ms Wilson,

Thank you for your email. I apologise for the delay in replying to you.

I note the contents of your email, and I will try to respond to your questions:

1) The applicant is required to undertake diligent inquiry to establish the owners of land or rights that may be affected by the proposed scheme; including those parties who may be outside the land of the proposed scheme itself, but potentially able to make a relevant claim. How the applicant goes about doing this is a matter for them.

2) The government has published guidance on how to approach compulsory acquisition, which can be found here. Paragraph 24 of the guidance reads, in part: “Early consultation with people who could be affected by the compulsory acquisition can help build up a good working relationship with those whose interests are affected, by showing that the applicant is willing to be open and to treat their concerns with respect.”

3) How the applicant goes about undertaking diligent inquiry is a matter for them.

4) I would suggest that you engage fully with the applicant’s pre-application consultation, and make your concerns known to them. We will look to the applicant to show that they have had regard to all responses to their statutory consultation when an application is made.

If you have any other questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.

07 August 2018
Nicky Wilson
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Evidence Plan Steering Group initiation meeting with Ørsted, East Riding of Yorkshire Council, Natural England and the Marine Management Organisation.
Please see attached

07 August 2018
Ørsted et al - anon.
Hornsea Project Four Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update and review of draft documents
Please see attached

06 August 2018
SP Manweb - anon.
Reinforcement to North Shropshire Electricity Distribution Network
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
At RSP's latest consultation the public was told that RSP planned to have 17000+ ATMs a year. That number has risen to 83000. Will there be another consultation?
The Manston Airport application is currently in the Acceptance stage following resubmission on 17 July 2018. The Planning Inspectorate is in the process of considering whether to accept the application, in accordance with the requirements of Section 55 of the Planning Act 2008, and will issue a decision on or before 14 August 2018.

If the application is accepted for examination you will have the opportunity to make representations about the merits of the application to an appointed Examining Authority at the appropriate time. Please see the advice note below for more information:

Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination
[attachment 1]

It will be for the Applicant to take a view about whether any further consultation is required if the application is withdrawn or not accepted for examination.

03 August 2018
Marva Rees
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation.
The Planning Inspectorate can consider your comments in addition to the statutorily required Acceptance tests when making the decision about whether or not to accept the application under section 55 of the Planning Act 2008. It will be for the decision maker (the Planning Inspectorate on behalf of the Secretary of State) to decide the weight to give to the views expressed in your comments based on the individual facts of the case.

Please note the comments received by the Inspectorate in respect of RSP's first submission dated 10 April 2018, which relate to the Applicant's formal statutory consultation under s42, 47 and/ or 48 of the Planning Act 2008, will be treated as if they had been provided in relation to the second submission dated 17 July 2018.

If the application is accepted for examination you will have the opportunity to make representations about the merits of the application to an appointed Examining Authority at the appropriate time.

02 August 2018
Mark de Pulford
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
I'm concerned about RSP's unwillingness to correspond with me about the number of ATM's they propose. The Meeting Notes of the 11 May meeting between the PI and RSP show all sorts of figures for the anticipated ATM's, including one of 83,000. This latter is so much bigger than anything RSP had previously mentioned that I emailed them to try to find out more.

RSP make promise and excuse after promise and excuse. I don't think that it is acceptable for RSP to Consult on one set of ATM's, and then introduce numbers almost an order of magnitude larger without at the very least some cogent explanation to those likely to be affected.
We note the comments made.

The Planning Inspectorate can consider your comments in addition to the statutorily required Acceptance tests when making the decision about whether or not to accept the application under section 55 of the Planning Act 2008. It will be for the decision maker (the Planning Inspectorate on behalf of the Secretary of State) to decide the weight to give to the views expressed in your comments based on the individual facts of the case.

If the application is accepted for examination you will have the opportunity to make representations about the merits of the application to an appointed Examining Authority at the appropriate time.

02 August 2018
James Chappell
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
I have noticed that RSP have reapplied for a DCO on the Manston site. I have being regularly checking your site but there was no notice of this . In your minutes of the meeting of 22 June RSP agreed to give you notice. I see Paul Messenger announced it to a KCC meeting last week and Roger Gale on Radio Kent the week before so as you can understand it has left me confused . Did RSP not inform you with a timetable, as agreed, or did you not update your website. I also notice there is no list of attendees with the minutes of the 22 June please could you supply this and who the various people represent.

I have also seen a copy of their previous DCO submission even the most cursory scan shows important information that was not available to residents and interested parties during the consultation period on such matters as night flights and aircraft types. I would go as far as to say I was lied to by RSP when I asked questions. How can anyone come to an informed decision when important information is withheld or you are told lies. I have also seen TDC response to the consultation where they quote RSP in saying that where someone notified them that they never received notice of the consultation they re-distributed to the whole street. This simply isn't true we never got a card neither did anyone on our street in spite of me contacting RSP several time. It seems doubtful anyone on Nethercourt estate got notice of the consultation as I made a point of asking anyone I see and only people who contacted RSP got one sent directly to their home.

I hope PINS will take on board the very poor quality of RSP’s consultation into consideration when making a decision to accept the application
Whilst RiverOak’s representatives had given the Planning Inspectorate (the Inspectorate) an indication that submission of the application could be in July 2018, the date of Tuesday 17 July was not confirmed until Thursday 12 July (by telephone). The Planning Inspectorate will consider whether to accept the Manston Airport application dated 17 July 2018 in accordance with the requirements of Section 55 of the Planning Act 2008.

The Inspectorate can consider your comments in addition to the statutorily required Acceptance tests when making the decision about whether or not to accept the application under section 55 of the Planning Act 2008. It will be for the decision maker (the Planning Inspectorate on behalf of the Secretary of State) to decide the weight to give to the views expressed in your comments based on the individual facts of the case.

Please note the comments received by the Inspectorate in respect of RSP's first submission dated 10 April 2018, which relate to the Applicant's formal statutory consultation under s42, 47 and/ or 48 of the Planning Act 2008, will be treated as if they had been provided in relation to the second submission dated 17 July 2018.

02 August 2018
Ian Scott
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
A47 Projects Programme Update Meeting
Please see attached.

02 August 2018
Highways England - anon.
A47 Wansford to Sutton
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
A47 Projects Programme Update Meeting
Please see attached.

02 August 2018
Highways England - anon.
A47 North Tuddenham to Easton
response has attachments
A47 Projects Programme Update Meeting
Please see attached.

02 August 2018
Highways England - anon.
A47 - A11 Thickthorn Junction
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
A47 Projects Programme Update Meeting
Please see attached.

02 August 2018
Highways England - anon.
A47 Blofield to North Burlingham
Enquiry received via email
I note from social media postings that an email was yesterday leaked, from Bircham Dyson Bell to PINs regarding RSP's withdrawn DCO application - indicating that they were seeking to optimise the timing of the publication and facts of their withdrawal letter to suit their own PR purposes and were requesting specific guideance from PINS as to when they should send their withdrawal letter to PINS so it did not get publised before their preferrered date - thus avoiding any difficult questions from the public over the bank holiday weekend.

Is it normal that PINS would accomdate such flexibility on behalf of an applicant that is withdrawing and why would you do so in this case? and how does that square with PINS obligations to be transparent on the DCO processs and to keep the public informed. This again goes to previously expressed concerns by other correspondents regarding the time being taken to actually post meeting notes meaning that the public, who are most impacted, are consistently behind the curve and suggests RSP are being granted high levels of flexibility at the cost of public transparency.

Another example was RSP's revised application that appreared out of left field with no prior notice on the PINs website or futher consultation with the public.
An email from Bircham Dyson Bell (BDB) to The Planning Inspectorate (the Inspectorate) dated 3 May 2018 was released as part of a Freedom of Information request. No email response was issued from the Inspectorate in respect of that email. BDB then sent the formal ‘withdrawal’ email to the Inspectorate outside of working hours on Friday 4 May 2018. The Inspectorate did not receive or action that email until the next working day which was Tuesday 8 May 2018 due to the Bank Holiday. Normal working practices were followed in this case.

01 August 2018
S Alvers
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached meeting notes

01 August 2018
Highways England - anon.
A63 Castle Street Improvement-Hull
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
See attached Meeting Note
See attached Meeting Note

01 August 2018
INRG SOLAR (Little Crow) Ltd - anon.
Little Crow Solar Park
Enquiry received via post
response has attachments
Ørsted sent their draft Statement of Community Consultation to the Planning Inspectorate for comment.
Please see attached

01 August 2018
Orsted et al - anon.
Hornsea Project Four Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via phone
response has attachments
The enquirer acknowledged that the Royal Parks had not been consulted by the Applicant and raised concerns regarding potential effects to the Longford River.
Thank you for your call with regards to the proposed Expansion of Heathrow Airport (Third Runway) application.

As discussed, the proposed application is currently in the pre-application stage, therefore any comments or queries should be made directly to the Applicant – Heathrow Airport Limited. I also note from the Applicant’s website, accessed via the below link, that further public consultation (‘Heathrow Consultation 2’) is due to take place before formal submission to the Planning Inspectorate:

[attachment 1]

You may wish to sign up for email updates from the Planning Inspectorate, which, amongst other things, will notify you of when the application is formally submitted. This function is available on the overview tab of our project webpage.

Please also find links to our suite of advice notes setting out how to engage once the application has been submitted and has been accepted for Examination by the Planning Inspectorate:

Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others
[attachment 2]
Advice Note 8.1: Responding to the developer’s pre-application consultation
[attachment 3]
Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination
[attachment 4]
Advice Note 8.3: Influencing how an application is Examined: the Preliminary Meeting
[attachment 5]
Advice Note 8.4: The Examination
[attachment 6]
Note 8.5: The Examination: hearings and site inspections
[attachment 7]

27 July 2018
The Royal Parks - Margaret Blackburn
Expansion of Heathrow Airport (Third Runway)
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Please see attached
Please see attached

27 July 2018
Highways England - anon.
A27 Arundel Bypass
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Query regarding selection of Zone 7 Friston by Scottish Power for the onshore wind farm substation and grid connection.
Thank you for your email of 4 July 2018 and the attached documents regarding Friston site selection process for the East Anglia ONE North and East Anglia TWO projects.

The Planning Inspectorate (the Inspectorate) is a government agency and part of the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) responsible for examining Development Consent Order applications for Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIPs). The Inspectorate makes a recommendation to the relevant Secretary of State who will then make a final decision whether to grant or to refuse development consent. The SoS of Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) is the relevant minister in regards to energy projects. However, the Inspectorate has no remit in regards to creating planning Policies. It can provide procedural advice and in relation to these specific projects, any advice issued can be found here: East Anglia TWO and East Anglia ONE North.

As the projects have not yet been submitted to the Inspectorate, the Inspectorate has no formal powers to intervene on consultees’ behalf and we are therefore not in a position to supervise the statutory consultation process conducted by the Applicant.

As part of the pre-application stage in the Development Consent Order (DCO) process, an Applicant has a number of duties that they are required to carry out which include extensive surveys and consultations to identify, for example, any suitable areas for investigation and selecting the cable route corridors, and substations.

The Applicant, as part of its Statement of Community Consultation (SoCC), is required to set out how they intend to conduct consultation on a project and in relation to the East Anglia projects. Whilst the Inspectorate cannot comment on the Applicant’s selections, more detailed information on the project can be found on the Applicant’s websites SPR - East Anglia TWO and SPR - East Anglia ONE North which also includes their reasoning for the choices of the Zone 7: SPR - Summary and Approach to Site Selection.

I would encourage you to continue engaging with the developer directly to make your concerns heard as the Applicant has a statutory duty to have regard to all consultation responses which should be demonstrated in the in the Consultation Report as part of the DCO application. However, if you feel that your comments are not being taken into account, I would advise you to write to your local authority and set out why you think the applicant is failing to conduct is consultation properly. Your comments should be taken into account by the local authority when sending the Inspectorate its comments on whether the applicant has fulfilled its consultation duties. The local authority’s comments on the applicant’s consultation will be taken into account when the Examining Inspector makes their decision whether to accept the application for examination.

Should the DCO application be accepted by the Inspectorate for examination, the Applicant has a duty to publicise the accepted application and provide information on how to register as an Interested Party.

The process under the Planning Act 2008 (PA 2008) has been designed to allow members of the public and statutory stakeholders to participate in examination of all DCO applications so that anyone interested in the proposed developments, their potential impacts and any relevant matters can be fully engaged in the examination process.

During the examination, the Examining Authority has a duty to take into account all matters assessed by the Applicant in the Environmental Statement and may ask additional questions as required. More information is provided in the Planning Inspectorate’s Advice notes Advice Note 8: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others, and at the current pre-application stage we would recommend especially Advice note 8.1. Responding to the developer’s pre-application consultation and Advice Note 8.2. How to register to participate in an Examination.

[attachment 1]

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.

26 July 2018
Elizabeth Thomas
East Anglia ONE North Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Query regarding selection of Zone 7 Friston by Scottish Power for the onshore wind farm substation and grid connection.
Thank you for your email of 4 July 2018 and the attached documents regarding Friston site selection process for the East Anglia ONE North and East Anglia TWO projects.

The Planning Inspectorate (the Inspectorate) is a government agency and part of the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) responsible for examining Development Consent Order applications for Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIPs). The Inspectorate makes a recommendation to the relevant Secretary of State who will then make a final decision whether to grant or to refuse development consent. The SoS of Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) is the relevant minister in regards to energy projects. However, the Inspectorate has no remit in regards to creating planning Policies. It can provide procedural advice and in relation to these specific projects, any advice issued can be found here: East Anglia TWO and East Anglia ONE North.

As the projects have not yet been submitted to the Inspectorate, the Inspectorate has no formal powers to intervene on consultees’ behalf and we are therefore not in a position to supervise the statutory consultation process conducted by the Applicant.

As part of the pre-application stage in the Development Consent Order (DCO) process, an Applicant has a number of duties that they are required to carry out which include extensive surveys and consultations to identify, for example, any suitable areas for investigation and selecting the cable route corridors, and substations.

The Applicant, as part of its Statement of Community Consultation (SoCC), is required to set out how they intend to conduct consultation on a project and in relation to the East Anglia projects. Whilst the Inspectorate cannot comment on the Applicant’s selections, more detailed information on the project can be found on the Applicant’s websites SPR - East Anglia TWO and SPR - East Anglia ONE North which also includes their reasoning for the choices of the Zone 7: SPR - Summary and Approach to Site Selection.

I would encourage you to continue engaging with the developer directly to make your concerns heard as the Applicant has a statutory duty to have regard to all consultation responses which should be demonstrated in the in the Consultation Report as part of the DCO application. However, if you feel that your comments are not being taken into account, I would advise you to write to your local authority and set out why you think the applicant is failing to conduct is consultation properly. Your comments should be taken into account by the local authority when sending the Inspectorate its comments on whether the applicant has fulfilled its consultation duties. The local authority’s comments on the applicant’s consultation will be taken into account when the Examining Inspector makes their decision whether to accept the application for examination.

Should the DCO application be accepted by the Inspectorate for examination, the Applicant has a duty to publicise the accepted application and provide information on how to register as an Interested Party.

The process under the Planning Act 2008 (PA 2008) has been designed to allow members of the public and statutory stakeholders to participate in examination of all DCO applications so that anyone interested in the proposed developments, their potential impacts and any relevant matters can be fully engaged in the examination process.

During the examination, the Examining Authority has a duty to take into account all matters assessed by the Applicant in the Environmental Statement and may ask additional questions as required. More information is provided in the Planning Inspectorate’s Advice notes Advice Note 8: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others, and at the current pre-application stage we would recommend especially Advice note 8.1. Responding to the developer’s pre-application consultation and Advice Note 8.2. How to register to participate in an Examination.

[attachment 1]

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.

26 July 2018
Elizabeth Thomas
East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
I am a member of the public and I have a couple of general questions.

1. I have been told the consultation period is six weeks. Is this period set in stone? Due to the complexity of this NSIP and the amount of information involved, six weeks doesn't give a lay person much time to get through everything.

2. Also, can ask whether it is possible to have a representative of the planning inspectorate attend any of the public consultations?

The applicant in this instance is Suffolk County Council and they are trying to make the plans for this project fit in but not taking any public views into regard. We feel having the presence of someone impartial woukd be benificial so that a fair view can be taken without the outcome of the consultation being written up in a one sided way.

I am a member of an action Group for local residents called the Wherstead Road Action Group. Together with two other groups (Rivers Action. Group and Friends of Hollywells Park) we are not in favour of this project due to so many reason. Many peoples' lives will be affected by car pollution, noise, danger crossing an already very busy road with no traffic calming present, wildlife issues, house prices decreasing, etc.

I would very much welcome your response.

Kind regards,

Nicky Wilson
Dear Ms Wilson,

Thank you for your email.

The period given by the applicant for their statutory pre-application consultation with the local community is not set in stone, but should accord with their Statement of Community Consultation, which should be published. The applicant may also undertake non-statutory consultation in advance of or after their statutory consultation, if they feel it appropriate given the circumstances of their scheme.

Unfortunately, we are unlikely to be able to attend local consultation events being run by the applicant. However, you may want to review our advice notes, and particularly advice note 8, which can be found here.

I would strongly encourage you to engage with the applicants pre-application consultation. The applicant is required to have regard to any responses to their statutory consultation, and we will be looking to the applicant to demonstrate that they have done this when their application is submitted. If we are not satisfied that they have, the application will not be accepted for examination.

If you have any other questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.

26 July 2018
Nicky Wilsom
General
Enquiry received via phone
response has attachments
The enquirer asked how he could provide comments to the Planning Inspectorate on recent press articles relating to compulsory acquisition which reported information that conflicted with the Applicant’s assurances to Sefton Parish Council to date.
I understand that you have read recent press reports that have presented conflicting information to that which Sefton Parish Council had been given by the Applicant, and have discussed the matter with our case team.

At this stage any such comments or queries on the proposed application should be made directly to Applicant. I also note from the Applicant’s website, accessed via the below link, that further public consultation is due to take place in summer/autumn of this year:

[attachment 1]

Any comments that you may have on the consultation undertaken by the Applicant should also be relayed to your Local Planning Authority so that they can be incorporated in the Adequacy of Consultation Response that the LPA will prepare and provide to the Planning Inspectorate once the application has been submitted.

25 July 2018
Sefton Parish Council - Johnny Duffy
A5036 Port of Liverpool Access Scheme
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
See attached letter.
The Inspectorate will consider whether to accept the Lake Lothing Third Crossing application in accordance with the requirements of Section 55 of the Planning Act 2008.

We note you have made the Applicant aware of your concerns in the past, you may wish to make them aware of this correspondence if you have not done so already.

Furthermore, if you have not done so already, you can send the comments relating to the Applicant’s Pre-application consultation to the relevant local authority. Relevant local authorities have been invited to make a representation to the Inspectorate about the adequacy of the Applicant’s Pre-application consultation. Your client’s local authority will be able to consider your comments in preparing its ‘Adequacy of Consultation Representation’ (AoCR). Note that the deadline for receipt by the Inspectorate of any AoCRs is 27 July 2018. Amongst other things, the Inspectorate must have regard to all AoCRs received from a relevant local authority in taking its decision about whether to accept an application for examination.

Note that applicants are required to demonstrate in their applications for development consent how they have carried out their Pre-application consultation duties in accordance with the provisions of the Planning Act 2008. Negotiations between applicants and persons with an interest in affected lands are expected to progress after consultation has elapsed and in the course of the examination of applications. If this application is accepted for examination, you will be able to make representations to an appointed Examining Authority at the appropriate time. See our Advice Note 8 series for further information, here: [attachment 1]

25 July 2018
Clyde and Co LLP - anon.
Lake Lothing Third Crossing
Enquiry received via email
Hello,

Could you please confirm if Parish Councils would be considered a statutory stakeholder for a DCO application under the 2008 Planning Act if located in a host local authority ward or if in the immediate vicinity of the proposal.

Thank you
Hi Chris,

The prescribed consultees for DCO applications are set out in schedule 1 to the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009 (as amended).

This includes the “The relevant parish council, or, where the application relates to land Wales or Scotland the relevant community council” in all cases. The note to the table explains that ““relevant”, in relation to a body, shall mean the body which has responsibility for the location where the proposals may or will be sited or has responsibility for an area which neighbours that location.”

Therefore, parish councils are statutory consultees for DCO applications.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any further questions.

24 July 2018
Chris Purslow
General
Enquiry received via email
In the June 22 meeting note that has just been loaded it says it was agreed Riveroak would tell you the anticipated submission date once known. As many are saying that it is an attempt to influence the local plan vote this week can you please confirm when Riveroak first told you it was going to submit its application on at the start of this week?
Whilst RiverOak’s representatives had given the Inspectorate an indication that submission of the application could be in July 2018, the date of Tuesday 17 July was not confirmed until Thursday 12 July (by telephone).

24 July 2018
Ackers Johnson
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
Can you please advise when the Planning Inspectorate became aware of RiverOak's intention to submit their application on this date, as nothing was noted on your website.
Whilst RiverOak’s representatives had given the Inspectorate an indication that submission of the application could be in July 2018, the date of Tuesday 17 July was not confirmed until Thursday 12 July (by telephone).

24 July 2018
Jonathan Fowler
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
Having reviewed the submission documents which you kindly sent me it seems clear that there is significant information disclosed in these documents that was not available to the general public for them to comment on during the consultations, in particular on the very important issue of night flights. At the consultation we were constantly told by RSP representatives and their promoter Sir Roger Gale MP that night flights were not required other than for humanitarian reasons and emergency flights. This is clearly not the basis upon which their submission was made to you and therefore further evidence that the consultations were not adequate. I hope you will be directing RSP to hold further consultations so the general public can comment on these new plans in an informed way.

One further question if I may. It would seem RSP are proposing to site their house receptor 6.5km from the airport. This locates it in the sea where there are no houses or population base which seems pointless. It also means that noise over the densely populated town of Ramsgate with its many schools, community buildings, businesses and residential buildings will not be monitored at all, I suspect because at these locations the noise levels specified for fines to be levied will be breached by each and every flight. Surely this cannot be the right way to measure and monitor noise over such a densely populated area directly under a flightpath with planes at around 300/500ft above buildings ?

Lastly there is reference to a report which RSP are using which asserts that as long as someone's sleep is not disturbed more than 18 times during the night this is acceptable from a noise disturbance perspective. I have tried but failed to secure a copy of this report from any source including RSP. Will you please confirm that you have seen this report and had it examined by an appropriate expert in order to determine its validity.
We note the comments made. The Planning Inspectorate will consider whether to accept the Manston Airport application dated 17 July 2018 in accordance with the requirements of Section 55 of the Planning Act 2008.

If the application is accepted for examination you will have the opportunity to make representations about the merits of the application to an appointed Examining Authority at the appropriate time.

24 July 2018
Adem Mehmet
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer wrote to the Planning Inspectorate urging the Secretary of State to refuse to accept the application on the grounds of inadequate Pre-application consultation.
The Planning Inspectorate will consider whether to accept the Lake Lothing Third Crossing application in accordance with the requirements of Section 55 of the Planning Act 2008.

If you have not done so already, you can send the comments relating to the Applicant’s Pre-application consultation to your client’s local authority. Relevant local authorities have been invited to make a representation to the Inspectorate about the adequacy of the Applicant’s Pre-application consultation. Your client’s local authority will be able to consider your comments in preparing its ‘Adequacy of Consultation Representation’ (AoCR). Note that the deadline for receipt by the Inspectorate of any AoCRs is 27 July 2018. Amongst other things, the Inspectorate must have regard to all AoCRs received from a relevant local authority in taking its decision about whether to accept an application for examination.

Note that applicants are required to demonstrate in their applications for development consent how they have carried out their Pre-application consultation duties in accordance with the provisions of the Planning Act 2008. Negotiations between applicants and persons with an interest in affected lands are expected to progress after consultation has elapsed and in the course of the examination of applications. If this application is accepted for examination, you will be able to make representations to an appointed Examining Authority at the appropriate time. See our Advice Note 8 series for further information, here: [attachment 1]

24 July 2018
Birketts LLP - anon.
Lake Lothing Third Crossing
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer copied a letter, addressed to representatives of Suffolk County Council, to the Planning Inspectorate. The letter set out the enquirer's client's objection to the Proposed Development.
The Inspectorate will consider whether to accept the Lake Lothing Third Crossing application in accordance with the requirements of Section 55 of the Planning Act 2008.

If you have not done so already, you can send the comments relating to the Applicant’s Pre-application consultation to your client’s local authority. Relevant local authorities have been invited to make a representation to the Inspectorate about the adequacy of the Applicant’s Pre-application consultation. Your client’s local authority will be able to consider your comments in preparing its ‘Adequacy of Consultation Representation’ (AoCR). Note that the deadline for receipt by the Inspectorate of any AoCRs is 27 July 2018. Amongst other things, the Inspectorate must have regard to all AoCRs received from a relevant local authority in taking its decision about whether to accept an application for examination.

Note that applicants are required to demonstrate in their applications for development consent how they have carried out their Pre-application consultation duties in accordance with the provisions of the Planning Act 2008. Negotiations between applicants and persons with an interest in affected lands are expected to progress after consultation has elapsed and in the course of the examination of applications. If this application is accepted for examination, you will be able to make representations to an appointed Examining Authority at the appropriate time. See our Advice Note 8 series for further information, here: [attachment 1]

24 July 2018
Howes Percival LLP - anon.
Lake Lothing Third Crossing
Enquiry received via email
Query 1 (from Jonathan Dean by e-mail on 9 July 2018)

I’m sorry but this is a circular argument !
National Grid requested impact on house prices be put out of scope
The SoS agreed
You put this in “the opinion”
I want to know why? And why is it in scope in Cumbria?

It cannot be right for National Grid to make up the rules and police themselves! There simply has to be some form of check!

Who wrote “the opinion”? Who signed it off? What was the decision making process?
Anglesey is being discriminated against, again!

Query 2 (from Jonathan Dean by e-mail on 10 July 2018)

Thank you for this

The scoping opinion may well have been in the public domain, but Grid never made reference to it in the public consultation, and certainly never drew attention to the fact that impact on house prices was out of scope (PMO please take note)

I am trying to find out the rational behind impact on house prices being out of scope. BEIS direct me to you, and you direct me to National Grid. Obviously Grid want as much as possible out of scope, so who made the decision? I had assumed it was the SoS - is this not the case? Someone, somewhere, other than National Grid must think this is reasonable, so who was it? And on what basis?

Grid are currently taking about two months to answer any questions, so if I wait for a reply from them the DCO will have been submitted!

Query 3 (from Jonathan Dean by e-mail on 11 July 2018)

I have just been reading the Scoping Opinion for Wylfa Newydd, as well as the North West Coast Connection, and , of course, the North Wales Connection.
Impact on house prices has not been put out of scope for Wylfa Newydd, but has for the North Wales Connection, and I have already mentioned the North West Coast
Horizon presumably consider their project will have an impact on house prices, and the SoS must agree, and yet National Grid believe the opposite, and the SoS agrees
Is this a question for PINS, Horizon or the SoS, and now that Horizon's DCO has been accepted for examination, is it still appropriate to ask them or wait for the inquiry?
Response (by e-mail dated 23 July 2018)

The Scoping Opinions for both North Wales Connection and North West Coast Connection were prepared by the Planning Inspectorate, on behalf of the Secretary of State.

The Scoping Opinion for North Wales Connection agreed to scope out impacts on house prices, for the reasons explained in paragraph 3.53. Whilst the Scoping Opinion for North Coast Connection did not make specific reference to impacts on house prices, the Applicant stated their intent to scope this matter out in paragraph 16.9.11 of the Scoping Report on the basis that “This is not a matter that requires assessment under the 2009 EIA Regulations and is not a material consideration in the determination of planning merits of the proposal”.

Notwithstanding the above, it is important to note that decisions within a Scoping Opinion are primarily based on the information provided by the Applicant and by having regards to the characteristics of the Proposed Development and the receiving environment. It does not necessarily follow that a decision made in relation to one Scoping Opinion would equally translate to another.

As you are aware, the Wylfa Newydd Nuclear Power Station application has been accepted. As you have already registered as an Interested Person for the Wylfa application, you may submit any additional views on the application that you would like to make known to the Examining Authority by the relevant deadline, which will be confirmed in due course.

23 July 2018
Jonathan Dean
North Wales Connection
Enquiry received via email
What duty is there on an applicant to disclose facts which may be adverse to their cause ?

Has RSP disclosed that there are as yet unresolved police, public health and environment agency inquiries ?

These have been notified to BDB solicitors to RSP and also notified to Roger Gale MP when he was sent a draft of a Commons Petition of complaint against his Commons history due for submission after Public Health and Environment Agency replies.
Where a Proposed Development is EIA development, Applicants must identify the likely significant effects of the Proposed Development on the environment. The description of those likely significant effects should cover the direct effects and any indirect, secondary, cumulative, transboundary, short-term, medium-term and long-term, permanent and temporary, positive and negative effects [my emphasis added] of the development.

If the application is accepted for examination, you will be able to make representations about the content of the Applicant’s Environmental Statement to an appointed Examining Authority, as described previously.

23 July 2018
Richard Card
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
Does that mean that the DCO compensation, probably many millions, could be paid via the planning inspectorate thus avoiding legitimate money sourcing legislation?
The payment of compensation manifests as direct transactions between the Undertaker and those whose interests are affected. Any dispute in respect of the compensation payable is determined by the Lands Chamber of the Upper Tribunal. The Planning Inspectorate is not involved in this process.

23 July 2018
Michael Child
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Necton Parish Council query the adequacy of the applicant's pre-application community consultation.
See attached document.

23 July 2018
anon.
Norfolk Vanguard
Enquiry received via email
My understanding was that for pins to accept the application fee, which they have, they would have to be reasonably sure that the money was legitimately sourced.

I thought this would apply to any UK organisation accepting money.

so three questions.

Are pins exempted from The Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017?

If not do they have a maximum amount they can receive without compliance and if so how much is it?

At what point in a DCO would pins have to check that money paid to pins was legitimately sourced?
The Planning Inspectorate is not subject to The Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017. Those affected are listed in Regulation 8 and Regulation 103 of those Regulations.

20 July 2018
Michael Child
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
RiverOak-RSP announced on 16th July 2018 that they have resubmitted their DCO application, see [attachment 1]

Can you please confirm that the application has been resubmitted.

I assumed that there would be some dialogue in terms of questions from the applicant and advice from pins that would have to be published somewhere on the pins website as part of the statutory DCO legislation, but I can’t find it, can you send me the links?

In terms of payments, fees etc, that RiverOak can pay to pins, is there an amount at which money laundering legislation becomes applicable? I think the latest legislation would be Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018.
The application was submitted on 17 July 2018.

You asked: “I assumed that there would be some dialogue in terms of questions from the applicant and advice from pins that would have to be published somewhere on the pins website as part of the statutory DCO legislation, but I can’t find it, can you send me the links?”

The Planning Inspectorate can issue advice under s51 of the Planning Act 2008 about:

• Applying for an order granting development consent; or
• making representations about an application for such an order.

The last s51 advice issued to the Applicant was at the 22 June 2017 project update meeting:
[attachment 2]

20 July 2018
Michael Child
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I note from media coverage regarding the recently resubmitted DCO application for the former Manston Airport that part of the site could be used for Operation Stack. The following excerpt is taken from a KentOnline article which can be found at the following link :

[attachment 1]

"Thanet Conservative county councillor Paul Messenger first revealed the news that there was to be a second application at a full council meeting.

And he revealed there was the possibility the company - RiverOak Strategic Partners - could offer part of the site for holding lorries during Operation Stack.
In remarks that pre-empted any official announcement from the company, Cllr Messenger said Manston would help build the county’s resilience in the event that Brexit threatened to cause gridlock."
Could the Planning Inspectorate please clarify whether a proposal for use as the site as a lorry park is compatible with a DCO, ie. can a lorry park be considered as a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project? Or can it be included as part of a separate DCO application which may be an NSIP, even though it is not itself an NSIP, and where it is not an activity which is directly associated with the NSIP.
Section 14 of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) defines what ‘Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project’ means ie it sets out the types of projects that require development consent in the form of a Development Consent Order (DCO). Section 115 of the PA2008 sets out what development may be included in a DCO.

Government has issued guidance about ‘associated development’, which is available here: [attachment 2]

20 July 2018
Jonathan Fowler
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
I understand RSP may have submitted their DCO application again this week. Can you please confirm that all comments previously received by you when the first application was made and subsequently withdrawn will be considered by Pins with respect to this new application, in particular those comments regarding the adequacy of the consultation.

In addition given the information provided when the first application was made was significantly greater than that provided during the consultation and that further information has now been provided over and above that, in particular with reference to the number of aircraft movements, it would seem that further consultations should be required so those affected by the project can properly evaluate it and comment on it appropriately, in particular the statutory bodies, some of which were omitted initial or provide with the documents at a very late stage with little time to comment adequately.
Where they relate to the Applicant's formal statutory consultation under s42, 47 and/ or 48 of the Planning Act 2008, the comments received by the Inspectorate in respect of RSP's first submission dated 10 April 2018 will be treated as if they had been provided in relation to the second submission dated 17 July 2018.

20 July 2018
Adem Mehmet
Manston Airport
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached

20 July 2018
EDF Energy - anon.
Hinkley Point C New Nuclear Power Station
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer submitted representations regarding the merits of the proposed development to the Planning Inspectorate.
The application was submitted to Planning Inspectorate on 26 June 2018. Beginning on the day after it was submitted the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) has 28 calendar days to decide whether the application can be accepted for examination.

The Acceptance decision must therefore be taken on or before 24 July 2018. The decision will be published on the project webpage, here:

[attachment 1]

If the application is accepted, the following documents will also be published on the project webpage:

• Any Adequacy of Consultation Representations submitted by relevant local authorities.
• The Planning Inspectorate’s Acceptance Checklist.

The Acceptance tests

Section 55 of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) states what the Planning Inspectorate, on behalf of the Secretary of State, must have regard to when taking its decision about whether to accept an application:

a) The Consultation Report received with the application.
b) Any Adequacy of Consultation Representations received by the Planning Inspectorate from a local authority consultee.
c) The extent to which the Applicant has had regard to government guidance.

Comments about the merits of the Proposed Development (eg setting out support for or objection to the principle of the Proposed Development) cannot be considered at the Acceptance stage. If the application is accepted for examination, in order to make comments about the merits of the Proposed Development to an appointed Examining Authority, you will need to register as an Interested Party by making a Relevant Representation at the appropriate time. 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 2]

Once registered as an Interested Party, you will be invited to: attend the Preliminary Meeting, attend any scheduled hearings, attend the Accompanied Site Inspection(s) and submit written representations. In addition to this, you can request that the Examining Authority holds an Open Floor Hearing where you can raise concerns about the project, which can include those set out in your email.

19 July 2018
Jenny Smedley
Norfolk Vanguard
Enquiry received via email
As you seem to be back in the pre-application stage I wonder if you have ever answered these two questions;

1. You have made it quite clear that the application has to follow the procedure as laid out in PA 2008 and that states that before being involved in a DCO the applicant must make a recognised offer to buy the land from the legal owners. As the legal entity was only created in 2016 I can find no attempt to buy the land from the legal owners after this date. Have PINS been provided proof that they have made such an offer?
2. Also included in PA2008 is the acknowledgement that the applicant has to provide assurances that they have considered alternate airports were they could buy and create a Cargo Hub such as RAF Mildenhall or USAAF Lakenheath both surplus to requirements and available to purchase and of course more centrally located for a Cargo Hub. There are of course other airfields but have RSP provided assurances they have looked to purchase alternative airfields in the UK?
Amongst other things, the Secretary of State must be satisfied that all reasonable alternatives to Compulsory Acquisition (including modifications to the scheme) have been explored by an applicant. The Inspectorate would expect to find evidence in this regard in the Statement of Reasons submitted with an application. This will be tested at the Examination stage if the 17 July 2018 application is accepted.

A description of the reasonable alternatives studied by the Applicant and an indication of the main reason for the option chosen must be provided in the Environmental Statement, which will be subject to examination if the 17 July 2018 application is accepted.

19 July 2018
Barry
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
RSP are saying that they have resubmitted their DCO application to you but as yet it’s not showing on your website and I haven’t received an email. Could you confirm if RSP have resubmitted and if so why is it not on the website.
The Manston Airport application was resubmitted on 17 July 2018; the project website now reflects this:

[attachment 1]

18 July 2018
Sophie Fowler
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
As a further development, I note that RiverOak Strategic Partners have today announced that they have resubmitted their application. Can you please confirm whether this is actually the case.
The Manston Airport application was resubmitted on 17 July 2018; the project website now reflects this:

[attachment 1]

18 July 2018
Jonathan Fowler
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via phone
response has attachments
Telephone enquiry by Vicky Ellis
Response by email on 17 July 2018:

Dear Vicky,

As discussed, I have had a look into the meaning of the statement: ‘The Applicant has been discussing the possibility of disallowing legislation relating to the EA’, as documented in the meeting note of 30 April 2018.

Whilst the Applicant has not yet provided details of specific discussions with the Environment Agency (EA), I have found some background information which I hope is useful, which comes from Annex D of the Planning Inspectorate’s Advice Note 11: Working with Public Bodies: [attachment 1].

The Applicant is considering the possibility of ‘disapplying’ some of the EA’s legislation, to enable it to undertake any necessary maintenance works to the flood defences. So that was a typo in the meeting note. In summary, disapplying EA legislation means:

•Section 120 of the Planning Act 2008 allows other types of consents to be included in a Development Consent Order (DCO - which is the type of planning permission required for a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project such as Cleve Hill Solar Park), meaning that they would be consented through the DCO, rather than through a separate consenting route.

•Section 150 of the Planning Act provides that for ‘prescribed’ consents (which are defined in the Infrastructure Planning (Interested Parties and Miscellaneous Prescribed Provisions) Regulations 2015; the relevant body (in this case, the EA) must consent to the inclusion of the consent in the DCO.

•Where the EA agrees that a DCO can remove the requirement to obtain the specified separate consent, they usually make their consent conditional on the inclusion of ‘protective provisions’ (which are essentially to ‘protect’ the interests of statutory bodies, whose assets or functions may be affected by the proposed development) within in the DCO, to enable the risk associated with the activity to be managed. This process is usually referred to as agreeing to ‘disapply’ the legislation specified in the DCO.

So if an Applicant intends to disapply any EA legislation, this would need to be discussed and agreed with the EA (before the application is submitted, or during the Examination, if the application is accepted).

We will seek a progress update on this matter at our next meeting with the Applicant and document this in the meeting note.

I trust that this assists, but if you have any further queries, please do get in touch.

17 July 2018
Vicky Ellis
Cleve Hill Solar Park
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Dear Sir Re: Scottish Power Substations for East Anglia2 and East Anglia1 North Substations We live in Friston Suffolk. We attended a presentation by Scottish Power on 24th May 2018 which outlined their proposals for a revised land connection from that previously approved by the Planning Inspectorate at Bawdsey. This is currently under construction connecting the wind farm East Anglia 1 south to the national grid at Branford. The new proposed location for the land fall for the cables from East Anglia 2 and East Anglia 1 north is at Sizewell. The original connection for the three wind farms, EA2, EA1 north and south was approved by the inspectorate with land fall at Bawdsey extending via underground cables to Branford this has been well thought and considered to avoid villages and habitation but will no longer have provision for the cabling of EA2 and EA1 north. We do not understand why this approved cabling solution has required revising. We are being told by Scottish Power that the reason for the change of location has been dictated by National Grid. The proposals currently being entertained by Scottish Power will involve three substations connecting to your power lines on the northern edge of Friston within sight of the medieval village church. These substations will require an operational area of 30 acres plus areas for access they will have structures up 18 metres in height equivalent to a six-storey building. What is being proposed is a major piece of national infrastructure not just three simple substations as Scottish Power maintain. All this is proposed to be constructed in agricultural land and possibly in ancient woodland adjacent to a village which is currently surrounded by farmland with the highest structure being the listed church tower and windmill. We are extremely concerned at the scale and magnitude of this proposal and the way the site selection process has been carried out. The combined array of EA2 and EA1 north will produce 1600 MW and we are sure that you have an understanding of the scale of infrastructure needed to connect this to the grid, not something that should be dumped on the edge of village in the heart of rural Suffolk. We received today a reply from the Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy in response to an e mail from us which is truly unhelpful. It suggest that the Government has no overall coordinated strategy for how electrical energy is to be generated and distributed across the nation but that it simply a free for all for the private sector to decide, without regard to its impact on local communities and countryside. These are projects that will affect the nature of villages and rural landscape in perpetuity consequently their cumulative impact should to be fully understood and scrutinised against a national masterplan. We strongly support the role of wind energy in reducing the carbon foot print of the nation, however there appears to be a serious lack of coordination in how it is being delivered and distributed with Suffolk its countryside and residents being asked to bear a truly unreasonable burden. We also would like to draw your attention to the recent article by Fiona Cairns, director of the Suffolk Preservation Society in the East Anglian Daily Times on Saturday 9th June 2018 which much more eloquently outlines the principle issues involved. Yours faithfully Luigi Beltrandi
Please see attached.

17 July 2018
Luigi Beltrandi
East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Dear Sir Re: Scottish Power Substations for East Anglia2 and East Anglia1 North Substations We live in Friston Suffolk. We attended a presentation by Scottish Power on 24th May 2018 which outlined their proposals for a revised land connection from that previously approved by the Planning Inspectorate at Bawdsey. This is currently under construction connecting the wind farm East Anglia 1 south to the national grid at Branford. The new proposed location for the land fall for the cables from East Anglia 2 and East Anglia 1 north is at Sizewell. The original connection for the three wind farms, EA2, EA1 north and south was approved by the inspectorate with land fall at Bawdsey extending via underground cables to Branford this has been well thought and considered to avoid villages and habitation but will no longer have provision for the cabling of EA2 and EA1 north. We do not understand why this approved cabling solution has required revising. We are being told by Scottish Power that the reason for the change of location has been dictated by National Grid. The proposals currently being entertained by Scottish Power will involve three substations connecting to your power lines on the northern edge of Friston within sight of the medieval village church. These substations will require an operational area of 30 acres plus areas for access they will have structures up 18 metres in height equivalent to a six-storey building. What is being proposed is a major piece of national infrastructure not just three simple substations as Scottish Power maintain. All this is proposed to be constructed in agricultural land and possibly in ancient woodland adjacent to a village which is currently surrounded by farmland with the highest structure being the listed church tower and windmill. We are extremely concerned at the scale and magnitude of this proposal and the way the site selection process has been carried out. The combined array of EA2 and EA1 north will produce 1600 MW and we are sure that you have an understanding of the scale of infrastructure needed to connect this to the grid, not something that should be dumped on the edge of village in the heart of rural Suffolk. We received today a reply from the Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy in response to an e mail from us which is truly unhelpful. It suggest that the Government has no overall coordinated strategy for how electrical energy is to be generated and distributed across the nation but that it simply a free for all for the private sector to decide, without regard to its impact on local communities and countryside. These are projects that will affect the nature of villages and rural landscape in perpetuity consequently their cumulative impact should to be fully understood and scrutinised against a national masterplan. We strongly support the role of wind energy in reducing the carbon foot print of the nation, however there appears to be a serious lack of coordination in how it is being delivered and distributed with Suffolk its countryside and residents being asked to bear a truly unreasonable burden. We also would like to draw your attention to the recent article by Fiona Cairns, director of the Suffolk Preservation Society in the East Anglian Daily Times on Saturday 9th June 2018 which much more eloquently outlines the principle issues involved. Yours faithfully Luigi Beltrandi
Please see attached.

17 July 2018
Luigi Beltrandi
East Anglia ONE North Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
It is almost three weeks since you recorded that a project update meeting was held on 22 June 2018 with representatives of RSP.

In the interests of transparency can you please indicate how much longer before a note of the matters discussed is published on your website?
Please follow the link below to view the recently published note of the meeting with RiverOak Strategic Partners Limited (RSP) held on 22 June 2018.

[attachment 1]

16 July 2018
Nigel Phethean
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I would like to register an official complaint about the 2nd phase consultation being undertaken by Cleve Hill Solar Park Ltd for their NSIP pre-application stage. The public feedback deadline date is today.

In brief, the consultation has:
- provided misleading information
- used biased methods to gather feedback
- used non-relevant information in an attempt to influence the public
- left out some important pieces of information
- made assertions in publicity information that have not been included in the PEIR
- provided a non-technical PEIR summary which doesn't match the main PEIR
- provided a PEIR that is massive and unwieldy which can only be intimidating to the general public
- been organised poorly in terms of the time allowed
- disadvantaged local people in terms of physical access to the events
- disadvantaged some in the population who aren't IT literate
- has failed to use modern social communication channels appropriately
- has not provided sufficient signposting about the consultation on the site
- has relied on out-of-date data for mail distributions

Local people have been left confused, angry and in some case distraught by the actions of the developers and their contractors.

I contend that the consultation is of such poor quality that any application that relies on this will fail the Planning Inspectorate's Acceptance test in terms of the standards required.

If the information in this email isn't sufficient, please could you tell me how to do this more formally?
Please see the attached letter

13 July 2018
Chair of the local campaign group: Graveney Rural - Michael Wilcox
Cleve Hill Solar Park
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting.
See attached meeting note.

13 July 2018
Heathrow Airport Ltd - anon.
Expansion of Heathrow Airport (Third Runway)
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please could you confirm whether it is possible to submit a DCO application in outline, following by subsequent reserved matters? If so, please can you provide some further details on the process?
A Development Consent Order (DCO) application cannot be submitted as an outline application to be followed by application(s) for reserved matters at a later date. Applicants should make every effort to finalise details applicable to the Proposed Development prior to submission of their DCO application.

The ‘Rochdale Envelope’ approach has been used for some proposals under the Planning Act 2008, where the nature of the Proposed Development means that some details of the whole project have not been confirmed (for instance the precise dimensions of structures) when the application is submitted, and flexibility is sought to address uncertainty.

The Planning Inspectorate has issued a series of Advice Notes on the DCO process which you may find useful, these include an Advice Note specifically concerning Using the Rochdale Envelope: [attachment 1]

DCOs may contain requirements, which are similar to conditions under the Town and Country Planning Act, which specify the matters for which detailed approval needs to be obtained before the development can be lawfully begun, for example a detailed landscaping scheme

All other Advice Notes relevant to the Planning Act 2008 can be found by following the link below:
[attachment 2]

11 July 2018
A Henderson
General
Enquiry received via email
I know ignorance is no defence, but I have only just become aware of the Scoping Report and the SoS's Scoping Opinion, both on your website. Both of these were prepared prior to the 2016 consultation, but many facts in these documents were not made public during the consultation. I would go as far as to say that the very existence of them was not publicised during the consultation. This cannot be right and proper behaviour, but I am keen to know your views
The purpose of the scoping process is for an applicant to ask the Secretary of State its opinion as to the scope and level of detail of the information to be provided in the Environmental Statement. This will help inform the applicant’s Preliminary Environmental Information Report (PEIR). National Grid published their PEIR in October 2016 as part of their statutory consultation. The Scoping Report was published on our website on 9 June 2016 and the Scoping Opinion was published on 1 July 2016, so both were in the public domain prior to statutory consultation. As advised previously, any concerns you have about the Applicant’s consultation should be directed to Isle of Anglesey County Council who may wish to include them with their adequacy of consultation response.

Thanks

10 July 2018
Jonathan Dean
North Wales Connection
Enquiry received via email
I read with interest your advice given on April 12, 2017 regarding access rights. I understand there are two pieces of legislation that could be used:

s53 of the Planning Act 2008
s172 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016
To paraphrase, your advice was to use s53 of the Planning Act 2008. This states:

"Any person duly authorised in writing by the Secretary of State may at any reasonable time enter any land for the purpose of surveying and taking levels ..."

Please could you comment on the following:
1 - if access has been granted under s172 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016, ie against your advice, will the findings be considered acceptable in the DCO
2 - if access is being requested under s172 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016, what should the land owner do?

3 - if access is requested under s53 of the Planning Act 2008, what evidence does the requester have to provide to demonstrate that they are "authorised in writing by the Secretary of State"
1 - The Planning Inspectorate is not responsible for requests made under s172 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016. Decisions regarding whether or not to accept applications for examination are made in accordance with the requirements of the Planning Act 2008 and associated statutory instruments.
2 – The Planning Inspectorate is not responsible for requests made under s172 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016. As such the Inspectorate is unable to provide advice regarding this process.
3 – If the Secretary of State authorises access to land under s53 of the Planning Act 2008, it will issue an authorisation notice to the requester. The authorisation notice would also be published on the Planning Inspectorate website. Further information is available in Planning Inspectorate Advice Note Five: Section 53 – Rights of entry.

09 July 2018
Jonathan Dean
North Wales Connection
Enquiry received via email
I have just read the North Wales Connection scoping opinion. While it is clear dormice are out of scope, it is not clear if brown hare are out of scope also. Please could you advise?

With regard to sections 3.50 - 3.52 of the Scoping Opinion, can I interpret from this that the effect of EMFs in a high radon environment is also out of scope? Radon is particularly high in some areas of Anglesey, through which the proposed development will pass, and the combined effects of EMFs and radon together can be quite different to the two in isolation.
With regard to section 3.53 of the Scoping Opinion, whilst many projects are planned for Anglesey and will happen in tandem for the construction phase, this is not the case for the operation phase. There is only one project that will impact 30 km of Anglesey. Was it really the intent of the SoS to out-scope the operation phase of the proposed development? It would not be difficult to assign impacts to this single project as section 3.53 suggests.
It would appear to the the SoS's opinion that impact on house prices is out of scope for the North Wales Connection (Anglesey), but is in scope for the North West Coast Connection (Cumbria). I can think of no rational reason why this should be, and it seems a little unfair. Please could you explain this.
With regard to section 3.60 of the scoping Opinion, should the Wylfa Newydd project not go ahead, the existing line would be largely redundant and no doubt removed. As such, it could be argued, the existing line is not part of the 60 year baseline scenario. Please could you comment on how the cumulative baseline has been created and what, exactly has been determined to be the "do nothing" scenario against which proposed scenarios are compared.
The Scoping Opinion for the North Wales Connection Project was adopted by the Planning Inspectorate on behalf of the Secretary of State and in accordance with the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2009. In making the Opinion the Planning Inspectorate had regard to information provided by the Applicant in its Scoping Report and to responses from consultation bodies. The purpose of the Scoping Opinion is to set out those aspects/matters which the Secretary of State considered could result in likely significant effects and so should be assessed by the Applicant and presented in their Environmental Statement (ES). Interpretation of the Scoping Opinion and preparation of the ES is a responsibility of the Applicant; accordingly if you have any comments on the approach to the assessment in the ES during the pre-application stage these should be directed to the Applicant.

09 July 2018
Jonathan Dean
North Wales Connection
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

09 July 2018
Wheelabrator Technologies Inc - anon.
General
Enquiry received via email
Is it possible for a husband and wife to register separately as interested parties if they have the same email address?
Certainly two parties can register using the same email or postal address; please be aware that you may receive duplicate correspondence as a result.

06 July 2018
Stephen Blyth
General
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The question in my original email was, if you have to agree minutes from meetings with RSP is this is what is delaying publication ?

You had a meeting in January which had relevant details that were not published until after RSP’s consultations so people who were aware of it were unable to raise it with RSP. We have a right to be involved but when important information is not published in a timely way for whatever reason this is not possible

I have to say the whole DCO process seems secretive, flawed and very biased in favour of the applicant. Taxpayers seem to be paying for you to give free advice to the applicants while residents, who will be the ones to live with the consequences', get no support. Do you ever consider meeting groups who are opposed to these proposals and inform them of their legal position ?
As explained in the advice signposted in our previous response to you ([attachment 1], the internal and external review process takes time. For the meeting note in question, no particular party was responsible for the exceptional delay in publication.

In respect of your enquiry about advice to the local community about its legal position, section 51 of the Planning Act5 2008 establishes what the Inspectorate can issue advice about:

• Applying for an order granting development consent; or
• Making representations about an application, or a proposed application, for such an order.

Any advice given under section 51 does not constitute legal advice upon which enquirers can rely. Legal advice must be sought independently.

The volume of enquiries fielded in this case (and recorded on the project webpage) demonstrates the support the Inspectorate has endeavoured to provide to the local community in terms of understanding the process. We can and do meet with interest groups to provide advice within the scope summarised above in order to facilitate the process. Requests for meetings of this type are considered on a case by case basis.

Otherwise, if an application is resubmitted and accepted for examination, as previously advised you will have opportunities to make representations about the merits of the Proposed Development to the appointed Examining Authority. Please see Advice Note Eight, here: [attachment 2]

06 July 2018
Ian Scott
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Teleconference to discuss submission logistics.
See attached meeting note.

05 July 2018
Highways England - anon.
A303 Sparkford to Ilchester Dualling
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I notice since RSP withdrew their application for a DCO your web page shows that “the applicant has set no timetable for this application” Is there any indication of when they will.

Given the problems with their submission and they submitted more than double the pages of information to PINS that was available to residents will there have to be another consultation period. We live on Nethercourt estate and could not be closer to Manston yet RSP failed to inform the majority of the residents of their consultation as it seems they did many areas affected. Before the pre-application was withdrawn was any decision made as to the validity of consultation for DCO purposes ?

I also understand you had a meeting with RSP on June 22. When is a record of this meeting to be published by PINS. I have to say there seems to be a long delay in publishing the minutes from these meetings. Is it because they have to be agreed by yourselves & RSP. I do think an effort should be made to produce these quicker.

Can you also tell me are BDB still representing RSP in discussions with PINS regarding this DCO.
“I notice since RSP withdrew their application for a DCO your web page shows that “the applicant has set no timetable for this application” Is there any indication of when they will.”

In respect of resubmission, the Planning Inspectorate understands that the position established in RSP’s letter dated 4 May 2018 is currently maintained: [attachment 1]

“Before the pre-application was withdrawn was any decision made as to the validity of consultation for DCO purposes ?”

A decision was not taken about whether the application could be accepted for examination. By association therefore a decision was not taken about the adequacy of the applicant’s Pre-application consultation. A record of the Planning Inspectorate’s principle concerns in respect of the withdrawn application is summarised in the note of the meeting held on 11 May 2018: [attachment 2]

“I also understand you had a meeting with RSP on June 22. When is a record of this meeting to be published by PINS. I have to say there seems to be a long delay in publishing the minutes from these meetings. Is it because they have to be agreed by yourselves & RSP. I do think an effort should be made to produce these quicker.”

The note of the meeting held on 22 June 2018 is currently in the process of being prepared and will be published on the project webpage as soon as practicable. All attendees (other than the Inspectorate) are given an opportunity to fact-check prior to publication.

Please see the following advice with regards likely timescales for the publication of meeting notes: [attachment 3]

Can you also tell me are BDB still representing RSP in discussions with PINS regarding this DCO.

BDB are acting as RSP’s legal representation for the Manston Airport application resubmission.

“Would you tell me if RSP have to give PINS notice of their intention to re-submit their DCO application or can they do it at any time without informing PINS first?”

There is no statutory requirement for applicants to notify the Planning Inspectorate of their intention to submit a DCO application. The Planning Inspectorate request that applicants provide anticipated submission dates in advance and regular dialogue on the run up to submission to enable the Planning Inspectorate to resource appropriately for Acceptance.

05 July 2018
Ian Scott
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
You have indicated a preference for combined communications (most recently on 2018-06-26) :
“We encourage and advise all stakeholders who share similar views to collate communications to us because this assists the process.”
However on 2017-07-21 a 286 signatory letter, and on 2018-06-26 an 1,850 signatory letter, being combined communications from Save Manston Airport association (SMAa), have been published by PINS without the signatures of the additional signees, the second communication only listed as anon. This we consider to be an unfair treatment of all the people who have gone to the trouble of signing the communications.

Why we feel this matter needs a resolution, is that shortly we believe RSP will be re-submitting the DCO application. And a little later SMAa hope the DCO process will be in the Examination phase. Now we would be pleased to submit at least some of the comments our members wish to make as joint communications. However there is clearly no point in doing this if PINS will again just be treating them all as a single communication from “anon”. Thus it would become necessary to ask all those that wished to sign a letter, to instead write or email their own views personally and individually.
The Planning Inspectorate encourages groups of people who share similar views to submit combined representations/ communications because this assists the process. We offer this advice based on the principle that it is the relevance and importance of the issues raised that will attract weight in an Examining Authority's deliberations at the Examination stage, not the quantity of responses.

In respect of the SMAa petition submitted on 19 June 2018, there is no mechanism by which its content can be considered by the Inspectorate at the Pre-application or Acceptance stages of the process. Only correspondence received at the Pre-application stage regarding an applicant’s formal statutory consultation under s42, s47 and/ or s48 can be considered at the Acceptance stage.

The petition signatories have been anonymised under the General Data Protection Regulation.

05 July 2018
Save Manston Airport association (SMAa) - anon.
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
have a query relating to section 92 of the 2008 Act which I wondered if you could help with.

92(2) states: “The Examining authority must fix, and cause each affected person to be informed of, the deadline by which an affected person must notify the [Secretary of State] that the person wishes a compulsory acquisition hearing to be held.”

Do you know what timescale is given for persons to notify the SoS they wish a compulsory acquisition hearing to be held?

I can’t see that it is prescribed anywhere in secondary legislation.
In a nutshell, there are no set timescales in the Infrastructure Planning (Examination Procedure) Rules 2010 for affected persons to request a Compulsory Acquisition (CA) hearing; it is a deadline for the appointed Examining Authority to set on each case. This is explained in Rule 6(3) of the Rules:

Where the Examining authority holds any other meeting for the purposes of the examination to which these Rules apply, it shall arrange for such notice to be given of that meeting as appears to the authority to be necessary.

As you will be aware, the ExA will issue its Rule 6 letter inviting parties to attend the Preliminary Meeting (PM). This letter will also set a draft timetable for the examination of the application, which is discussed at the PM. The timetable will include a deadline for requests for CA hearings.

Following the Preliminary Meeting the ExA will then issue the Rule 8 letter which confirms the timetable for the examination. This will include a deadline for requests for CA hearings, in line with Rule 8(1)(g), which specifies:

the date by which any affected person must notify the Examining authority of their wish to be heard at a compulsory acquisition hearing.

Rule 13(1) specifies that the ExA must allow at least a 21 day deadline for submitting requests for a CA hearing:

In fixing, and causing persons to be informed of, a deadline under section 92(2) (compulsory acquisition hearing) or 93(1) (open-floor hearing), the Examining authority must ensure that the deadline is at least 21 days after the date on which notice of the deadline is given.

It’s also worth noting Rule 13(2) which specifies:

The Examining authority may disregard any request for an open-floor hearing or for a compulsory acquisition hearing to be held which is received after the deadline.

04 July 2018
Welsh Government - anon.
General
Enquiry received via email
I’ve just been on your web-site and cannot find any supporting documentation to the submitted DCO (i.e. the EIA etc).

When do you expect have all these documents downloaded onto the web-site?
The suite of application documents is currently in the process of being prepared ahead of publication as soon as practically possible.

We anticipate that the full suite will be available to view on the project page early next week. However, if it’s published sooner, I will let you know.

03 July 2018
Norfolk County Council - Stephen Faulkner
Norfolk Vanguard
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Have RiverOak Strategic Partners resubmitted their application or given you any indication when they will be resubmitting?
RiverOak Strategic Partners (RSP) has yet to resubmit the Manston Airport application.

In respect of resubmission, the Planning Inspectorate understands that the position established in RSP’s letter dated 4 May 2018 is maintained: [attachment 1]

03 July 2018
Sophie Fowler
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
it was pins saying 'In terms of payment of fees, there is no due diligence that the Planning Inspectorate is required to undertake. It is the payment and clearing of a fee in respect of a named case that triggers the required actions to be undertaken by The Inspectorate, for example on submission of the application and the application fee, the Planning Inspectorate has 28 days to determine whether an application will be accepted to progress to the next stage'

I thought that pins made it pretty clear in saying that, that submitting the application and paying the fee triggered money laundering checks.

Are you saying this meant something else and if so what?
In the context of the 2016 response (which I did not author), reference to the triggering of ‘required actions’ can only relate to the commencement of the Planning Inspectorate’s deliberations at the Acceptance stage. The Acceptance tests applied at the Acceptance stage are a matter of fact, and do not include investigations into the source of Acceptance fees.

03 July 2018
Michael Child
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via post
Query regarding consultation and selection of Zone 7 Friston by Scottish Power for the EA2 onshore wind farm substation and grid connection.
Thank you for your letter of 20 June 2018 enclosing a letter addressed to Therese Coffey MP, also of 20 June 2018, in relation to the East Anglia ONE North and East Anglia TWO projects.
The Planning Inspectorate (the Inspectorate) is a government agency and part of the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) responsible for examining Development Consent Order applications for Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIPs). The Inspectorate makes a recommendation to the relevant Secretary of State who will then make a final decision whether to grant or to refuse development consent. The SoS of Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) is the relevant minister in regards to energy projects. However, the Inspectorate has no remit in regards to creating planning Policies. It can provide procedural advice and in relation to these specific projects, any advice issued can be found here: East Anglia TWO and East Anglia ONE North.
As the projects have not yet been submitted to the Inspectorate, the Inspectorate has no formal powers to intervene on consultees’ behalf and we are therefore not in a position to supervise the statutory consultation process conducted by the Applicant.
As part of the pre-application stage in the DCO process, an Applicant has a number of duties that they are required to carry out which include extensive surveys and consultations to identify, for example, any suitable areas for investigation and selecting the cable route corridors, and substations.
The Applicant, as part of its Statement of Community Consultation (SoCC), is required to set out how they intend to conduct consultation on a project and in relation to the East Anglia projects, phase 3 of their SoCC, included Public Information Days (PID), one of them being held in Friston on Friday 29 June 2018.
Whilst the Inspectorate cannot comment on the Applicant’s selections, more detailed information on the project can be found on the Applicant’s websites SPR - East Anglia TWO and SPR - East Anglia ONE North which also includes their reasoning for the choices of the Zone 7: SPR - Summary and Approach to Site Selection.
I would encourage you to contact the developer directly to make your concerns heard as the Applicant has a statutory duty to have regard to all consultation responses which should be demonstrated in the in the Consultation Report as part of the DCO application. Should the DCO application be accepted by the Inspectorate for examination, the Applicant has a duty to notify the local community when providing information on how to register as an Interested Party for the purpose of the process.
The process under the Planning Act 2008 (PA 2008) has been designed to allow members of the public and statutory stakeholders to participate in examination of all DCO applications so that anyone interested in the proposed developments, their potential impacts and any relevant matters can be fully engaged in the examination process.
During the examination, the Examining Authority has a duty to take into account all matters assessed by the Applicant in the Environmental Statement and may ask additional questions as required. More information is provided in the Planning Inspectorate’s Advice notes Advice Note 8: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others, and at the current pre-application stage we would recommend especially Advice note 8.1. Responding to the developer’s pre-application consultation and Advice Note 8.2. How to register to participate in an Examination.
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.

28 June 2018
Nicholas Thorp
East Anglia ONE North Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
I read recently in the Wylfa Newydd PEIR that 41% of Anglesey adults had never been online.My concern is engaging them to participate in the National Grid examination. Could you comment on ways that you have effectively tackled this issue before?
If the application is accepted for Examination, members of the public who are unable to register online can request a paper copy of the Relevant Representation form. We will then communicate with those individuals by post throughout the Examination.

Unfortunately, when considering which deposit locations to use for access to documents during the Examination, we are unable to insist on hard copies in all locations. However, we will be looking for libraries in the vicinity of the Proposed Development that provide free internet access with printing facilities. We also understand that National Grid will be providing a hard copy of all application documents in the council offices and members of the public can request paper copies of documents directly from the Applicant, which may be subject to a cost.

28 June 2018
Jonathan Dean
North Wales Connection
Enquiry received via post
Query regarding consultation and selection of Zone 7 Friston by Scottish Power for the EA2 onshore wind farm substation and grid connection.
Thank you for your letter of 20 June 2018 enclosing a letter addressed to Therese Coffey MP, also of 20 June 2018, in relation to the East Anglia ONE North and East Anglia TWO projects.
The Planning Inspectorate (the Inspectorate) is a government agency and part of the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) responsible for examining Development Consent Order applications for Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIPs). The Inspectorate makes a recommendation to the relevant Secretary of State who will then make a final decision whether to grant or to refuse development consent. The SoS of Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) is the relevant minister in regards to energy projects. However, the Inspectorate has no remit in regards to creating planning Policies. It can provide procedural advice and in relation to these specific projects, any advice issued can be found here: East Anglia TWO and East Anglia ONE North.
As the projects have not yet been submitted to the Inspectorate, the Inspectorate has no formal powers to intervene on consultees’ behalf and we are therefore not in a position to supervise the statutory consultation process conducted by the Applicant.
As part of the pre-application stage in the DCO process, an Applicant has a number of duties that they are required to carry out which include extensive surveys and consultations to identify, for example, any suitable areas for investigation and selecting the cable route corridors, and substations.
The Applicant, as part of its Statement of Community Consultation (SoCC), is required to set out how they intend to conduct consultation on a project and in relation to the East Anglia projects, phase 3 of their SoCC, included Public Information Days (PID), one of them being held in Friston on Friday 29 June 2018.
Whilst the Inspectorate cannot comment on the Applicant’s selections, more detailed information on the project can be found on the Applicant’s websites SPR - East Anglia TWO and SPR - East Anglia ONE North which also includes their reasoning for the choices of the Zone 7: SPR - Summary and Approach to Site Selection.
I would encourage you to contact the developer directly to make your concerns heard as the Applicant has a statutory duty to have regard to all consultation responses which should be demonstrated in the in the Consultation Report as part of the DCO application. Should the DCO application be accepted by the Inspectorate for examination, the Applicant has a duty to notify the local community when providing information on how to register as an Interested Party for the purpose of the process.
The process under the Planning Act 2008 (PA 2008) has been designed to allow members of the public and statutory stakeholders to participate in examination of all DCO applications so that anyone interested in the proposed developments, their potential impacts and any relevant matters can be fully engaged in the examination process.
During the examination, the Examining Authority has a duty to take into account all matters assessed by the Applicant in the Environmental Statement and may ask additional questions as required. More information is provided in the Planning Inspectorate’s Advice notes Advice Note 8: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others, and at the current pre-application stage we would recommend especially Advice note 8.1. Responding to the developer’s pre-application consultation and Advice Note 8.2. How to register to participate in an Examination.
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.

28 June 2018
Nicholas Thorp
East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
It seems to me that the powers granted under the 2008 planning act were really supposed to speed up the planning process for major infrastructure designated by government as essential to the future of the country. These powers are extremely developer friendly and should therefore only be used by developers of significant size with relevant experience of delivering projects of the type designated. Looking at the usual applicants for a DCO they generally meet these conditions, but it seems the legislation allows anyone, even me, to apply for a DCO even though they might have no balance sheet assets or experience of operating successfully within the respective area. I don't believe this can have been the objective of the legislation and wondered therefore how the current legislation could be challenged and changed so it is used more appropriately as I believe was intended.
You would need to take your own legal advice is respect of this matter.

The Planning Inspectorate can issue advice about:

• Apply for an order granting development consent; or
• Making representations about an application for development consent.

28 June 2018
Adem Mehmet
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
Near the beginning of the pre application stage I asked pins about the position regarding money paid to pins by RiverOak RSP in terms of how pins would ensure that the money, from what is basically a foreign company that in it's various forms has operated out of at least two locations considered as tax havens.

Back when I asked RiverOak appeared to be located in Connecticut but registered as a Delaware LLC (perhaps for tax avoidance purposes) but my understanding is that this would have made pretty much impossible to ensure that funds from them were legitimately sourced and compliant with UK money laundering legislation.

At that time pins made me assurances that compliance was deemed to start at the point where RiverOak paid the acceptance fee to pins, which you say they now have.

My understanding is that RiverOak is still funded partly or wholly from outside the UK.

Can you please provide me with details of how pins ensured the payment was legitimately sourced?
Relevant legislation does not place a requirement on the Planning Inspectorate to investigate or test the source of Acceptance fees.

28 June 2018
Michael Child
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
You were asked why you were writing to the pro-airport organisation, asking them to write to you, whilst simultaneously telling them that only comments relating to the applicants consultation can accepted at the pre-examination stage. You have made no attempt whatsoever to explain your, apparently, contradictory behaviour.

You were also asked to comment on the allegation that you have considered things which should rightly have been considered at a later stage of the process. You have stated that the application was subjected to the relevant acceptance tests. You have not commented on the allegation which has been made and you have not denied the allegation.
The Inspectorate has not written to SMAa in the context implied. The advice issued to SMAa in respect of ‘collated responses’ was issued in September 2017 and was provided in response to an enquiry concerned explicitly with the Applicant’s Pre-application consultation. I had intended to provide a link to the record of this enquiry in my previous response to you – apologies for that omission: [attachment 1]

By way of clarification, my advice to SMAa on 26 June 2018 was that “only correspondence regarding an applicant’s formal statutory consultation under s42, s47 and/ or s48 can be considered at the Acceptance stage [emphasis added]. All other aspects of the Acceptance decision are deliberated and taken by the Secretary of State on the basis of the application documents alone.”

The Inspectorate considered the application submitted on 10 April 2018 against the Acceptance tests, which are a matter of fact. On that basis nothing within the application documentation as submitted was considered prematurely.

27 June 2018
Peter Binding
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The SMAa Committee submitted a letter to the Planning Inspectorate, supporting the Manston Airport DCO, and requesting that the process move forwards faster, so that thousands of pro Manston Airport supporters can register their support and comments in the pre-Examination and Examination stages.

The letter was signed by the SMAa Committee on behalf of 3,500 members and endorsed by 1,850 signatures, collected specifically for the letter, from both SMAa members and national and international signatories who actively wish for Manston to re-open for jobs and travel.

“Dear Planning Inspectorate,

You have requested that the Save Manston Airport association (SMAa) members send multi-signature letters rather than lots of separate ones.

We have generally respected the ruling that Pre-application Stage 1 is not the correct time to write to PINS but this may now be working to our disadvantage because it is clear that it is being ignored by several vociferous opponents of Manston as an Airport - we have been waiting in anticipation of Stages 3 and 4 for a long time.

Notwithstanding the above we now feel we should object most strongly to the apparent inclusion of items into the Acceptance stage (as discussed in the minutes of the recent meeting with RSP, on the PINS web site) that properly belong in the Examination stage.

SMAa just wish to remind PINS that we are here and urgently waiting for the DCO to move to the Pre-examination and Examination stages, these being the correct times for us to express our views to you. This delay is effectively preventing our members and other pro-aviation people from expressing their viewpoints; viewpoints that will certainly be presented at the Pre-examination and Examination stages.

There is presently a live SHP planning application (OL/TH/18/0660) on the Thanet District Council web-site regarding a major housing development on the Manston Airport site; on reading the representations the vast majority are Objections and are pro-airport. The latest figures at close of play Tuesday 6th June 2018 stands at: Grand total percentages: Supports Housing: 20.46%; Objections: 78.01%; Neutral:1.53%.

So SMAa would claim an effective level of support for the airport and for the DCO process from local residents and businesses to keep Manston for aviation; this stands at least at 78%, well in line with the results of the two previous SHP planning applications to TDC, and many other polls, elections, petitions, etc.

The population of Thanet and East Kent are waiting for these jobs, and they are getting concerned at the continual delays, they wish to express their views!"
When an application is withdrawn, and where the Applicant states a clear intention to resubmit at some point in the future, the stage of the process reverts from Acceptance to Pre-application. The meeting held on 11 May 2018 took place at the Pre-application stage and its content included advice to the Applicant in respect of the Planning Inspectorate’s three principal concerns with the application documents submitted on 10 April 2018. All three concerns directly related the Acceptance tests set out in s55 of the Planning Act 2008, including s55(3)(f) which states that application must be of standard that the Secretary of State considers satisfactory.

In respect of the content of your 13 June 2018 email, please note that only correspondence regarding an applicant’s formal statutory consultation under s42, s47 and/ or s48 can be considered at the Acceptance stage. All other aspects of the Acceptance decision are deliberated and taken by the Secretary of State on the basis of the application documents alone.

If an application is resubmitted, and subsequently accepted for examination, SMAa (and anybody else) will be able to make submissions about the merits of the Proposed Development in a Relevant Representation: [attachment 1]

26 June 2018
Save Manston Airport association Committee - anon.
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please would you indicate: how many meetings (face-to-face or teleconference) have occurred between RSP and the PI since May 3rd; and when the next meeting or teleconference between RSP and the PI is scheduled.
Two meetings have taken place with RSP and its representatives since 3 May 2018.

The first of these project update meetings took place on 11 May 2018. The note of that meeting is available here: [attachment 1]

The second project update meeting took place on 22 June 2018. The note of the meeting is being prepared and will be published on the project webpage as soon as practicable.

26 June 2018
James Chappell
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
According to this petition, you have specifically asked the pro-airport Manston campaign groups to submit multi-signature letters rather than writing to you individually. Is this true? My understanding was that you couldn't accept lobbying on behalf of the plan for an airport until the DCO was accepted. If this is the case, what's the point of telling them to write to you?

The petition also claims that you have not dealt with the DCO application correctly. It is said that, in considering the application you have considered items which should belong in the Acceptance stage. I believe one of the local MP's has made this remark too. It isn't obvious whether the MP got it from the petition or whether the petition got it from the MP.

Personally, I don't see the problem. If you have to find out whether they've got the money to pursue this project you might as well find out before you spend even more public money subjecting to examination. However, for the record, could you explain whether the petition is correct in claiming that you have not dealt with the DCO correctly?
Please see our previous advice to SMAa, which included the following:

“We encourage and advise all stakeholders who share similar views to collate communications to us because this assists the process.”

We have today responded to the SMAa petition. Our advice will be published to the project webpage tomorrow. [[attachment 1]]

The application submitted on 10 April 2018 was subjected to the Acceptance tests set out in s55 of the Planning Act 2008, including s55(3)(f) which states that an application must be of standard that the Secretary of State considers satisfactory.

26 June 2018
Peter Binding
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
In your note of meeting of 11 May 2018 with representatives of RSP it was stated that a further meeting would be held once matters raised by the Inspectorate had been addressed by the applicant. Has a date been agreed for that further meeting and if not what does the Inspectorate understand is the position is with respect to a further application for a DCO ?
A project update meeting was held on 22 June 2018. The note of that meeting is being prepared and will be published on the project webpage as soon as practicable.

In respect of resubmission, the Planning Inspectorate understands that the position established in RSP’s letter dated 4 May 2018 is maintained: [attachment 1]

26 June 2018
Nigel Phethean
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Comments in relation to the developer's pre-application consultation and potential issues for examination were raised regarding the Northampton Gateway application.
Consultation material presented by the developer at the pre-application stage is not “the application”. The pre-application process is intended to allow the developer to gather useful information from the public and others that will influence the preparation of the application that is eventually submitted. The consultation material presented must be clear and informative, but it is not necessarily a draft version of the application.

The Relevant Representation stage is the point at which comments on the scheme can be submitted to the Examining Authority. This is when anybody who wants to become an Interested Party and take part in the examination can register. You must register separately for each Development Consent Order (DCO) application you wish to be an interested party for. You can register individually, or as part of a group for example a household or Action Group, or organisation; providing all those in the group or organisation have similar views. However it is important to note that that you can’t register as two individuals for example ‘Mr and Mrs’ – Individuals must register separately. For more information on registering please see Advice Note 8.2

The Relevant Representation period for Northampton Gateway opens 28 June. The Application documents have now been published on our website and are available to view on the project specific webpage: [attachment 1]

At the Relevant Representation stage we are seeking your views on the DCO application as it has been submitted. Any 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. The Relevant Representation form can be accessed online once registration begins, or if required supplied in hard copy if those who wish to complete a hard copy form contact the Planning Inspectorate and request this.

The Examining Authority will use the views put forward in the Relevant Representations, to carry out an initial assessment of the principal issues. After the close of the registration period, all Relevant Representations will be published on the project webpage on the National Infrastructure Planning website.

After the close of the Relevant Representation period the Examining Authority will invite interested parties to attend an initial Meeting, known as the “Preliminary
Meeting”. The invitation is emailed or posted to Interested Parties at least 21 days before the Preliminary Meeting is held. The invitation will include the Examining Authority’s initial assessment of principal issues.

The purpose of the Preliminary Meeting is to consider how the application will be Examined. Each Examination is unique and is designed to reflect the particular
circumstances of each case. At the Preliminary Meeting, the parties will be able to comment on a draft Examination Timetable. After the close of the Preliminary Meeting, the Examination will begin.

The Examination is the period during which the appointed Examining Authority gather evidence and test information about the application from Interested Parties. This is primarily a written process with deadlines clearly set out in the Examination timetable. Interested Parties can also make representations orally at hearings, which are supplemental to written submissions.

Further information covering a range of process matters in relation to the Planning Act 2008 process can be found on our website: [attachment 2]

25 June 2018
Tommy Gilchrist
Northampton Gateway Rail Freight Interchange
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting.
See attached meeting note.

22 June 2018
RiverOak Strategic Partners - anon.
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached Meeting note

22 June 2018
RiverOak Strategic Partners - anon.
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
I have written to both my local MP Andrea Leadsom and also our local authority South Northants District Council regarding the potential inadequacy of the “cumulative impacts Assessments” produced by both Roxhill(Northampton Gateway) and Rail Central (Ashfield Land) as part of their phase two consultation.

South Northants District Council have already replied to me regarding the potential inadequacy of the “Cumulative Assessments”, a matter they will be taking up with you directly, they were not however able to clarify the timing issue regarding when the “Cumulative Impacts Assessment “should be undertaken, and for that matter what” considered/dealt” with actually means.
A cumulative impact assessment forms part of the Environmental Statement that will be submitted with any application; it is prepared by the applicant at the pre-application stage. It is then considered and examined by the Examining Authority during the examination stage.

We apologise for any confusion caused by our advice, which as I hope you now understand, was consistent.

20 June 2018
Alan Hargreaves
Northampton Gateway Rail Freight Interchange
Enquiry received via email
The Local Authorities' Aircraft Noise Council (LAANC) submitted a response to the Planning Inspectorate during the 28 day Scoping consultation period for the proposed Expansion of Heathrow Airport (3rd Runway).
Since the LAANC is not a prescribed consultation body the Inspectorate did not include this response within the Secretary of State's Scoping Opinion. The Inspectorate has forwarded this response to the Applicant.

20 June 2018
Local Authorities' Aircraft Noise Council - Colin Stanbury
Expansion of Heathrow Airport (Third Runway)
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

20 June 2018
National Grid - anon.
North Wales Connection
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Cyfarfod diweddaru prosiect
Gweler yr atodedig

20 June 2018
National Grid - anon.
North Wales Connection
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Site visit and project update meeting with regards to the proposed Luton Airport expansion application.
Please see attached meeting note.

20 June 2018
London Luton Airport Ltd - anon.
London Luton Airport Expansion
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached meeting note

20 June 2018
Scottish Power Renewables - anon.
East Anglia ONE North Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached meeting note

20 June 2018
Scottish Power Renewables - anon.
East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Thank you for your response and for directing me to the RSP PIER.

From my reading of these documents while there are extensive they in no way give me any sense of what the potential impact on health, traffic, noise and the environment of an airport operating at its potential capacity would be.

Why was this information not included in any of the consultation processes? and given its absence from the consulation process how could the community realisitically have properly informed input into the project during the consulattoion phase.
The Planning Inspectorate does not comment on the content or quality of an applicant’s Preliminary Environmental Information (PEI). The likely significant environmental effects of a Proposed Development need to be assessed by an applicant as part of its Environmental Impact Assessment, and presented in the Environmental Statement (ES) submitted with its application. If an application is accepted, the appointed Examining Authority will undertake the examination of environmental information having regard to the information in the Applicant’s ES.

FAQ5 in the following document provides further information about PEI: [attachment 1]

19 June 2018
S Alvers
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
See attached Meeting Note
See attached Meeting Note

19 June 2018
TiGRE Project-1 Limited - anon.
TIGRE Project 1 (TP1)
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached meeting note

19 June 2018
IAMP LL - anon.
International Advanced Manufacturing Park TWO (IAMP TWO)
Enquiry received via email
Please can you confirm that you have asked SMAa for a petition in support of the dco application?
Have you asked the legal owners if they would like to submit a counter petition.
It has seemed to be quite confusing at the moment with NO application in play yet you seem to want rsp supporters to contack you. Can you please clarify the currunt status.
The Planning Inspectorate did not ask SMAa to submit a petition. We routinely advise all stakeholders who share similar views to collate communications because this assists the process.

18 June 2018
Ken Wraight
Manston Airport
There is an Ofgem publication that says the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy is the decision maker only for projects in England.
As the North Wales Connection and Wylfa Newydd applications fall under section 14 of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended) jurisdiction to determine the applications lies with the Secretary of State for Business Energy and Industrial Strategy.

18 June 2018
Jonathan Dean
Wylfa Newydd Nuclear Power Station
Enquiry received via email
There is an Ofgem publication that says the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy is the decision maker only for projects in England.
As the North Wales Connection and Wylfa Newydd applications fall under section 14 of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended) jurisdiction to determine the applications lies with the Secretary of State for Business Energy and Industrial Strategy.

18 June 2018
Jonathan Dean
North Wales Connection
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The Applicant provided its draft Statement of Community Consultation for the Inspectorate to feedback.
See attached document.

15 June 2018
Suffolk County Council - anon.
General
Enquiry received via phone
Query regarding the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) process, definitions of highway Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIPs) and consultation requirements.
The Planning Inspectorate (the Inspectorate) provided an overview of the PA2008 process and noted the statutory basis for pre-application duties on applicants (noting in particular Schedule 1 of the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009. The Inspectorate noted some schemes that had come under the PA2008 process, by virtue of s35, and explained the statutory timescales associated with the PA2008 process.

14 June 2018
Kettering Borough Council - anon.
General
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Could you let me know the criteria used to identify which local authorities are consulted on matters associated with Heathrow Expansion such as the recent EIA scoping opinion consultation? I have seen the PI FAQ on EIA scoping opinions which defines types A, B, C and D local authorities, but would like further information on how this is applied to these applications.
The criteria used to identify local authorities to be consulted are set out in our Advice Note Three: EIA consultation and notification [attachment 1] and are defined in s43 of the Planning Act 2008. The Planning Inspectorate uses a dedicated GIS system that identifies relevant consultation bodies in accordance with the regulations and our advice.

14 June 2018
London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham - Elizabeth Fonseca
Expansion of Heathrow Airport (Third Runway)
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Meeting regarding proposed non-material change application
Please see attached meeting note

14 June 2018
Tideway London - Liz Wood-Griffiths
Thames Tideway Tunnel
Enquiry received via email
At N2RS we remain involved in participating in both Hornsea Project Three and Norfolk Vanguard off shore wind farm developments and I wondered if you would kindly answer a couple of points.

1. Could you please provide the name and email address of the representative from the inspectorate involved specifically in the Hornsea Project.

2. In terms of both projects, we would like to know if there is any chance that the public meetings held by the inspectorate in due course will take place in the East Anglia area.
1. Whilst we have a team of people allocated to work on a NSIP project, for Hornsea I am the Case Manager and the Case Officer is KJ Johansson. For info, Tracey Williams is now the Case Manager for Norfolk Vanguard and the Case Officer is Sian Evans.

2. The Preliminary Meetings and any hearings for Hornsea (as well as Norfolk Vanguard should the application be accepted for examination), will be held in East Anglia.

14 June 2018
Katie Taylor
Hornsea Project Three Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via email
At N2RS we remain involved in participating in both Hornsea Project Three and Norfolk Vanguard off shore wind farm developments and I wondered if you would kindly answer a couple of points.

1. Could you please provide the name and email address of the representative from the inspectorate involved specifically in the Hornsea Project.

2. In terms of both projects, we would like to know if there is any chance that the public meetings held by the inspectorate in due course will take place in the East Anglia area.
1.Whilst we have a team of people allocated to work on a NSIP project, for Hornsea I am the Case Manager and the Case Officer is KJ Johansson. For info, Tracey Williams is now the Case Manager for Norfolk Vanguard and the Case Officer is Sian Evans.

2.The Preliminary Meetings and any hearings for Hornsea (as well as Norfolk Vanguard should the application be accepted for examination), will be held in East Anglia.

14 June 2018
Katie Taylor
Norfolk Vanguard
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Please see attached
Please see attached

14 June 2018
RWE Generation UK plc (RWE) - anon.
General
Enquiry received via phone
The Applicant provided a progress update

14 June 2018
Highways England - anon.
A63 Castle Street Improvement-Hull
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Could you let me know the criteria used to identify which local authorities are consulted on matters associated with Heathrow Expansion such as the recent EIA scoping opinion consultation? I have seen the PI FAQ on EIA scoping opinions which defines types A, B, C and D local authorities, but would like further information on how this is applied to these applications.
The criteria used to identify local authorities to be consulted are set out in our Advice Note Three: EIA consultation and notification [attachment 1] and are defined in s43 of the Planning Act 2008. The Planning Inspectorate uses a dedicated GIS system that identifies relevant consultation bodies in accordance with the regulations and our advice.

14 June 2018
Elizabeth Fonseca
Expansion of Heathrow Airport (Third Runway)
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

13 June 2018
Vattenfall - Vattenfall
Norfolk Vanguard
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Summary of the site visit undertook with the Applicant on 13 June 2018 to view various elements of the Proposed Development.
See attached note.

13 June 2018
Heathrow Airport Ltd - anon.
Expansion of Heathrow Airport (Third Runway)
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Consultation approach and project update meeting.
Please see meeting note. The draft Statement of Community Consultation (SoCC) review is provided at Annex A.

12 June 2018
Norfolk County Council - anon.
Great Yarmouth Third River Crossing
Enquiry received via email
Will the application documents be available on your site before the application is accepted? The Horizon application was submitted on June 1st and the documents are not available yet (June 6th). If it is similar with National Grid, where the results of the pre-application consultation have never been published, any delay is eating into the 14 days for the local authority to respond to you on the adequacy of consultation. Until we see the consultation report, we don't know if we need to write to the authority. (Obviously we have already written to the LA about some issues, and there may be no further issues, but the lack of the report makes this impossible to determine). I don't mean to be critical, but I was expecting the application documents to be available to the public from the day of application, or have I misunderstood the process?
As explained in Advice Note 6 it is for the Applicant to decide when they wish for the application documents to be published. Although it is helpful for documents to be published on submission, it is not mandatory.

We will publish the application documents on our website as soon as practicable after receipt, providing the Applicant agrees. The speed at which an application is published can vary depending on the size of the application. However, regardless of whether or not the application documents are published during the Acceptance period, the local authority(ies) are sent a link to the Consultation Report so that they can provide us comments on the adequacy of the Applicant’s consultation within the 14 day period.

11 June 2018
Jonathan Dean
North Wales Connection
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I have received the folllowing request to sign a petition/letter to you:

([attachment 1])

This seems to have been sent to me in error, as I do not believe that the application is capable of meeting the tests for acceptance which have been laid down by Parliament.

I am concerned at the suggestion that the Secretary of State may defer until the Examination stage any of the matters on which he is required to reach a conclusion prior to acceptance of the application. Those include, of course, not just the standard of the application (and accompaniments) but also if the scheme is, or forms part of, a nationally significant infrastructure project, requiring development consent.

If the Secretary of State has not reached a conclusion on these matters how can he lawfully accept the application for examination?

Could you kindly clarify if PINS has included items into the Acceptance stage that properly belong in the Examination stage, and if so which?

Does the wish of the applicant's supporters to give their views have any bearing on any decision that is required at this stage, please?
The Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) cannot ‘defer’ any of the tests in s55 of the Planning Act 2008 until the Examination stage. What constitutes the Acceptance tests is a matter of fact, and it is those tests alone that were applied to the RSP’s 10 April 2018 submission.

Regarding correspondence from supporters of RSP’s proposals; the same principle applies to any comments made to the Inspectorate before an Acceptance decision is taken:

If you have sent comments about RSP’s Pre-application consultation, these can be considered in addition to the statutorily required Acceptance tests when making the decision about whether or not to accept the application. It will be for the decision maker (the Planning Inspectorate on behalf of the Secretary of State) to decide the weight to give to the views expressed based on the individual facts of the case.

If you have sent comments about the merits of the Proposed Development (eg setting out support for or objection to the principle of the Proposed Development) these cannot be considered at the Acceptance stage. If the application is accepted for examination, in order to make comments about the merits of the Proposed Development to an appointed Examining Authority, you will need to register as an Interested Party by making a Relevant Representation at the appropriate time. 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 2]

11 June 2018
Mark de Pulford
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Whereas I have concentrated on Thanet District Council failure to comply with law of precautionary principle and spirit of laws of duty to promote well being re public health , the fact is the Environment Agency states that cyclohexanone contamination in ground from Sericol will be a problem for foreseeable future. My understanding is the chemical increases toxicity of agricultural chemicals. There are solvents under remediation at nearby Thor and the ground mercury contamination has not yet began to be subject of remediation.

The applicant knows too that in 2009 the expert authority stated that public health epidemiology inquiry is required. It means the initial scientific appraisal should have triggered the laws of precautionary principle. These should be foundational to the applicant impact studies. The fact is the applicant and the councils have dodged this.
As previously explained, the functions of the Planning Inspectorate are controlled by the provisions in the Planning Act 2008. We can only issue advice about the process as prescribed ie where a request seeks advice about:

• applying for an order granting development consent; or
• making representations about an application, or a proposed application, for such an order.

I refer you back to our previous advice to you which explains how and when you can engage with the process: [attachment 1]

11 June 2018
Richard Card
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
Could you kindly clarify the situation with some aspects of the RSP DCO for me, or failing that tell me who I should be asking?

Now the application has been withdrawn does this mean that it should be seen as at the pre application stage again?

If so does this mean that as a person who would be affected by the development I should be maintaining a diaogue with both pins and with the applicant, or should I view the application as over until such time as the applicant starts the application again with a revised PEIR and consultation?

Did pins receive an application fee as part of the application process that stopped just before the deadline?

I have read the pins advice note Meeting Update TR020002 and although I would doubt I properly understood it all and I am having considerable difficulty the ATM figures in it.

My understanding both from the application as described on the pins website “The upgrade and reopening of Manston Airport primarily as a cargo airport, with some passenger services, with a capacity of at least 12,000 air cargo movements per year.” and from attending the three RSP consultations, communicating with the applicant and with pins by email I formed the impression that is that something in the 12,000 ATMs ball park is what the project intended and not an expansion of the previous capacity. Am I mistaken in this assumption?

The largest figure mentioned in the advice note is 83,222 ATMs, is this meant to be an annual figure? If it is it would mean 228 ATMs a day and wouldn’t seem viable given the infrastructure, history or the environmental implications.

I can see that pins main concern at this point would be the legal aspects of acceptance, but having the general impression of around 12,000 ATMs, which seems to be the sort of ballpark area that everyone I have discussed the project with assumed up until now. I am a bit concerned that the consultation process thus far was less informative than I had assumed.

There is a sense in all of this that while pins can’t respond to questions about the project, you may consider commenting about what the project actually is. In terms of is it an intersection joining 2 major roads or 16?

There is also a sense in which pins seem to be instead of saying the project isn’t NSIP compliant, possibly by a factor of 8 times the project size, instead of rejecting the project pins appear to be trying unreasonably hard to help the applicant above and beyond the interested and affected parties.

With the existing freight capabilities of the airport I am assuming that a baseline of the previous CAA licence which I think was in 23,000 ATMs ballpark would be a significant factor, could you please confirm that this figure is approximately right?

Please appreciate in this instance I am not so much trying to ask pins if the figures arranged in some way make the project a NSIP but to gather the information to enable me to ask either pins or the applicant the right questions. One of which is is the project still seen as ongoing and front loaded?
“Now the application has been withdrawn does this mean that it should be seen as at the pre application stage again?”

If an application is withdrawn at the Acceptance stage, and the Applicant clearly states its intention to resubmit at some time in the future, the project stage is moved back to ‘Pre-application’. This is indicated on the project status bar located on the top right of the Manston Airport project webpage.

“If so does this mean that as a person who would be affected by the development I should be maintaining a dialogue with both pins and with the applicant, or should I view the application as over until such time as the applicant starts the application again with a revised PEIR and consultation?”

Until an application is resubmitted, the Applicant should be your first point of contact. It will be for the Applicant to take a view about whether any further consultation and/ or revised documentation will be required before the application is resubmitted.

“Did pins receive an application fee as part of the application process that stopped just before the deadline?”

The Acceptance fee (£6,939) was paid by the Applicant, and is non-refundable. Any resubmitted application will be a new application for the purposes of the Regulations, and will attract a second Acceptance fee.

“The largest figure mentioned in the advice note is 83,222 ATMs, is this meant to be an annual figure? If it is it would mean 228 ATMs a day and wouldn’t seem viable given the infrastructure, history or the environmental implications.”

83,222 ATMs is an annual figure. Please contact the Applicant directly for more information on matters relating to the design and operational capability of its Proposed Development. The Planning Inspectorate cannot prejudge what any future resubmission may comprise.

“With the existing freight capabilities of the airport I am assuming that a baseline of the previous CAA licence which I think was in 23,000 ATMs ballpark would be a significant factor, could you please confirm that this figure is approximately right?”

The Planning Inspectorate does not hold this information. Please contact the former licence holder.

08 June 2018
Michael Child
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
I've read the minutes of the meeting held between yourselves and RSP in which you raise a number of inconsistencies in their documentation in a variety of areas including basic and essential information like the number of plane movements each year. Based on your concerns, however, you seem to have concluded that the consultations held with the public were satisfactory. Can you please explain on what basis you feel the consultations were adequate given that the information provided to the public was what you reviewed and found to be inconsistent in many areas.
A decision about whether or not to accept the application submitted on 10 April 2018 was not taken. The application was withdrawn before a decision was made. Coincidentally, any decision in respect of whether the Applicant had complied with its duties under Chapter 2 of Part 5 of the Planning Act 2008 (including s47 - Duty to consult local community) was not taken.

Any future application made by RiverOak Strategic Partners (RSP) will be treated as a new application and will be subject to the acceptance tests in s55 of the Planning Act 2008.

07 June 2018
Adem Mehmet
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

07 June 2018
Vattenfall - anon.
Norfolk Boreas
Enquiry received via email
I am a bit puzzled as I can't see how RiverOak can acquire the whole airport if they claim they are only altering it. Thee environmental info said that the runway is only been resurfaced, not lengthened or changed (so no planning needed). The runway isn't incidental - it's fundamental - so not sure how main parts that are not being changed can be included under clause 6.

I could see how they could try to acquire the runway if they were claiming that whole thing is a new airport but they're not. Does this not mean that only existing airports can do DCOs for alterations, and if not, does that not mean every airport in the country could be at risk of hostile takeover by someone else with a plan to increase the size?
“I could see how they could try to acquire the runway if they were claiming that whole thing is a new airport but they're not.”

Any airport would be unable to engage the thresholds in s23(5) of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) without an operational runway.

“Does this not mean that only existing airports can do DCOs for alterations…”

Only an existing airport, in land use terms, could engage s23(4) of the PA2008.

“…and if not, does that not mean every airport in the country could be at risk of hostile takeover by someone else with a plan to increase the size?”

It does not have to be the airport owner/operator that applies to alter an airport under s23 of the PA2008.

07 June 2018
Ackers Johnson
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I note from your recently published records of meetings with RSP that you make reference to their project having a cabability in excess of 82,000 flights. I have not seen that number in any of the consultation documents that were issued by RSP either this year or last - or heard it at their meetings. Can you point me at the souce documentation for this and where the attendant environmental and transport effects of aviation such scale on the community are explained?
Firstly, the source documentation that alludes to the proposed Manston Airport project having a theoretical maximum capability in excess of 82,000 flights was included in the withdrawn application that has not been published in the public domain. Therefore I am currently unable to signpost you to it.

If the Applicant re-submits the Manston Airport application, and it meets the Acceptance tests to be accepted for examination, the full application suite of documents will be published on the Manston Airport project page.

Secondly, with regards to your request for signposting to information in respect of community impacts, please follow the link to the Applicant’s documents page where the Applicant’s Preliminary Environmental Information Report (PEIR) can be viewed:

[attachment 1]

07 June 2018
S Alvers
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Mr and Mrs Sharp wrote to comment on the merits of the application during the acceptance period
This application was received by the Planning Inspectorate on 21 May 2018, and is currently in the acceptance stage. This is when the planning Inspectorate review the application to see if it meets the tests to be accepted for examination.

There is no opportunity during the acceptance stage to make comments on this application.

If the application is accepted, anyone interested in the application will be able to register and express their views during the relevant representation stage and the subsequent examination.

Advice note 8.2 gives further details on the relevant representation period.

[attachment 1]

06 June 2018
Mr & Mrs Sharp
Northampton Gateway Rail Freight Interchange
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting with Esso Petroleum Company Limited
See attached meeting note

06 June 2018
Esso Petroleum Company, Limited - anon.
Southampton to London Pipeline Project
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
We are part of a team assessing the feasibility of a pipeline project in Dorset.

The location and route of the pipeline is Portland Port to the NTS at Mappower, Dorset.

In 2007 a project was granted planning for an underground gas storage facility with pipeline connection to the NTS at Mappower, the pipeline was approved by BEER and subsequently extended by DECC to July 2012.

In making our assessment we would like to use the route previously granted permission for in 2008 by BEER and subsequently extended by DECC to 2012 with a deviation into the breakwater protected port as opposed to the original off shore route to an underground gas storage facility which also was granted planning consent.

A plan is attached showing both what was granted and what is planned.

This project is for pipeline to terminate at the NTS at Mappower and within the port breakwater at a sub sea manifold with flexible risers within a mooring system.

This would allow LNG vessels with on board regasification to moor, connect and discharge and leave.

When looking to see what planning route this project would take, local authority or Planning Inspectorate we were told there is no clear cut answer on this one as it does not clearly fit into a DCO category under the 2008 Planning Act definitions. Given its nature and characteristics, with onshore and nearshore impacts and the potential environmental impacts it does feel like a DCO but must cross a number of thresholds.

As such were advised to get a legal opinion or contact you directly.

The pipeline can be sized below 800mm diameter (currently sized at 762mm offshore and 914mm onshore, the length is less than 40km, when in use the vessel would discharge at a pressure in excess of 7 bar, as a gas transporter the gas supplier would own the gas, so is unclear if the supplying to 50,000 customers applies, we do not feel it would have a significant environmental effect.

Or is this a DCO as would be classed as a gas reception facility , but there is permanent gas reception processing plant as is all part of the vessel ? and is such a case how would the vessel be viewed as does not require planning, is covered by its classification and port authority and H and S operational licences and requirements.

Any clarity you can provide would be helpful so we may finalise the planning route and what would need to be included.
Development that is defined as a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project is set out within Part 3 of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended) (PA2008). We would advise you to seek your own legal advice as to whether the development you propose falls within the categories set out in PA2008.

If you consider that the proposed development does not fall within the categories set out in PA2008, section 35 of PA2008 states that the Secretary of State may give a direction for development to be treated as development for which development consent is required.

If, having sought your own legal advice, you consider that your proposed development will be determined through the PA2008 regime we offer a free pre-application service and would welcome meeting you to discuss your project further.

05 June 2018
James Wilson
General
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Unfortunately I did not find that your reply dealt with the question, which was:

"could you kindly clarify if PINS have in place any targets regarding the publication of notes of meetings with DCO applicants and, if not, what the public may reasonably expect in terms of your performance in this area.?"
• There is not an established target in place regarding the publication meeting notes. Our commitment is to publish as soon as practicable.
• The three months elapsed in this case was exceptional, but not unprecedented. The average time it takes to prepare, review, finalise and publish a meeting note is around a month.
• Because we understand that the content of our meeting notes is relied upon by individuals and organisations, they are subject to a rigorous internal review process, which takes time. Meeting attendees (other than the Inspectorate) are also given an opportunity to fact-check prior to publication.
• In some circumstances, for specific reasons, the publication of a meeting note can be delayed by up to six months (see our Pre-application Prospectus: [attachment 1].

05 June 2018
Mark de Pulford
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached notes

05 June 2018
Vattenfall Wind Power Limited - anon.
Thanet Extension Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via email
Could you kindly clarify if PINS have in place any targets regarding the publication of notes of meetings with DCO applicants and, if not, what the public may reasonably expect in terms of your performance in this area. I note that the note of the meeting with the Applicant last February was only very recently published: is 3 months at all normal?
The three months that elapsed before the note in question was published is undesirable; but the delay is not unprecedented.

We understand that the content of our meeting notes is important to persons with an interest in particular applications. However, whilst we endeavour to publish meeting notes as soon as practicable, the Planning Inspectorate is responsible for meeting statutory deadlines in other areas of its work under the Planning Act 2008, which must be prioritised.

04 June 2018
Mark de Pulford
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
In reply to an enquiry by Nigel Phethean (24 May 2018) you said:
“Any delay in the publishing of the note from the meeting with RSP on 11 May 2018 is a result of the drafting and finalisation process.
The note will be published to the Manston Airport project webpage as soon as practicable after finalisation.”

In reply to an enquiry by me (James Chappell 18 May 2018) you said:
“There was no particular reason why there was a delay in publishing it [Feb 23 Meeting Note].
We aim to publish the note of the meeting held with the Applicant on 11 May 2018 asap”

My I observe that the statement “There was no particular reason why there was a delay...” is facile in the extreme. Given that expressions such as “asap” and “as soon as practicable” are meaningless, will the Inspectorate commit to publishing Meeting Notes and other s51 advice within a definite time scale? For an example, an upper bound of 10 working days?

If, for some operational reason, it is quite impossible for the PI to undertake the publishing of key documents to a timetable, then will the PI adopt some sort of process to alert interested parties to the fact that a historical document has been published? This would take away the need for readers having to trawl up and down through 30 pages and 300+ entries, trying to see if something new (or, indeed, old) had been published.
We understand that the content of our meeting notes is important to persons with an interest in particular applications. However, whilst we endeavour to publish meeting notes as soon as practicable, the Planning Inspectorate is responsible for meeting statutory deadlines in other areas of its work under the Planning Act 2008, which must be prioritised.

There is currently no functionality for users of the website to be updated in respect of the publication of meeting notes (or other s51 advice) in the manner suggested. We will however consider this suggestion as we continue to improve the website in future.

04 June 2018
James Chappell
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
What part of the DCO process will enable PINS to say “enough is enough”?

Which begs the question “why not?”

Surely the draftees of PA2008 wouldn’t have drafted legislation that could be misused in this way?

Has any legal owner of land ever applied for a Judicial Review upon an acceptance of a DCO application for examination?
We are not aware of a Judicial Review that has been lodged by an affected landowner in respect of an Acceptance decision.

The Planning Inspectorate’s role at the Pre-application stage includes, amongst other things, advising potential applicants about applying for orders granting development consent. On that basis, provided the advice that the Inspectorate issues is timely, accurate and robust, and provided applicants are responsive to the advice that the Inspectorate issues, the likelihood of multiple application submissions should be minimised. Note previous advice which establishes that only five applications have been withdrawn and resubmitted since the Planning Act 2008 came into force: [attachment 1]

For further information, our role at the Pre-application stage of the process is explained in detail in our Pre-application Prospectus: [attachment 2]

31 May 2018
Barry
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
RSP have said previously that they think they are a NSIP as they are altering the airport. If so, surely compaulsory acquisition powers should only be for the bits that are being altered and need planning to be altered. Therefore, how can they get powers to acquire the existing runway.

If this is allowed, has anyone thought of this as this would open up a Pandora's box where any "investors" could try to use the DCO route to compulsory acquire other airports against the will of the owners. All they would need to show is that they have plans to increase the infrastructure a little to be able to handle another 10,000 cargo flights, and could include compulsory acquisition powers for the rest of the airport under DCO powers. Would a DCO seeking these powers be able to be accepted for examination?
Please read government’s ‘Planning Act 2008: Guidance related to the procedures for the compulsory acquisition of land’ which explains the tests that must be satisfied in order for Compulsory Acquisition powers to be granted: [attachment 1]

31 May 2018
Ackers Johnson
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Response to actions arising from the draft document feedback and project update meeting held on 30 May 2018.
1. You asked for an example(s) of a good Statement of Reasons. I would first caveat that we haven’t really seen a ‘belt and braces’ SoR which hasn’t required a degree of examination to a greater or lesser extent. That said, the SoR for North London Heat and Power may be helpful if you’re looking for a steer - it is particularly helpful in respect of the detail/justification provided in its plot-by-plot approach to establishing need: [attachment 1]
2. You asked for examples of Land Plans in which insets had been used to articulate concentrations of smaller plots. These are helpfully applied in, amongst others, the Land Plans for:
o Thames Tideway Tunnel: [attachment 2]
o Norwich Northern Distributor Road: [attachment 3]
3. You asked for examples of the observations we made in respect of the landmarks used in the descriptions of some plots in the BoR, and their apparent absence from the Land Plans. The following landmarks are used in the BoR but are not annotated on the corresponding Land Plan sheets:
o ‘Blackwater Roundabout’ on Land Plan sheet 1 (Plots 1/1f, 1/1h and 1/1j)
o ‘Greenacres Farm’ on Land Plan sheet 1 (Plot 1/7)
o ‘Silverdene Farm’ on Land Plan sheet 2 (Plot 2/2)
4. John asked for clarification in respect of question nos. 16 and 19 of the draft DCO and EM commentary:
o Question no. 16 re. A24: simply that the Article only provides for extinguishment, but the Schedule title (and content) refers also to provision of new highways and private means of access. Which is right?
o Question no. 19 re. A34: we now note that there is a definition of ‘public utility undertaker’ in A34(4) as meaning gas, water electricity and sewerage undertakers – although those terms should perhaps also be defined?

31 May 2018
Highways England - anon.
A30 Chiverton to Carland Cross Scheme
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Meeting to provide feedback on draft application documents provided by Highways England.
See attached meeting note.

31 May 2018
Highways England - anon.
A303 Sparkford to Ilchester Dualling
Can I ask about how the decision will be made for both these projects (Wylfa Newydd and North Wales Connection). As both are essentially components of a single programme, will the decisions be made simultaneously as one is pointless without the other? Which SoS will (the decision maker) be? Wales or BEIS?
The Planning Inspectorate will examine the applications separately and make its recommendations to the Secretary of State within the statutory timeframes. While the Secretary of State has three months in which to determine the projects ultimately it will be for him to decide when to issue his decisions for each project. The recommendation reports will be sent to the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy.

31 May 2018
Jonathan Dean
Wylfa Newydd Nuclear Power Station
Enquiry received via email
Can I ask about how the decision will be made for both these projects (Wylfa Newydd and North Wales Connection). As both are essentially components of a single programme, will the decisions be made simultaneously as one is pointless without the other? Which SoS will (the decision maker) be? Wales or BEIS?
The Planning Inspectorate will examine the applications separately and make its recommendations to the Secretary of State within the statutory timeframes. While the Secretary of State has three months in which to determine the projects ultimately it will be for him to decide when to issue his decisions for each project. The recommendation reports will be sent to the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy.

31 May 2018
Jonathan Dean
North Wales Connection
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
A project update meeting was held
Please see the attached note of the meeting

31 May 2018
Highways England - anon.
A57 Link Roads (previously known as Trans Pennine Upgrade Programme)
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Draft document feedback and project update meeting
Please see attached meeting note

30 May 2018
Highways England - anon.
A30 Chiverton to Carland Cross Scheme
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I am enquiring about registering as an interested party for a nationally significant infrastructure project. An individual appears to need to state how the proposed infrastructure project is going to affect them.

Is there then a process at the Planning Inspectorate which screens out those people who have not made a significantly strong case that they will be affected? Or are all such requests to become an interested party accepted, assuming they are not frivolous?

Are there geographical limits on the distance between an interested party and where the proposed project will be built?
Registration to participate in an examination is achieved by submitting a Relevant Representation, which must include an outline of the principal submissions which the person proposes to make to make to the examination. This can be a high-level summary ('topic headings' or similar) and there will be an opportunity to make fuller submissions during the examination.

There is no process of assessing the 'strength' of a representation at registration (though an outline of principle submissions must be included), nor is there a geographical restriction on registration.

If you have not already, I suggest you read our advice note 8.2, "how to register to participate in an examination", which is available on our website here: [attachment 1]

29 May 2018
Waitrose - Andrew Bodman
General
Enquiry received via email
Could you please tell me if RiverOak Strategic Partners have resubmitted their DCO application. If they have could you tell me why it has not been published on your website. If not have they set a date for resubmission and will you be publishing it?
RiverOak Strategic Partners (RSP) has yet to resubmit its application. We are currently awaiting information from RSP when the application is likely to submitted.

25 May 2018
Sophie Fowler
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via phone
Discussion regarding the s52 authorisation request process
There are no statutory timeframes for the Planning Inspectorate to process a section 52 authorisation request, however previous experience has shown they take a minimum of 3 months to determine. It is a criminal offence for the recipient of a s52 notice to fail to comply with a notice without reasonable excuse.

25 May 2018
National Grid - Jacqui Fenn
General
Enquiry received via phone
Discussion regarding the s52 authorisation request process.
There are no statutory timeframes for the Planning Inspectorate to process a section 52 authorisation request, however previous experience has shown they take a minimum of 3 months to determine. It is a criminal offence for the recipient of a s52 notice to fail to comply with a notice without reasonable excuse.

25 May 2018
National Grid - National Grid
North Wales Connection
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
See attachment.

25 May 2018
Ashfield Land - anon.
Rail Central (Strategic Rail Freight Interchange)
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Local residents have asked if they might be able to meet with PINS (presumably you as Case Officer) to discuss the process, and in particular the cumulative impact of both proposals, and how that is taken into account. They very much are aware that it would be inappropriate to comment on the merits of either proposal, but they are wanting to understand how the application are approached, and at what point do cumulative impact assessments become required? Let me know if a meeting would be something PINS could do, as I know it would reassure residents to understand more fully. I presume that you may have had similar meetings with representatives from the developers on points of process?
We note in your correspondence, your request for the Planning Inspectorate (PINS) to meet with local residents to discuss matters of process regarding the Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIP) and in particular to advise on cumulative impact assessments for both proposals. As you have stated in your email, we have met with both Applicants for the above proposals in our Bristol office. In addition, we have also met with the Stop Rail Central group. We have provided written advice to a large number of parties regarding these schemes and a record of the advice can be found on the project specific pages of our website under the section (s)51 advice tab.

Rail Central Proposal:
[attachment 1]

Northampton Gateway Proposal:
[attachment 2]

Whilst we have held meetings with the public to explain the NSIP planning process in certain instances for other proposals, we have now provided the same information in videos as part of the advice readily available on our website.

We therefore feel that the information below will sufficiently cover the advice we could provide in person and we would be grateful if you could please send this to the relevant people.

In order for members of the public to be involved in the examination of a project they must, at the appropriate time, register to become an interested party. This video provides information on how and when to register as an interested party on an application:

[attachment 3]

We would however like to take this opportunity to respond to your queries directly and provide you with links which we trust you will find useful.

If a proposed NSIP requires an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) to be submitted as part of the application, the EIA Regulations necessitates that the Applicant undertakes an assessment of cumulative effects (amongst other matters), and considers alternatives to the proposed development. This process begins at the pre-application stage. The assessment of cumulative effects would take into account other reasonably foreseeable schemes including any other relevant NSIPs. Both developers have confirmed that their application is EIA development and therefore an Environmental Statement (including information on cumulative impacts) will need to be submitted as part of their application.

It would be for the Applicant for each scheme to make the case for, and to assess the impacts of, their proposed development taking into consideration the cumulative effects of the relevant built, consented and/or proposed developments as appropriate at the time of their application being lodged. Each application would be assessed on their individual merits, where the appointed Examining Authority (ExA) would assess the material and/or information submitted by the Applicant within their application documents submitted, including subsequent submissions where for example, more information becomes available on a separate proposal included in the assessment. ).

Both Applicants, namely Roxhill Developments Limited (Northampton Gateway) and Ashfield Land Management and Gazeley GLP Northampton (Rail Central), have confirmed that they are undertaking a cumulative assessment to include the appropriate matters of the other proposal. You may have also noted that the Northampton Gateway proposal was recently submitted and PINS on behalf of the Secretary of State has until 18 June 2018 to decide whether to Accept this application for Examination.

We would encourage you to review the published meeting notes (under the s51 advice tab) for both projects (Northampton Gateway RFI and Rail Central SRFI) to have sight of discussions held between PINS and the relevant Applicant regarding their respective proposals. It is reasonable to assume that consideration by both Applicants regarding each other’s proposal and their cumulative effects will be a matter for consideration during the examination.

Useful Links

Advice Note (AN)17 provides a brief description of the legal context and obligations placed on an Applicant in respect of cumulative effects.

[attachment 4]

The AN8 series (AN8.1 to AN8.5) provides more detailed advice on the application process and aims to take you step by step through the planning process for NSIPs.

Advice Note Eight: 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
Advice Note 8.4: The Examination
Advice Note 8.5: The Examination: hearings and site inspections

We would encourage you to please circulate the advice provided hereto to any and/or all local residents with an interest in the abovementioned proposals, specifically drawing their attention to the video and Advice Notes recommended above as well as those published to the National Infrastructure website:

[attachment 5]

If you have any further queries please do not hesitate to contact the relevant case teams via the email addresses provided below:

Rail Central proposal - [email protected]
Northampton Gateway proposal - [email protected]

24 May 2018
Tommy Gilchrist
Rail Central (Strategic Rail Freight Interchange)
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Local residents have asked if they might be able to meet with PINS (presumably you as Case Officer) to discuss the process, and in particular the cumulative impact of both proposals, and how that is taken into account. They very much are aware that it would be inappropriate to comment on the merits of either proposal, but they are wanting to understand how the application are approached, and at what point do cumulative impact assessments become required? Let me know if a meeting would be something PINS could do, as I know it would reassure residents to understand more fully. I presume that you may have had similar meetings with representatives from the developers on points of process?
We note in your correspondence, your request for the Planning Inspectorate (PINS) to meet with local residents to discuss matters of process regarding the Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIP) and in particular to advise on cumulative impact assessments for both proposals. As you have stated in your email, we have met with both Applicants for the above proposals in our Bristol office. In addition, we have also met with the Stop Rail Central group. We have provided written advice to a large number of parties regarding these schemes and a record of the advice can be found on the project specific pages of our website under the section (s)51 advice tab.

Rail Central Proposal:
[attachment 1]

Northampton Gateway Proposal:
[attachment 2]

Whilst we have held meetings with the public to explain the NSIP planning process in certain instances for other proposals, we have now provided the same information in videos as part of the advice readily available on our website.

We therefore feel that the information below will sufficiently cover the advice we could provide in person and we would be grateful if you could please send this to the relevant people.

In order for members of the public to be involved in the examination of a project they must, at the appropriate time, register to become an interested party. This video provides information on how and when to register as an interested party on an application:

[attachment 3]

We would however like to take this opportunity to respond to your queries directly and provide you with links which we trust you will find useful.

If a proposed NSIP requires an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) to be submitted as part of the application, the EIA Regulations necessitates that the Applicant undertakes an assessment of cumulative effects (amongst other matters), and considers alternatives to the proposed development. This process begins at the pre-application stage. The assessment of cumulative effects would take into account other reasonably foreseeable schemes including any other relevant NSIPs. Both developers have confirmed that their application is EIA development and therefore an Environmental Statement (including information on cumulative impacts) will need to be submitted as part of their application.

It would be for the Applicant for each scheme to make the case for, and to assess the impacts of, their proposed development taking into consideration the cumulative effects of the relevant built, consented and/or proposed developments as appropriate at the time of their application being lodged. Each application would be assessed on their individual merits, where the appointed Examining Authority (ExA) would assess the material and/or information submitted by the Applicant within their application documents submitted, including subsequent submissions where for example, more information becomes available on a separate proposal included in the assessment. ).

Both Applicants, namely Roxhill Developments Limited (Northampton Gateway) and Ashfield Land Management and Gazeley GLP Northampton (Rail Central), have confirmed that they are undertaking a cumulative assessment to include the appropriate matters of the other proposal. You may have also noted that the Northampton Gateway proposal was recently submitted and PINS on behalf of the Secretary of State has until 18 June 2018 to decide whether to Accept this application for Examination.

We would encourage you to review the published meeting notes (under the s51 advice tab) for both projects (Northampton Gateway RFI and Rail Central SRFI) to have sight of discussions held between PINS and the relevant Applicant regarding their respective proposals. It is reasonable to assume that consideration by both Applicants regarding each other’s proposal and their cumulative effects will be a matter for consideration during the examination.

Useful Links

Advice Note (AN)17 provides a brief description of the legal context and obligations placed on an Applicant in respect of cumulative effects.

[attachment 4]

The AN8 series (AN8.1 to AN8.5) provides more detailed advice on the application process and aims to take you step by step through the planning process for NSIPs.

Advice Note Eight: 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
Advice Note 8.4: The Examination
Advice Note 8.5: The Examination: hearings and site inspections

We would encourage you to please circulate the advice provided hereto to any and/or all local residents with an interest in the abovementioned proposals, specifically drawing their attention to the video and Advice Notes recommended above as well as those published to the National Infrastructure website:

[attachment 5]

If you have any further queries please do not hesitate to contact the relevant case teams via the email addresses provided below:

Rail Central proposal - [email protected]
Northampton Gateway proposal - [email protected]

24 May 2018
Tommy Gilchrist
Northampton Gateway Rail Freight Interchange
Enquiry received via email
It is now nearly two weeks since the meeting the Inspectorate held with RSP to explain its concerns about the documentation submitted leading to the withdrawal of the DCO application.
Given the growing concern that the Inspectorate is being lent on by the local MP to ease the path of this disastrous application can you explain the delay in its publication please
Any delay in the publishing of the note from the meeting with RSP on 11 May 2018 is a result of the drafting and finalisation process.

The note will be published to the Manston Airport project webpage as soon as practicable after finalisation.

24 May 2018
Nigel Phethean
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Do the NPSs, in particular EN-1, 5 & 6 have a "fixed life" or are they in place until superseded?
Evening Jonathan

Thanks for your email.

We would recommend that you review Sections 5 to 13 of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008), which relates to National Policy Statements (NPS).

A copy of the PA2008 can be found on the National Infrastructure Planning website under the tab “Legislation and Advice”, for ease of reference please find the link below to the PA2008:

[attachment 1]

We draw your attention to section 6 of the PA2008, regarding the review of a NPS and where such a statement could be withdrawn and/or amended following the review.

We trust you find this information useful.

Kind Regards


Emré

24 May 2018
Jonathan Dean
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached Meeting Note.

24 May 2018
Wheelabrator Technologies Inc (WTI) - anon.
Wheelabrator Kemsley Generating Station (K3) and Wheelabrator Kemsley North (WKN) Waste to Energy Facility
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached meeting note

23 May 2018
Norfolk County Council - anon.
Great Yarmouth Third River Crossing
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Please see attached
Please see attached

23 May 2018
Network Rail - anon.
Western Rail Link to Heathrow
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
In the attached press article, National Grid say they have shared 40,000 pages of technical information about the North Wales Connection. I have always meant to estimate how much stuff they have produced but never had the time. However I am sure they are correct. How is the general public supposed to find the time, or technical expertise, to meaningfully engage with such a quantity of information? My understanding of the Planning Act 2008 is that the consultation that is required under the Act is supposed to allow for such engagement. In your advice note nine you state:

"Clearly for consultation to be effective there will need to be a genuine possibility to influence the proposal and therefore a project should not be so fixed as to be unable to respond to comments from consultees"
In none of the consultations (2012, 2015 & 2016) has there ever been a "genuine possibility to influence the proposal" in a macro sense, only minor detail, and so it is reasonable to conclude that the consultation has not been "effective"
Paragraph 81 of the DCLG guidance on pre application consultation states:

"81. It is good practice that those who have contributed to the consultation are informed of the results of the consultation exercise; how the information received by applicants has been used to shape and influence the project"
So far, all we have seen is yet another glossy "sales" leaflet, not what I would consider results. How can a developer such as National Grid be allowed to so openly flout such good practice guidance? I accept it is only guidance, not mandatory, but to my mind this clearly demonstrates a breakdown in the relationship between NGET and the Anglesey public
The volume of consultation material for each application will vary depending on the scale of the scheme. The DCLG Guidance on the pre-application process suggests that consultation should be ‘engaging and accessible in style, encouraging consultees to react and offer their views’. Once the application has been formally submitted, compliance with the guidance will be an important consideration when deciding whether the application is of a satisfactory standard to proceed to examination.

The Applicant is required to submit a consultation report with their application and in this they should evidence how feedback from the consultation has influenced the proposals.

22 May 2018
Jonathan Dean
North Wales Connection
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I would be grateful if you would confirm the number of DCO applications in the 5 years to April 2018 that have been withdrawn during the 28 acceptance period (i.e. after the submission but prior to a decision on acceptance or non-acceptance).

I have reviewed the information in the Register of Applications ([attachment 1], and the underlying projects. From my review it appears that out of the last 50 applications (back to Woodside Link Houghton Regis Project submitted in 2013), there are only two projects where an application was submitted and then withdrawn during the 28 day acceptance period.

These projects are York Potash Harbour Facilities Order (January 2015) and Mynydd y Gwynt Wind Farm (May 2014).
I can confirm that five applications have been withdrawn during the Acceptance stage which are as follows:

• Rampion Offshore Wind Farm: [attachment 2]

• Mynydd y Gwynt Wind Farm: [attachment 3]

• York Potash Harbour Facility: [attachment 4]

• Tees CCPP [attachment 5]

• Manston Airport [attachment 6]

22 May 2018
Grey Friars Investments - Jamie Macnamara
General
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Would you please explain just how this process allows a legitimate landowner to have the value of their investment permanently blighted as it seems to many that RSP could, if minded, continuously apply to PINS for a DCO. Although it will cost them in excess of £6000 each time this apparently has no deterrence factor and as I said in a previous response RSP have said if they fail they will regroup and reapply.

What part of the DCO process will enable PINS to say “enough is enough”? and

Will RSP have to pay compensation to the legal owners for their vexatious applications?
Provided that the statutory procedures set out in the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) are satisfied, there is no limit placed on the number of times an applicant could theoretically submit an application for development consent for the same Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP). On that basis, the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State (SoS)) must exercise its delegated powers in testing each submitted application against the relevant provisions in the PA2008, and produce a decision (unless the application is withdrawn). Ultimately, following a recommendation made by the Planning Inspectorate, in each case it is the SoS who will take the final decision about whether or not development consent is granted or refused. For more information about the process, please see our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

The PA2008 recognises that an NSIP may create blight reducing land values. Section 175 of the PA2008 amends Schedule 13 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to enable owner occupiers to serve a blight notice on the SoS requiring the SoS to purchase their property in certain circumstances. These are where a National Policy Statement (NPS) identifies a particular location as a potentially suitable location for an NSIP (there is no NPS in this case) or if land is blighted by an application being made for a Development Consent Order authorising the Compulsory Acquisition of the owner occupier’s land or from such authorisation being given.

Separately, any interference with private interests may give rise to a right to make a relevant claim. For further information see FAQ14 in our Community Consultation FAQs and government guidance relating to Compulsory Acquisition procedures:

• [attachment 2]
• [attachment 3]

There is no mechanism through which a landowner could claim for compensation for time/cost at the Pre-application stage of the process. For details of the applicable costs regime after an application has been accepted for examination, I refer you to government’s ‘Awards of costs: examinations of applications for development consent orders’: [attachment 4]

21 May 2018
Barry
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via post
response has attachments
The Planning Inspectorate has prepared a Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) document for the Expansion of Heathrow Airport (Third Runway) Scoping Process.
Please see attachment.

18 May 2018
anon.
Expansion of Heathrow Airport (Third Runway)
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Compilation of advice about the Environmental Impact Assessment scoping process, undertaken by the Planning Inspectorate on behalf of the Secretary of State.
Please see attached Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) document.

18 May 2018
General - anon - anon.
General
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Is there any special reason why the meeting note in respect of the Feb 23rd meeting has taken almost 3 months to finalise?

How long do you anticipate the preparation and publication of the meeting note of the May 11th meeting will take?
The note of the meeting held with the Applicant on 23 February 2018 has now been published. Please follow the link below to view it:
[attachment 1]

There was no particular reason why there was a delay in publishing it.

We aim to publish the note of the meeting held with the Applicant on 11 May 2018 asap.

18 May 2018
James Chappell
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
You have issued a clear exposition of some major concerns. Those concerns appear, on the face if it, to be incompatible with acceptance of the application as it the stood. Is that inference correct?

Could you also please clarify if the absence of a topic on your list means that the applicant is entitled to conclude that PINS has no major concerns about it? I ask because the applicant's supporters are claiming that your announcement means that you are e.g. satisfied on the adequacy of consultation, which would be surprising.
In respect of both points, the Planning Inspectorate did not reach (or ultimately issue) a decision in respect of whether or not the application could be accepted for examination.

Other omissions/ discrepancies in the application documents were discussed with the Applicant at a meeting on 11 May. A note of that meeting is being prepared and will be published to the Manston Airport project webpage as soon as practicable after finalisation.

18 May 2018
Mark de Pulford
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Post-consultation and project update meeting.
Please see attachment.

18 May 2018
Highways England - anon.
A303 Stonehenge
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Recent correspondence between PINS and interested parties have included the following statement however in view of the feedback issued to RSP on the 4/5/2018 which precipitated their withdrawal your department gave a list of issues found within the 10000+ pages of their application.

“Advice reflecting the same concerns would have been issued to the Applicant if it had not decided to withdraw the application and the Planning Inspectorate had proceeded to issue an Acceptance decision.”

Reason number 1 was as follows “• An absence of sufficient information within the application documents upon which to the Planning Inspectorate could base a decision about whether the Proposed Development constitutes a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP) within the meaning in s23 of the Planning Act 2008.”

Surely the logic of your statements are that if you have perused the 10000+ pages and cannot determine whether their application meets the criteria for an NSIP then it would be rejected and therefore “Planning Inspectorate had proceeded to issue an Acceptance decision” is a nonsense.

In fact it is clear that had you said nothing to RSP and rejected the application because it wasn’t an NSIP you would then have had a discussion as to whether they continue or shut shop. It does therefore seem to many that the system you follow is designed to achieve 100% acceptance for examination. Many members of the public are now thinking this is about coaching rather than a true examination of the application.
By way of clarification, an ‘Acceptance decision’ in the context of my recent responses is ‘a decision about whether or not to accept the application’ – not a ‘decision to accept the application’.

The Inspectorate’s concerns were summarised in the following advice: [attachment 1]

To reiterate, there was not sufficient information in the application documents upon which the Inspectorate could not take a decision about whether or not the proposed development is a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project.

17 May 2018
Barry
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Our question as to whether this could be viewed in practice as a consultation period between PINS & RSP was really not answered. To an observer this does seem to be the case borne out by conferences you have had with RPS during the 28 day period. Is it normal to liaise with applicants during this period? Also the reply you did give we found confusing.

"Advice reflecting the same concerns would have been issued to the Applicant if it had not decided to withdraw the application and the Planning Inspectorate had proceeded to issue an Acceptance decision."

This does seem to infer that in spite of the inadequacies that there was a possibility that you would allow this application to proceed to examination. Surely given these gaps in information it should be declined. If it had of been accepted(or the possibility it would) what is the the point of the a pre-application. Given the eleventh hour of the withdrawal by RSP PINS must have come to a decision whether to accept the pre-application or not. There is a general feeling in Thanet that you are giving RSP a lot of support and leeway as it is being viewed as an exercise prior to a DCO application from Heathrow.
First, by way of clarification an ‘Acceptance decision’ in the context of the statement copied in to your enquiry is ‘a decision about whether or not to accept the application’ – not a ‘decision to accept the application for examination’.

Second, in analogous circumstances the Planning Inspectorate has contacted other applicants to establish concerns. In that respect, the following applications have also been withdrawn by the respective applicants at the Acceptance stage:

• Rampion Offshore Wind Farm: [attachment 1]
• Mynydd y Gwynt Wind Farm: [attachment 2]
• York Potash Harbour Facility: [attachment 3]
• Tees CCPP: [attachment 4]

17 May 2018
Ian and Hilary Scott
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
Are you able to comment as to whether the applicant at this point has complied with their Schedule 4 obligations ?
The application has now reverted to the Pre-application stage of the process. We cannot comment on or prejudge any material that may form part of a resubmitted application.

17 May 2018
Adem Mehmet
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Nodyn Cyfarfod - 17 Mai 2018 / Meeting Note - 17 May 2018

17 May 2018
Horizon Nuclear Power - anon.
Wylfa Newydd Nuclear Power Station
Enquiry received via post
response has attachments
The enquirer submitted representations regarding the merits of the proposed development during the Pre-application stage.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the
Proposed Development during the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008
process.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the
Planning Inspectorate, please find enclosed the Planning Inspectorate’s Advice Note
8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination.

17 May 2018
John Davison
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via phone
response has attachments
Nodyn Cyfarfod - 17 Mai 2018 / Meeting Note - 17 May 2018

17 May 2018
National Grid - anon.
North Wales Connection
response has attachments
Project update meeting
See attached document

17 May 2018
SSE Group - anon.
Dogger Bank Creyke Beck
Enquiry received via email
I have seen various comments suggesting that an applicant for a DCO must consider other ways in which they can deliver the stated aim of the NISP they are seeking to define. In the case of RSP the aim would appear to be to increase the freight capacity of the UK which of course could be achieved in a variety of ways. If RSP felt certain that another airport was required they could for instance consider buying another facility, I understand Mildenhall, Lakeneath and other UK airfields are currently up for sale by willing sellers.

Can you please confirm whether a DCO applicant is obliged to consider other alternatives as I've described above in order to fulfill their stated objective and confirm whether RSP have indeed considered such alternatives ?
The Applicant is required under Schedule 4 of the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 to undertake:

“2. A description of the reasonable alternatives (for example in terms of development design, technology, location, size and scale) studied by the developer, which are relevant to the proposed project and its specific characteristics, and an indication of the main reasons for selecting the chosen option, including a comparison of the environmental effects.”

National Planning Practice Guidance for EIA states that "Where alternative approaches to development have been considered, the Environmental Statement should include a description of the reasonable alternatives studied which are relevant to the proposed development and its specific characteristics and provide an indication of the main reasons for the choice made, including a comparison of the environmental effects".

16 May 2018
Adem Mehmet
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
As there seems to be a lot of missing information in RSPs application that will have to be provided to PINS can you tell us whether these shortcomings will require another public consultation before RSP can re-apply.
The advice provided here answers your query below with regards to additional consultation:
[attachment 1]

16 May 2018
Ian and Hilary Scott
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached meeting note

16 May 2018
Scottish Power Renewables - anon.
East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached meeting note

16 May 2018
Scottish Power Renewables - anon.
East Anglia ONE North Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Nodyn Cyfarfod - 15 Mawrth 2018 / Meeting Note - 15 March 2018

15 May 2018
Menter Môn Cyf a Llywodraeth Cymru Menter Môn Cyf and Welsh Government
General
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Do you now take down your Manston page S51 advice etc and await a complete new application from RSP ?
The same project page will be used for any resubmitted application. All published advice will remain available on the Manston Airport project page and on the Register of advice, here: [attachment 1]

15 May 2018
Richard Card
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
We are told that RiverOak Strategic Partners has withdrawn its application for a Development Consent Order to reopen Manston Airport.

Further information has only come from one of the local MP's, Sir Roger Gale, who has revealed that the Planning Inspectorate has been in touch with the company and has expressed dissatisfaction with some aspects of the application documentation. According to Sir Roger the matters are minor and involve dotting some i's and crossing some t's. He says that the application has been withdrawn so that the applicant and PINS can have "more detailed conversations about what the Planning Inspectorate requires."

This is an interesting turn of phrase. It seems to imply that the Planning Inspectorate will be acting as some kind of unpaid consultancy to ensure that the application is successful.

I'm sure you can see the problem here. The Planning Inspectorate is charged with making a decision about the DCO on behalf of the Secretary of State. How then can the Planning Inspectorate be advising the applicants on what they need to do in order to be successful? There is a clear conflict of interest. I am not the only person to have commented on this.

The failure to make a decision on the application which was submitted does call into question the Planning Inspectorate's impartiality. The scenario set out by the MP seems to suggest that the Planning Inspectorate has leaked news of their intention to reject the application, giving the applicant opportunity to withdraw it shortly before the decision was announced.

What is the point of an application process if you are going to do this? If you did this for everybody, no application would ever fail. They would all be withdrawn before the decision was announced. As some applications to get rejected it seems pretty clear that you don't do this for all applicants.

Could you explain how you can be viewed as an impartial party in this process when you are so intricately involved with the applicant whilst having little to do with or say to the legal owners of the site?
We cannot comment on the assertions of local politicians.

The Planning Inspectorate must record and publish any advice that it gives in respect of making an application for development consent, or making a representation such an application.

The advice provided here explains how the Planning Inspectorate advised the Applicant during the Acceptance stage: [attachment 1]

Advice reflecting the same concerns would have been issued to the Applicant if it had not decided to withdraw the application and the Planning Inspectorate had proceeded to issue an Acceptance decision.

15 May 2018
Peter Binding
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
According to the PI's web site, the Manston application has been withdrawn. Yet when I go to the home page and select the filter to show only withdrawn status applications, no records are returned.
So is the Manston application withdrawn or not?
An application would only appear with ‘Withdrawn’ as the project stage if:
• it was withdrawn by the Applicant after it had been accepted for examination; or
• it was withdrawn at the Acceptance stage with the Applicant expressing a clearly that it did not intend to resubmit.

Applications that are withdrawn in the above ways are displayed for a period of time before they are removed from the website. For more information see: [attachment 1]

In the case of the Manston Airport application, and for any other application that is withdrawn at the Acceptance stage with the Applicant stating clearly its intention to resubmit at some time in the future, the project stage is moved back to ‘Pre-application’.

15 May 2018
Andrew
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I note that RSP declares on its website that it has "temporarily" withdrawn its application for a DCO. It claims that "this is not uncommon with DCOs and RSP is in dialogue with the Planning Inspectorate in order that the application can be resubmitted as soon as possible."

An advice note issued by local airport enthusiasts adds that "there is no reason to believe that the renewed Acceptance phase will need the full 28 days to complete."

The general impression being given by the developers is of a cosy ongoing dialogue with the Planning Inspectorate, aimed at ensuring acceptance of the application as soon as possible. I find it difficult to equate this with the statutory procedures, as explained on your website, nor your repeated assurances that PINS has no view on the merits of the DCO until is is accepted for examination.

It would be good to have some renewal of confidence in the transparency and accountability to which PINS is committed.

Can you please clarify:

a) whether PINS had reached any view on the merits of the application prior to its withdrawal
b) whether any such view had been communicated to the applicants
c) if there is any truth in the suggestion that you are colluding with the applicant so as to assist him achieve his objectives
d) if it is indeed common for DCO applications too be withdrawn on the eve of decision notification day (and where examples of this can be seen, please)
e) if there is indeed "no reason to believe that the renewed Acceptance phase will need the full 28 days too complete"?
a), b) and c) – please see the advice provided in response the enquiry recorded at the following link: [attachment 1]
Advice reflecting the same concerns would have been issued to the Applicant if it had not decided to withdraw the application and the Planning Inspectorate had proceeded to issue an Acceptance decision.
d) Five applications have been withdrawn during the Acceptance stage:
• Rampion Offshore Wind Farm: [attachment 2]
• Mynydd y Gwynt Wind Farm: [attachment 3]
• York Potash Harbour Facility: [attachment 4]
• Tees CCPP: [attachment 5]
• Manston Airport: [attachment 6]

e) Any resubmission by the Applicant will be treated as a new application for the purposes of the Acceptance tests. The Planning Inspectorate would have up to 28 days to take its decision about whether the application could be accepted for examination.
In respect of your follow-up email dated 9 May 2018, we cannot comment on the assertions of local politicians. The advice provided at the link above explains how the Planning Inspectorate advised the Applicant during the Acceptance stage.

15 May 2018
Mark de Pulford
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Can you please tell me how common it is to withdraw an application on the day a decision to go ahead or not to is made thank you.
Roughly how many times before has this happened and it it expected by pins.
Five applications have been withdrawn during the Acceptance stage:
• Rampion Offshore Wind Farm: [attachment 1]
• Mynydd y Gwynt Wind Farm: [attachment 2]
• York Potash Harbour Facility: [attachment 3]
• Tees CCPP: [attachment 4]
• Manston Airport: [attachment 5]

15 May 2018
Ken Wraight
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
If RSP are going to submit further details about the environmental impact to PINS should they not be required to show this information to the people who are likely to be worst affected?
It will be for the Applicant to take a view about whether any further consultation will be required before the application is resubmitted.

15 May 2018
Peter Binding
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please could you tell me how many times you will allow RSP to withdraw and resubmit their application? Is there a limit, or is this going to pause any sensible development of the site and of other local developers investing into the area?
Developers are in limbo all because of the threat of a disastrous cargo airport.
If SHP get permission to develop how will this affect them, could they loose everything? I thought housing was of significant need from government directive.
It seems very unfair to me, RSP should have been told no and not allowed to resubmit over and over again which I am sure they will do as they are like a stupid dog with bone. I do not see any loops on the graph you provide about process.

Could this debacle go on for even more years looming over this beautiful area? Is there any safety net that the locals could implement to stop this. Once the new housing development has started, new houses being built, can RSP still apply?
There is no limit on the number of times an applicant can submit an application for a Development Consent Order (DCO).

Where planning permission is extant on a site in relation to which a DCO is sought, there are a number of statutory tests that must be met in respect of the rights of the owner(s) of the land and anybody else with an interest in it. Those persons would have the opportunity to make representations to an appointed Examining Authority during the examination of the DCO application.

For further information please see our previous advice to Thanet District Council:
[attachment 1]

15 May 2018
Stephanie Flower
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I would be grateful if you would respond by return to confirm the following;
• whether any s51 advice has been provided to RSP in relation to the submitted (and now withdrawn) proposed DCO Application;
• whether any other s51 advice has been provided to RSP in the period since 22 November 2017;
• that all s51 advice will be published expeditiously to provide clarity and transparency on the process; and
• whether any unpublished s51 advice has been provided to Thanet MPs, Sir Roger Gale and Craig Mackinlay, or their representatives.
• The advice provided here explains how the Planning Inspectorate advised the Applicant during the Acceptance stage: [attachment 1]
• A meeting was held between the Planning Inspectorate and the Applicant on 23 February 2018. The note of the meeting is being finalised and will be published on the website imminently.
• The note of the meeting held with the Applicant on 11 May 2018 is being prepared and will be published on the website as soon as practicable.
• The Planning Inspectorate has not issued any s51 advice to Thanet MPs, Sir Roger Gale and Craig Mackinlay, or, to our knowledge, their representatives.

15 May 2018
Stone Hill Park Ltd - Jamie Macnamara
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I am concerned that this DCO application which was vigorously supported by both Thanet's Conservative MPs may have been intended to cause what it has actually achieved. Namely the dropping of the proposed local plan, which is likely to result in a less regulated environment for developers seeking planning consents and the change of our district council administration from a UKIP to Conservative administration.

I am also interested in the compensation situation at this point as I have attended all three consultation sessions, engaged in lengthy research on the environmental implications of an airfreight facility a Manston and responded to the consultations and emails related to this issue.

I am concerned that the applicant appears to have very limited assets, (based on their accounts recently submitted to Companies House) and that they may intend to go into administration without fulfilling their obligations.
In respect of compensation, I am unable to advise you beyond the content of my previous responses:
[attachment 1]
[attachment 2]

15 May 2018
Michael Child
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Can you advise me that a new application will be looked on with fresh eyes and take as long as needed to make a decision.

please advise any new application will be treated at face value without all the prompting from pins.
The advice provided here explains how the Planning Inspectorate advised the Applicant during the Acceptance stage: [attachment 1]

Advice reflecting the same concerns would have been issued to the Applicant if it had not decided to withdraw the application and the Planning Inspectorate had proceeded to issue an Acceptance decision.

Any resubmission of the application will be treated as a new application for the purposes of the Acceptance tests.

15 May 2018
Ken Wraight
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Our understanding was this was an pre-application not a consultation period with PINS so we are wondering why this was discussed with them while the 28 day period was running, especially as there was a lot of coaching by PINS prior to the application. Should you not have let this run then either accept or decline the application & present them with your conclusions ?

Did they pay a fee (if so what is the fee ?) and will this now be refunded as the application was withdrawn. Will there be a fee if they re-present ?
The advice provided here explains how the Planning Inspectorate advised the Applicant during the Acceptance stage: [attachment 1]

Advice reflecting the same concerns would have been issued to the Applicant if it had not decided to withdraw the application and the Planning Inspectorate had proceeded to issue an Acceptance decision.

The Acceptance fee (£6,939) was paid by the Applicant, and is non-refundable. Any resubmitted application will be a new application for the purposes of the Regulations, and will attract a second Acceptance fee.

A full record of the Planning Inspectorate’s concerns in respect of the application documentation will be summarised in the note of the meeting which was held on 11 May 2018. That note is being prepared and will be published as soon as practicable.

15 May 2018
Ian and Hilary Scott
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Our understanding was this was an pre-application not a consultation period with PINS so we are wondering why this was discussed with them while the 28 day period was running, especially as there was a lot of coaching by PINS prior to the application. Should you not have let this run then either accept or decline the application & present them with your conclusions ?

Did they pay a fee (if so what is the fee ?) and will this now be refunded as the application was withdrawn. Will there be a fee if they re-present ?
The advice provided here explains how the Planning Inspectorate advised the Applicant during the Acceptance stage: [attachment 1]

Advice reflecting the same concerns would have been issued to the Applicant if it had not decided to withdraw the application and the Planning Inspectorate had proceeded to issue an Acceptance decision.

The Acceptance fee (£6,939) was paid by the Applicant, and is non-refundable. Any resubmitted application will be a new application for the purposes of the Regulations, and will attract a second Acceptance fee.

A full record of the Planning Inspectorate’s concerns in respect of the application documentation will be summarised in the note of the meeting which was held on 11 May 2018. That note is being prepared and will be published as soon as practicable.

15 May 2018
Anthony Fuller
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Can the Planning Inspectorate please advise the number of applications to date which have been withdrawn by the applicant, along with the name or other reference for such withdrawn applications. An indication of the total number of DCO applications and preapplications to date would also be welcome.
Five applications have been withdrawn during the Acceptance stage:

• Rampion Offshore Wind Farm: [attachment 1]
• Mynydd y Gwynt Wind Farm: [attachment 2]
• York Potash Harbour Facility: [attachment 3]
• Tees CCPP: [attachment 4]
• Manston Airport: [attachment 5]

Five applications have been withdrawn after they were accepted for examination:

• Electric line connection to Maesgwyn Wind Farm
• Brig y Cwym Energy from Waste Generating Station
• Roosecote (Barrow) Biomass Power Station
• Fieldes Lock – Rail linked power station
• Atlantic Array Offshore Wind Farm

The project pages for these five applications have been removed from the website. For further information see the following: [attachment 6]

There are 147 applications that are either at the Pre-application, Acceptance, Pre-examination, Examination or Recommendation and Decision stages, or have been decided: [attachment 7]

A list of the applications that are at the Acceptance stage or have previously been accepted for examination is available here: [attachment 8]

15 May 2018
Jonathan Fowler
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
Please can I inquire about the application of the Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy (EN-1). Section 4.6 concerns combined heat and power, and in particular section 4.6.6 notes ...

"any application to develop a thermal generating station under Section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 must either include CHP or contain evidence that the possibilities for CHP have been fully explored to inform the IPC’s consideration of the application. This should be through an audit trail of dialogue between the applicant and prospective customers."
Can I also share an extract from recent correspondence with the Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy ...

" ... explore the idea of using waste heat from the power station. This is because this waste heat will be of sufficient temperature ... and it can be piped a considerable distance from the power station to the surrounding environment."
Can you confirm that examination of the above referenced audit train will form part of the DCO examination?
We confirm that the Examining Authority will assess the application against the policy requirements in EN-1 and EN-6 and any other polices that the Examining Authority considers to be relevant.

11 May 2018
Jonathan Dean
Wylfa Newydd Nuclear Power Station
Enquiry received via email
I understand that shortly before the deadine of 28 days consideration of their application, RSP have withdrawn such. Their plan appears to be to resubmit an application. I would be grateful if you would answer some questions.

1. This will, in effect, mean that their application will recieve considerably longer than the 28 days allocated to such locations given that you will have been examining this application for almost 28 days and will then give a further 28 days on resubmission. Does this not contravene the process or, at least, contradict the spirit of the process?

2. Was their withdrawal as a consequence of any meetings, discussions, comments or feedback with or from yourselves during the period since they submitted their application? Have you provided them with any preliminary feedback that may have suggested a resubmission might be needed?
1. Any resubmission by the Applicant will be treated as a new application for the purposes of the process. The Planning Inspectorate would have up to 28 days to take its decision about whether the application could be accepted for examination.

2. The Planning Inspectorate called the Applicant’s legal representatives (BDB Law) on 1 May 2018, setting out its principal concerns in respect of the application documents. Those concerns included:

• An absence of sufficient information within the application documents upon which to the Planning Inspectorate could base a decision about whether the Proposed Development constitutes a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP) within the meaning in s23 of the Planning Act 2008.
• Gaps in the ecological, archaeological and ground investigation survey data presented within the Environmental Statement (ES) accompanying the application, which create uncertainty in the assessment of likely significant effects.
• Inconsistencies/ omissions in the noise and vibration assessment.
• The adequacy of the Transport Assessment accompanying the ES.
• The adequacy of the Funding Statement.

On 3 May 2018 a teleconference was held between the Planning Inspectorate, BDB Law and RiverOak Strategic Partners (RSP). During this teleconference the Planning Inspectorate repeated its principal concerns (above) in the presence of RSP, who confirmed their intention to withdraw the application. Subsequently the application was formally withdrawn by letter dated 4 May 2018.

Today (11 May 2018) a meeting took place between the Planning Inspectorate and the Applicant at which the Inspectorate provided more detailed s51 advice in respect of the concerns noted within the documents associated with the withdrawn application. A note of the meeting is being prepared and will be published in the usual way in due course.

11 May 2018
Susan Kennedy
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting.
Please see the attached meeting note, which should be read in conjunction with the detailed record of the Inspectorate’s observations and advice.

11 May 2018
RiverOak Strategic Partners Ltd
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
I have failed to find any details on how the power station will export the power - was this aspect a separate DCO? If so, which one? If not, please could you signpost me to the details?
The Applicant’s Planning Statement states at S.7 that the electrical connection is not part of the application. The Examining Authority's report explains that the ‘Proposed Development requires an electrical connection to the distribution network for export. However as this would be provided underground and pursuant to permitted development powers held by the distribution network operator, the DCO includes no provisions in respect of this connection.’ Further information can be found in the Applicant’s Grid Connection Statement and subsequent revision.

10 May 2018
Jonathan Dean
Wrexham Energy Centre
Enquiry received via email
As the Parish Councillor who has the Sizewell Portfolio I would be grateful if you would clarify whether Kelsale Cum Carlton is a Statutory Consultee or not bearing in mind the A12 runs through the Parish.
If the Applicant’s proposed improvements to the A12 are within your parish boundary then I confirm that Kelsale Cum Carlton will be a statutory consultee.

10 May 2018
Kelsale cum Carlton Parish Council - Edwina Galloway
The Sizewell C Project
response has attachments
A meeting was held to discuss a non-material change to the Order
Please see attached note of the meeting

10 May 2018
anon.
Norwich Northern Distributor Road (NDR)
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached meeting note

10 May 2018
Highways England
A63 Castle Street Improvement-Hull
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
See attached meeting note and attachments

10 May 2018
Cory Riverside Energy - Rob Gully
Riverside Energy Park
Enquiry received via email
I should like to register as an interested Party in the present planning application for the Wylfa power station. My principal interest is as Project Director for the current EU funded Acclimatize project and I wish to assess the extent to which the Wylfa development could impact on the sustainability of present water quality modelling being used to provide real-time forecasts of bathing water quality at Cemaes Bay bathing water. We are in receipt of Welsh European Funding Office support to produce the models for this site. Could you please forward relevant forms so I can register.
The proposed DCO Application for the Wylfa Newydd Development has not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate.

Upon receipt of a DCO Application, the Planning Inspectorate has 28 days to assess whether an Application can be accepted for Examination. When the Planning Inspectorate accepts an Application for Examination, it is the Applicant’s duty to advertise the Relevant Representation period and provide details about how to register to become an Interested Party. The Relevant Representation period is the time you have to register to become an Interested Party and this is when the form will be made available on the Wylfa project page of our website.

The publicity notice will tell you when the deadline is however you can also find out about the registration period via Twitter or email alert if you have signed up for this service on the Wylfa project page of our website.

09 May 2018
David Kay
Wylfa Newydd Nuclear Power Station
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
A38 Project Update Meeting
Please see attached meeting note.

09 May 2018
Highways England - anon.
A38 Derby Junctions
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting.
Please see attached note.

04 May 2018
Heathrow Airport Ltd - anon.
Expansion of Heathrow Airport (Third Runway)
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Dear Mr White

I am assuming that as Infrastructure Planning Lead, you have overall responsibility for Planning Inspectorate's supervision of the statutory processes being undertaken by ScottishPower Renewables (SPR) prior to its eventual submission of DCO Applications for the two proposed wind farms East Anglia ONE North and East Anglia TWO.

I live in Aldringham which lies at the centre of the EA1N and EA2 designated 'Onshore Study Area'. You may already be aware that SPR's onshore plans for these two projects have given rise to considerable concern with local communities in and around Aldringham. I have myself expressed a number of local concerns to ScottishPower both at and following its recent Phase 2 Information Day events.

1. Omission of Aldringham-cum-Thorpe's formal response to Scoping Report following Phase 1 Consultation on EA1N and EA2 Scoping Reports

Aldringham-cum-Thorpe's Parish Council (a "Prescribed Consultation Body") responded to SPR's initial Phase 1 Consultation by letter dated 7 December 2017. This letter referred to both EA1N and EA2 projects and was clearly received on time.

However, it has been omitted from the Planning Inspectorate "Scoping Opinion" document re EA2 ref EN010078 (though included in APPENDIX 2: RESPONDENTS TO CONSULTATION AND COPIES OF REPLIES in the Planning Inspectorate's "Scoping Opinion" document re EA1N ref EN010077).
Have our Parish Council's comments been overlooked as a consequence of this error?

Refs:
[attachment 1]

[attachment 2]

2. Concerns re: "Draft" Statements of Community Consultation for EA2 and EA1N
SPR posted a formal "Notification of Statement of Community Consultation for EA1N and EA2" and wrote to me on 13 March 2018 inviting me to review these draft documents before midnight 3rd April 2018. I met this deadline and received acknowledgement of my letter on 17 April. I feel some of my comments may be of interest to yourselves:

• Approved SoCC’s were not in place before Consultations commenced – Phase One completed in December 2017 and Phase Two completes on 3 April 2018, but SoCC’s are dated March 2018 and Consultation on SoCC’s is still in progress.

• I was confused by receiving files named “EA1N” / “EA2 SoCC FINAL signed off.pdf” if these are still drafts and under review and the printed copies of Statement of Community Consultation (EA1N), dated March 2018 and available at the March Information Days would appear to be Final Versions. Therefore I have an impression that this is some kind of retrospective and fake consultation just for the sake of formality?

• Provisional decisions on where to locate Substations and tranches of cabling seem to be running ahead of the Consultation schedule. For example, although the two Projects are clearly already favouring the western Zones and have already informed our local parish councils that it is planning its preferred route crossing Aldeburgh Road near Fitches Lane, Aldringham, there has been no Consultation on any of this during Phase One or Phase Two.

• Re: Para 34 - Phase Two Consultation and Para 39 - Phase Two Consultation: these paragraphs should specify which aspects of Infrastructure are to be consulted on at each Consultation Phase. In practice, this has led to the illogicality of seeking Consultees’ views on Substation Zones in Phase Two and Cable Tranche routes in Phase Three. From a resident’s point of view it can be difficult to consider these in isolation from each other.

• The Phase Two Feedback Form is over simplistic, asks assumptive and leading questions (Questions 6 and 7) and provides no structure within which to comment on the merits and demerits of each of the seven potential Substation Zones. See attached example Feedback Form.

My full response to Phase 2 Consultation and Information Days held in Southwold, Leiston and Thorpeness

I feel SPR, as just one of a number of companies / consortia planning to connect offshore power lines into the coast between Sizewell and Thorpeness, is not in a position to address key issues regarding the placement of Substations and large tracts of underground power lines. Further, a number of apparently ill thought through constraints would seem to have been imposed on SPR forcing it to propose environmentally unacceptable power installations inland and well away from the already industrialised coast at Sizewell.

I feel the Planning Inspectorate should be aware that central coordination (probably at Government level) is desperately needed if Suffolk's inland landscape and environment is not to be for ever blighted. I would hope you agree that the Planning Inspectorate as the 'Planning Authority' (at least for EA1N and EA2) has a major part to play in that and in helping ensure that local as well as national interests are protected.

You can find a fuller explanation in my full response to Phase 2 Consultation (attached).
I hope this email and its attachments can be of some assistance, providing the local residents' viewpoint at this critical stage for these two major infrastructure projects.
Dear Mr Halford,

Thank you for your email and the attachments in relation to the above projects, and raising concerns regarding the pre-application consultation process for the proposed East Anglia ONE North and East Anglia TWO projects.

Please accept my apology for the delay in responding to your email.

As the projects have not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate (the Inspectorate), the Inspectorate has no formal powers to intervene on consultees’ behalf and we are therefore not in a position to supervise the statutory consultation process conducted by the Applicant.

I would therefore encourage you to again contact the developer directly to make your concerns heard as the Applicant has a statutory duty to take your views into account. However, if you feel that your comments are not being considered and you need further information, I would advise you to write to your Local Authority (LA) and set out why you think the Applicant is failing to conduct its consultation properly. Your comments will be considered when the LA provides its comments to the Inspectorate on whether the Applicant has fulfilled its consultation duties. The LA’s comments on the Applicant’s consultation will be taken into account when the Acceptance Inspector makes his/ her decision whether to accept the application for examination.

Should the application for the Development Consent Order (DCO) be accepted by the Planning Inspectorate for examination, the Applicant has a duty to notify the local community when providing information on how to register as an Interested Party for the purpose of the process.

The Applicant has scheduled further statutory consultation in June 2018 as per their Statement of Community Consultation, and as part of the DCO process, the Applicant is required to have a regard to all consultation responses which should be later provided in the Consultation Report as part of the DCO application. During the statutory consultation period, the Applicant intends to provide more detailed information on the proposed projects, including the potential Substation Zones.

The process under the Planning Act 2008 (PA 2008) has been designed to allow members of the public and statutory stakeholders to participate in examination of all DCO applications. During the examination of an application the Examining Authority (ExA) has a duty to take into account all matters assessed by the Applicant in the Environmental Statement and may ask additional questions as required.

More information is provided in the Planning Inspectorate’s Advice notes:

Advice Note 8: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others

At the current pre-application stage we would recommend especially:

Advice note 8.1. Responding to the developer’s pre-application consultation

Advice Note 8.2. How to register to participate in an Examination

By submitting a Relevant Representation during the pre-examination stage you as an individual and/or on behalf of the Parish Council are in position to highlight particular planning matters such as effects on the local communities in and around Aldringham that you have mentioned in your email.

We have also published a document 'Section 47 - Community Consultation - Frequently Asked Questions' regarding Pre-application consultation which may address some of your queries. However, please note that it is for the Applicant to decide how to carry out non-statutory and statutory consultation, and there is no statutory requirement under PA2008 for the Applicant to consult on the content of a Statement of Community Consultation (SoCC).

With regard to the Scoping Opinions issued by the Inspectorate on 20 December 2017, on investigating the matter I can assure you that the scoping consultation response was received within the time period and was taken into account on preparation of the Opinions. Unfortunately a clerical error has occurred on preparation of the Appendices to the East Anglia Two Scoping Opinion, meaning that Aldringham-cum-Thorpe Parish Council were not listed as a respondee and the ‘pdf’ file of the letter was not reproduced in the Appendix. We cannot amend a Scoping Opinion once it has been published; however, thank you for drawing this to our attention. We will of course take steps to avoid a reoccurrence of this error. Scoping is an early part of the pre-application process and hopefully my comments above are useful in explaining how you can be involved at pre-application and going forward should the application be accepted for examination.

Please be assured that anyone interested in the proposed developments, their potential impacts and any planning matters can be fully engaged in the examination process. A copy of your correspondence has been placed on our records and will be presented to the Inspector at acceptance together with the application documents and local authorities’ comments on the Applicant’s consultation.

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.

03 May 2018
William R Halford
East Anglia ONE North Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Dear Mr White

I am assuming that as Infrastructure Planning Lead, you have overall responsibility for Planning Inspectorate's supervision of the statutory processes being undertaken by ScottishPower Renewables (SPR) prior to its eventual submission of DCO Applications for the two proposed wind farms East Anglia ONE North and East Anglia TWO.

I live in Aldringham which lies at the centre of the EA1N and EA2 designated 'Onshore Study Area'. You may already be aware that SPR's onshore plans for these two projects have given rise to considerable concern with local communities in and around Aldringham. I have myself expressed a number of local concerns to ScottishPower both at and following its recent Phase 2 Information Day events.

1. Omission of Aldringham-cum-Thorpe's formal response to Scoping Report following Phase 1 Consultation on EA1N and EA2 Scoping Reports

Aldringham-cum-Thorpe's Parish Council (a "Prescribed Consultation Body") responded to SPR's initial Phase 1 Consultation by letter dated 7 December 2017. This letter referred to both EA1N and EA2 projects and was clearly received on time.

However, it has been omitted from the Planning Inspectorate "Scoping Opinion" document re EA2 ref EN010078 (though included in APPENDIX 2: RESPONDENTS TO CONSULTATION AND COPIES OF REPLIES in the Planning Inspectorate's "Scoping Opinion" document re EA1N ref EN010077).
Have our Parish Council's comments been overlooked as a consequence of this error?

Refs:
[attachment 1]

[attachment 2]

2. Concerns re: "Draft" Statements of Community Consultation for EA2 and EA1N
SPR posted a formal "Notification of Statement of Community Consultation for EA1N and EA2" and wrote to me on 13 March 2018 inviting me to review these draft documents before midnight 3rd April 2018. I met this deadline and received acknowledgement of my letter on 17 April. I feel some of my comments may be of interest to yourselves:

• Approved SoCC’s were not in place before Consultations commenced – Phase One completed in December 2017 and Phase Two completes on 3 April 2018, but SoCC’s are dated March 2018 and Consultation on SoCC’s is still in progress.

• I was confused by receiving files named “EA1N” / “EA2 SoCC FINAL signed off.pdf” if these are still drafts and under review and the printed copies of Statement of Community Consultation (EA1N), dated March 2018 and available at the March Information Days would appear to be Final Versions. Therefore I have an impression that this is some kind of retrospective and fake consultation just for the sake of formality?

• Provisional decisions on where to locate Substations and tranches of cabling seem to be running ahead of the Consultation schedule. For example, although the two Projects are clearly already favouring the western Zones and have already informed our local parish councils that it is planning its preferred route crossing Aldeburgh Road near Fitches Lane, Aldringham, there has been no Consultation on any of this during Phase One or Phase Two.

• Re: Para 34 - Phase Two Consultation and Para 39 - Phase Two Consultation: these paragraphs should specify which aspects of Infrastructure are to be consulted on at each Consultation Phase. In practice, this has led to the illogicality of seeking Consultees’ views on Substation Zones in Phase Two and Cable Tranche routes in Phase Three. From a resident’s point of view it can be difficult to consider these in isolation from each other.

• The Phase Two Feedback Form is over simplistic, asks assumptive and leading questions (Questions 6 and 7) and provides no structure within which to comment on the merits and demerits of each of the seven potential Substation Zones. See attached example Feedback Form.

My full response to Phase 2 Consultation and Information Days held in Southwold, Leiston and Thorpeness

I feel SPR, as just one of a number of companies / consortia planning to connect offshore power lines into the coast between Sizewell and Thorpeness, is not in a position to address key issues regarding the placement of Substations and large tracts of underground power lines. Further, a number of apparently ill thought through constraints would seem to have been imposed on SPR forcing it to propose environmentally unacceptable power installations inland and well away from the already industrialised coast at Sizewell.

I feel the Planning Inspectorate should be aware that central coordination (probably at Government level) is desperately needed if Suffolk's inland landscape and environment is not to be for ever blighted. I would hope you agree that the Planning Inspectorate as the 'Planning Authority' (at least for EA1N and EA2) has a major part to play in that and in helping ensure that local as well as national interests are protected.

You can find a fuller explanation in my full response to Phase 2 Consultation (attached).
I hope this email and its attachments can be of some assistance, providing the local residents' viewpoint at this critical stage for these two major infrastructure projects.
Dear Mr Halford,

Thank you for your email and the attachments in relation to the above projects, and raising concerns regarding the pre-application consultation process for the proposed East Anglia ONE North and East Anglia TWO projects.

Please accept my apology for the delay in responding to your email.

As the projects have not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate (the Inspectorate), the Inspectorate has no formal powers to intervene on consultees’ behalf and we are therefore not in a position to supervise the statutory consultation process conducted by the Applicant.

I would therefore encourage you to again contact the developer directly to make your concerns heard as the Applicant has a statutory duty to take your views into account. However, if you feel that your comments are not being considered and you need further information, I would advise you to write to your Local Authority (LA) and set out why you think the Applicant is failing to conduct its consultation properly. Your comments will be considered when the LA provides its comments to the Inspectorate on whether the Applicant has fulfilled its consultation duties. The LA’s comments on the Applicant’s consultation will be taken into account when the Acceptance Inspector makes his/ her decision whether to accept the application for examination.

Should the application for the Development Consent Order (DCO) be accepted by the Planning Inspectorate for examination, the Applicant has a duty to notify the local community when providing information on how to register as an Interested Party for the purpose of the process.

The Applicant has scheduled further statutory consultation in June 2018 as per their Statement of Community Consultation, and as part of the DCO process, the Applicant is required to have a regard to all consultation responses which should be later provided in the Consultation Report as part of the DCO application. During the statutory consultation period, the Applicant intends to provide more detailed information on the proposed projects, including the potential Substation Zones.

The process under the Planning Act 2008 (PA 2008) has been designed to allow members of the public and statutory stakeholders to participate in examination of all DCO applications. During the examination of an application the Examining Authority (ExA) has a duty to take into account all matters assessed by the Applicant in the Environmental Statement and may ask additional questions as required.

More information is provided in the Planning Inspectorate’s Advice notes:

Advice Note 8: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others

At the current pre-application stage we would recommend especially:

Advice note 8.1. Responding to the developer’s pre-application consultation

Advice Note 8.2. How to register to participate in an Examination

By submitting a Relevant Representation during the pre-examination stage you as an individual and/or on behalf of the Parish Council are in position to highlight particular planning matters such as effects on the local communities in and around Aldringham that you have mentioned in your email.

We have also published a document 'Section 47 - Community Consultation - Frequently Asked Questions' regarding Pre-application consultation which may address some of your queries. However, please note that it is for the Applicant to decide how to carry out non-statutory and statutory consultation, and there is no statutory requirement under PA2008 for the Applicant to consult on the content of a Statement of Community Consultation (SoCC).

With regard to the Scoping Opinions issued by the Inspectorate on 20 December 2017, on investigating the matter I can assure you that the scoping consultation response was received within the time period and was taken into account on preparation of the Opinions. Unfortunately a clerical error has occurred on preparation of the Appendices to the East Anglia Two Scoping Opinion, meaning that Aldringham-cum-Thorpe Parish Council were not listed as a respondee and the ‘pdf’ file of the letter was not reproduced in the Appendix. We cannot amend a Scoping Opinion once it has been published; however, thank you for drawing this to our attention. We will of course take steps to avoid a reoccurrence of this error. Scoping is an early part of the pre-application process and hopefully my comments above are useful in explaining how you can be involved at pre-application and going forward should the application be accepted for examination.

Please be assured that anyone interested in the proposed developments, their potential impacts and any planning matters can be fully engaged in the examination process. A copy of your correspondence has been placed on our records and will be presented to the Inspector at acceptance together with the application documents and local authorities’ comments on the Applicant’s consultation.

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.

03 May 2018
William R Halford
East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting with regards to the proposed Luton Airport expansion application.
Please see attached meeting note.

02 May 2018
London Luton Airport Ltd - anon.
London Luton Airport Expansion
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see the attached notes

01 May 2018
Vattenfall - anon.
Thanet Extension Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via email
The enquirer drew attention to responses to the Applicant's Pre-application consultation and asked if there was any action the Planning Inspectorate could take.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot apply the tests in s55 of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) until such time as an application is formally submitted to it ie during the Acceptance stage. At the Pre-application stage the onus is on the Applicant to carry out statutory consultation and to prepare a Consultation Report which the Applicant is satisfied gives details of:

(a) what has been done in compliance with sections 42, 47 and 48 [of the PA2008] in relation to a proposed application that has become the application,
(b) any relevant responses, and
(c) the account taken of any relevant responses.

30 April 2018
Bean Residents Association - Linda Collins
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached meeting note

30 April 2018
Cleve Hill Solar Park Ltd
Cleve Hill Solar Park
Enquiry received via phone
response has attachments
PINS follow up advice - 30 April 2018 meeting
New case law

As discussed during the telecon earlier today - we are aware of a recent European Court of Justice judgment, which has implications for UK practice of considering mitigation at the screening stage of HRA in determining whether appropriate assessment is required.

The case is: C-323/17 - People Over Wind, Peter Sweetman v Coillte Teoranta (2018) (12/04/18).

You may wish to consider whether this judgement has any implications for your approach to the HRA for Cleve Hill, in discussion with Natural England. Section 51 advice in this regard has just been issued to the Applicant for the Kemsley K4 project, which you may find useful:

[attachment 1].

Regulation 32 transboundary screening

We briefly discussed the transboundary screening which is undertaken by the Planning Inspectorate during the pre-application stage, based on the information provided in the Scoping Report. The screening is undertaken in line with our duties under Regulation 32 of the EIA Regulations 2017, which require us to consider whether a proposed NSIP is likely to give rise to significant effects on the environment in another European Economic Area (EEA) State. Further information is provided in our Advice Note 12.

We note from the Scoping Report that the qualifying features of the Swale SPA and Ramsar site are likely to include migratory bird species, and therefore we need to consider the connectivity between these sites and European sites in other EEA States. We would therefore welcome clarification on the following points:

• Which qualifying features of the Swale SPA and Ramsar are migratory species?

• Are any of the qualifying features of the Swale SPA and Ramsar also features in connected European sites in other EEA States?

• It is understood that the final assessment conclusions have not yet been reached. However, can you please provide information to support the Inspectorate in making a decision regarding the potential for significant effects in other EEA States, taking into account the questions raised above?

If you are able to provide information in this regard, we may be able to rely on that for the purposes of transboundary screening, thus avoiding the need to inform other EEA States on a precautionary basis. Just to confirm, we would publish any such information you provide on our website.

Red line boundary extension below mean high water

We discussed today your intention to undertake consultation with the MMO, given the proposed extension of the red line boundary below mean high water. We would also suggest consulting the following bodies, if you haven’t already:

• Ministry of Defence (we usually identify this body if a proposed development enters the marine area);
• Any statutory dock, port or harbour authorities whose functions may be affected by the proposed development.

I hope that this is useful but if you have questions on any of the above, then please do not hesitate to contact me.

30 April 2018
Mike Bird
Cleve Hill Solar Park
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached meeting note

27 April 2018
Drax Power Ltd - Jim Doyle
Drax Re-power
Rather than keep trying via the phone, here are the points that I wanted to discuss with you. I have converted them into questions below for ease. My questions do not seem to be answerable from the advice notes 8.3 or the faq on your website.

N2RS
Firstly, as you may be aware, I am contacting you on behalf of the N2RS Committee. My job is to deal with processes, timescales and procedures.
With a membership of around 1000, N2RS is continuing to track the progress of the Vanguard Project. Our supporters cover mainly North Norfolk and include others from further afield.

We are working co-operatively with local authority elected Members, our local MP Norman Lamb and landowner representatives.

It is our intention to continue a close watching brief on the progress of the project and to campaign where necessary. We have several media platforms running (N2RS website, Facebook and Twitter).
Given that the likely acceptance of the application will occur in July 2018, we wish to ask you for help with our scheduling and forward planning specifically to avoid the issue of people with an interest in the procedures being away because of the summer holiday period. We also have people working in the tourism business. The questions we have are as follows:
Q Roughly when will the time-limited period to register online as an Interested Party be given the proximity to the summer holiday season?
Q If N2RS registers as a single organisation, how many core committee members will be allowed to attend the preliminary/subsequent meetings?
Q Are there any objections to multiple applications from N2RS should that be necessary in order to have attendance at meetings?
Q Roughly when can we expect the preliminary meeting to be scheduled? (we are asking because the written advice suggests that only about 3 weeks’ notice is given).
Q Ditto the subsequent meeting(s).
Thank you for your email, apologies we kept missing each other on the telephone.

I have responded to your queries in the order you have raised them;

1. Should the application be accepted for the Examination, the Applicant has a duty to advertise the Relevant Representations period and provide details about how to register to become an Interested Party. The registration period must be at least 28 days and the publicity notice will clearly tell you when the deadline is. The easiest way to become an Interested Party is to complete the form online via the project’s page of the National Infrastructure Planning website. Depending on the date of when the application is accepted (the Secretary of State has a deadline of 28 days from receipt of application to make this decision so if this is received at the end of June, the acceptance decision wouldn’t be made until the end of July). If accepted, the Applicant is then required to certify compliance and notify of the acceptance which is when they will provide the period for registering relevant representations. The Applicant may consider and impact of this over the holiday period and provide a longer period for registration but please note there is no requirement for them to do so.
Some people will automatically become an Interested Party because they are landowners or have an interest in land affected by the application. This information will be provided in a Book of Reference supplied by the Applicant. They will be notified throughout the application process, but are also welcome to register via a Relevant Representation form so that their views can be made available to the Examining Authority at an early stage.

2. There is no limit on the number of N2RS core committee members that can attend the Preliminary Meeting or any subsequent hearings. However, in order to accommodate all Interested Parties and any members of the public wishing to attend the events, we would appreciate if you could inform us well in advance of those people who wish to attend. Details of this will be requested from anyone who has registered at the time. The agendas for all events will be published around seven days beforehand and that will allow N2RS members to decide if attending the hearing will be beneficial to them.

3. There is no requirement to provide multiple representations from N2RS in order to attend the hearings as if N2RS registers as an Interested Party, then it will be able to fully participate in the examination process: submit written representations and provide comments on all application documents and other documents submitted by other parties, respond to the Examining Authority’s written questions on behalf of N2RS. If members of the N2RS however wish to be individually recognised as an Interested Party in their own capacity then they will need to register a relevant representation separately which must include a summary of points which they agree and/or disagree with about the application, highlighting what they consider to be the main issues and impacts.

4. The formal notification of the Preliminary Meeting will be issued at least 21 days before its date, in a letter called the Rule 6 letter. The Preliminary Meeting marks the end of the formal pre-examination stage. However, that stage lasts around three months to allow the Applicant and the Inspectorate to fulfil their statutory duties.

5. The draft Examination timetable will also be issued in the Rule 6 letter and this will set out when the dates for the ExA’s procedural decisions, deadlines for written submissions etc, along with the dates of any hearings and site inspections scheduled to take place during the 6 month examination. The finalised Examination timetable will then be issued around 7 days after the close of the Preliminary Meeting. The agendas for individual hearings will be published nearer the time and usually around 7 days before the hearings.

If you have not already done so, you might find it helpful to view the online videos we have available explaining the DCO application process.

Please note, in accordance with Section 51 of the PA2008, a copy of your email and our advice will be published on the Norfolk Vanguard project’s webpage of the National Infrastructure Website.

27 April 2018
N2RS - Katie Taylor
Norfolk Vanguard
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

25 April 2018
Scottish Power Renewables - Scottish Power Renewables
East Anglia ONE Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

25 April 2018
Scottish Power Renewables - Scottish Power Renewables
East Anglia ONE North Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

25 April 2018
Scottish Power Renewables - Scottish Power Renewables
East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Query regarding the pre-application consultation
Thank you for your letter of 10 April 2018 raising concerns regarding the pre-application consultation process for the proposed East Anglia ONE North and East Anglia TWO projects.

As the projects have not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate (the Inspectorate), the Inspectorate has no formal powers to intervene on consultees behalf. I would therefore encourage you to again contact the developer directly to make your concerns heard as the Applicant has a statutory duty to take your views into account. However, if you feel that your comments are not being taken into account and you need further information, I would advise you to write to your local authority and set out why you think the Applicant is failing to conduct is consultation properly. Your comments will be taken into account when the local authority sends the Inspectorate its comments on whether the Applicant has fulfilled its consultation duties. The local authority’s comments on the Applicant’s consultation will be taken into account when the Acceptance Inspector makes his/ her decision whether to accept the application for examination.

Should the application for the Development Consent Order (DCO) be accepted by the Planning Inspectorate for examination, the Applicant has a duty to notify the local community and provide information on how to register as an Interested Party for the purpose of the process. The Applicant has scheduled further statutory consultation in June 2018 as per their Statement of Community Consultation, and as part of the DCO process, the Applicant is required to have a regard to all consultation responses which should be later provided in the Consultation Report as part of the DCO application. During the statutory consultation period, the Applicant has said it intends to provide more detailed information on the proposed projects.

The process under the PA 2008 has been designed to allow members of the public and statutory stakeholders to participate in examination of all DCO applications. During the examination of an application the Examining Authority (ExA) has a duty to take into account all matters assessed by the Applicant in the Environmental Statement and may ask additional questions as required.

Please be assured that anyone interested in the proposed developments, their potential impacts and any planning matters can be fully engaged in the examination process.

More information is provided in the Planning Inspectorate’s Advice notes Advice Note 8: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others, and at the current pre-application stage we would recommend especially Advice note 8.1. Responding to the developer’s pre-application consultation and Advice Note 8.2. How to register to participate in an Examination.

By submitting a Relevant Representation during the pre-examination stage, the Parish Councils will be in a position to highlight particular planning matters such as effects on the road infrastructure that you have mentioned in your email.

A copy of your correspondence has been placed on our records and will also be presented to the Inspector at acceptance together with the application documents and local authorities’ comments on the Applicant’s consultation.

24 April 2018
Giles de Bertodano
East Anglia ONE North Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via post
response has attachments
See attached query
See attached response

24 April 2018
P Dorcey
East Anglia ONE North Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Query regarding the pre-application consultation
Thank you for your letter of 10 April 2018 raising concerns regarding the pre-application consultation process for the proposed East Anglia ONE North and East Anglia TWO projects.

As the projects have not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate (the Inspectorate), the Inspectorate has no formal powers to intervene on consultees behalf. I would therefore encourage you to again contact the developer directly to make your concerns heard as the Applicant has a statutory duty to take your views into account. However, if you feel that your comments are not being taken into account and you need further information, I would advise you to write to your local authority and set out why you think the Applicant is failing to conduct is consultation properly. Your comments will be taken into account when the local authority sends the Inspectorate its comments on whether the Applicant has fulfilled its consultation duties. The local authority’s comments on the Applicant’s consultation will be taken into account when the Acceptance Inspector makes his/ her decision whether to accept the application for examination.

Should the application for the Development Consent Order (DCO) be accepted by the Planning Inspectorate for examination, the Applicant has a duty to notify the local community and provide information on how to register as an Interested Party for the purpose of the process. The Applicant has scheduled further statutory consultation in June 2018 as per their Statement of Community Consultation, and as part of the DCO process, the Applicant is required to have a regard to all consultation responses which should be later provided in the Consultation Report as part of the DCO application. During the statutory consultation period, the Applicant has said it intends to provide more detailed information on the proposed projects.

The process under the PA 2008 has been designed to allow members of the public and statutory stakeholders to participate in examination of all DCO applications. During the examination of an application the Examining Authority (ExA) has a duty to take into account all matters assessed by the Applicant in the Environmental Statement and may ask additional questions as required.

Please be assured that anyone interested in the proposed developments, their potential impacts and any planning matters can be fully engaged in the examination process.

More information is provided in the Planning Inspectorate’s Advice notes Advice Note 8: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others, and at the current pre-application stage we would recommend especially Advice note 8.1. Responding to the developer’s pre-application consultation and Advice Note 8.2. How to register to participate in an Examination.

By submitting a Relevant Representation during the pre-examination stage, the Parish Councils will be in a position to highlight particular planning matters such as effects on the road infrastructure that you have mentioned in your email.

A copy of your correspondence has been placed on our records and will also be presented to the Inspector at acceptance together with the application documents and local authorities’ comments on the Applicant’s consultation.

24 April 2018
Giles de Bertodano
East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via post
response has attachments
See attached query
See attached response

24 April 2018
P Dorcey
East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via phone
response has attachments
Project update teleconference
Please see attached meeting note

23 April 2018
SSE - anon.
General
Enquiry received via email
Just to be clear, only one written representation per interested party will be allowed, even if this contains entirely different topics under relevant headings and para numbers. Is that correct?
We would expect Interested Parties (IP) to submit one Written Representation covering all the matters they wish to raise. However the Regulations do not prevent IPs from submitting multiple representations covering different topics if they so wish provided they are submitted by the deadline given in the Examination timetable.

An example of an Examination timetable can be viewed here. This shows, at Appendix A, that there is one deadline for Written Representations and then opportunities in the Examination to respond to the Examining Authority’s written questions and other parties representations. Please note we advise that clear and concise submissions add more value to the Examination.

20 April 2018
Jonathan Dean
North Wales Connection
Enquiry received via post
response has attachments
Sylwadau ar y dogfennau drafft / Comments on draft documents

20 April 2018
Abergelli Power Ltd - Kirstin Gardner
Abergelli Power
Enquiry received via email
We note that PINS’ website has now been updated to confirm that RSP’s application has been submitted and that the Applicant has not agreed to the application documents being made public. We are extremely disappointed by this lack of transparency, when we have had no definitive response from RSP to the points that we have put to them regarding:

1. the current capability of Manston;
2. that the proposal does not qualify as a NSIP; and
3. why the EIA does not assess the proposed development (RSP, as far as we have been made aware, has not assessed the effect of constructing 19 new stands and the number of ATMs that could produce).

Whilst our legal adviser wrote to you on 10 April 2018 seeking confirmation that these and other matters raised in both its, and SHP’s, correspondence will be fully considered as part of any acceptance process, if the application documents raise arguments over these points, then SHP should be able to respond. This is an unusual case and SHP, as the owner of substantially all of the land to which the application relates, should be afforded that courtesy when RSP has not provided answers to these points in (1) its consultation materials, (2) in any responses to the consultation (despite the 2015 Guidance stating that it is good practice for applicants to inform consultees of how issues will be addressed before any application is submitted, RSP has not provided any such response or update), or (3) in private correspondence over the continuing s53 application.

Given our substantial interest, it is SHP who would be put to a very significant amount of trouble, delay and expense if the application is accepted notwithstanding our objections and our deep concerns over a lack of transparency. RSP’s failure to publish the application or agree to PINS publishing the application, is another example of RSP deliberately trying to get the application accepted without it being subject to scrutiny by the one party, the owner of substantially all of the land to which the application relates, who is in a position to expose the inconsistent and possibly misleading basis upon which they have so far been proceeding.
The need for PINS to get agreement from applicants to publicise their application prior to acceptance is not a statutory requirement. Whilst we appreciate it is referred to in the 2015 Guidance at paragraph 119 and in Advice Note 6 (which does not have statutory status), this is a case where the application should be publicised given the unusual set of circumstances and the failure of the consultation materials to answer the fundamental questions over why the proposed development is an NSIP at all.

We therefore ask that the application is made public now (or at the very least in the form of s51 advice the information set out above made available, to enable SHP to understand if the application is potentially an NSIP and if it is a substantially different application scheme than that consulted on) in the interests of transparency, fairness and the fact that SHP (as owner of substantially all of the land) is being disadvantaged and being put to considerable trouble and expense which is also causing delay to its own plans for the Site.
We note the comments set out in your email dated 13 April 2018 and in previous correspondence. The Inspectorate will consider whether to accept the proposed Manston Airport application in accordance with the requirements of Section 55 of the Planning Act 2008.

As you have correctly stated, the need for PINS to get agreement from applicants to publicise their application prior to acceptance is not a statutory requirement and the Applicant has not agreed to publication during the acceptance period. Therefore we are unable to make the application material available at this time. Should the application be accepted, you will be able to make a Relevant Representation at the appropriate time.

Please note that the appropriate contact for any future correspondence relating to the DCO application is Richard Price (using the Manston inbox email address), whilst I will remain the primary contact for any correspondence relating to the s53 application.

20 April 2018
Stone Hill Park Ltd - Jamie Macnamara
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please see attachment.
We note the comments set out in your letter dated 10 April 2018 and in previous correspondence. The Inspectorate will consider whether to accept the proposed Manston Airport application in accordance with the requirements of Section 55 of the Planning Act 2008.

Please note that the appropriate contact for any future correspondence relating to the DCO application is Richard Price, whilst I will remain the primary contact for any correspondence relating to the s53 application.

20 April 2018
Pinsent Masons LLP for Stone Hill Park Ltd - Richard Griffiths
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
The current proposal does stray into our parish with a proposed “borrow pit” although the majority of the development is within the neighbouring town council boundary. I presume that counts as development within our area? Also, several of our parishes, including my parish, have the proposed road access route travelling through our communities and there are proposed changes to those roads to improve junctions, remove bends, widen certain areas and in some cases create “park and ride” facilities. Do these changes also mean that they are regarded as statutory consultees?
We would expect the development you refer to below to be included in the application as associated development. Any parish council with associated development within its boundary will be a statutory consultee.

20 April 2018
Theberton and Eastbridge Parish Council - Paul Collins
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
See attached meeting note
See attached meeting note

19 April 2018
VPI Immingham B Ltd - anon.
VPI Immingham OCGT
Enquiry received via email
Can you please clarify for me whether local Parish Councils directly affected or in Parishes adjacent to the proposed Sizewell C development are considered by PINS as statutory consultees?

In the Infrastructure Planning Regulations 2009 in Schedule there is a note to the table which states:

relevant”, in relation to a body, shall mean the body which has responsibility for the location where the proposals may or will be sited or has responsibility for an area which neighbours that location.

Also in the PINS document “Sizewell C proposed nuclear development scoping opinion” published in June 2014, PINS consulted the following organisations under the collective group:

The Relevant Parish Council(s) or Relevant Community Council

ORGANISATION
Aldringham cum Thorpe Parish Council
Benhall and Sternfield Parish Council
Blaxhall Parish Council
Blythburgh Parish Council
Bramfield and Thorington Parish Council
Campsea Ashe Parish Council
Darsham Parish Council
Dunwich Parish Meeting
Easton Parish Council
Farnham with Stratford St Andrew Parish Council
Great Glemham Parish Council
Hacheston Parish Council
Kelsale cum Carlton Parish Council
Knodishall Parish Council
Leiston cum Sizewell Town Council
Letheringham Parish Council
Little Glemham Parish Council
Marlesford Parish Council
Middleton Parish Council
Parham Parish Council
Rendham Parish Council
Saxmundham Town Council
Snape Parish Council
Sweffling Parish Council
Theberton and Eastbridge Parish Council
Westleton Parish Council
Wickham Market Parish Council
Yoxford Parish Council

During a meeting with and EDF representative yesterday with councillors present from Suffolk County Council and Suffolk Coastal District Council it was stated that the Parish Council is not a statutory consultee, although we have had a number of discussions and briefings by EDF and others over the past few years.

So please can you confirm whether the 2009 planning act list including Parish Councils, as shown above, is correct or if there has been some amendment to this legislation changing the status of affected Parish Councils either in general or for this particular NSIP.
At the time of the scoping request the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009 included neighbouring parishes within the relevance test for prescribed consultees with respect to the scoping for the Environmental Statement. However these Regulations have been amended (since April 2013) and now, in England the parish council is only deemed relevant for the purposes of scoping if the project or associated development is within their area.

In terms of statutory consultees, the relevant regulations are The Infrastructure Planning (Interested Parties and Miscellaneous Prescribed Provisions) Regulations 2015. Relevant parish councils are those which have responsibility for the location of the proposed development. However even if the proposed development is not within your parish council you should have the opportunity to participate in any consultation. If the application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate and accepted for Examination you will have an opportunity to register the parish council as an Interested Party which will give you the right to participate in the Examination.

18 April 2018
Theberton and Eastbridge Parish Council - Paul Collins
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Pins meeting with Hornsea Project Three
See attached meeting note

17 April 2018
Hornsea Project Three - anon.
Hornsea Project Three Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached Meeting Note

17 April 2018
Highways England
A303 Sparkford to Ilchester Dualling
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Comments on the draft Consultation Report
Please see attached document

16 April 2018
Drax Power Ltd - Jim Doyle
Drax Re-power
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Re the Manston DCO 2018 consultation, could you kindly send me details relating to the 2018 consultation notifications. I discussed this with Sam at the 2018 Comfort Inn consultation event, but then I was mostly concerned with what had gone wrong with the notification postcard distribution. One of the places that I asked if anyone had had a postcard was Ramsgate Custom House and I explained to Sam the people there, Town Council, RNLI shop and Ramsgate information centre, hadn’t had notifications and didn’t know about the Comfort Inn event until I told them about it.

Having been to your website to see if more documents had been published I noticed the news item [attachment 1] which seems to infer that Canterbury City Council were not notified about the 2018 consultation, ether the consultation events, the consultation content, with revised documents or both.

This lead me to check with Ramsgate Town Council town clerk who told me that Ramsgate town council hadn’t been notified.

The details I would like you to send me are which organisations councils, statutory consultees etc you did actually notify both of the 2018 consolation and the consultation events?
The Consultation Report and any Adequacy of Consultation Representations received by the Planning Inspectorate from relevant local authorities will be published on our website if the application is accepted for examination. The Acceptance decision must be made on or before 8 May 2018.

16 April 2018
Michael Child
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
The issue I have drawn your attention to (in the emails of 3 and 4 April 2018) is not an issue for the Applicant but an issue for PINS. When advised of "targeted consultation" in Cumbria you advised NGET to consider wider consultation, however you did not do this in respect of Anglesey when informed of the same. My question is why are PINS treating the two projects differently?
The advice given in our note of 14 March 2017 needs to be read within the context of the changes proposed. Our meeting notes are not a full transcript of the meeting and the Applicant’s attention would have been drawn to the DCLG guidance on the pre-application process in terms of the appropriate level of consultation for change to proposals (see paragraphs 68-77). As it states in all of our meeting notes, any advice given does not constitute legal advice upon which the Applicant, or others, can rely. Therefore it is for National Grid to decide on the extent of any further consultation they decide to undertake.

13 April 2018
Jonathan Dean
North Wales Connection
Enquiry received via email
My concern about the Written Representation is that these will take time, so I need to start now. I have no intention of writing War & Peace, but there are several entirely distinct issues/themes, and want to be assured that I can submit more than one Written Representation.
Please note that there will only be one opportunity within the Examination timetable to submit your Written Representation. Information about the Examination and Written Representations is in Advice Note 8.4.

13 April 2018
Jonathan Dean
North Wales Connection
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Inception Meeting
Please see attached

12 April 2018
Ørsted - Ørsted
Hornsea Project Four Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via phone
response has attachments
At a project update meeting held between IAMP LLP and the Inspectorate on 26 January 2018, the Applicant highlighted a potential need to obtain rights of entry under s53 of the PA2008 in order to access land adjacent to the A19. A seperate telecon was then held on 22 February 2018 to discuss the potential s53 request in more detail.
See attached meeting note.

11 April 2018
IAMP LLP - anon.
International Advanced Manufacturing Park TWO (IAMP TWO)
Enquiry received via email
On behalf of Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board I am seeking advice on how to register as an interested party for the Inspection of the DCO submission to be made by HNP imminently.

I have accessed your web site but cannot find the online portal to register, could you please advise.
The proposed DCO Application for the Wylfa Newydd Development has not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate.

Upon receipt of a DCO Application, the Planning Inspectorate has 28 days to assess whether an Application can be accepted for Examination. When the Planning Inspectorate accepts an Application for Examination, it is the Applicant’s duty to advertise the Relevant Representation period and provide details about how to register to become an Interested Party. The Relevant Representation period is the time you have to register to become an Interested Party and this is when the form will be made available on the Wylfa project page of our website.

The publicity notice will tell you when the deadline is however you can also find out about the registration period via Twitter or email alert if you have signed up for this service on the Wylfa project page of our website.

11 April 2018
Wyn Thomas
Wylfa Newydd Nuclear Power Station
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
On 19th April the sponsor posted this on their website see this link [attachment 1] The release was not widely publicised. In this release they claim that they will review further their night flight requirements and quota counts and also suggest that planes will not fly over densely populated areas. Again I think this highlights the inadequacy of the consultation and the way in which it has been undertaken in a very piecemeal manner with little regard to the local community who will be massively affected by the plans particularly those in Ramsgate and Herne Bay. As I said in previous communications there has been no detail of flight paths produced and yet in their latest brief above they say planes will not fly over densely populated areas which seems to indicate that flight paths have been planned but not disclosed during the consultation. How we are to assess the project without knowing the flight paths is difficult to understand especially without an environmental impact assessment or health impact assessment. It may be that some residents didn't bother going to the consultations having assumed that planes will not fly over their houses which may not be the case.

I also note new proposals have been recommended nationally for how noise is assessed, see this link below of a summary by Hacan [attachment 2]. I assume the sponsors plans will need to be revisited to assure they comply with these new arrangements.

Lastly the sponsors posted the following on their website in an attempt to suggest they consulted widely enough having realised at the last minute that Canterbury County Council had not responded to the consultation because they hadn't received the necessary documentation. Here is a link to their post [attachment 3]. You will no doubt have heard from many Herne Bay as well as Ramsgate residents who were not aware of the consultations taking place. The use of a website, Facebook and twitter reaches very limited people in Thanet and should be discouraged as a medium for planning consultations in these cases. The sponsor could quite easily have mailed a detailed summary of their plans to each and every household in Thanet, this is what is done by other sponsors as a matter of course in order to ensure that all residents are aware of the scope and depth of the proposed plans. A summary could quite easily have been prepared detailing the type of airport being planned, the number of planes proposed each day, the number of planes proposed each night, how many days per week operations would function and detailed flight paths as a minimum so residents could see exactly how they were likely to be affected and could then decide if they needed to go and get further information at a consultation briefing. The consultations should have been briefings with a formal presentation with questions and answers rather than people just milling around looking at pictures and queuing up to ask questions.

Lastly as a general point regarding the planning legislation enacting the Development Consent Order process I find it hard to believe that it was meant for company's such as RSP, who have little or no substance or experience and with investors in Belize, to utilise. Other projects on your website are sponsored by entities such as The Highways Agency, power generation companies and other quasi government institutions providing national services. Perhaps the legislation needs to be revisited to ensure it is not used inappropriately by companies and in particular by those who have already failed to meet the criteria to qualify as an indemnity party within the local authority CPO regime.
The Acceptance stage

The application was submitted on 10 April 2018. Beginning on the day after it was submitted the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) has 28 calendar days to decide whether the application can be accepted for examination.

The Acceptance decision must therefore be taken on or before 8 May 2018. The decision will be published on the project webpage, here: [attachment 4]

If the application is accepted, the following documents will also be published on the project webpage:

• The application documents submitted by RSP.
• Any Adequacy of Consultation Representations submitted by relevant local authorities.
• The Planning Inspectorate’s Acceptance Checklist.

The Acceptance tests

Section 55 of the Planning Act 2008 states what the Planning Inspectorate, on behalf of the Secretary of State, must have regard to when taking its decision about whether to accept an application:

a) The Consultation Report received with the application.
b) Any Adequacy of Consultation Representations received by the Planning Inspectorate from a local authority consultee.
c) The extent to which the Applicant has had regard to government guidance.

The Planning Act 2008 is available in full via our website, here: [attachment 5]

If you have sent comments about RSP’s Pre-application consultation, these can be considered in addition to the statutorily required Acceptance tests when making the decision about whether or not to accept the application. It will be for the decision maker (the Planning Inspectorate on behalf of the Secretary of State) to decide the weight to give to the views expressed based on the individual facts of the case.

If you have sent comments about the merits of the Proposed Development (eg setting out support for or objection to the principle of the Proposed Development) these cannot be considered at the Acceptance stage. If the application is accepted for examination, in order to make comments about the merits of the Proposed Development to an appointed Examining Authority, you will need to register as an Interested Party by making a Relevant Representation at the appropriate time. 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 6]

11 April 2018
Adem Mehmet
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Yesterday RSP announced that they had submitted their Manston DCO application to pins.
I understand that this triggers the 28 day period during which pins will decide if the can accept the application.
I note that RSP say the application runs 11,000 pages, however RSP don’t appear to have published the application documents on their website.
My main interest in the application documents is the full environmental statement that wasn’t available at the consultation stage, this interest was focused by aspects of the RSP preliminary environmental report (PEIR) and most particularly that the PEIR stated that the project would impact on physical health, mental health and life expectancy, to be quantified in the full environmental statement.
Can you kindly tell me where the documentation will be accessible, when it will be accessible and if it will published online in a manageable, accessible, searchable and indexed form.
Obviously 11,000 pages isn’t particularly large for a searchable website that has an index of labelled links, is organised with images that expand when clicked on and has related documents grouped together. On the other hand as happened with the two previously published consultation document sets, a series of unlabelled and unindexed pdf files, often mainly unmanageable because the contain many very large image files would be very difficult to use given the fairly short period of time available.
The Acceptance stage

The application was submitted on 10 April 2018. Beginning on the day after it was submitted the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) has 28 calendar days to decide whether the application can be accepted for examination.

The Acceptance decision must therefore be taken on or before 8 May 2018. The decision will be published on the project webpage, here: [attachment 1]

If the application is accepted, the following documents will also be published on the project webpage:

• The application documents submitted by RSP.
• Any Adequacy of Consultation Representations submitted by relevant local authorities.
• The Planning Inspectorate’s Acceptance Checklist.

The Acceptance tests

Section 55 of the Planning Act 2008 states what the Planning Inspectorate, on behalf of the Secretary of State, must have regard to when taking its decision about whether to accept an application:

a) The Consultation Report received with the application.
b) Any Adequacy of Consultation Representations received by the Planning Inspectorate from a local authority consultee.
c) The extent to which the Applicant has had regard to government guidance.

The Planning Act 2008 is available in full via our website, here: [attachment 2]

If you have sent comments about RSP’s Pre-application consultation, these can be considered in addition to the statutorily required Acceptance tests when making the decision about whether or not to accept the application. It will be for the decision maker (the Planning Inspectorate on behalf of the Secretary of State) to decide the weight to give to the views expressed based on the individual facts of the case.

If you have sent comments about the merits of the Proposed Development (eg setting out support for or objection to the principle of the Proposed Development) these cannot be considered at the Acceptance stage. If the application is accepted for examination, in order to make comments about the merits of the Proposed Development to an appointed Examining Authority, you will need to register as an Interested Party by making a Relevant Representation at the appropriate time. 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 3]

11 April 2018
Michael Child
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Local press reported on Monday that RSP has submitted its DCO application. The applicants are quoted as having provided some 10,500 pages, a figure also voiced by the local MP.

I note that the claimed total volume is nearly three times that provided for public consultation just a couple of months ago.

Whilst I appreciate that the application must include additional material (such as the report on the pre-application consultations and the draft Order paperwork) I am concerned that the applicants may have included information which was in fact reasonably required during the statutory pre-application consultation period to allow the public and consultation bodies to develop an informed view of the likely significant environmental effects of the proposed development and of the associated developments, as is demanded by law.

I have in mind, for example, information that was missing from the PEIR about major accidents management, the missing light pollution analysis (and link up with Thanet Earth), the missing analysis of impact on Ramsgate's heritage assets, the missing plans for the major recycling centre, the non compliant health impact analysis, and that is to say nothing of the gaps in the business analysis and the absence of a clear and consistent position on night flights.

It would be unfortunate if such material was available earlier this year but denied to the public. On the other hand, if it was not available this does seem to raise a question mark about the adequacy of the consultation.
The Acceptance stage

The application was submitted on 10 April 2018. Beginning on the day after it was submitted the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) has 28 calendar days to decide whether the application can be accepted for examination.

The Acceptance decision must therefore be taken on or before 8 May 2018. The decision will be published on the project webpage, here: [attachment 1]

If the application is accepted, the following documents will also be published on the project webpage:

• The application documents submitted by RSP.
• Any Adequacy of Consultation Representations submitted by relevant local authorities.
• The Planning Inspectorate’s Acceptance Checklist.

The Acceptance tests

Section 55 of the Planning Act 2008 states what the Planning Inspectorate, on behalf of the Secretary of State, must have regard to when taking its decision about whether to accept an application:

a) The Consultation Report received with the application.
b) Any Adequacy of Consultation Representations received by the Planning Inspectorate from a local authority consultee.
c) The extent to which the Applicant has had regard to government guidance.

The Planning Act 2008 is available in full via our website, here: [attachment 2]

If you have sent comments about RSP’s Pre-application consultation, these can be considered in addition to the statutorily required Acceptance tests when making the decision about whether or not to accept the application. It will be for the decision maker (the Planning Inspectorate on behalf of the Secretary of State) to decide the weight to give to the views expressed based on the individual facts of the case.

If you have sent comments about the merits of the Proposed Development (eg setting out support for or objection to the principle of the Proposed Development) these cannot be considered at the Acceptance stage. If the application is accepted for examination, in order to make comments about the merits of the Proposed Development to an appointed Examining Authority, you will need to register as an Interested Party by making a Relevant Representation at the appropriate time. 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 3]

11 April 2018
Mark de Pulford
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Could you confirm that the DCO application for Manston has been submitted by RiverOak Strategic Partners and if it has when will the documents be published on your website?
The Acceptance stage

The application was submitted on 10 April 2018. Beginning on the day after it was submitted the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) has 28 calendar days to decide whether the application can be accepted for examination.

The Acceptance decision must therefore be taken on or before 8 May 2018. The decision will be published on the project webpage, here: [attachment 1]

If the application is accepted, the following documents will also be published on the project webpage:

• The application documents submitted by RSP.
• Any Adequacy of Consultation Representations submitted by relevant local authorities.
• The Planning Inspectorate’s Acceptance Checklist.

The Acceptance tests

Section 55 of the Planning Act 2008 states what the Planning Inspectorate, on behalf of the Secretary of State, must have regard to when taking its decision about whether to accept an application:

a) The Consultation Report received with the application.
b) Any Adequacy of Consultation Representations received by the Planning Inspectorate from a local authority consultee.
c) The extent to which the Applicant has had regard to government guidance.

The Planning Act 2008 is available in full via our website, here: [attachment 2]

If you have sent comments about RSP’s Pre-application consultation, these can be considered in addition to the statutorily required Acceptance tests when making the decision about whether or not to accept the application. It will be for the decision maker (the Planning Inspectorate on behalf of the Secretary of State) to decide the weight to give to the views expressed based on the individual facts of the case.

If you have sent comments about the merits of the Proposed Development (eg setting out support for or objection to the principle of the Proposed Development) these cannot be considered at the Acceptance stage. If the application is accepted for examination, in order to make comments about the merits of the Proposed Development to an appointed Examining Authority, you will need to register as an Interested Party by making a Relevant Representation at the appropriate time. 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 3]

11 April 2018
Sophie Fowler
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update and consultation feedback meeting
See attached meeting note

11 April 2018
Highways England - anon.
General
Enquiry received via email
Query (from Jonathan Dean by email on 5/4/18):

Re the following para (from the meeting note dated 22 September 2017):

"The Applicant advised that they are in contact with Horizon regarding which Welsh documents will be translated so that there is consistency between projects. This will then be passed to the local authorities for comment. The Applicant advised that they are considering placing all translated documents into one volume so they will be easy to find. The Inspectorate advised the Applicant to make this clear in the Guide to the Application."

Can I request that as well as placing all translated documents into one volume (I assume this refers to the Welsh versions) that all English documents are also made available in a format such that they are easy to find. Please advise the applicant of this.

I have just read the Planning Inspectorate’s Advice Note 8.2. Is there a limit to number of individual "relevant representations" an interested party can make? I have several, individual, distinct issues regarding the need, the options and the impacts of the proposed project which I feel would not be given justice if condensed into a single written submission, or would become too cumbersome.
In response to your concern about the ease of finding application documents, I can advise that for their last two applications to us (Hinkley Point C Connection and the Richborough Connection Project), National Grid have provided a Guide to the Application, which assists all parties in navigating the application documents. We have published the Richborough Guide as a good example document on our website to encourage other applicants to follow as we have found this very helpful. We have suggested that National Grid provide this for the North Wales Connection project and they have confirmed that they intend to do so; they will also provide hyperlinks to the documents on our website as the Examination progresses.

With regard to your query about Relevant Representations, the purpose of making a Relevant Representation is to register as an Interested Party so that you can participate in the Examination of the application. As it states in Advice Note 8.2 which you refer to, we recommend the use of bullet points and headings to summarise your concerns. Once the Examination has started you will then have an opportunity to submit a Written Representation to expand on the matters set out in your Relevant Representation.

If you do submit more than one Relevant Representation we will simply combine your comments into one representation.

10 April 2018
Jonathan Dean
North Wales Connection
Enquiry received via email
Query (from Jonathan Dean by email on 3 and 4 April 2018):

I have taken the following text from one of your notes about the North West Coast Connection (Meeting note, 14/03/2017) in Cumbria. The meeting was between PINS and National Grid.

"The Inspectorate advised that should targeted consultation be undertaken National Grid may want to consider providing the opportunity for all consultees to comment." "The Inspectorate advised that National Grid should keep the local community informed as much as possible." "National Grid explained that they are attending regular meetings with various stakeholder groups and will share further information with them as soon as they are able"

This is exactly what we want in Anglesey! National Grid have been conducting "targeted consultation" and yet all consultees are denied the opportunity to comment. National Grid have refused to establish a stakeholder reference group on the model they use in Cumbria. Why is Anglesey being treated differently to Cumbria?

Further to my email of yesterday, can I draw your attention to the following text from one of your meeting notes about the North Wales Connection (Meeting note, 10/02/2017). The meeting was between PINS and National Grid. "The Applicant informed the Inspectorate that any further consultation needed was likely to be targeted; for example around changes to specific pylon locations." So, when National Grid inform you they will be conducting "targeted consultation" in Cumbria, you advise them to: "... consider providing the opportunity for all consultees to comment." "... should keep the local community informed as much as possible." And yet when National Grid suggest exactly the same in Anglesey, you didn't advise them to do anything! So I ask again, why is Anglesey being treated differently to Cumbria?
The Applicant will be aware of the Guidance on the pre-application process and we will expect them to set out and justify their consultation in their consultation report, which we will check at Acceptance. If you have concerns about the consultation then, assuming you have already made the Applicant aware of your concerns, we would advise you to contact your local authority and set out why you think the Applicant is failing to conduct its consultation properly.

Your comments should be taken into account when the local authority sends the Inspectorate its comments on whether the Applicant has fulfilled its consultation duties. The local authority’s comments on the Applicant’s consultation will be taken into account when the Acceptance Inspector makes their decision whether to accept the application for Examination.

10 April 2018
Jonathan Dean
North Wales Connection
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Please see attached Meeting Note
Please see attached Meeting Note

10 April 2018
Roxhill Limited - anon.
Northampton Gateway Rail Freight Interchange
Enquiry received via email
Does PINS have responsibility for enforcing (monitoring, revoking) a DCO once it has been granted. If development is not in line with the DCO what is PINS role? Who is responsible for monitoring and enforcement.
Thank you for your enquiry. The relevant Local Planning Authority (LPA) is responsible for enforcing a made Development Consent Order (DCO) issued by the relevant Secretary of State (SoS) for a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP) under the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008). However any conditions on a deemed Coast Protection Act 1949 consent or Food and Environmental Protection Act 1989 licence (or Deemed Marine Licence) would be enforced by the Marine Management Organisation (MMO).

The relevant LPA is usually responsible for enforcing and/or monitoring the provisions and requirements as set out in the made DCO. Part 8 of the PA2008 may be of interest to you regarding your query on “monitoring and enforcement”. It sets out Enforcement (offences) and where power is provided to the relevant LPA. The Planning Inspectorate (PINS) has no powers or involvement in enforcing the provisions and requirement within a made DCO.

Once a DCO has been granted, the Applicant may wish to make a non-material or material change to the made DCO and there is an application process for the Applicant to follow, should they wish to make such a change. This is set out in secondary legislation - Infrastructure Planning (Changes to, and Revocation of, Development Consent Orders) Regulation 2011.

The relevant SoS retains the decision-making powers in respect of such applications in order to maintain the integrity of the made DCO and will take a proportionate approach to consultation and notification of relevant interested parties when handling such applications depending on the scale and nature of the material or non-material change proposed.

06 April 2018
Ivan Stone
General
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I wish to be enlisted as an interested party in this proposal by Ashfield Land Ltd and Gazeley GLP. Will you be able to notify me when you are ready?

I can certainly provide a summary of less than 500 words as my particular interest happens to be quite narrow. I am preparing a detailed deposition which amounts to an objection in total of the proposal. It will be rather numerical in nature and needs to include Tabulated Data in a few Tables embedded in a text of 2000 to 2500 words
(5 or 6 A4 pages in PDF format). I trust that the deposition can readily be assessed by people who have a degree in engineering, in fairness to my analysis, which is technical. Do you foresee any problems with what I plan. Due to travel problems I will have to let the deposition speak for itself - I will not be able to attend any formal proceedings.
This proposed development is currently in the Pre-Application stage of the planning process for Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIPs). At this stage, the developer will be preparing their application documents for submission, as well as consulting with the local community on their proposals. We would advise you to contact the Applicant directly with your views in order for them to take this into consideration prior to their application documents being finalised for submission, below is the Applicants contact details:

Email: [email protected]
Telephone: 0845 543 8967 Monday to Friday, 9am to 5.30pm (calls are charged at local rates)
Post: FREEPOST Rail Central
Website: www.railcentral.com

Once the application has been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate (the Inspectorate), we have a statutory 28 day period (known as Acceptance stage) to determine whether to Accept the application for Examination. At the Acceptance stage the Inspectorate will undertake the s55 Acceptance (‘Checklist’) to determine whether the Applicant has complied with the statutory consultation duties and other statutory duties during their pre-application stage.
If the application for development consent for this project is formally accepted by the Secretary of State there will be a period where individuals and organisations can register as Interested Parties (IPs) by submitting a Relevant Representation form via the project page of our website (or requesting hard copies thereof) to express your views in relation to the project which will be considered by the Examining Authority (ExA) during the examination. If the application is accepted you will receive a notification letter (s56 notification) via the Applicant, confirming the opening and closing date of the Relevant Representation period to register as an IP.

At this stage as per your correspondence, you are correct that a summary outline of your concern/objection should be registered via the submission of a Relevant Representation form, which should contain approximately 500 words.

We would recommend that you visit our project page for Rail Central SRFI as you could sign up for email updates to be kept informed on project progress, once the application is formally submitted.

Upon closure of the Relevant Representation period, the appointed ExA will invite all IPs to the Preliminary Meeting via a Rule 6 letter. We note in your correspondence that you may be unable to attend future hearings for this event, however as the process is intended to be predominantly a written process, we would encourage you upon receipt of the Rule 6 letter to review the Examination timetable, which will detail deadline submission dates (including date by which Written Representation should be received), reserved dates for Issue Specific Hearings, Compulsory Acquisition Hearings, Open Floor Hearings etc. of which of particular interest to you, would be the date by which Written Representations should be received (as depicted in the Exam Timetable), this would be the date by which your detailed objections should be submitted into the examination. This submission could include tabulated data, images, tables etc to further elaborate on your initial objection made within your relevant representation.

We would however remind you that during the Examination, the appointed ExA may invite you to hearings reserved in the Examination to seek clarification on submissions submitted or seek further clarification from you in writing regarding any submission you may make. At any point during the Examination other IPs, including the Applicant may make comments to your Relevant Representation and/or Written Representation and therefore we would encourage you where possible to have an active involvement in the Examination, should further responses/clarification be needed.

The Inspectorate has published a series of advice notes on the National
Infrastructure planning website which explain the examination process, including information on how to get involved and we would recommend you review the advice notes listed below:
Advice Note 8: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure process for members of the public and others;
Advice Note 8.1: Responding to the developer’s pre-application consultation; and
Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination.

Our full suite of advice and legislation relating to NSIPs can be found on our website [attachment 1] or you can review our FAQ page, which provides further information on the NSIP process.

06 April 2018
Anthony Marsh
Rail Central (Strategic Rail Freight Interchange)
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The most recent documents for this project on PINS Website are about the SoCC.
Except for the SoCC, are you detached from 21-Feb to 4-Apr-18 Statutory Consultation?
Is this because you do not become involved again until a DCO Application is received?

Will you be meeting Highways England and Atkins again shortly?
Will you enquire why Statutory Consultation started without basic information?
The answers to these questions are provided in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 1]

The Planning Inspectorate and Highways England are scheduled to meet in respect of this scheme in April, following which a note of the meeting will be prepared and published on the project webpage in the usual way.

06 April 2018
Bean Residents Association - Linda Collins
General
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I received recently a consultation document from Highways England called' A1 Birtley to Coal House improvement scheme', dated February 2018.
The penultimate page refers to the 'Planning process', in which it states, 'you can register with the Planning Inspectorate as an interested party to be kept informed of progress ...'
Can you please tell me how to do this.
This proposed development is currently in the Pre-Application stage of the planning process for Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIPs). At this stage, the Applicant will be preparing their application documents for submission. Within your enquiry you refer to being in receipt of a consultation letter provided by Highways England (the Applicant). The Applicant undertook their statutory consultation between 8 February and 22 March 2018 for the proposed development. Under the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) the Applicant is required to submit a Consultation Report as part of their application for development consent during the Acceptance stage of the planning process.
This report must demonstrate (among other duties) how the Applicant has met their statutory duties under the PA2008 during their statutory consultation period. The Consultation Report must demonstrate how they have complied with ss42, 46, 47, 48 and 49 of the PA2008. Section 49 of the PA2008 specifically requires the Applicant to demonstrate whether they have had regard to any responses during the consultation period and whether this resulted in a change to the proposal.
Although the Applicant’s formal statutory consultation period has now closed, as the application is still in the pre-application stage, any parties that may have any concerns/issues with the development proposal should contact the Applicant directly to raise any such concerns/issues. Below are the Applicant’s contact details for the project.
Email: [email protected]
Telephone: 0300 123 5000
Post: Highways England, National Traffic Operations Centre, 3 Ridgeway, Quinton Business Park, Birmingham B32 1AF
Website: [attachment 1]

Once the application has been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate (the Inspectorate), we have a statutory 28 day period (known as Acceptance stage) to determine whether to Accept the application for Examination. At the Acceptance stage the Inspectorate will undertake the s55 Acceptance (‘Checklist’) to determine whether the Applicant has complied with their statutory consultation duties and other statutory duties during their pre-application stage.

If the application for development consent for this project is formally accepted by the Secretary of State there will be a period where individuals and organisations can register as Interested Parties (IPs) by submitting a Relevant Representation form via the project page of our website (or requesting hard copies thereof) to express your views in relation to the project which will be considered by the Examining Authority during the examination.

We would recommend that you visit our project page for the A1Birtley to Coal House Improvement scheme as any advice issued will be published to this page and you could also sign up for email updates to be kept informed on project progress, once the application is formally submitted.

The Inspectorate has published a series of advice notes on the National Infrastructure planning website which explain the examination process, including information on how to get involved and we would recommend you review the advice notes listed below:
Advice Note 8: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure process for members of the public and others;
Advice Note 8.1: Responding to the developer’s pre-application consultation; and
Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination.

Our full suite of advice and legislation relating to NSIPs can be found on our website [attachment 2] or you can review our FAQ page, which provides further information on the NSIP process.

06 April 2018
Alan Thwaite
A1 Birtley to Coal House Improvement Scheme
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Is there a summary dismissal procedure for application to minister or do I still have to wait for interested party submission stage. I am anxious to avoid applying for judicial review of Chief constable at same time as River Oak application on same issues is under your jurisdiction.
The application by RiverOak Strategic Partners is expected to be submitted to the Planning Inspectorate in the first half of this month.

As previously explained, the functions of the Planning Inspectorate are controlled by the provisions in the Planning Act 2008. We can only issue advice about the process as prescribed ie where a request seeks advice about:

• applying for an order granting development consent; or
• making representations about an application, or a proposed application, for such an order.

I refer you back to our previous advice to you which explains how and when you can engage with the process: [attachment 1]

06 April 2018
Richard Card
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I understand the DCO application will be submitted to you next week. You've received a great deal of communication from members of the public on a wide range of issues in particular the adequacy of the consultations. Can I ask whether during your consideration of the application all the comments you've previously received will be reviewed and considered by you automatically when coming to your decision as to whether or not to accept the application for examination or whether all those that commented will need to register as interested partys and make their comments again ?
The comments received by the Planning Inspectorate concerning the Applicants Pre-application consultation can be considered in addition to the statutorily required Acceptance tests when making the decision about whether or not to accept the application under section 55 of the Planning Act 2008. It will be for the decision maker (the Planning Inspectorate on behalf of the Secretary of State) to decide the weight to give to the views expressed in those comments based on the individual facts of the case.

The adequacy of the Applicant’s Pre-application consultation is not a subject that can be revisited in the examination; if the application is accepted. The examination of the application will deal with the merits of the Proposed Development. Representations made to the examination concerning the Applicant’s consultation will not be considered by the appointed Examining Authority (ExA).

Members of the local community who have made comments to the Planning Inspectorate about the merits of the Proposed Development at the Pre-application stage will need to repeat those comments in a Relevant Representation, at the appropriate time. The ExA will not be able to consider comments made about the merits of the Proposed Development that were submitted to the Planning Inspectorate at the Pre-application stage. For more information about making a Relevant Representation see our Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination: [attachment 1]

04 April 2018
Adem Mehmet
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I note the following section from EN-1

“The Planning Act 2008 aims to create a holistic planning regime so that the cumulative effect of different elements of the same project can be considered together. The Government therefore envisages that wherever possible, applications for new generating stations and related infrastructure should be contained in a single application … or in separate applications submitted in tandem which have been prepared in an integrated way.”

Please could you explain the logic behind the power station and the connection being considered as two separate projects. Please can you confirm that you will consider "the cumulative effect of different elements", ie both the power station and the connection, when addressing just part of the overall project ie just the connection.

I note from your meeting minutes that National Grid are sharing draft copies of the DCO and related documents with various consultees. Please could you pressure them to share these with the public. We have a lot of preparation to do if we are to be able to scrutinise them effectively, especially due to the flawed "consultation" process.

I understand that National Grid have made numerous changes to their proposals since they last consulted the public. They consider the changes to not be material. Can you assure me that they have made you fully aware of these changes and that you agree that they are not material?
As the Wylfa Newydd and North Wales Connection applications will be made by different applicants it is not possible for these to be made in a single application. The Examining Authorities will consider cumulative impacts when making their recommendations to the Secretary of State.

National Grid are not required to share any of their draft documents but if you wish to see a copy of their draft DCO I suggest you request this from National Grid. If they do not wish to provide this then, if the application is accepted, the first iteration of their draft DCO will be available on our website before the start of the Examination.

We would expect proposals to change as an applicant responds to consultation feedback. We will look at the consultation undertaken as part of our check of the application at Acceptance stage, as well as asking the local authorities for their views on the adequacy of the Applicant’s consultation. Guidance which sets out the requirements and procedures and consultation for major infrastructure projects can be viewed here: [attachment 1]

03 April 2018
Jonathan Dean
North Wales Connection
Enquiry received via phone
The developer has confirmed that their proposal contains two nationally significant infrastructure projects (the Strategic Rail Freight Interchange and works to a road junction). Will the applicant need to submit two separate applications for this?
Would a proposal to underground a section of electric line also be considered a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project?
Developers can include more than one Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project within an application for a development consent order.

The Planning Act 2008 sets out thresholds at which certain infrastructure projects are considered to be nationally significant, requiring a development consent order. In regard to electric lines, only overhead lines are considered to be Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (provided they also meet the other thresholds detailed within section 16 of the Planning Act 2008, for example regarding the proposed length and voltage).

03 April 2018
Stop Rail Central - Alan Hargreaves
Rail Central (Strategic Rail Freight Interchange)
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting in relation to the proposed material change to the DCO
Please see attached meeting note

03 April 2018
EDF Energy - Carly Vince
Hinkley Point C New Nuclear Power Station
Enquiry received via email
There is a consultation on-going re a proposed ESSO pipeline. I note that under the guidance Local Authorities have to be consulted before public consultation. According to the team at the exhibitions that would have included a Parish Council but not a local Neighbourhood Forum with an approved plan. Do you believe this as this a correct interpretation of your guidance.
Whilst the Inspectorate is unable to provide an interpretation on consultation guidance, I hope the following information is of assistance to you. The Applicant has a duty under Section 47 of the Planning Act 2008 to prepare a Statement of Community Consultation (SoCC) and to conduct its consultation in line with that statement. However, before carrying out consultation, the Applicant is required to seek each Local Authority’s (LA) views on the contents of the SoCC. Paragraph 37 of Planning Act 2008: Guidance on the Pre-Application Process specifies: “In its role as a consultee on the Statement of Community Consultation, the local authority should focus on how the applicant should consult people in its area”. Further information on the role of the LA in the SoCC can be found in section 5 of the Inspectorate’s Advice Note 2. Paragraph 5.3 is particularly relevant, which specifies: “Local authorities are advised to think about the characteristics of the communities affected and may also wish to ask for input from parish or community councils to help inform the response provided to the developer”. I should explain that when an application is submitted for Examination, the Inspectorate will seek each LA’s views on the adequacy of the Applicant’s consultation. As such, at this stage in the process, I would suggest that you raise any concerns you have on this matter with the LA or with the Applicant directly.

29 March 2018
Andrew Grimshaw
Southampton to London Pipeline Project
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Consultation feedback meeting
See attached meeting note

29 March 2018
Highways England - anon.
A30 Chiverton to Carland Cross Scheme
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Comments on the draft No Significant Effects Report (NSER)

Sylwadau ar yr Adroddiad Dim Effeithiau Arwyddocaol (NSER) drafft
Comments on the draft No Significant Effects Report (NSER)

Sylwadau ar yr Adroddiad Dim Effeithiau Arwyddocaol (NSER) drafft

28 March 2018
Abergelli Power Ltd - anon.
Abergelli Power
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting.
See attached meeting note.

28 March 2018
Heathrow Airport Ltd - anon.
Expansion of Heathrow Airport (Third Runway)
Enquiry received via email
Do you routinely accept submissions from people using fake identities and, if not why have you done so on this occasion?

Do you believe that accepting and publishing submissions from people using fake names is consistent with your claims about the transparency of the DCO process?

Is your decision to publish notice of Appolonius's submission tacit recognition that the entire DCO process is a joke; this is just your way of joining in with the "fun."
For the record, the advice given to Appolonius Claudius was provided in response to a consultation response objecting to the Proposed Development at the Manston Airport site in the strongest terms.

Section 51 of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) is not prescriptive about who the Planning Inspectorate can issue advice to. There is no prescribed form for the submission of a request for Pre-application advice, but the Planning Inspectorate must, amongst other things, make a record of who requested the advice and the matters in respect of which the advice was requested.

At the Pre-examination stage of the process, Relevant Representations must be made in the prescribed form, providing details of the name, address and telephone number of the person making the representation. Representations that are vexatious or frivolous or concerned with matters of national policy or compensation for Compulsory Acquisition may be disregarded by an Examining Authority (ExA).

The inquisitorial nature of the PA2008 process means that ExAs examine evidence through questioning. In the examination process, it is the relevance and importance of the issues which carry weight – not the volume of submissions received. On that basis duplicated representations (in support or objection to a Proposed Development) cannot serve to manipulate the decision-making process.

27 March 2018
Peter Binding
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached meeting note

26 March 2018
Cleve Hill Solar Park Ltd
Cleve Hill Solar Park
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please can you note the report from mps over noise and night flights over London re Heathrow expansion. Please can you advise if these restrictions will apply to all new dco applications ie manston.

The new airports national policy statement ie is national so must include manston .please can you advise whether this will be the case also it mentions it will prempt any dco requests..
The revised draft of the Airports National Policy Statement (ANPS) is available to read here: [attachment 1]

The proposed scope of the ANPS is set out on pages 7 and 8. The author of the draft ANPS is the Department for Transport.

The Planning Inspectorate can issue advice about applying for a Development Consent Order (DCO), or about making representations about an application for a DCO. It cannot issue advice about the content of draft national policy.

26 March 2018
Ken Wraight
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Complaint that the Applicant did not send hard copy consultation documents when it was requested to do so.
For the avoidance of doubt, the consultation exercise currently being undertaken by Heathrow Airport Ltd (HAL) is non-statutory. There are important differences between non-statutory and statutory consultation in the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) process and these are explained in the Planning Inspectorate’s Advice Note 8.1: [attachment 1] In respect of your enquiry, if you have not received a satisfactory response from HAL you can contact your local authority. Local authorities have a special role in the PA2008 process which, amongst other things, involves advising potential applicants about preparing for and carrying out community consultation at the Pre-application stage of the process. Your local authority will be able to advise HAL in consideration of any comments you (or anybody else) make to it about the consultation process. More information about the role of local authorities in the PA2008 process is provided in the Planning Inspectorate’s Advice Note Two: [attachment 1] For more information about statutory community consultation under the PA2008 please see our associated FAQ document: [attachment 3]

26 March 2018
Ian Liddiard
Expansion of Heathrow Airport (Third Runway)
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The Applicant provided a draft Consultation Report for comment.
Please see attached

23 March 2018
West Midlands Interchange - anon.
West Midlands Interchange
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Is it correct that an applicant for a DCO must provide copies of relevant documents to members of the public during public consultation?
Dear Mr Lee

As part of the DCO process, in accordance with s47(6)(za) of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) a developer of a National Significant Infrastructure Project must produce a Statement of Community Consultation (SoCC) which should be made available for inspection by the public in a way that is reasonably convenient for people living in the vicinity of the land.

The SoCC must describe the project and explain where to view documents and information about the proposed development, such as plans and other consultation material. Developers are also required to publish a notice of this information in a local and a national newspaper.

If you are referring to a specific project, then depending on the stage of where this is at you may be able to contact the developer and ask for copies of documents to be provided however please note there may be a charge associated with this.

For further information on the process for members of the public and others, please see Advice note 8: [attachment 1]

23 March 2018
Lee
General
Enquiry received via email
What additional due diligence will PINS carry out with respect to the Manston DCO taking into account the issues I raise in the paragraph above which apply to the sponsor Riveroak Strategic Partners Ltd?

What assurances will PINS demand in order to ensure that the project is actually delivered in accordance with the proposals detailed in the DCO application?

Will PINS monitor the progress of the project should the application be successful?

What action will PINS take if the project is not delivered to the scale and timescale specified in the application?

If the sponsor partially develops the site and operates an airport at a much smaller scale than the plans submitted is this acceptable or will PINS take action and if so what action will PINS take?

If the sponsor partially develops the site and operates an airport at a much smaller scale than the plans submitted, what action can the previous owners of the site, which were the subject of a CPO, take?

If the sponsor develops the site as planned but aviation again fails on the site or is only possible on a small scale will the sponsor then be able to develop the site for other purposes including housing, subject to planning consent, or will the site revert to the original owners either fully or partially in this case.
1. "What additional due diligence will PINS carry out with respect to the Manston DCO taking into account the issues I raise in the paragraph above which apply to the sponsor Riveroak Strategic Partners Ltd?"

The tests are the same for every Applicant/ application. In respect of funding, paragraph 18 of government guidance related to procedures for the Compulsory Acquisition (CA) of land states that applicants should be able to demonstrate that adequate funding is likely to be available to enable the CA within the statutory period following the order being made, and that the resource implications of a possible acquisition resulting from a blight notice have been taken account of. An application for a DCO that would authorise CA must be accompanied by a Funding Statement which should demonstrate that the above tests are met.

2. “What assurances will PINS demand in order to ensure that the project is actually delivered in accordance with the proposals detailed in the DCO application?”

The Applicant should be able to demonstrate in its application that the authorised development would be expected to provide for or increase the number of aircraft movements by the legislated amount. The extent of the provision for or increase in aircraft movements should be clear from the description of the works in the draft Development Consent Order (dDCO) and the accompanying plans.

If there is doubt as to whether an Applicant will build out a full Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP) under s23 of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) and if the application is accepted the appointed Examining Authority (ExA), if it considered it necessary or appropriate, would be able to explore with/ suggest to the Applicant the possibility of including wording in the dDCO to specify a minimum number of works that when provided could have the effect of increasing aircraft movements. Alternatively, it would be possible for the ExA to ask the Applicant to include a Requirement in the dDCO to specify that particular parts of the development must not be commenced until other enabling infrastructure is provided (eg a sufficient number of aircraft stands must be provided which would be expected to have the effect of increasing the number of aircraft movements to at least 10,000).

Both of these approaches may enable enforcement action to be taken against the Undertaker if there were to be a breach of the terms of the made DCO or a failure to comply with the terms of the DCO (offences under s161 of the PA2008).

3. “Will PINS monitor the progress of the project should the application be successful?”

No. Under the PA2008 there are no statutory functions for the Planning Inspectorate in respect of monitoring the progress of development. Any mechanisms by which the delivery of an NSIP would monitored, and by whom that monitoring would be undertaken, will need to be secured in the DCO. Requirements scheduled to a DCO routinely establish Discharging Authorities which must agree in writing for before certain plans are finalised or works carried out. Typically the Discharging Authority is either the relevant local authority or the Secretary of State.

4. “What action will PINS take if the project is not delivered to the scale and timescale specified in the application?”

The Planning Inspectorate will not take action. See response to questions 2 and 3, above.

5. “If the sponsor partially develops the site and operates an airport at a much smaller scale than the plans submitted is this acceptable or will PINS take action and if so what action will PINS take?”

The Planning Inspectorate will not take action. See above answers.

6. “If the sponsor partially develops the site and operates an airport at a much smaller scale than the plans submitted, what action can the previous owners of the site, which were the subject of a CPO, take?”

If the terms of a DCO are breached by the Undertaker, enforcement action under Part 8 of the PA2008 may be taken.

7. “If the sponsor develops the site as planned but aviation again fails on the site or is only possible on a small scale will the sponsor then be able to develop the site for other purposes including housing, subject to planning consent, or will the site revert to the original owners either fully or partially in this case.”

If CA powers are granted, and following service of notice to treat (or a general vesting declaration), the ownership of the lands in question will have transferred to the named Undertaker. Failure by the Undertaker to deliver the full NSIP would not necessitate the transfer of the lands back to the original owner.

If CA powers are granted but the associated time limit established in the DCO expires, notice to treat (or a general vesting declaration) can no longer be served ie the lands/ rights cannot transfer to the named Undertaker.

Where a person with an interest in the order lands objects to the CA of their land/ rights, at the Examination stage they are entitled to make representations to the appointed ExA to establish their objection (in consideration of the tests set out in the PA2008 eg s122, s123 etc). Any objections will be considered by the ExA in making its recommendation to the Secretary of State about whether the CA powers sought in the DCO should be granted.

23 March 2018
Adem Mehmet
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Inception Meeting - Hartlepool Western Growth Corridor
Please see attached meeting note

23 March 2018
Hartlepool Borough Council - anon.
General
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Our concern is with the impact that RiverOaks’ proposed development of the currently redundant airport site as a n international air cargo hub would have on the historic character and heritage of the town with its four conservation areas and over 440 listed buildings, including several Grade 1s.

You will see from our response to the last round of consultation we expressed dismay at the ‘scoping out’ of Ramsgate from the assessment of the Historic Environment due to it lying just beyond 1km from the airport boundary. We accordingly get just a one sentence mention in the consultants PEIR (at para 9.6.16).

I am writing to request that you require RSP to extend their assessment of the Historic Environment to take account of the indirect effects of their proposal on Ramsgate, its listed buildings, conservation areas and its rich heritage.
Until an application has been received and accepted for examination, the Planning Inspectorate (the Inspectorate) has no views on the merits or acceptability of any Proposed Development.

The Inspectorate received a Scoping Request in respect of the proposed Manston Airport development in June 2016 and adopted a Scoping Opinion on behalf of the Secretary of State in August 2016. You can view the document here: [attachment 1]. We would draw your attention to paragraphs 3.36 to 3.37 and 3.76 to 3.80 of the report which consider heritage assets.

Scoping is a voluntary process. There is no requirement for RiverOak Strategic Partners to undertake Scoping and the Inspectorate has no authority to compel an applicant to do so.

As part of the Scoping process the Inspectorate consults the ‘Consultation Bodies’ that are defined in Schedule 1 of The Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009 (as amended). The consultation included Historic England, Kent County Council and Thanet District Council, who are responsible for dealing with heritage matters at a national, regional and district level. The Inspectorate is not required to consult any other bodies and does not do so.

With respect to the adequacy of the consultation process, if you consider that there are issues with the consultation process you should notify your local authority, who would be invited to make an Adequacy of Consultation Representation in the event that an application is submitted to the Inspectorate. Should an application be made and accepted for examination, you may also wish to consider registering as an Interested Party to the examination process to raise your specific historic environment concerns. More information about how and when you will be able to have your say is provided in our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 2]

21 March 2018
The Ramsgate Society - Nigel Phethean
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I’m reliably informed that your advice to developers is that: "“For the pre-application consultation process, applicants are advised to include sufficient preliminary environmental information to enable consultees to develop an informed view of the project… The key issue is that the information presented must provide clarity to all consultees.”

Once again, I must complain that clarity is the very last thing that we, as residents, have been provided with.

My understanding is that RSP is obliged to produce a Health Impact Assessment (HIA) that sets out what effect their cargo airport is going to have on our health and our life expectancy. They have completely failed to do this. At 1.1.91 of the PEIR, RSP says: “The health-related effects are not (my emphasis) assessed here as the HIA analysis has not been finalised and its results are unavailable."
This means that we are being consulted but that RSP is not giving us the information to help us to assess whether or not we're happy with the health implications of the project. RSP is intending to submit its HIA with its DCO application. This means we won't be allowed to consult on it as we don't get to consult at that stage. This surely represents a failure to comply with the requirements of the consultation process. As residents, our health and wellbeing is vital to us, arguably the most important area on which we should be consulted and renders this latest consultation flawed in this most fundamental aspect.

I have written on other aspects of the flawed nature of RSP’s consultations. I, together with many similarly irate residents, feel that RSP is deliberately avoiding proper consultation, most particularly on those aspects of their plans that would have the most damaging impact on the health and wellbeing of residents.
Until an application has been received and accepted for examination, the Planning Inspectorate (the Inspectorate) has no views on the merits or acceptability of any Proposed Development.

Preliminary Environmental Information (PEI)
The Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 (EIA Regulations 2017) refers to PEI as information that:
(a) Has been compiled by the applicant; and
(b) Is reasonably required for the consultation bodies to develop an informed view of the likely significant environmental effects of the development (and of any associated development).

If you are of the view that this information has not been provided, you should notify your local authority in relation to the adequacy of consultation. Relevant local authorities will be invited to make an Adequacy of Consultation Representation to the Inspectorate, as set out in our previous advice to you:

[attachment 1]

[attachment 2]

You may also wish to consider registering as an Interested Party should an application be made and accepted for examination. For information about how and when you can have your say, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 3]

Health impact assessment
We note your comments regarding health impact assessment (HIA). There is no requirement under the EIA Regulations 2017 to prepare a stand-alone HIA. Schedule 4 Section 4 of the Regulations requires “4. A description of the factors specified in regulation 5(2) likely to be significantly affected by the development: population, human health….”. It is for the Applicant to decide how to provide this information, which may be in the form of a separate HIA or integrated into the Applicant’s Environmental Statement (eg as part of noise and vibration and air quality assessments amongst other topics). This information would need to be provided with any application for development consent made to the Inspectorate.

21 March 2018
Cllr. Susan Kennedy
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
What would be helpful to all involved in this process and particularly the large number of people who are concerned about the possibility of night flights, would be if you could confirm the following.

The inclusion of night flights is purely at the discretion of the applicant and it is not a requirement that PINS insists is included in the documentation to support a Development Consent Order "DCO". It is for the applicant alone to decide whether or not it's operation of the airport requires the inclusion of night flights or not. If an applicant included in the documentation supporting a DCO application a categoric statement that "Other than in the case of unplanned emergency situations outside of its control there would be no night flights required at Manston Airport" this would be acceptable within the DCO process, would be acceptable to PINS, would not prejudice the acceptance of the application for examination, would not prevent the project being considered to be one of Nationally Strategic Importance and would not predjudice any decision to be made by the Secretary of State.
At present the Planning Inspectorate (the Inspectorate) has not received an application for a Development Consent Order for the Proposed Development at Manston Airport. In absence of an application, we are unable to comment on any proposed night flights requirements that the Applicant may apply for as part of an application for development consent. Any application including night flights must include an assessment of likely significant effects associated with night flights and that such an assessment should be based on appropriate parameters taking into account relevant uncertainty including any applicable worst case scenario. This advice has been duplicated in response to a several enquiries and is available to read in a number of locations under the ‘s51 advice’ tab on the project webpage eg: [attachment 1]

As part of its consideration of any future application the Secretary of State must have regard to any Adequacy of Consultation Representation received from a relevant local authority consultee. If you have concerns regarding the consultation process, if you have not done so already we would advise that you contact your local authority with any representations regarding the adequacy of the consultation process carried out by the Applicant.

21 March 2018
Adem Mehmet
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please can you tell me what action you will be taking to correct the impression that I believe Sir Roger Gale has created of your departments supportive position regarding aviation at Manston Airport?
The Inspectorate is the government agency responsible for operating the planning process for Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects. Our core principles are openness, transparency and impartiality, and the Inspectorate will make its recommendations to the Secretary of State in a fair, open and timely way. The Inspectorate has no view on the acceptability or merits of any Proposed Development prior to submission of an application. Once an application is received it is processed in accordance with the provisions set out in the of the Planning Act 2008. If an application is accepted, the Examination stage affords everybody the opportunity to make representations to an appointed Examining Authority about the merits of a Proposed Development. For information about how and when you can have your say, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

21 March 2018
Adem Mehmet
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
See attached meeting note

21 March 2018
Vattenfall - anon.
Norfolk Vanguard
Enquiry received via email
Will there be a requirement on the applicant to notify interested parties of a DCO submission?
There are no provisions in the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) which require an applicant (or anybody else) to notify about the submission of an application. The first statutory post-submission notification that is carried out is under s56 of the Planning Act 2008. Section 56 sets out the notification requirements placed on applicants in the event that an application for development consent is accepted for examination.

Notwithstanding the above, upon receipt of an application the relevant project page on the National Infrastructure Planning website will acknowledge the submission and explain that the 28 day Acceptance stage is engaged, giving the deadline by which an acceptance decision must be made.

21 March 2018
Nigel Phethean
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I'm writing to you regarding my concerns over the proposed plans for a Cargo Hub at Manston Airport put forward by Riveroak Strategic Partners (RSP). And more importantly the night flight situation that will see more than 16 flights a night, every night of the year.

I've been made aware that there has been a period of consultation but I believe that process was flawed because as a resident of Ramsgate and directly under the proposed flight path, I've had no formal and written notice of it taking place? Was this information posted through resident's doors? How was it made available? How were people informed of the meetings and how frequent were the meetings? Allowing people who live but work in London, as I do, to attend.

I have seen various pieces of documentation on social media that gave no clear answers to people's very direct and concerning questions.

I believe for any pre-application consultation process applicants are advised to include sufficient preliminary environmental information to enable consultees to develop an informed view of the project… in that the information presented must provide clarity to all consultees. I don't believe I've seen anything that clearly states what impact the cargo hub and night flights will have on the town of Ramsgate, it's residents and indeed the environment.

As part of this process RSP is obliged to produce a Health Impact Assessment (HIA) that sets out what effect their cargo airport is going to have on our health and our life expectancy. RSP has failed to do this. At 1.1.91 of the PEIR, RSP says: “The health-related effects are not assessed here as the HIA analysis has not been finalised and its results are unavailable." With insufficient evidence, how are we to make an informed decision?

This means that we are being consulted but that RSP is not giving us the information to help us to assess whether or not we're happy with the health implications of the project. RSP is intending to submit its HIA with its DCO application... which means we won't be allowed to consult on it as we don't get to consult at that stage.

This simply isn't good enough.

Conversely, there is a wealth of evidence that demonstrates that living near an airport is bad for your health.

On another note, there is the issue of how the airport will receive the fuel for the cargo planes. Again I've seen documentation on social media, but not been formally advised of how this will work. What I've seen so far is a very negative response from the Road Haulage Association:

On 31st January 2018, a spokesperson for the Road Haulage Association, talking about Operation Stack, said of the old airport site at Manston:

“It’s a completely unsuitable location as the road network in that part of Kent is not geared up to accommodating hundreds of HGVs.”

In Table 3.8 RSP estimates that the HGV movements associated with a cargo business of 257,000 tonnes will total 38,072 HGVs a year in Year 20. This lacks all credibility. East Midlands Airport, handling 300,000 tonnes of freight p.a., estimates that it has 500 HGVs a day, i.e. 182,500 HGV movements a year. These actuals demonstrate that RSP is misleading the public when it estimates that a similar tonnage can be shifted in and out of Manston with 21% of the HGV traffic. RSP needs to rethink these numbers and tell the public exactly what this could mean for us, the local area and a road network that the Road Haulage Association says is not geared up to hundreds of HGVs."

And finally, in 2012, Thanet District Council conducted a survey which showed that 73% of residents were opposed to night flights. How much weight have you given this finding? Why are we not being listened to? Why are residents having to trawl through social media and Facebook groups for answers? Why are TDC not stepping in to support and help residents understand the impact of such a proposal?

This really is a sorry state of affairs. The handful of jobs that would be created at Manston, and it really would be a handful, bears no comparison to the huge detrimental impact this will have on the town. I cannot see who benefits from this proposal other than Riveroak Strategic Partnership. To allow this to go ahead would be the final nail in the coffin for Thanet.
Adequacy of consultation
We note your comments regarding the consultation process. If an application is submitted, relevant local authorities will be invited to make an Adequacy of Consultation Representation (AoCR) to the Inspectorate. The Inspectorate, on behalf of the Secretary of State, must have regard to any AoCRs received when taking its decision about whether to accept an application for examination. For more information please read our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 1]

We would therefore advise that you contact your local authority with any representations regarding the adequacy of the consultation process carried out by the Applicant.

Health impact assessment
We note your comments regarding health impact assessment (HIA). There is no requirement under the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 (EIA Regulations 2017) to prepare a stand-alone HIA. Schedule 4 Section 4 of the Regulations requires “4. A description of the factors specified in regulation 5(2) likely to be significantly affected by the development: population, human health….”. It is for the Applicant to decide how to provide this information, which may be in the form of a separate HIA or integrated into the Applicant’s Environmental Statement.

Preliminary Environmental Information (PEI)
The EIA Regulations 2017 refers to PEI as information that:
(a) Has been compiled by the applicant; and
(b) Is reasonably required for the consultation bodies to develop an informed view of the likely significant environmental effects of the development (and of any associated development).

If you are of the view that this information has not been provided, you should notify your local authority in relation to the adequacy of consultation, as advised above. You may also wish to consider registering as an Interested Party should an application be made and accepted for examination. For information about how and when you can have your say, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 2]

The Applicant will need to provide its assessment of effects on human health as part of any application for development consent made to the Inspectorate.

Weight given to findings
At present the Inspectorate has not received an application for a Development Consent Order from the Applicant, and therefore has no view (positive or negative) on either the acceptability of any application or the merits of any application that may be forthcoming. Should an application be made and accepted for examination, you will be able to register as an Interested Party and raise your concerns during the examination process, as advised above.

21 March 2018
Julie Anderson
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I recently (03.02.18) discovered that there is a request for a 24/7 freight hub at Manston Airport! Not only have I only just been made aware of this, which came from a social conversation (not from, as I now know is RiverOak (RSP)), but I also discover I have the ability to make comment, but BY THE 18th of February!! I live in St Nicholas at Wade, West of the runway, where the approach flight path for runway 10 passes directly overhead.

As there is now insufficient time for me to gain a detailed view from the 3,000+ pages that are online (now I have found them at [attachment 1] ), I have skimmed through it to ensure I can forward my comments in time, so these may not be my full and complete views on the proposal.

I have recently engaged with my Parish Council and can confirm that there has been no pre-application consultation communication with them. I have also spoken to many residents from our near 1,000 strong village, and despite being the last village before the runway to the West in the flight path, this village has had no notification, information or contact regarding this consultation.

My understanding is that Government advice for pre-application consultation is that applicants should “include sufficient preliminary environmental information to enable consultees to develop an informed view of the project…”. Therefore, RSP is obliged to produce a Health Impact Assessment (HIA) that sets out what effect their freight hub is going to have on our health, wellbeing and life expectancy, which they have completely failed to do. At 1.1.91 of the PEIR, RSP says: “The health-related effects are not assessed here as the HIA analysis has not been finalised and its results are unavailable."

In RSP’s own “Pre-consultation document dated July 2016” ([attachment 2] ), it states “
RiverOak takes its responsibility to assess, manage and mitigate any environmental impact from Manston Airport extremely seriously and has commissioned a comprehensive Environmental Impact Assessment to understand the effects of constructing and operating a redeveloped Manston Airport”.

How can I fully either support or oppose this, if RSP is not giving the information, not only that is required, but also that they committed to do, to help, me or anyone else assess whether or not there may be health implications from this project. If RSP intend to submit its Health Impact Assessment with its DCO application, how is this inclusive and how does this allow affected residents to make an informed judgement.

Surely this is a failure to comply with the requirements of the consultation process. As residents whose health and well-being would be affected, should this be approved! We are arguably one of the most important areas that should be consulted with and therefore renders this latest consultation flawed in this most fundamental aspect.

In Thanet District Councils (TDC) Draft Local Plan (A – Thanet Preferred Options and before the CPO was deemed not possible by TDC- [attachment 3];partid=6053940&sessionid=&voteid=), in Section 16.36 of the Aircraft Noise and Noise Sensitive Development, it states that “There is currently a degree of uncertainty regarding future aircraft noise levels at the airport, therefore the Council will adopt a precautionary approach in relation to aircraft noise and will continue to apply the contour predictions which formed the basis for the previous Local Plan”. To rely on the previous noise report, suggests that at present, even TDC do not have confirmed or updated evidence of the potential noise levels that could be applied should ‘night time period’ flights be granted.

I feel that RSP is deliberately avoiding proper consultation, most particularly on the areas of their plans that would have the most damaging impact on the health and well-being of me and other residents.

How can any significant development that would have an effect on health and well-being (evidence already exists to verify that such an operation would), get approval when one of the most important parts of the consultation (which I wasn’t aware of anyway), does not even exist.
Until an application has been received and accepted for examination, the Planning Inspectorate (the Inspectorate) has no views on the merits or acceptability of any Proposed Development.

Preliminary Environmental Information (PEI) and adequacy of consultation
The Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 (EIA Regulations 2017) refers to PEI as information that:
(a) Has been compiled by the applicant; and
(b) Is reasonably required for the consultation bodies to develop an informed view of the likely significant environmental effects of the development (and of any associated development).

If you are of the view that this information has not been provided, you should notify your local authority in relation to the adequacy of consultation. If an application is submitted, relevant local authorities will be invited to make an Adequacy of Consultation Representation (AoCR) to the Inspectorate. The Inspectorate, on behalf of the Secretary of State, must have regard to any AoCRs received when taking its decision about whether to accept an application for examination. For more information please read our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 4]

Health impact assessment
We note your comments regarding health impact assessment (HIA). There is no requirement under the EIA Regulations 2017 to prepare a stand-alone HIA. Schedule 4 Section 4 of the Regulations requires “4. A description of the factors specified in regulation 5(2) likely to be significantly affected by the development: population, human health….”. It is for the Applicant to decide how to provide this information, which may be in the form of a separate HIA or integrated into the Applicant’s Environmental Statement (eg as part of noise and vibration and air quality assessments amongst other topics). This information would need to be provided with any application for development consent made to the Inspectorate and would be considered at examination, if an application was accepted for examination.

Night flights
At present the Inspectorate has not received an application for a Development Consent Order for the Proposed Development at Manston Airport. In absence of an application, we are unable to comment on any proposed night flights requirements that the Applicant may apply for as part of an application for development consent. Any application including night flights must include an assessment of likely significant effects associated with night flights and that such an assessment should be based on appropriate parameters taking into account relevant uncertainty including any applicable worst case scenario. This advice has been duplicated in response to a several enquiries and is available to read in a number of locations under the ‘s51 advice’ tab on the project webpage eg: [attachment 5]

21 March 2018
MJ Feekings
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Pins meeting with Orsted - 20 March 2018
See attached meeting note

20 March 2018
Orsted - anon.
Hornsea Project Three Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see the attached meeting note

20 March 2018
Highways England - anon.
A5036 Port of Liverpool Access Scheme
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation, with their consultation response, to the Planning Inspectorate, the Applicant and Thanet District Council.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

19 March 2018
Peter Bateson
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Nodyn Cyfarfod - 19 Mawrth 2018 / Meeting Note - 19 March 2018

19 March 2018
Isle of Anglesey County Council - anon.
Wylfa Newydd Nuclear Power Station
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Nodyn Cyfarfod - 19 Mawrth 2018 / Meeting Note - 19 March 2018

19 March 2018
Isle of Anglesey County Council - anon.
North Wales Connection
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
General query regarding the Nationally Significant Infrastructure projects and the examination process
I can confirm that Oulton Parish Council has been identified as a prescribed consultees for the above project, under Schedule 1 of the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009 (APFP) [attachment 1].

Should the application for the Development Consent Order (DCO) be accepted by the Planning Inspectorate for examination, the Applicant has a duty to notify the Council when providing information on how to register as an Interested Party for the purpose of the process. In a meantime the Council can get involved in the focused statutory consultation under section 42(1) of the Planning Act 2008 (PA 2008) which is Orsted Hornsea Project Three (UK) Ltd is conducting now until 30 March 2018. The Applicant is required to have a regard to all consultation responses which should be later provided in the Consultation Report as part of the DCO application.

The process under the PA 2008 has been designed to allow members of the public and statutory stakeholders to participate in examination of all DCO applications. During the examination of an application the Examining Authority (ExA) has a duty to take into account all matters assessed by the Applicant in the Environmental Statement and may ask additional questions as required. The ExA will invite local planning authorities to submit the Local Impact Reports which give details of the likely impact of the proposed development on the authorities’ area. Please see the link: Advice note 1: Local Impact Reports.

Please be assured that anyone interested in the proposed development, its potential impacts and any planning matters can be fully engaged in the examination process.

More information is provided in the Planning Inspectorate’s Advice notes Advice Note 8: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others, and at the current pre-application stage we would recommend especially Advice note 8.1. Responding to the developer’s pre-application consultation and Advice Note 8.2. How to register to participate in an Examination. By submitting a Relevant Representation during the pre-examination stage the Council is in position to highlight particular planning matters such as effects on the road infrastructure that you have mentioned in your email.

15 March 2018
Paul Killingback
Hornsea Project Three Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via email
I assume it is your role to ensure that National Grid adhere to NETS SQSS. Please can you confirm this for me.
If National Grid’s application is accepted for examination the Examining Authority (ExA) will conduct the examination in accordance with Planning Act 2008: Guidance for the examination of applications for development consent and assess the proposed development against the policy requirements of the energy National Policy Statements (NPS) EN-1 Overarching and EN-5 Electricity Networks Infrastructure. The ExA will examine the need for the project, any alternatives and assess whether there are any adverse impacts that outweigh the benefits of the project.

15 March 2018
Jonathan Dean
North Wales Connection
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
What is the correct mechanism to present a petition to the Inspectorate?
In order for you to submit any representations for the Examining Authority to consider you will need to register as an Interested Party, if the application is accepted to proceed to Examination. Advice on how to register to participate in an Examination can be found here: [attachment 1]. The best way of submitting the petition would be as part of your Written Representation. Please note that we cannot accept links to websites however we could accept a screen shot showing the number of signatures.

15 March 2018
Jonathan Dean
North Wales Connection
Enquiry received via email
In view of the confusion between your two statements and in view of the guidance repeatedly issued by the Government and the courts on the scope of the general principle in s6 of the 1998 Act, I am asking you to clarify the view of the Planning Inspectorate. It is clear from advice received by No Night Flights that the Planning Inspectorate, along with all other Government and public authorities, is bound by and must comply with s6 of the 1998 Act. Acceptance by you of this application (should it be made) for a DCO is not a neutral act. It will have serious implications for local landowners and residents. Our advice is that your obligation is to act compatibly with the Convention rights as set out in s6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 (the 1998 Act) in taking that decision. Perhaps you would be good enough to set out very clearly for us why you think that this is not the case.
The Planning Inspectorate is not disputing that in carrying out its functions in accordance with the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) it is bound to act compatibly with the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA1998).

Sections 37 and 55 of the PA2008 set out what the Secretary of State (SoS) can take into account in deciding whether or not to accept an application, and this a matter of fact. Whilst these sections do not specifically refer to the HRA1998 the Planning Inspectorate considers that the process of preparing an application (incumbent on applicants) and considering the application both at the Acceptance and Examination stages (incumbent on the SoS), in accordance with the PA2008, is compliant with the HRA1998.

Before an application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, the PA2008 requires applicants to notify members of the public (including those whose interests may be affected) about a proposed application and to carry out consultation. These duties placed on applicants provide consultees with the opportunity to make their views about a proposed development known to an applicant. At the Acceptance stage the Planning Inspectorate tests whether an application is of a satisfactory standard, and whether the applicant has carried out consultation in accordance with the PA2008, including how it has had regard to relevant consultation responses and whether statutory guidance has been followed. The Planning Inspectorate can only accept an application if these statutory requirements are met, which ensures compatibility with the HRA1998 (including Article 6).

If an application is accepted for examination, anybody can register to become an Interested Party and participate in the process, making their views about a proposed development known. These views will be taken into account by the appointed Examining Authority and ultimately the relevant SoS. This inclusive principle, underpinned by the provisions in the PA2008, also ensures compliance with the HRA1998.

15 March 2018
No Night Flights - Ros McIntyre
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Nodyn Cyfarfod - 15 Mawrth 2018 / Meeting Note - 15 March 2018

15 March 2018
National Grid
North Wales Connection
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project inception meeting
Please see attached meeting note

14 March 2018
Highways England
A38 Derby Junctions
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer made comments about the quality of the Applicant's Pre-application consultation, and asked specifically:

"In assessing an application for the DCO, how would the Inspectorate deal with the
wider upgrades to the A628 corridor if they are in an approved statutory transport plan?"
If you have not done so already, please provide your comments about its consultation directly to Highways England. You can also copy your comments to the relevant local authority which will be able to consider them in making its Adequacy of Consultation Representation; if an application is submitted. At the Acceptance stage of the process, the Secretary of State (SoS) must have regard to the content of any Adequacy of Consultation Representations received when taking its decision about whether or not an application can be accepted to proceed to examination.

You asked: “In assessing an application for the DCO, how would the Inspectorate deal with the wider upgrades to the A628 corridor if they are in an approved statutory transport plan?”

As you will be aware, where a relevant National Policy Statement (NPS) is designated it has primacy in the decision-making process. In this case the relevant NPS is the NSP for National Networks. Section 104 of the Planning Act 2008 sets out, in addition to an NPS, what else the SoS must have regard to in deciding an application. Section 104(d) prescribes that the SoS must have regard to any other matters which the SoS thinks are both important and relevant to the decision, which may include local/ strategic policies and plans.

In respect of Environmental Impact Assessment, for the Planning Inspectorate’s advice in respect of which development should be in considered as part of an applicant’s cumulative effects assessment, please see Advice Note 17: [attachment 1]

13 March 2018
CPRE - Anne Robinson
A57 Link Roads (previously known as Trans Pennine Upgrade Programme)
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
• What point should a waste application be considered to be submitted as a NSIP? (is there a threshold ie size, annual import, waste type ie hazardous, etc)

• Is there any point when an NSIP is mandatory as opposed to optional (with an application made to a County Council application)?
What constitutes a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP) is a matter of fact, as per the qualifying criteria set out in Part 3 of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008). The qualifying criteria for hazardous waste NSIPs are set out in sections 30 and 30A of the PA2008. The PA2008 is available to view on legislation.gov.uk: [attachment 1]

Development that qualifies as an NSIP must receive development consent in the form of a Development Consent Order. The consenting route for development that constitutes an NSIP is not optional. Section 160 of the PA2008 establishes that a person commits an offence if the 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, and associated liabilities.

For hazardous waste development a designated National Policy Statement (NPS) is in place. The Hazardous Waste NPS sets out the strategic need and justification of Government policy for the provision of hazardous waste infrastructure. It is available to view here: [attachment 2]

13 March 2018
Mick George Ltd - Kelly Sanderson
General
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I suspect this is just another example of misinformation but I would be grateful if you could confirm my suspicions. According to this person the planning inspectorate has ruled that the site of the former, failed airport at Manston must remain as an airport, irrespective of the fact that the local plan has long expired. It is said that it must remain as an airport until the Secretary of State rules otherwise.

This is an interesting position because the legal owners of the site say that they are due to submit a planning application for a mixed development of the site later this month. If the planning inspectorate has ruled that it must remain as an airport, the legal owners would be wasting their time submitting their application. The outcome would already have been determined.
As you will be aware Thanet DC’s extant development plan comprises, in part, saved policies from the Thanet Local Plan 2006. Chapter 2 of the extant plan in part deals with the airport site. Until such time as a new local plan is published, examined and adopted, the extant plan is the development plan for Thanet. For further clarification about planning policy in Thanet and the Local Development Scheme, please check the council’s website or contact the council directly.

My presumption is that the ‘ruling’ to which you refer is the independent Inspector’s decision in respect of the four ‘Lothian Shelf’ appeals at the airport site. The Inspector’s decision in this case is available to view on the Appeals Casework Portal, here: [attachment 1]

13 March 2018
Peter Binding
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
Mr Hannan submitted a copy of his objection to the Oulton Airfield construction compound, sent to Orsted.
Thank you for your email in relation to the above project.

A copy of your objection has been placed on our records. However, we would strongly encourage you to continue your dialogue with the developer to make your concerns known and to influence the project as, under Section 49 of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended), the developer has a duty to demonstrate it has had regard to responses received.

If an application for development consent is formally accepted by the Secretary of State, as you point out, you will be able to submit your views in relation to the project which will be considered by the Examining Authority during their examination.

13 March 2018
Rob Hannan
Hornsea Project Three Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via phone
response has attachments
Query regarding the submission of its Adequacy of Consultation Representation.
Re. our conversation earlier today - Thames Tideway Tunnel (TTT) looks like a good place to start to get an idea about how the views of different authorities have been expressed in AoC Reps ie the breadth of positive/ negative/ neutral responses in respect of compliance with ss42, 47 and 48 at a glance all appear to be covered.

The s55 checklist for TTT should adequately signpost you to the AoC Reps covering the areas of specific interest to TDC (section 3.2 onward): [attachment 1]

All of the AoC Reps are searchable and available to read in the ‘Documents’ tab in the usual way.

12 March 2018
Thanet District Council - Iain Livingstone
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update and comments on the draft application documents
Please see attached meeting note

12 March 2018
Drax Power Ltd - Jim Doyle
Drax Re-power
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see the attached meeting note

09 March 2018
London Resort Company Holdings
The London Resort
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
See attached letter
Thank you for your letter, copied to us on 16 February 2018. As the project has not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate (the Inspectorate), we have no formal powers to intervene on consultees behalf. I note that you have sent this to the developer and they have a statutory duty to take your views into account. However, if you feel your comments are not being taken into account, I would advise you to write to your local authority. Your comments should be taken into account when the local authority sends the Inspectorate its comments on whether the Applicant has fulfilled its consultation duties. The local authority’s comments on the Applicant’s consultation will be taken into account when the Acceptance Inspector makes their decision whether to accept the application for Examination.

When deciding whether to accept an application we will check whether the Applicant’s section 48 notice complies with the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009. Your concerns regarding Tre’rGof SSSI and retention of hardstanding on the coast are matters which, if the application is accepted, may be examined by the Examining Authority.

A copy of your correspondence has been placed on our records and will be presented to the Inspector at Acceptance, together with the application documents and local authorities’ comments on the Applicant’s consultation.

After the decision has been made regarding whether to accept the application for Examination all documents used to inform the decision will be published on our website. If the application for development consent is formally accepted you will be able to submit your views in relation to the project which will be considered by the Examining Authority during the Examination. The Inspectorate has published a series of advice notes which explain the Examination process, including information on how to get involved; of particular interest are advice notes 8.1 to 8.5. These are available at: [attachment 1]

We have also published a Frequently Asked Questions document regarding Pre-application consultation and this can be viewed on our website here: [attachment 2].

08 March 2018
J Chanay
Wylfa Newydd Nuclear Power Station
Enquiry received via email
What policing has gone on regarding Vattenfall in Norfolk during consultation in which they did not behave correctly? Project still going ahead revised plans a no relay Stations HDVC , please can you provide information
The Applicant is required to produce a consultation report detailing how they have complied with the consultation requirements of sections 42, 47 and 48 of the Planning Act 2008. This should be submitted with the application and will be checked, along with the other application documents, as part of the Acceptance process.

08 March 2018
Wendy Englestone
Norfolk Vanguard
Enquiry received via email
What policing has gone on regarding Vattenfall in Norfolk during consultation in which they did not behave correctly? Project still going ahead revised plans a no relay Stations HDVC , please can you provide information
The Applicant is required to produce a consultation report detailing how they have complied with the consultation requirements of sections 42, 47 and 48 of the Planning Act 2008. This should be submitted with the application and will be checked, along with the other application documents, as part of the Acceptance process.

08 March 2018
Wendy Englestone
Norfolk Boreas
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Can the preapplication stage continue in perpetuity?

Are there circumstances where pins can cause the applicant to withdraw the application?

In terms of the deprivation issues relating to some parts of Ramsgate that are on the direct flight path (within 1 to 4 km of the end of the runway) and are also some of the most deprived wards in the uk, is there anywhere the local community could look for expert support during the preapplication and application stages?

Have there been any other DCO applications that have significant similarities to the Manston one, that I could look at in terms of comparative guidance?
“Can the preapplication stage continue in perpetuity?”
Please see my response to you dated 5 January 2018 within which I have already provided an answer to this question: [attachment 1]

“Are there circumstances where pins can cause the applicant to withdraw the application?”
The Planning Inspectorate cannot compel an applicant to withdraw an application. If an application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate and subsequently accepted for examination, it can only be:
• withdrawn by the Applicant; or
• decided, following due process, by the relevant Secretary of State.

“In terms of the deprivation issues relating to some parts of Ramsgate that are on the direct flight path (within 1 to 4 km of the end of the runway) and are also some of the most deprived wards in the uk, is there anywhere the local community could look for expert support during the preapplication and application stages?”

Any expert/ legal advice sought in respect of an application for development consent would need to be procured by an individual/ interest group or organisation by conventional means. Alternatively you could contact Planning Aid which offers free independent, professional advice and support to individuals and local communities wishing to engage in the planning process: [attachment 2]

“Have there been any other DCO applications that have significant similarities to the Manston one, that I could look at in terms of comparative guidance?”

There have been no previous applications for development consent made under s23 of the Planning Act 2008. However, most applications for development consent will share similarities, to a greater or lesser extent, in respect of the most common issues examined across the breadth of NSIP development.

For decided applications a good place to start in identifying the main issues that influenced an Examining Authority’s (ExA) consideration of the case for development consent is, in each case, the respective ExA’s report to the Secretary of State (SoS) and the subsequent decision and statement of reasons issued by the SoS. ExA reports may assist in demonstrating to you, and other members of the local community, how individuals and interest groups can most helpfully and effectively make representations to an examination. Examples of reports and decisions associated with all decided NSIP applications are available to read on our website.

08 March 2018
Michael Child
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I was relieved to receive your confirmation that there are no provisions in the Planning Act which would prevent you from acting compatibly with the Convention Rights.

I would also, respectfully, agree that the Examining Authority will be bound to consider the various human rights issues, should this application get to that stage.

My point is that the decision to accept the application for examination is also an act to which section 6 of the Human Rights Act applies.

It follows that you are bound to consider whether your decision to accept this application may infringe upon the Convention rights and, if so, whether that infringement is justified.

The law does not appear to give you the option of simply deferring consideration of these issues until the Examination stage. Acting compatibly with the Convention rights means not infringing on people's rights if that can be avoided – and it means striving to find ways to avoid harming the rights of others if at all possible.

In this instance you can avoid harming the rights of others, and indeed the rights of the owners of the airfield, by not accepting this application for Examination.

We are asking you to look at the facts regarding the impact of your decision upon the property rights of the airfield's owners and upon people in the affected area in the light of the justification that will need to be made in terms of the national interest.

Whilst one might ordinarily expect such issues to be deferred to the Examination stage, there are special considerations surrounding this application which require substantive attention now if you are not to act incompatibly with the Convention rights. The key point here is that it ought already be plain to you that this application could not reasonably be regarded as likely to justify incursion on people’s rights because the project is in the national interest.

For example, it is plain now from the weight and quality of evidence from multiple sources, that the applicant will not be able to supply the Secretary of State with plausible evidence of national economic benefit. We say that it cannot be lawful under s6 of the 1998 Act to harm people’s rights by accepting the application without at least a plausible prospect that the applicants will be able to meet the basic test in terms of Article 8.

You have also been made aware of the incorrigibly flawed basis for the applicant's economic case. This case has now been dismissed as mistaken by the authors of the source on which the applicants purport primarily to rely. The applicant’s economic case has been exposed by multiple credible sources as demonstrably very seriously defective in methodology and as regards its evidential base. You are already aware that this hopeless material is at the heart of the application. How could it be right to harm people’s basic rights by proceeding to the next stage on the basis material which it is already clear is so lacking in merit?

We say that it is relevant, at the stage where you decide whether or not to intrude upon people’s rights, to consider what evidence you have that this proposal meets any identified national need. The fact is that neither the Government nor any of its advisers appointed to review aviation needs has identified Manston as required as part of any national strategy. The significance here is that you as the public authority begin with no indication whatsoever of a national interest against which you could reasonably contemplate sacrificing the rights of others. What you have are the opinions offered by an offshore investment company, of uncertain identity and motivation.

The serious problems we identify constitute real and immediate reasons why it is not reasonable in human rights terms to accept the application for examination. These should be viewed in the context of recent rulings from the Court of Justice of the European Union and the European Court of Human Rights regarding the plight of victims of aviation development and regarding the Courts’ interpretation of human rights and European law so as to provide effective protection and remedies.

You will also be aware of the criticisms made by the local authority (and by this organisation as well as by many others) of the inadequacy of the statutory consultation carried out by the applicant. This matter is also relevant to your immediate obligations regarding human rights because you would, by accepting the application, allow the applicant to escape some of his preliminary responsibilities regarding the environmental impact information rights bestowed upon us by the European Union.

Finally, we are confused by your comment about the effectiveness of the remedies available under the 2008 Act in respect of harm ensuing from a decision to accept this application for examination. What compensation would be available to individual residents of Thanet for a fall in the property values following such a decision? Who would be liable to pay it?
Sections 37 and 55 of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) set out what can be taken into account at the Acceptance stage. Neither section makes reference to the consideration of human rights. The consideration of human rights is part of the decision-making process at the Examination stage (and later when the relevant Secretary of State makes his or her final decision). In order for the decision-making process to comply with human rights law, an appointed Examining Authority (ExA) needs to be fully appraised of the details of the Proposed Development and to seek the views of all Interested Parties, including the Applicant. There is no mechanism in the PA2008 by which this can be achieved at or before the Acceptance stage, which is prior to the appointment of the ExA and the start of the Examination.

On that basis the Planning Inspectorate does not consider that it is bound by the PA2008 to consider the provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998 at the Acceptance stage.

You imply that there are ‘special considerations’ surrounding the emerging application by RSP. The Planning Inspectorate does not agree with this statement as all applications received by the Planning Inspectorate involve development which has impacts, to a greater or lesser degree, which need to be taken into account before a decision is made. The proposed application by RSP is, and will in future, be treated in the same way as all other applications for development consent.

The ‘national economic benefit’ and ‘viability’ of the Proposed Development (and any other matters which relate to the merits of the application) will also be considered by the appointed ExA during the Examination stage. Part of the decision-making process at Examination is to assess the effects a proposed development might have on individuals who make representations and to weigh these against the wider public interest. The balancing of the rights of these individuals and the wider public interest cannot be carried out without a full consideration of the facts and circumstances, taking into account the views of all parties. That is why the PA2008 provides for the Examination stage which affords everybody the opportunity to make representations to an ExA about the merits of a proposed development.

In consideration of your comments about ‘national need’ I can only reiterate my previous advice that development which constitutes an NSIP is a matter of fact, as set out in Part 3 of the PA2008. It is not prerequisite for an ‘national strategy’ (or indeed a National Policy Statement) to be in place in order for an application for development consent to be made, examined and decided.
In respect of the adequacy of the Applicant’s Pre-application consultation, as you will be aware host and boundary authorities will be invited to make an Adequacy of Consultation Representation (AoCR) if/ when the application is submitted. The Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) must have regard to any AoCRs received in taking its decision about whether an application can be accepted for examination.

I apologise that my statement in respect of the compensation provisions in the PA2008 was confusing. You stated in your email of 24 February 2018 that:
“We understand the points that you make about the statutory provisions for dealing with some aspects of property blight. However, and as you yourself concede [my emphasis], these provisions are of limited scope and certainly do not constitute an effective remedy for the infringements that would be bound to take place if you proceed to the acceptance stage with this application.”
The intention of the statement in my response dated 1 March 2018 “We do not consider that the compensation provisions in the PA2008 provide an ineffective remedy where applications are made under the PA2008 for NSIPs” was to establish that nowhere have I conceded that the blight provisions in the PA2008 are an ineffective remedy.

In respect of the impact of any proposed development on property values, I refer you to the guidance on planning in general: Planning Practice Guidance ‘Determining a planning application’; in particular paragraph: 008 Reference ID: 21b-008-20140306: [attachment 1]

08 March 2018
No Night Flights - Ros McIntyre
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
A meeting took place between Able Humber Ports Limited and the Planning Inspectorate to discuss a potential change to the DCO
A note of the meeting is attached.

08 March 2018
Able Humber Ports Limited - anon.
Able Marine Energy Park
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Could pins get their own itc department to look at the way the documents were published, particularly in terms of the deliberately making the documents difficult to use?

I think this constitutes a deprivation accessibility issue, which should be addressed properly now and I wish to complain that this hasn’t happened, I feel that pins and all government departments should be proactively addressing depravation and should like your view on this issue.

In view of the size and scope of the project and its effects could you kindly set out how the issue of compensation for time spent on responding repeatedly and property blight will be addressed, both in terms of time scale and how to apply for it.
As you are aware, if an application is submitted, this and your previous correspondences can be considered by the Secretary of State in addition to the statutory acceptance tests.

“Could pins get their own itc department to look at the way the documents were published, particularly in terms of the deliberately making the documents difficult to use?”

The Planning Inspectorate cannot test the adequacy of an applicant’s consultation until an application is submitted to it. The means by which the adequacy of consultation can be tested are set out in section 55 of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008).

“I think this constitutes a deprivation accessibility issue, which should be addressed properly now and I wish to complain that this hasn’t happened, I feel that pins and all government departments should be proactively addressing depravation and should like your view on this issue.”

See above answer. Note in addition that at the Acceptance stage the Secretary of State must have regard to the extent to which the Applicants has had regard to government’s ‘Planning Act 2008: guidance on the pre-application process’: [attachment 1]. Evidence in this regard should be provided by the Applicant in its Consultation Report.

“In view of the size and scope of the project and its effects could you kindly set out how the issue of compensation for time spent on responding repeatedly and property blight will be addressed, both in terms of time scale and how to apply for it.”

The PA2008 regime recognises that a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP) may create blight reducing land values. Section 175 of the PA2008 amends Schedule 13 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to enable owner occupiers to serve a blight notice on the Secretary of State (SoS) requiring the SoS to purchase their property in certain circumstances. These are where a National Policy Statement (NPS) identifies a particular location as a potentially suitable location for an NSIP (there is no NPS in this case) or if land is blighted by an application being made for a Development Consent Order authorising the Compulsory Acquisition of the owner occupier’s land or from such authorisation being given.

Separately, any interference with private interests may give rise to a right to make a relevant claim. For further information see FAQ14 in our Community Consultation FAQs and government guidance relating to Compulsory Acquisition procedures:

• [attachment 2]
• [attachment 3]

In respect of “compensation for time spent responding”, there is no mechanism through which this can be claimed at the Pre-application stage of the process. For details of the applicable costs regime after an application has been accepted for examination, I refer you to government’s ‘Awards of costs: examinations of applications for development consent orders’: [attachment 4]

06 March 2018
Michael Child
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
Could you kindly clarify if it is the Planning Inspectorate's considered view that the provisions you mention in the Planning Act 2008 oust the duty placed on you as a public authority by s6 of the Human Right Act 1998?

Government guidance emphasises that all public authorities are at all times bound by s6 of the Human Rights Act 1998, unless some specific provision of primary legislation requires otherwise, or cannot be re-interpreted compatibly with the Convention rights.

It would be a very serious matter if your governing legislation prevented you from acting compatibly with basic human rights.

Our argument in outline is that the act by PINS of accepting RSP's application for examination would impinge upon our property rights under article 1 of Protocol 1 to the Convention, read with Article 8.

We point out that there is no statement of Government policy that identifies Manston as nationally significant in infrastructure terms. We also draw your attention to multiple and authoritative evidence that demonstrates conclusively that an economic case for the DCO cannot be made out. We say that, in these circumstances, there can be no justification for PINS interfering with our property rights by accepting RSP’s application for consideration. We point out that to do so would be to act incompatibly with the Convention rights and thus to act unlawfully under s6 of the Human Rights Act 1998.

We understand the points that you make about the statutory provisions for dealing with some aspects of property blight. However, and as you yourself concede, these provisions are of limited scope and certainly do not constitute an effective remedy for the infringements that would be bound to take place if you proceed to the acceptance stage with this application.

Of course it is open to you to reject our argument, but it would seem totally wrong, and unsafe for you, to refuse to consider it.

So far as we can see, you would be acting in breach of the Human Rights Act if you refused to consider whether you are acting compatibly with the Convention rights before accepting RSP’s application for consideration.
The provisions in the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) do not oust the provisions in Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA1998), and the Planning Inspectorate does not consider that it is in breach of the HRA1998 when taking decisions about whether or not to accept an application for examination. As explained in my previous email, human rights issues will be considered by the appointed Examining Authority at the Examination stage; if the application is accepted.

Regarding government policy, there does not need to be a statement of government policy for a Proposed Development to be a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP). The PA2008 sets out which projects are NSIPs. In respect of the economic case for the Proposed Development, viability is also an issue that can only be considered by the appointed Examining Authority at the Examination stage; if the application is accepted.

We do not consider that the compensation provisions in the PA2008 provide an ineffective remedy where applications are made under the PA2008 for NSIPs.

06 March 2018
No Night Flights - Ros McIntyre
Manston Airport
response has attachments
Thanet Extension project update meeting
Please see attached

06 March 2018
Vattenfall - anon.
Thanet Extension Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
See attached meeting note

27 February 2018
Heathrow Airport Ltd
Expansion of Heathrow Airport (Third Runway)
Enquiry received via email
The enquirer represented the Peninsula Management Group; the organisation that represents the 140 businesses on the Northfleet Industrial Estates.

The enquirer queried the accuracy of the anticipated submission dated provided on the National Infrastructure Planning website; whether the Inspectorate had any future meetings planned with London Resort Company Holdings (LRCH); and whether LRCH would be undertaking public consultations about any plans to carry out works to junctions on the A2.
As you are likely aware from the advice register on our website, we have had no substantive contact with LRCH since August 2017. A project update meeting between the Planning Inspectorate and LRCH is however scheduled in March 2018. As required, a note of the meeting will be published to our website shortly afterward.

The situation in respect of how the LRCH and Highways England schemes might interrelate is complex, and the Planning Inspectorate hopes to learn further how LRCH intends to progress in this regard at the March meeting. We will also expect an update in respect of LRCH’s Pre-application programme (ie timescales). If, as we currently understand, LRCH intends to include works to the A2 in its Development Consent Order, it will be required to consult on those works in its public consultation.

26 February 2018
Bramwell Associates - Dan Bramwell
The London Resort
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The attached letter from No Night Flights makes representations concerning the lawfulness of accepting the proposed DCO application given what is known about the business case supporting the application.

It is addressed direct to you because the arguments it contains concern the protection of fundamental human rights, which is a matter for the State and not the developer.

I look forward to hearing your response. Please do contact me if you require any further information.
The matters the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) can consider at the Acceptance stage are set out in s37 and s55 of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008).

For details about how, when and to whom you can object to the Proposed Development, see FAQ 9 in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 1]

Matters relating to environmental information, environmental assessment and the Human Rights Act will be considered by the appointed Examining Authority at the Examination stage; if the application is accepted.

In respect of your comments relating to the housing market, the PA2008 regime recognises that an Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP) may create blight reducing land values. Section 175 of the PA2008 amends Schedule 13 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to enable owner occupiers to serve a blight notice on the Secretary of State (SoS) requiring the SoS to purchase their property in certain circumstances. These are where a National Policy Statement (NPS) identifies a particular location as a potentially suitable location for an NSIP (there is no NPS in this case) or if land is blighted by an application being made for a Development Consent Order authorising the Compulsory Acquisition of the owner occupier’s land or from such authorisation being given.

Separately, any interference with private interests may give rise to a right to make a relevant claim. For further information see FAQ14 at the above link, and government guidance relating to Compulsory Acquisition procedures: [attachment 2]

23 February 2018
No Night Flights - Ros McIntyre
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project meeting with Cleve Hill Solar Park Ltd
See attached meeting note

23 February 2018
Cleve Hill Solar Park Ltd - anon.
Cleve Hill Solar Park
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting 23 February 2018
See attached meeting note and annex A

23 February 2018
Portishead Branch Line – MetroWest Phase 1 - anon.
Portishead Branch Line - MetroWest Phase 1
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Post-consultation and project update teleconference
Please see attached meeting note

23 February 2018
RiverOak Strategic Partners Ltd
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

22 February 2018
RWE Generation UK plc - anon.
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting and draft documents advice
See 2 attachments

22 February 2018
Highways England - anon.
A19 Downhill Lane Junction Improvement
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer sent their response to the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of a proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

We have also published an FAQ for information and advice about how to engage with the process at the Pre-application stage: [attachment 2]

21 February 2018
Appolonius Claudius
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer sent their response to the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of a proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

We have also published an FAQ for information and advice about how to engage with the process at the Pre-application stage: [attachment 2]

21 February 2018
PJ Brown
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached

20 February 2018
Hornsea Project Three - Stuart Livesey
Hornsea Project Three Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
See attached meeting note

20 February 2018
Highways England - Jacqueline Watson
M25 junction 10/A3 Wisley interchange improvement
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation, with their consultation response, to the Planning Inspectorate.
The application, if submitted, will be tested against the provisions set out in section 55 of the Planning Act 2008.

Helpfully your correspondence, which includes comments about the Applicant’s consultation, is copied to the Applicant itself and to Thanet District, as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 1]

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations about the merits of the proposed development to the Planning Inspectorate, if it is accepted for examination, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 2]

19 February 2018
Chris Welsh
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation, with their consultation response, to the Planning Inspectorate, the Applicant and Thanet District Council.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

Helpfully you have sent your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself and to Thanet District Council, as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

19 February 2018
Rebekah Smith
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
Thank you for your email.

The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

If you have not done so already please send your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself ([email protected] [email protected]) and to Thanet District Council ([email protected]), as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

19 February 2018
Conor Kelly
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation, with their consultation response, to the Planning Inspectorate, the Applicant and Thanet District Council.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

Helpfully you have sent your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself and to Thanet District Council, as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

19 February 2018
Liz Green
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation, with their consultation response, to the Planning Inspectorate, the Applicant and Thanet District Council.
For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

Helpfully you have sent your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself and to Thanet District Council, as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

19 February 2018
Fiona Simmons
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer submitted representations regarding the merits of the proposed development, and the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation, to the Planning Inspectorate and Thanet District Council.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

Helpfully you have sent your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself and to Thanet District Council, as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

19 February 2018
Teresa Askew
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
Helpfully you have sent your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself and to Thanet District Council, as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 1]

If an application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, and if it is found to be of a satisfactory standard to be examined, you will be able to make representations about the merits of the Proposed Development to an appointed Examining Authority. See our Advice Note 8 series for detailed advice about how and when to have your say: [attachment 2]

19 February 2018
Malcolm Kirkaldie
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Canterbury City Council would like to make representations on the current consultation undertaken by RiverOak Strategic Partners Ltd.

The City Council has not been consulted by RiverOak SP Ltd as part of this process, which fails to meet the Planning Act 2008 requirements. However we have become aware of the consultation and have therefore been able to respond.

The City Council has concerns regarding the adequacy of the consultation process, in particular whether consultation is in line with the scheme promoter's SoCC. The City Council must be consulted as a neighbouring authority and residents of Herne Bay must be consulted in a full and meaningful way at all stages of the Development Consent Order process.

In relation to the Preliminary Environmental Impact report the City Council requires the full impact of noise and disturbance to residents in Herne Bay, particularly in relation to night flights and proposed type of aircraft, to be comprehensively assessed and fully mitigated, with a robust monitoring regime and sanctions imposed for any breach in night flight or agreed noise parameters.
As a local authority which shares a boundary with Thanet District Council (the lower-tier host authority), Canterbury City Council (CCC) should have been consulted under s42 of the Planning Act 2008 (the PA2008). On that basis the Applicant, RSP, will be required to demonstrate to the Planning Inspectorate in the Consultation Report submitted with its application that CCC was consulted in accordance with the PA2008. If you have not done so already, I would strongly recommend that you correspond directly with RSP to establish the address at CCC to which its s42 notification was sent.

CCC will be invited by the Planning Inspectorate to make an Adequacy of Consultation Representation (AoCR) if an application is submitted to it. See our Advice Note Two for more advice about AoCRs: [attachment 1]

19 February 2018
Canterbury City Council - Cherry Jones
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
The enquirer submitted representations regarding the merits of the proposed development to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations of this type.

Please contact the Applicant to seek clarification about any comments made.

19 February 2018
Adem Mehmet
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
I have just received this response from you and am concerned that my email isn't being included as it says ' The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time'. Did my email not arrive on time or am I misinterpreting your email? I sent the original at 1156pm on Friday.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of a proposed development until the Pre-examination stage, when the period for making ‘Relevant Representations’ to the Inspectorate must be advertised by the Applicant. The Pre-examination stage does not commence until an application has been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate and subsequently accepted for examination.

At the Pre-application stage of the process, your comments about the merits of the proposal are for the Applicant to consider in preparing its application for submission.

19 February 2018
Rebekah Smith
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please can you explain/reassure me that I have not wasted 20 hours+ on this and that my email will be submitted as a negative response to the recent public consultation process carried out by RSP.
Last Friday’s deadline was imposed by the Applicant, RiverOak Strategic Partners (RSP). RSP was carrying out statutory consultation seeking feedback on the substance of its proposed application ie the Proposed Development and its impacts.

Whilst RSP will not have been actively seeking feedback on the consultation ‘process’ in this period, it is correct that you have sent your comments in this respect to RSP for consideration in the first instance.

You also copied your comments about the consultation process to Thanet District Council, which importantly will be able to consider them in making a representation about the adequacy of RSP’s consultation to the Secretary of State if/ when an application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate. Amongst other things, the Planning Inspectorate must have regard to any Adequacy of Consultation Representations received from local authorities in taking its decision about whether or not an application can be accepted for examination.

On that basis your commentary about the consultation process is not wasted, and you have taken all of the appropriate steps advised in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 1]

19 February 2018
Rebekah Smith
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer submitted representations regarding the merits of the proposed development to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

19 February 2018
Josephine Canty
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation, with their consultation response, to the Planning Inspectorate, the Applicant and Thanet District Council.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

Helpfully you have sent your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself and to Thanet District Council, as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

19 February 2018
Clare Dove
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer sent their response to the Applicant's 2018 statutory consultation to the Planning Inspectorate, Thanet District Council and the Applicant.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

19 February 2018
Mike Collins
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation, with their consultation response, to both the Planning Inspectorate and the Applicant.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot accept representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

You may wish to send your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to Thanet District Council ([email protected]), as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

19 February 2018
Chris Lowe
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer sent their response to the Applicant's 2018 statutory consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

Helpfully you have sent your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself. You may also wish to send them to Thanet District Council ([email protected]), as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

19 February 2018
Pierre and Patricia Jeanrenaud
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer sent their response to the Applicant's 2018 statutory consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

If you have not done so already please send your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself ([email protected] [email protected]) and to Thanet District Council ([email protected]), as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

19 February 2018
Rebecca Wing
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation to the Planning Inspectorate and Thanet District Council.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

Helpfully you have copied your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to Thanet District Council, as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

19 February 2018
Matthew Cumber
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation, with their consultation response, to the Planning Inspectorate, the Applicant and Thanet District Council.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

19 February 2018
Nikki Hildesley
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation, with their consultation response, to the Planning Inspectorate, the Applicant and Thanet District Council.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

Helpfully you have sent your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself and to Thanet District Council, as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

19 February 2018
Jeni Butler
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation, with their consultation response, to the Planning Inspectorate, the Applicant and Thanet District Council.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

Helpfully you have copied your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to Thanet District Council, as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

If you have not done so already please also send your comments to the Applicant itself ([email protected] [email protected]).

19 February 2018
Conor Masterson
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer sent their response to the Applicant's 2018 statutory consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

Helpfully you have sent your comments directly to the Applicant. You may wish to send your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to Thanet District Council ([email protected]), as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

19 February 2018
John Hanna
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation, with their consultation response, to the Planning Inspectorate, the Applicant and Thanet District Council.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

Helpfully you have sent your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself and to Thanet District Council, as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

19 February 2018
Debra Cluff
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation, with their consultation response, to the Planning Inspectorate, the Applicant and Thanet District Council.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

Helpfully you have copied your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself and to Thanet District Council, as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

19 February 2018
Anna Blasiak
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer sent their response to the Applicant's 2018 statutory consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

19 February 2018
Sylvie Bolioli
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

Helpfully you have copied your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself and to Thanet District Council, as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

19 February 2018
Cathy Rogers
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation to the Planning Inspectorate and the Applicant.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot accept representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

19 February 2018
C & P Arnold
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation, with their consultation response, to the Planning Inspectorate, the Applicant and Thanet District Council.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot accept representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

Helpfully you have sent your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to Thanet District Council ([email protected]), as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

If you have not done so already please also send your comments to the Applicant itself ([email protected] [email protected]).

19 February 2018
Matthew Griffiths
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer submitted representations regarding the merits of the proposed development to the Planning Inspectorate and Thanet District Council.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot accept representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

If you have not done so already please send your comments to the Applicant itself ([email protected] [email protected]).

19 February 2018
Anthony Howard
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer submitted representations regarding the merits of the proposed development to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

19 February 2018
Brian Bushell
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation, with their consultation response, to the Planning Inspectorate and Thanet District Council.
For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

Helpfully you have sent your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to Thanet District Council ([email protected]), as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

If you have not done so already please also send your comments to the Applicant itself ([email protected] [email protected]).

19 February 2018
Michelle Meyer-Masterson
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer submitted representations regarding the merits of the proposed development to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

19 February 2018
Alan Ashby
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer submitted representations regarding the merits of the proposed development and the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

You may wish to send your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to Thanet District Council ([email protected]), as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

17 February 2018
Danika Jarrett
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation, with their consultation response, to the Planning Inspectorate, the Applicant and Thanet District Council.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

Helpfully you have copied your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself and to Thanet District Council, as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

16 February 2018
Greg Shapland
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer sent their response to the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

16 February 2018
Andrew Taylor
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation, with their consultation response, to the Planning Inspectorate, the Applicant and Thanet District Council.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

Helpfully you have copied your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself and to Thanet District Council, as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

16 February 2018
Peter Borrough
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation, with their consultation response, to the Planning Inspectorate, the Applicant and Thanet District Council.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

Helpfully you have sent your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself and to Thanet District Council, as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

16 February 2018
Steve and Jacqui Ansell
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation, with their consultation response, to the Planning Inspectorate, the Applicant and Thanet District Council.
For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

Helpfully you have copied your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself and to Thanet District Council, as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

16 February 2018
Gillian and Sean Farrell
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer sent their response to the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

Helpfully you have copied your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself and to Thanet District Council, as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

16 February 2018
Ann Scott
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via post
response has attachments
The enquirer sent their response to the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
You enclosed your response to the Applicant’s latest consultation exercise. The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

I enclose for your convenience Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination. If having read the Advice Note 8 series you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

16 February 2018
AB Doughty
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer sent their response to the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

16 February 2018
Mr and Mrs James
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation, with their consultation response, to the Planning Inspectorate, the Applicant and Thanet District Council.
For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

Helpfully you have copied your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself and to Thanet District Council, as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

16 February 2018
Alan Welcome
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation, with their consultation response, to the Planning Inspectorate, the Applicant and Thanet District Council.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

Helpfully you have copied your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself and to Thanet District Council, as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

16 February 2018
Jonathan Bradley
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
I and various members of the community of Thanet have been trying to get assurances and evidence to back up claims made by RiverOak Strategic Partners "RSP", Sir Roger Gale MP, Craig Mackinlay MP, various local Cllrs including Robert Bayford, Sam Bambridge, Stuart Piper and Trevor Shonk that night flights will not be required should Manston airport reopen other than in the case of emergency instances.

Despite asking the question absolutely clearly and directly it has still not been possible to get comfort on this issue as the statements made by the above party's, some did not respond at all, were either unclear or deliberately vague when the correct and required response is either yes or no. In addition RSP in their latest limited consultation are now requesting up to 8 flights each night 7 nights a week and in addition a night time quota count of 4000 for cargo operations and 2000 for passenger operations, a greater count than at London Heathrow where I understand, should further expansion be granted, night flights would not be required. How this correlates to statements that night flights are not required or how the QC count level interfaces with a maximum of 8 I am yet to understand and will be seeking clarity from RSP in due course.

As you will have seen from responses to the first consultation some public respondents were told by RSP representatives that there would not be any night flights, some were told they were not in their "current" plans leaving it open for plans in the future to include them. I was told that night flights would be required if customers requested them. At the more recent consultations which, despite the new inclusion of a very large night time quota count and significant new and incredibly important information regarding impacts on health, were only held in two locations with only a few hundred people attending presumably because most thought not much had changed, again answers on this point have been variously reported as unclear or inconsistent between RSP representatives.

I am sure you can understand the confusion and the unwillingness of those concerned about night flights, who are on both sides of the airport/no airport divide, nobody wants them, to rely on statements made by pro airport supporters and Sir Roger Gale that night flights are not required. Even Sir Roger Gales recent statement, which you will have seen, is ambiguous as it says that RSP "neither needs nor wants scheduled night flights that do not fit in with its business plan" quite cleverly worded to ensure that any night flights that do fit in with its business plan would be required, so again not categoric. Again this is inconsistent with RSP current DCO documentation and their request to the Civil Aviation Authority for night flights without limit.

At consultations RSP have advised that they have included night flights because you "PINS" require then to show the worst possible situation. Others including Sir Roger Gale, Craig Mackinlay, various local Cllrs and airport supporters have also made this assertion. You have I think been asked this question before but your reply was not as categoric as it could have been. My interpretation of your reply was that you had not specified that night flights should be included but merely required the applicant to allow in it's application for the worst case scenario within its own specified airport operation framework, so if it wants night flights it should include them but if it doesn't it can exclude them. What would be helpful to all involved in this process and particularly the large number of people who are concerned about the possibility of night flights, would be if you could confirm the following.

The inclusion of night flights is purely at the discretion of the applicant and it is not a requirement that PINS insists is included in the documentation to support a Development Consent Order "DCO". It is for the applicant alone to decide whether or not it's operation of the airport requires the inclusion of night flights or not. If an applicant included in the documentation supporting a DCO application a categoric statement that "Other than in the case of unplanned emergency situations outside of its control there would be no night flights required at Manston Airport" this would be acceptable within the DCO process, would be acceptable to PINS, would not prejudice the acceptance of the application for examination, would not prevent the project being considered to be one of Nationally Strategic Importance and would not predjudice any decision to be made by the Secretary of State.

I think this statement is clear and categoric and is a reflection of what is required within the legal framework surrounding the DCO process and I hope therefore as a statement of fact you are able to make it as publically as possible.
Beyond the acceptance tests applied to a submitted application for airport-related development (as set out in s23 of the Planning Act 2008), the Planning Inspectorate does not dictate the operational characteristics of airport-related applications made to it. It is for an applicant alone to decide whether or not its airport-related development needs to allow for night flights to be operated.

If an airport applicant intends to operate night flights, its Environmental Impact Assessment will need to include an assessment to identify the likely significant effects arising from those night flights, along with a description of the measures envisaged in order to avoid, prevent, reduce or offset them. If an airport applicant does not intend to operate night flights, or have the option to operate night flights, there will be no need to assess the impact of night flights as part of its Environmental Impact Assessment.

An applicant must submit a draft Development Consent Order (DCO) with its application and the draft DCO must set out the authorised development that the Applicant is seeking consent for. If an applicant chose to do so it could include within a draft DCO for airport-related development provisions which set out, for example, the parameters associated with any night flights that an applicant wishes to operate (eg their frequency, the circumstances under which they may operate etc).

The draft provisions provided in the draft DCO submitted with the application will be subject to examination by the appointed Examining Authority (ExA). Anybody who registers to become an Interested Party at the appropriate time in the Pre-examination period (as advertised by the Applicant) will be able to make representations to the ExA about any of the provisions in the draft DCO. The ExA will make a recommendation to the Secretary of State about whether development consent should be granted, and if so, what provisions are to be included in the DCO, including any provisions relating to night flights if the applicant requested these in its application. The Secretary of State will make the final decision on these matters. The authorised development will be prescribed in a Schedule to the DCO, if development consent is granted.

16 February 2018
Adem Mehmet
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer sent their response to the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

Please send your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to Thanet District Council ([email protected]), as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

16 February 2018
anon.
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

If you have not done so already please send your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself ([email protected] [email protected]) and to Thanet District Council ([email protected]), as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

16 February 2018
Martin Northrop
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer sent their response to the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

If you have not done so already please send your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself ([email protected] [email protected]) and to Thanet District Council ([email protected]), as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

16 February 2018
Kim Edgington
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation, with their consultation response, to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

If you have not done so already please send your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself ([email protected] [email protected]) and to Thanet District Council ([email protected]), as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

16 February 2018
Grant Duncan
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

If you have not done so already please send your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself ([email protected] [email protected]) and to Thanet District Council ([email protected]), as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

16 February 2018
Susan Duncan
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via post
response has attachments
The enquirer submitted representations regarding the merits of the proposed development to the Planning Inspectorate.
The qualifying thresholds for an airport-related Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project are set out in section 23 of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008). If an application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, the Applicant will be required to justify in the documentation its position on the baseline assumed in terms of flight numbers for the purposes of the capability test in the PA2008. The Planning Inspectorate, on behalf of the Secretary of State, cannot take a view on the Applicant’s approach in this regard until such time as an application is formally submitted and s55 of the PA2008 is engaged.

Regarding the remaining content of your letter, the Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

16 February 2018
Christopher Burrows
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via phone
Ymholiad – 16 Chwefror 2018 / Enquiry – 16 February 2018

Roedd Mr David Jenkins, clerc Cyngor Cymuned Llangyfelach, yn holi ynghylch cyflwyno ei ymateb i’r ymgynghoriad, sydd i fod cyrraedd erbyn 19 Chwefror 2018. Ni fu ar gael yn ddiweddar a chyfnod cyfyngedig o amser yn unig sydd ar ôl ganddo ar gyfer cyflwyno sylwadau. Y prif bryderon, yn ei farn ef a CC Llangyfelach, yw effaith weledol y simnai a’r effaith ar ansawdd yr aer ar dir cyfagos sydd wedi’i gynnwys yn y Cynllun Datblygu Lleol (sy’n cael ei archwilio ar hyn o bryd) fel safle posibl ar gyfer datblygiad preswyl ar raddfa fawr, a’r effaith ar Barc Busnes Abertawe gerllaw ac ar Ysbyty Treforys, sy’n uned drawma fawr.


Mr David Jenkins, clerk to Llangyfelach Community Council, was enquiring about submitting his consultation response, due by 19 February 2018. He’s recently been unavailable and has a limited amount of time left in which to submit representations. His/Llangyfelach CC’s main concerns are the visual impact of the stack and air quality impacts on land nearby which has been included in the Local Development Plan (currently under examination) as a potential site for large scale residential development, the effect on the nearby Swansea Business Park and on Morrison Hospital, which is a major trauma unit.
Cynghorwyd Mr Jenkins gan yr Arolygiaeth Gynllunio bod yr Ymgeisydd yn cynnal cylch ymgynghori ac mai’r dyddiad cau yw 19 Chwefror 2018. Gan fod y cais yn y cyfnod cyn ymgeisio ar hyn o bryd, dylid cyfeirio ymatebion at yr Ymgeisydd yn uniongyrchol. Esboniodd yr Arolygiaeth ei bod yn ofynnol i’r Ymgeisydd fformiwleiddio’r ymatebion y mae’n eu derbyn erbyn y dyddiad cau ac esbonio sut y rhoddwyd sylw i faterion fel rhan o’r Adroddiad Ymgynghori, a fydd yn cyd-fynd â’r cais, maes o law.

Cyfeiriwyd Mr Jenkins at wefan yr Ymgeisydd, sy’n cynnwys gwybodaeth am y prosiect yn ogystal â dogfennau ategol allweddol.

Hefyd, esboniodd yr Arolygiaeth wrth Mr Jenkins y gallai gofrestru i ddod yn berson â buddiant yn ystod y cyfnod cyn archwiliad, os derbynnir y cais ar gyfer ei archwilio. Fe’i cyfeiriwyd at dudalen prosiect Abergelli ar wefan yr Arolygiaeth ac esboniwyd y bydd yr holl wybodaeth yn cael ei chyhoeddi ar y dudalen hon ar ôl i’r cais gael ei gyflwyno ar gyfer ei archwilio. Yn ogystal, tynnwyd sylw Mr Jenkins gan yr Arolygiaeth at ei nodiadau cyngor, a NC8 yn arbennig, sy’n helpu esbonio’r broses ymgeisio i aelodau’r cyhoedd.

Bydd Mr Jenkins yn llunio ei ymateb i’r ymgynghoriad dros y penwythnos a’i anfon drwy e-bost at yr Ymgeisydd ddydd Llun er mwyn cwrdd â’r dyddiad cau.


The Planning Inspectorate advised Mr Jenkins that the Applicant was carrying out a round of consultation and the closing date is 19 February 2018. As the application is currently at pre-application stage, responses should be made directly to the Applicant. The Inspectorate explained that the Applicant is required to formulate responses it receives by the deadline and explain how issues have been addressed as part of the Consultation Report, which will accompany the application, in due course.

Mr Jenkins was directed to the Applicant’s website which contains information on the project as well as key supporting documents.

The Inspectorate also explained to Mr Jenkins that he could register to become an interested person during the pre-examination stage, if the application is accepted for examination. He was directed to the Abergelli project page on the Inspectorate’s website and it was explained that all information would be published to this page when the application is submitted for examination. The Inspectorate also advised Mr Jenkins aware of its advice notes, in particular AN8, which helps explain the application process to members of the public.

Mr Jenkins will formulate his consultation response over the weekend and send it by e-mail to the Applicant on Monday to meet the deadline.

16 February 2018
David Jenkins
Abergelli Power
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer sent their response to the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

15 February 2018
Jacqui Porter
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation, with their consultation response, to the Planning Inspectorate, the Applicant and Thanet District Council.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

15 February 2018
Andrea Slaughter
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer submitted representations regarding the merits of the proposed development to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

If you have not done so already please send your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself ([email protected] [email protected]) and to Thanet District Council ([email protected]), as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

15 February 2018
Mark Heverin
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer sent their response to the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

More information about how to engage at the Pre-application stage of the process is provided in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

15 February 2018
Russell F White
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer sent their response to the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

15 February 2018
Ian Williams
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation, with their consultation response, to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

Please send any comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself ([email protected] [email protected]) and to Thanet District Council ([email protected]), as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

15 February 2018
Mr Robbins and Family
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation, with their consultation response, to the Planning Inspectorate, the Applicant and Thanet District Council.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

15 February 2018
Fiona Gilhooly
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation, with their consultation response, to the Planning Inspectorate, the Applicant and Thanet District Council.
For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

Helpfully you have sent your comments about the Applicant’s consultation directly to the Applicant and to Thanet District Council, as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

15 February 2018
MJ Feekings
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation, with their consultation response, to the Planning Inspectorate, the Applicant and Thanet District Council.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

Helpfully you have copied your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself and to Thanet District Council, as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

15 February 2018
Ms Holmans and Mr Thompson
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer sent their response to the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

More information about how to engage at the Pre-application stage of the process is provided in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

15 February 2018
J Wales
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer submitted representations regarding the merits of the proposed development to the Planning Inspectorate.
Please contact the Applicant ([email protected] [email protected]) for details about how its three stages of consultation were advertised.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

15 February 2018
John Horn
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer submitted representations regarding the merits of the proposed development to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

If you have not done so already please send your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself ([email protected] [email protected]) and to Thanet District Council ([email protected]), as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

15 February 2018
Steve Gambrell
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer submitted representations regarding the merits of the proposed development, and the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation, to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

15 February 2018
Lindsey Harris
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If you have not done so already please send your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself ([email protected] [email protected]) and to Thanet District Council ([email protected]), as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

15 February 2018
Ramsgate Society - Wendy and George Arnheim
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer sent their response to the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If you have not done so already please send your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself ([email protected] [email protected]) and to Thanet District Council ([email protected]), as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

15 February 2018
Susan Hudson
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer submitted representations regarding the merits of the proposed development to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

If you have not done so already please send your comments about the Applicant’s consultation directly to the Applicant ([email protected] [email protected]). Further advice about Community Consultation can be found in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

15 February 2018
Graham Jackson and Jean White
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer sent their response to the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If you have not done so already please send your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself ([email protected] [email protected]) and to Thanet District Council ([email protected]), as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

15 February 2018
Hugh Langston
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
Could you kindly arrange for the deadline for submission to be delayed as I am having problems opening the Manston Masterplan on the RSP website. I have contacted rsp copied to you but haven’t had a response. I had intended to work on my response this evening and am away tomorrow.
The Planning Inspectorate does not have the power to extend the consultation period.

Please await a response from the Applicant (copied) which, given the difficulty you have encountered, may be able to agree a short bespoke extension for receipt of your representation.

15 February 2018
Michael Child
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer sent their response to the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

Helpfully you have sent your comments about the Applicant’s consultation directly to the Applicant. You may also wish to copy your comments to Thanet District Council ([email protected]), as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

15 February 2018
Rachel Furlong
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer sent their response to the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If you have not done so already please send your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to Thanet District Council ([email protected]), as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

15 February 2018
Mr and Mrs Bowley
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer sent their response to the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If you have not done so already please send your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself ([email protected] [email protected]) and to Thanet District Council ([email protected]), as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

15 February 2018
Liz Langston
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Early Submission’ of draft application documents by DS Smith Paper Ltd for PINS review
Please see attached

14 February 2018
DS Smith Paper Ltd - anon.
Kemsley Paper Mill (K4) CHP Plant
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation, with their consultation response, to the Planning Inspectorate, the Applicant and Thanet District Council.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

Helpfully you have copied your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself and to Thanet District Council, as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

14 February 2018
Phil Neale
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
As a resident o Ramsgate I wish to object to any redevelopment of Manston Airport for airport use and feel their has been a distinct lack of public consultation at every stage of the proposed redevelopment.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

Helpfully you have copied your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself and to Thanet District Council, as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

14 February 2018
Gerard Bane
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer submitted representations regarding the merits of the proposed development and the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If you have not done so already please send your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself ([email protected] [email protected]) and to Thanet District Council ([email protected]), as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

14 February 2018
Alan Maxted
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer submitted representations regarding the merits of the proposed development to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

14 February 2018
T McElligott
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation, with their consultation response, to the Planning Inspectorate, the Applicant and Thanet District Council.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

Helpfully you have copied your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself and to Thanet District Council, as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

14 February 2018
Ruth Baird
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer sent their response to the Applicant's 2018 statutory consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

14 February 2018
Andrew Kelly
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If you have not done so already please send your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself ([email protected] [email protected]) and to Thanet District Council ([email protected]), as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

14 February 2018
Dennis Booth
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer sent their response to the Applicant's 2018 statutory consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

14 February 2018
Linda Charlesworth
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer submitted representations regarding the merits of the proposed development and the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If you have not done so already please send your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself ([email protected] [email protected]) and to Thanet District Council ([email protected]), as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

14 February 2018
Jean Robinson
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation, with their consultation response, to the Planning Inspectorate, the Applicant and Thanet District Council.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

14 February 2018
Patricia Moore
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation to the Planning Inspectorate and Thanet District Council.
Helpfully you have copied your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to Thanet District Council (TDC), as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 1]

TDC can consider your comments as part of its Adequacy of Consultation Representation. In reaching its decision about whether to accept an application for examination the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State), amongst other things, must have regard to any Adequacy of Consultation Representations made by local authority consultees.

14 February 2018
James Chappell
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer sent their response to the Applicant's 2018 statutory consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If you have not done so already please send your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to Thanet District Council ([email protected]), as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

14 February 2018
Debbie Blagden
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer submitted representations regarding the merits of the proposed development to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

14 February 2018
Caroline Allum
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer sent their response to the Applicant's 2018 statutory consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If you have not done so already please send your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to Thanet District Council ([email protected]), as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

14 February 2018
Ann Scott
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer sent their response to the Applicant's 2018 statutory consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

14 February 2018
Paula Myers
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation, with their consultation response, to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If you have not done so already please send your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself ([email protected] [email protected]) and to Thanet District Council ([email protected]), as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

14 February 2018
Denis Smith
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation, which included representations regarding the merits of the proposed development, to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If you have not done so already please send your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself ([email protected] [email protected]) and to Thanet District Council ([email protected]), as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

14 February 2018
Mrs J Best
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer submitted representations regarding the merits of the proposed development to the Planning Inspectorate, the Applicant and Thanet District Council.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

14 February 2018
Sarah Illingworth
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation, which included representations regarding the merits of the proposed development, to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If you have not done so already please send your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself ([email protected] [email protected]) and to Thanet District Council ([email protected]), as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

14 February 2018
Steve Lockwood
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer sent their response to the Applicant's 2018 statutory consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If you have not done so already please send your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to Thanet District Council ([email protected]), as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

14 February 2018
Jenny Rath
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer sent their response to the Applicant's 2018 statutory consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

14 February 2018
Mr M Smith
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If you have not done so already please send your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself ([email protected] [email protected]) and to Thanet District Council ([email protected]), as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

14 February 2018
Susan Robinson
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation, with their consultation response, to the Planning Inspectorate, the Applicant and Thanet District Council.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

Helpfully you have copied your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself and to Thanet District Council, as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

14 February 2018
Daniel Woollett
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation, with their consultation response, to the Planning Inspectorate and the Applicant.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

Please contact Thanet District Council ([email protected]) with your comments about the Applicant’s consultation, as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

14 February 2018
Mike Lockwood
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer submitted representations regarding the merits of the proposed development to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

14 February 2018
Davena Green
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation, with their consultation response, to the Planning Inspectorate, the Applicant and Thanet District Council.
Helpfully you have copied your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself and to Thanet District Council, as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 1]

The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 2]

14 February 2018
Tim Spencer
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer sent their response to the Applicant's 2018 statutory consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of a proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

Please see our Community Consultation FAQ for information and advice about commenting on an applicant's Pre-application consultation: [attachment 2]

12 February 2018
Marc Danton
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer sent their response to the Applicant's 2018 statutory Consultation and addressed their concerns on the consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

Helpfully you have copied your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself, and to Thanet District Council. For the avoidance of doubt, the Community Consultation FAQ described in my previous advice to you is now published: [attachment 2]

12 February 2018
Anne Peers
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I wish to add my name to opposing the reopening of Manston Airport as a former resident in Ramsgate. This has dragged on for so many years knowing that an airport is not viable for the area and the job numbers will be insignificant for the Thanet community. It's time/money wasting.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

12 February 2018
Sarah Brick
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
With reference to the recent consultation by River Oak, on Tuesday 23rd January at The Comfort Inn.

I was deeply disappointed to find out that I and many of the local residents were not informed of this consultation by post or leaflet, and therefore they were unable to voice their opinion on such an important issue that will affect all our lives.

We live on the Nethercourt Estate, which will be greatly affected.
If you have not already done so, please send your comments about the consultation to the Applicant itself: [email protected] [email protected]

For further information and advice about commenting on an applicant's Pre-application consultation please see our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 1]

12 February 2018
Tom Norton
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation, with their consultation response, to the Planning Inspectorate, the Applicant and Thanet District Council.
Helpfully you have copied your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself and to Thanet District Council, as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 1]

12 February 2018
Davena Green
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer queried potential compensation and submitted representations regarding the merits of the proposed development to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of a proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

Please contact the Applicant directly for advice about any compensation package proposed to be included as part of its application for development consent: [email protected] [email protected]

12 February 2018
Nathan Coldwell
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer queried potential compensation and submitted representations regarding the merits of the proposed development to the Planning Inspectorate.
Please see the National Infrastructure Planning website for information about the Planning Inspectorate’s role in the Planning Act 2008 process: [attachment 1]

You will need to contact the Applicant directly for advice about any compensation package proposed to be included as part of its application for development consent: [email protected] [email protected]

12 February 2018
Rob Wimbush
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation, which included representations regarding the merits of the proposed development, to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

Helpfully you have copied your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself and to Thanet District Council, as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

12 February 2018
Sam Smith
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer submitted representations regarding the merits of the proposed development to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

12 February 2018
Andrew Davis
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation, with their consultation response, to the Planning Inspectorate, the Applicant and Thanet District Council.
Helpfully you have copied your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself and to Thanet District Council, as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 1]

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations about the merits of the proposed development to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 2]

12 February 2018
Nigel West
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer sent their response to the Applicant's 2018 statutory consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
Helpfully you have sent your comments about the consultation directly to the Applicant. If you have not done so already, you may also wish to send them to Thanet District Council, as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 1]

For information about how and when you can make representations about the merits of the proposed development to the Planning Inspectorate, please see our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 2]

12 February 2018
Jenny Dawes
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer sent their response to the Applicant's 2018 statutory consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

Please see our Community Consultation FAQ for information and advice about commenting on an applicant's Pre-application consultation: [attachment 2]

12 February 2018
Eileen Richford
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation, which included representations regarding the merits of the proposed development, to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of a proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

I note you have forwarded your concerns regarding the Applicant’s Pre-application consultation to the correct channels: The Applicant and Thanet District Council. For more information on this, please see our Community Consultation FAQ (see in particular the advice at FAQ1): [attachment 2]

09 February 2018
James Curran
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
PINS meeting with Norfolk County Council
See attached meeting note

09 February 2018
Norfolk County Council - anon.
Great Yarmouth Third River Crossing
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please can you send me the Rule 6 letter, agenda for the preliminary meeting and draft timetable for the examination of the application.
After searching our records, Connect Plus Services don’t appear to be an Interested Party in the examination. Interested Parties are those with a legal interest in land affected by a nationally significant infrastructure project or that have made a relevant representation.

This may hinder your participation in the examination, as you will not be automatically invited to Hearings or have the right to make written representations (though the Examining Authority may accept any submission at their discretion), nor be notified of the final decision.

If you have a legal interest in land affected by a nationally significant infrastructure project, then you can make a request to the Examining Authority to become an interested party under s102A of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended). This can be done here:

[attachment 1]

As an Interested Party, you will be informed of the progress of the Examination and be notified of the final Decision by the Secretary of State. You can also:

• Make representations about the application being examined.

• Have the opportunity to attend and speak at the Preliminary Meeting or hearings that take place during the Examination.

• Have the opportunity to provide further written evidence to the appointed Examining Inspectors, known as the Examining Authority.

Further information on the examination process can be found in our suite of advice notes:

[attachment 2]

For your information, a copy of the Rule 6 letter can be viewed here:

[attachment 3]

08 February 2018
Connect Plus Services - Juliet Umeibekwe
Tilbury2
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer submitted representations regarding the merits of the proposed development to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of a proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

I note you have included comments regarding the Applicant’s 2018 consultation. Please see our published FAQ for information and advice on the correct channels to forward your concerns about the Applicant’s Pre-application community consultation: [attachment 2]

08 February 2018
Gabriel Holland
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation, which included representations regarding the merits of the proposed development, to the Planning Inspectorate.
I note that since your previous correspondence in July 2017, we have published an FAQ for information and advice about how to engage with the process at the Pre-application stage: [attachment 1]

If you wish to make comments about the Applicant’s Pre-application consultation, please do so following the process set out in the above FAQ. However, as you have included the Applicant and Thanet District Council in your email, they will have already seen your comments.

I also note that your email contains representations regarding the merits of the proposed development. The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations at this time; for information about how and when you will be able to do this, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 2]

08 February 2018
Jane Etherington
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer sent their response to the Applicant's 2018 statutory consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of a proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

We have also published an FAQ for information and advice about how to engage with the process at the Pre-application stage: [attachment 2]

08 February 2018
Terry Prue
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer submitted representations regarding the merits of the proposed development to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of a proposed development at this time. I do note however, that you have copied in the Applicant and Thanet District Council to your email.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

We have also published an FAQ for information and advice about how to engage with the process at the Pre-application stage: [attachment 2]

08 February 2018
Dr Jeremy Gledhill
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Nodyn Cyfarfod - 8 Chwefror 2018 / Meeting Note - 8 February 2018

08 February 2018
Horizon Nuclear Power - anon.
Wylfa Newydd Nuclear Power Station
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
See attached Meeting Note
See attached Meeting Note

08 February 2018
Gas 2 Wire - anon.
TIGRE Project 1 (TP1)
Enquiry received via email
Please can I confirm that there is no need to attend the Preliminary Meeting in order to be able to submit responses to questions, etc. or take part in future hearings?
The Preliminary Meeting is a procedural meeting that helps inform how the application will be examined.

At the Meeting, invited people and organisations will be invited to make comments on the draft Examination Timetable and arrangements for future Examination events, before the Examining Authority finalises the timetable.

It is not an opportunity for interested parties to put forward their views about what they like or don’t like about the application. Irrespective of whether you attend the preliminary meeting, once the Examination begins following the preliminary meeting, you will be able to:

• Make representations about the application that is being examined.

• Have the opportunity to attend and speak at the hearings that take place during the Examination and attend the accompanied site inspection.

• Have the opportunity to provide further written evidence to the appointed Examining Inspectors, known as the Examining Authority.

07 February 2018
Purfleet Real Estate Limited - Benjamin Dove-Seymour
Tilbury2
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I understand you are interested in the adequacy of the consultation.

So I should like to make it clear that I had thought all this consultation was over and re-inventing the airport was no longer an issue. I was surprised and horrified when friends told me there was yet another consultation by Riveroak - because they still want to have an airport with night flights over our home.

I have seen absolutely NO information about how many night flights they plan. Nor have I seen anything that gives me information about exactly how any of their plans will impact on my health. I also do not know how their plans will affect the tourism industry in Ramsgate, nor the educational achievements of the children of Ramsgate.

During a previous consultation I attended, I received a glossy brochure that didn't appear to have any substantive information. I saw models and photographs and lots of staff. But there was no definitive information about the number of flights, whether day time or at night, etc. I had no way to tell staff that I was opposed to the plan - or, indeed, that I supported it. It seemed to be a show ... and one without audience participation.
The FAQ document below sets out that the correct, tiered process for commenting on an applicant's Pre-application consultation, if an application is yet to be submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, is to first contact the Applicant directly with your concerns regarding the consultation. If you do not receive a satisfactory response, you may wish to forward your concerns to the relevant local authority, to take into consideration as part of their 'Adequacy of Consultation Representation' that the Inspectorate will request once an application has been submitted.

I note that you copied in both the Applicant and relevant local authority - Thanet Borough Council (TBC) - when you emailed your concerns to the Planning Inspectorate. Therefore, you may wish to confirm your concerns with TBC if you do not receive a satisfactory response from the Applicant.

Only once have you forwarded your concerns to both the above parties, and still remain unsatisfied, may you contact the Secretary of State, through the Planning Inspectorate. The Planning Inspectorate can consider your concerns regarding Pre-application consultation in addition to the statutory Acceptance tests when making the decision about whether or not to accept the application under section 55 of the Planning Act 2008.

[attachment 1]

07 February 2018
Mariette Castellino
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
We are writing in response to RSP’s recent Consultation event held in Ramsgate.
The event itself was not well advertised and many residents and businesses were completely unaware that it was taking place. This is most inadequate given the enormity of the impact it will have on both individuals and the town as a whole. RSP documentation (12.9.68) –“ Considering that the impact is permanent and that a large number of dwellings within communities are subject to moderate or major adverse impacts, significant adverse effects have been identified at the communities of Ramsgate..... The effects would be characterised by a perceived change in the quality of life for the occupants of buildings”.

Given that section 12.9.58 lists Chatham and Clarendon Grammar School as being one of several non-residential receptors identified as being significantly adversely affected by the potential airport, it is totally unacceptable and unimaginable that the school was not contacted by RSP in advance and invited to attend the consultation event. Chatham and Clarendon Grammar School have, however, received no notification or information what-so-ever which is utterly inexcusable and unprofessional.

Christ Church School, which RSP have also identified as being affected by their proposed airport, has not received any information or been contacted by the company either.

We also noticed that RSP appear to have omitted to mention Ramsgate Library as another non-residential building that will suffer from the noise created from the airport and which is all the more incredible since it is being used as the venue for their documents to be made available to the public! The library itself has also not been contacted by RPS and invited to comment on their proposals as an institution in its own right. One has to question how many other public / commercial buildings and spaces have also not been contacted.

In referring to the public buildings that RSP have included, Section 12.9.59 states, “The significant effect will be characterised by potential disruption, disturbance or interference with tasks by the users of the buildings”. These are places of valuable learning, leisure and spiritual activities; they are places in which we learn, read, engage with others, take part in sporting activities, act, sing, pray, talk, think, listen, concentrate and play.

The event itself was inconveniently mid-week (on a Tuesday) which again made it difficult for many to attend. Surely the people of Ramsgate deserve to be given ample opportunity to see for themselves what RSP is intending to inflict upon them and RSP should therefore have made their event run for several days including evenings and weekends. The chosen location was a fairly small room which quickly felt over crowded.

When we asked a direct question to a RSP representative at the Ramsgate event about proposed night flights, she kept replying over and over again “...as I say, we are not ‘planning’ for night flights.” The RSP documentation, however, would suggest that this is not the case as 12.9.69 “During the night time – minor to major adverse impacts are predicted in Ramsgate.” 12.9.70 continues....” The effect would be characterised as a perceived change in the quality of life for occupants of buildings in these communities or a perceived change in the acoustic character of shared open spaced within these communities during the night time.” The information given at the consultation therefore felt deliberately misleading, contradictory and the tone was insulting.
We would like to again draw your attention to the fact that in Ramsgate, the combination of the topography of the land, densely packed and often tall, terraced housing means that noise is funnelled down and intensifies. Having lived in this house for 15 years, we know that the noise is extreme and affects us terribly. It is impossible even to continue a conversation with someone in the same room or speak on the telephone when the planes cross. We have also noted that the noise seems less intrusive in the car park of the Manston Tesco, for example, where, despite being nearer to the airport and the planes being even lower, the noise dissipates and is less intense as there is more open space. One really has to question the intentions and integrity of a company who appear to have deliberately avoided drawing attention to their plans from the thousands of inhabitants who might well be some of the most adversely affected.

We also pointed out that every time a plane has crossed our house during night time hours, every member of our family has fully wakened and the children frightened as the noise on the top floor where they sleep is unbearable and terrifying. This contravenes our Human Right to sleep and fails to meet the guidelines set by the world Health Organisation. RSP are now saying that there would be a need a considerable number of night flights between 11pm and 7am. This would have a catastrophic effect on ours and our children’s health, education and well-being.

The alternative proposal for Stone Hill Park would be hugely preferable, providing much needed housing, green space and leisure facilities. We do put it to all concerned, however, that the former Manston Airport Site is a valuable piece of land in the centre of the Isle of Thanet with its stunning beaches and seaside towns, each with its unique character. Surely we can work with imagination and vision to find a use that is inspiring and beneficial to the area as a whole; one that is positive and forward looking, providing varied and high quality work, entertainment and education opportunities and is something to be proud of for locals and visitors alike. Whoever would have thought that a couple of giant greenhouses in a disused quarry in Cornwall would be such a huge success and draw people from all over the world to learn, wonder and celebrate what the Eden Project has to offer? Surely, Thanet deserves better!
Firstly, if you wish to make comments about the Applicant’s Pre-application consultation, please do so following the process set out in our Community Consultation FAQ (see in particular the advice at FAQ1): [attachment 1]

I also note that your email contains representations regarding the merits of the proposed development. The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations at this time; for information about how and when you will be able to do this, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 2]

07 February 2018
Mr and Mrs Laven
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation and queried the Planning Inspectorate's advice on the provision for night flights in the proposed development.
Firstly, if you wish to make comments about the Applicant’s Pre-application consultation, please do so following the process set out in our Community Consultation FAQ (see in particular the advice at FAQ1): [attachment 1]

The FAQ document above sets out that the correct, tiered process for commenting on an applicant's Pre-application consultation, if an application is yet to be submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, is to first contact the Applicant directly with your concerns regarding the consultation. If you do not receive a satisfactory response, you may wish to forward your concerns to the relevant local authority, to take into consideration as part of their 'Adequacy of Consultation Representation' that the Inspectorate will request once an application has been submitted.

I note that you copied in both the Applicant and relevant local authority - Thanet Borough Council (TBC) - when you emailed your concerns to the Planning Inspectorate. Therefore, you may wish to confirm your concerns with TBC if you do not receive a satisfactory response from the Applicant.

Only once have you forwarded your concerns to both the above parties, and still remain unsatisfied, may you contact the Secretary of State, through the Planning Inspectorate. The Planning Inspectorate can consider your concerns regarding Pre-application consultation in addition to the statutory Acceptance tests when making the decision about whether or not to accept the application under section 55 of the Planning Act 2008.

In response to your query regarding the Planning Inspectorate’s advice on provision for night flights, by way of clarification: beyond the acceptance tests applied to a submitted application for airport-related development (as set out in s23 of the Planning Act 2008), the Planning Inspectorate does not dictate the operational characteristics of airport-related applications made to it.

If an airport applicant intends to operate night flights, its Environmental Impact Assessment will need to include an assessment to identify the likely significant effects arising from those night flights, along with a description of the measures envisaged in order to avoid, prevent, reduce or offset them.

If an airport applicant does not intend to operate night flights, or have the option to operate night flights, there will be no need to assess the impact of night flights as part of its Environmental Impact Assessment.

07 February 2018
James Chappell
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer forwarded representations they had sent to their local MP with regard to the proposed development.
Although I note your email was sent to a group, the Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of a proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

Please note we have also published an FAQ for information and advice about how to engage with the process at the Pre-application stage: [attachment 2]

06 February 2018
Derek Smith
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project meeting with Highways England
See attached meeting note

06 February 2018
Highways England - anon.
M20 Junction 10A
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Please see attached
Please see attached

06 February 2018
Highways England - anon.
A57 Link Roads (previously known as Trans Pennine Upgrade Programme)
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer sent their response to the Applicant's 2018 statutory consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of a proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

We have also published an FAQ for information and advice about how to engage with the process at the Pre-application stage: [attachment 2]

05 February 2018
Elaine Stevens
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer sent their response to the Applicant's 2018 statutory consultation to the Planning Inspectorate and queried the suitability of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) consenting process for the Proposed Development.
It is not for the Planning Inspectorate to consider the content of your response to the Applicant’s consultation. For details about how and when you will be able to make representations about the merits of the proposal to the Planning Inspectorate, please see Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination: [attachment 1]

In respect of your comment about the suitability of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) process, airport development that requires development consent is defined in section 23 of the PA2008. Any application by RiverOak Strategic Partners for a Development Consent Order will be considered for acceptance against the statutory tests in section 55 of the PA2008. Amongst those tests, the application must demonstrate how the thresholds in section 23 of the PA2008 would be met by the authorised development.

05 February 2018
Martin Weller
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer sent their response to the Applicant's 2018 statutory consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of a proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

We have also published an FAQ for information and advice about how to engage with the process at the Pre-application stage: [attachment 2]

05 February 2018
Jean Tedder
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation.
If you have not done so already please provide your comments directly to the Applicant and Thanet District Council.

Since I last advised you we have published a Community Consultation FAQ. In the context of your enquiry please read in particular the advice at FAQ1: [attachment 1]

01 February 2018
Lesley and Paul Chater
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer forwarded an from Transport for London in response to their request under the Freedom of Information Act (FOI-2993-1718).
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of a proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

01 February 2018
Nicolette McKenzie
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation.
If you wish to make comments about the Applicant’s Pre-application consultation, please do so following the process set out in our Community Consultation FAQ (see in particular the advice at FAQ1): [attachment 1]

01 February 2018
Dr Philip Shotton
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer submitted representations regarding the merits of the proposed development to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

01 February 2018
Keith Nicholls
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please see below a statement made yesterday by Sir Roger Gale MP regarding Manston airport. I will be grateful if you can confirm the claim within the statement of conclusions drawn by one of your inspectors during the recent change of use application procedure.

"Given the Inspector's comments in July last year when rejecting change of use on four current buildings on Manston and his recognition in his summary of the importance of Manston of a potential force for economic and employment development as an airport in the current local plan (which is why, of course, the Leader of Thanet Council and the minority opposed to the airport wanted to change the plan from Airport to mixed use) it is hard to see that the RiverOak application will not be accepted for examination..."
The Inspector’s decision is available to read on the Appeals Casework Portal, here: [attachment 1]

01 February 2018
Adem Mehmet
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Nodyn Cyfarfod - 1 Chwefror 2018 / Meeting Note - 1 February 2018

01 February 2018
Isle of Anglesey County Council - anon.
Wylfa Newydd Nuclear Power Station
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Thanet Extension project update meeting
See attached meeting note

31 January 2018
Vattenfall - anon.
Thanet Extension Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
As a Ramsgate resident, I am appalled that the creation of a 24/7 cargo hub is even being considered on the old Manston site.

I am not a NIMBY, afraid of the effect on the price of my house. I care deeply about the town and its beautiful natural situation.

A cargo hub would cause noise pollution, the damaging effects of which are widely known, as well as air and sea pollution.

The prospective owners say that water will run off the runway into the sea - a coastline that has a nature reserve, seal sanctuary and many rare sea birds. It CANNOT be allowed to happen.

How cynical of RSP to use images of heritage planes in their posters. There is nothing nostalgic or romantic about cargo planes flying at night, disrupting wildlife, sleep, buildings and a peaceful coastal way of life.

Their claims of creating 30,000 jobs are misleading, to put it politely. Their bristling defence of any concerns over the environment (the word wasn’t mentioned once on any of their shoddy presentation boards at the recent Ramsgate consultation at the Comfort Inn) and dismissal of genuine health concerns as ‘rubbish’ told me everything I needed to know about the lack of care over the issues that greatly concern the majority of residents in Ramsgate and Herne Bay.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of a proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

30 January 2018
Christabel Bradley
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I want to offer my voice to the protests regarding the re-opening of Manston Airport.

There has been a massive distortion by the River Oak Strategic Partnership in the interpretation that the attendees at the consultation meetings were in support of their plans to re-open the airport. The people I met were certainly not in support and were in fact very strongly against. Everyone was asked to sign into the meeting and then we are told that the signatures were to show our support of River Oaks plans. Surely this is illegal?

There has also been distortions in the number of jobs that the re-opening will create. It has been quoted by River Oak that this will generate 30,000 local jobs. This would mean Manston was employing more people that Gatwick and Heathrow combined.

There also hasn’t been any data provided regarding the pollution that the airport will create with the flights and the haulage of cargo from the airport.

Please build the houses that we need on this site. It would be a fantastic initiative to help solve the housing crisis in Southern England.

I look forward to hearing your thoughts on the above.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of a proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If you wish to make comments about the Applicant’s Pre-application consultation, please do so following the process set out in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

30 January 2018
Jeremy Green
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
We have received information from yourselves with regards Tilbury 2 Project.

We manage a retirement estate across the water in Gravesend and wondered if this would impact us?
You have received our letter because you have been identified by the applicant as being interested in land potentially affected by the proposed scheme. Therefore you have the status of an Interested Party in the examination and can fully participate in the examination.

You can view all the project documents at the project website:
[attachment 1]

As an Interested Party, you will be informed of the progress of the Examination and be notified of the final Decision by the Secretary of State. You can also:

• Make representations about the application that is being examined.

• Have the opportunity to attend and speak at the Preliminary Meeting or hearings that take place during the Examination.

• Have the opportunity to provide further written evidence to the appointed Examining Inspector(s), known as the Examining Authority

However, you are not obliged to participate.

Further information on the examination process can be found in our suite of advice notes:
[attachment 2]

Advice notes 8.2 – 8.5 include information relating to the examination process.

If you have any questions about the examination process, please do not hesitate to contact me.

30 January 2018
Elm Group - Michelle Cable
Tilbury2
Enquiry received via phone
response has attachments
A47 Projects Update Meeting
Please see attached meeting note

30 January 2018
Highways England
A47 Wansford to Sutton
Enquiry received via phone
response has attachments
A47 Projects Update Meeting
Please see attached meeting note

30 January 2018
Highways England
A47 - A11 Thickthorn Junction
Enquiry received via phone
response has attachments
A47 Projects Update Meeting
Please see attached meeting note

30 January 2018
Highways England
A47 North Tuddenham to Easton
Enquiry received via phone
response has attachments
A47 Projects Update Meeting
Please see attached meeting note

30 January 2018
Highways England
A47 Blofield to North Burlingham
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting note
Please see attached

30 January 2018
Highways England - anon.
A303 Stonehenge
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project inception meeting with regards to the proposed Luton Airport application.
Please see attached meeting note.

30 January 2018
London Luton Airport Ltd - anon.
London Luton Airport Expansion
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I, in common with many local residents, am extremely strongly opposed to RSP's plans as hugely detrimental to the commercial and amenity value of Thanet in general and specifically Ramsgate and Herne Bay, popular tourist destinations, which will be particularly blighted should the DCO application be successful. I would be grateful if you could incorporate my views in your assessment of the suitability of RSP's plans.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of a proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

29 January 2018
Phil Shotton
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I've explained to you that key details of the proposal are missing from the consultation documentations, rendering any consultation meaningless. You previously told me that all of the information I had talked about would be available in the pre-consultation documentation. What is the point of your meetings with the applicants if you aren't ensuring that they consult properly?

Firstly, I would like to ask if you did tell them to include provision for night flights in their application and, if so, how many night flights did you tell them to include?

Secondly, if you have given them advice on this, how is it that this conversation doesn't feature in any of the minutes of the meetings between the applicants and the Planning Inspectorate? Are conversations taking place which are not minuted or recorded on your web-site?
I have previously explained that the Planning Inspectorate cannot compel an applicant to include particular information in its Preliminary Environmental Information, which is defined in Regulation 2 of the 2009 EIA Regulations (and Regulation 12 of the 2017 EIA Regulations). The Inspectorate’s Pre-application service for applicants, which summarises the purpose of applicant meetings, is set out in detail here: [attachment 1]

The Planning Inspectorate has not advised the Applicant to include provision for night flights in its application. All of the advice issued to the Applicant has been recorded and published to the Inspectorate’s website in accordance with s51 of the Planning Act 2008.

29 January 2018
Peter Binding
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
What would the complaints procedure be if I considered that the DCO process was being misused?
You will already be aware of the complaints procedure at the Pre-application stage of the process in respect of consultation, as set out in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 1]

You will also be aware that the Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of a proposed development at the Pre-application stage of the process. For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to an appointed Examining Authority, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 2]

In respect of making a ‘complaint’ relating to the matter implied, this could be approached in the following ways:

• You could make representations to an appointed Examining Authority, at the appropriate time, about the Applicant’s case for Compulsory Acquisition (CA). Strict statutory tests must be satisfied by an applicant in order for powers relating to the CA of and rights to be included in a Development Consent Order. For more information see government guidance related to procedures for the CA of land: [attachment 3]; and
• Following the issue of the final decision by the Secretary of State, you could challenge the decision in the High Court through the process of Judicial Review (JR). You would need to take your own legal advice about the grounds upon which an application for JR could be made.

Separately, the Planning Inspectorate accepts that it is inevitable that there will sometimes be concerns about the Examination process or the Examining Authority’s report to the Secretary of State. In this respect, we will carefully consider and respond to any matters that you wish to raise. Information about our complaints procedure is available here: [attachment 4]

29 January 2018
Michael Child
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Request submitted to become an interested party.
Thank you for your recent section 102A request to become an Interested Party, in relation to the Tilbury2 project.

You have been identified by the applicant as a category 3 person. Therefore you already have the status of an Interested Party in the examination and can fully participate in the examination.

Your details are included in the in the Book of Reference; this document is provided by the applicant. You can view this document, along with all the other project documents at the project website:

[attachment 1]

As an Interested Party, you will be informed of the progress of the Examination and be notified of the final Decision by the Secretary of State. You can also:

• Make representations about the application being examined.

• Have the opportunity to attend and speak at the Preliminary Meeting or hearings that take place during the Examination.

• Have the opportunity to provide further written evidence to the appointed Examining Inspector(s), known as the Examining Authority

Further information on the examination process can be found in our suite of advice notes:

[attachment 2]

Advice notes 8.2 – 8.5 include information relating to the examination process.

This response is sent without prejudice and cannot be considered as legal advice on which you can rely.

29 January 2018
Ioan-Eugen Ciobanu
Tilbury2
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I have sent back my views to RSP in their recent emailed form regarding the above matter.

As a resident and also a business person I have the strongest views against this proposal - and I am somewhat bemused that after the previous request by RSP and the subsequent rejection they are back yet again. This time actually acknowledging that they will have night flights carrying cargo across and over the top of a residential and built up town.

This is so WRONG on so many levels:

The pollution effect is distressing alone - the noise, which will only harm peoples health but lack of sleep, the devaluation of the area and businesses- lack of jobs ( honestly how many people would it employ) possibly a handful.

The viability of the cargo hub lets remember its already been used as an airport and it was a dismal failure then - this proposed use will effect, schools, businesses and tourists and impact greatly on the towns of Ramsgate and Herne Bay and all the villages and its residents.

RSP are not people we can trust - they had no idea at the last consultation I attended and when asked various questions, they were literally stabbing in the dark for answers on flight paths etc.

No NO No we do not want a cargo hub here - despite everything Ramsgate is trying to keep its head up and become a pleasant holiday and recreational and viable town -

I have already sent my form to RSP but because I do not trust them I am ccing you all on my strong feelings regarding the proposed scheme.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of a proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

26 January 2018
Christine Isteed
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer sent their response to the Applicant's 2018 statutory consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations of this type at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

26 January 2018
Susan Hammock
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
A question, please, about the scope of the environmental impact assessment described in the consultation documents recently issued by RSP.

I note that a scoping opinion was sought from PINS/the Secretary of State prior to the first statutory consultation. But that concerned an environmental assessment which was to be conducted in accordance with legal rules which have now changed. I appreciate that there is considerable overlap between the two sets of regulations. On the other hand, -and as the European Commission explained when the parent law was made - the new law requires a deeper approach to environmental impact.

Reading through the PEIR I have come across a number of important instances where there is a question whether the new Regulations require further or different work by the developer. Air quality, heritage assets, and noise are examples of three areas where such points have arisen. In these instances the question appears quite often to have been resolved in the negative by the developer. They includes cases where the Secretary of State/PINS gave written notice of disagreement with the developer's decisions on "scoping out" under the old regulations.

I think I understand that the developer's judgement is not final and that matters he has ruled out of scope actually remain in scope until and unless the Secretary of State determines otherwise. But the developer's current decisions plainly potentially affect the depth and quality of the consultation. Indeed they risk contradicting the purpose of the new Union law which is to ensure that the public and others are consulted on the basis of a full picture of the significant environmental effects of the developer's plans.

Given that these are new and to some extent untested Regulations, the public interested in the developer consulting you and the local authority about what should be scoped in and scoped out would seem especially strong. Perhaps the developer did so informally?

Could you kindly clarify the position regarding scope and explain how best ordinary members of the public can enjoy the rights intended for them by the new Regulations?
The current consultation being undertaken by the Applicant concerns Preliminary Environmental Information (PEI). PEI is described in the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2009 (the EIA Regulations 2009) as:

“information referred to in Part 1 of Schedule 4 which—
(a) has been compiled by the applicant; and
(b) is reasonably required to assess the environmental effects of the development
(and of any associated development);”

In the revised regulations the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations (the EIA Regulations 2017), PEI is described as:
“information referred to in regulation 14(2) which—
(a) has been compiled by the applicant; and
(b) is reasonably required for the consultation bodies to develop an informed view of the likely significant environmental effects of the development (and of any associated development).”

In undertaking consultation on PEI, the Applicant is fulfilling part of their consultation requirements under the EIA Regulations and the Planning Act 2008. This provides the public and consultation bodies the opportunity to comment on the assessment undertaken.

A Scoping Opinion was sought under the EIA Regulations 2009. Scoping is a voluntary process that an Applicant may choose to undertake but is not a legal requirement. The EIA Regulations 2017 included transitional provisions that allow an applicant to continue to progress a project under the EIA Regulations 2009 subject to certain circumstances defined in the regulations. It is for an Applicant to justify which set of regulations they consider they fall under.

With respect to a Scoping Opinion, under the EIA Regulations 2009 an Applicant could request an Opinion as to the information to be provided in the environmental statement. The Applicant should provide this information unless it is able to justify not providing it (e.g. the design of the project has changed therefore the original Scoping Opinion is not fully applicable). The Applicant has not sought a Scoping Opinion under the EIA Regulations 2017.

On submission of an Environmental Statement with a submission for development consent, the Inspectorate will consider whether the Environmental Statement complies with the regulations and is sufficient to be examined.

26 January 2018
Mark de Pulford
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
How is it that the Planning Inspectorate is giving the possible applicants advice, but the possible applicants keep producing incomplete, opaque and confusing information?
Under section 51 of the Planning Act 2008 the Planning Inspectorate may give advice to potential applicants about applying for an order granting development, and to any other person about making representations about a proposed application for development consent. Save for EIA screening/ scoping functions, that is the extent of the Planning Inspectorate’s powers at the Pre-application stage of the process.

Please refer to our Community Consultation FAQ for details about how, and to whom, you should make comments about an applicant’s Pre-application consultation: [attachment 1]

26 January 2018
Peter Binding
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer sent their response to the Applicant's 2018 statutory consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of a proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

26 January 2018
Susan Holton
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
As part of the consultation process can you let me know what powers the TDC has to enforce control on night flights? Also, what plans will TDC have in place to monitor health of us residents to assess the impact of night flights on blood pressure and sleeplessness? Has World Health Organisation data been consulted to assess risk on local population health by runway and aircraft activity?
Local authorities have a special the Planning Act 2008 process. For more details please see:

• The Planning Inspectorate’s Advice Note One and Advice Note Two; and
• Our Community Consultation FAQ.

Both are available to view at the following address: [attachment 1]

The development proposed by the Applicant is EIA development and an Environmental Statement must therefore be produced to support the application. For specific information about the Applicant’s Environmental Impact Assessment, please contact the Applicant directly at: [email protected]

26 January 2018
Denis Booth
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached meeting note

26 January 2018
IAMP LLP
International Advanced Manufacturing Park TWO (IAMP TWO)
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting 25 January 2018
See attached meeting note

25 January 2018
Scottish Power Renewables - anon.
East Anglia ONE North Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting 25 January 2018
See attached meeting note

25 January 2018
Scottish Power Renewables - anon.
East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Inception Meeting
Please see attached

25 January 2018
Boston Alternative Energy Facility - anon.
Boston Alternative Energy Facility (BAEF)
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I have just read a very troubling article regarding RSP’s latest application for night flights from Manston.

The suggestion that Ramsgate should even consider accepting a proposal to include any night freight traffic overhead is worrying enough and now this application shows that it will in fact require more noisy, polluting freight planes than even Heathrow allows. I struggle to resolve this request when considering the small number of benefits the airport offers. History shows that very few employees are required to man a freight airport and beyond them, who else benefits? The benefits to our area do not balance with the destructive effect these planes will have.

I implore the planning inspectorate to use good judgement and to consider the failures of the very recent past when making this decision. There is a well known saying; if we carry out the same action every time we will get the same result every time...and so far the airport has only ever failed!
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations of this type at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

23 January 2018
Tiffany Wilmans
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I really do not understand why Manston airport might open again. It is a failing Airport and will ruin Tourism in Ramsgate. I have an estate agent coming around today to look at selling my business because it will go bankrupt if the flights start again.

I am sure all the people who wanted it open were thinking of a nice airport, not like is being applied for with 24/7 cargo.

Why are RiverOak still trying for this when all the evidence is stacked against it actually working?
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations of this type at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

23 January 2018
Stephanie Flower
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Will local business get compensated for having to relocate?
Please see the government's guidance related to procedures for the compulsory acquisition of land: [attachment 1]

The Applicant, RiverOak Strategic Partners, will be able to advise you about any compensation package proposed to be included as part of its application for development consent.

23 January 2018
Stephanie Flower
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Update meeting for the Applicant to outline the consultation materials and approach
Please see the attached meeting note

23 January 2018
Highways England - Josh Hodder
A30 Chiverton to Carland Cross Scheme
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
We have copied you into this email we have sent to RSP because of concerns we have over notification of & access to documentation regarding their latest public consultation. We wanted you to be aware that we have contacted them and so far have had no resolution in spite of contacting RSP twice regarding these problems. We are now over a week into the consultation with the one presentation in Ramsgate on Tuesday. The centre of our estate is less than 1.5km from the boundary of Manston and yet it seems no one here has had notification from RSP informing them. This is meant to be a public consultation.
If you have not already done so, please provide your comments about the Applicant’s Pre-application consultation to your local authority which will be able to consider them in conjunction with making its Adequacy of Consultation Representation; if an application is submitted. Our Community Consultation FAQ provides more advice in this regard: [attachment 1]

22 January 2018
Ian Scott
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I am writing as someone whose home is on the flightpath for Manston Airport.

I have just been told by a friend that there will be a consultation on this on January 23 (tomorrow). However, I had no notification of this in advance by the proposed developers – either by email or, as would have been more correct, by post. The consultation is therefore invalid and should be re-run.

On points of detail I would like to know what account will be taken of the following points in the environmental impact assessment:

What affect will the cargo hub airport have on the rejuvenation of Ramsgate by new people moving to the area?

What affect will the cargo hub airport have on tourism?

What will be done to mitigate the impact of night flights on the health of the Ramsgate population due to loss of sleep from the night flights?

There is a well advertised shortage of accommodation in South-East England, and recent owners have not succeeded in making a success of Manston as an airport. The environmental consequences for Ramsgate will be disastrous. A mixed-use development for the Ramsgate site is by far the best solution.
If you have not already done so, please contact the Applicant in respect your concerns about its Pre-application consultation.

If you are not satisfied with the Applicant’s response, you can provide your comments to your local authority which will be able to consider them in conjunction with making its Adequacy of Consultation Representation; if an application is submitted. Our Community Consultation FAQ provides more advice in this regard: [attachment 1]

In respect of the Environmental Impact Assessment, at this stage of the process these are questions for the Applicant. RiverOak Strategic Partners can be contacted at [email protected] and [email protected]

If an application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate and subsequently judged to be of an satisfactory standard to be examined, you will be able to register your interest and make representations about the Proposed Development to an appointed Examining Authority. Please see our Advice Note 8 series for more details about when and how to have your say: [attachment 2]

22 January 2018
Clive Aslet
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
Query around slight amendments made in response to feedback to the proposals presented during the statutory consultation. I was advised (in a meeting with the Inspectorate on 12 January 2018) that whilst para 75 in the DCLG Guidance March 2015 on Pre-Application Consultation refers to ‘informing’ affected parties, general practice was to apply para 76 and carry out targeted consultation. If this approach is taken, can you advise me of any key parameters to follow i.e. to consult relevant individuals and organisations in writing with 21 days to reply.
We are not aware of any set timescale for further, targeted consultation however we would advise that to ensure meaningful opportunity for people to engage (who maybe have not engaged previously), it may be wise to provide at least 28 days to receive responses.

22 January 2018
Steven Edwards
Reinforcement to North Shropshire Electricity Distribution Network
Enquiry received via phone
response has attachments
Norfolk Boreas Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

22 January 2018
Vattenfall - anon.
Norfolk Boreas
Enquiry received via email
We write regarding two schemes for SRFIs at Milton Northants, namely Roxhill (Northampton Gateway) and (Rail Central) Ashfield Land, both developers have now clearly indicated that their proposals are running on very similar time lines Roxhill having commenced Phase 2 consultation and Ashfield Land indicating Phase 2 consultation expected in Q1/2 2018.

We write with regard to the potential adverse cumulative impacts the interrelationship of both schemes, now running it appears concurrently, may have.

We have referred to PINS advice note 17 “Cumulative Effects Assessment”(CEA)in section 1.3 reference is specifically made to environmental effects, and in section 1.4 Advice note 17 PINS also state “When considering cumulative effects the ES should provide information on how the effects of the applicants proposal would combine and interact with the effects of other development”.

Could PINS confirm if the Cumulative impact relating to the practical aspects of the scheme(as well as environmental issues),which in this instance is two SRFIs potentially connecting into the same very limited Northampton Loop of the WCML, would be deemed to fall under Advice note 17 1.4 and thereby would need to be considered by both developers, and given the importance of Rail connectivity should this be dealt with in this pre application period.

We would appreciate your advice on this
If a proposed development requires an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) to be submitted as part of the application, the EIA Regulations necessitate that the applicant undertakes an assessment of cumulative effects, and considers alternatives to the proposed development. The assessment of cumulative effects would take into account other reasonably foreseeable schemes including any other relevant Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIP). Both developers are undertaking an EIA and will therefore submit an Environmental Statement as part of their application.

It would be for the Applicant for each scheme to make the case for, and to assess the impacts of, their proposed development taking into consideration the cumulative effects of the relevant built, consented and/or proposed developments as appropriate at the time that their application is lodged. Each case would be judged on its individual merits, where the appointed Examining Authority (ExA) would assess the material of the Applicant’s application documents and submissions received during the Examination (should the application be Accepted for Examination by the Secretary of State (SoS) via the Acceptance process) from interested parties.

You made reference specifically to section 1.4 of Advice Note 17, however we would encourage you to review the document in its entirety as it provides more information on cumulative effects assessment and includes the proposed methodology for Applicants to consider when reviewing cumulative effects.

The Applicants for both the Northampton Gateway and Rail Central SRFI proposal, have confirmed that they would be undertaking a cumulative assessment which would include the others proposal and therefore this matter is being considered/dealt with at the pre-application stage. We would encourage you to review the meeting notes published on both project pages (Northampton Gateway Rail Freight Interchange and Rail Central SRFI) to have sight of discussions held between the Planning Inspectorate and the Applicants regarding their respective proposals. It is therefore safe to assume that as both Applicant’s would be considering each other’s proposal and their possible cumulative effects, that the decision maker (the SoS) would be equipped with an assessment of the likely cumulative effects associated with both schemes including if they were both operational.

It is essential to note, that when making a decision on whether or not to grant consent for an NSIP, the SoS will have regard to any important and relevant matter; as will the ExA appointed to examine an application and report to the SoS. The impact of a proposal on existing uses and its compatibility with other developments is a matter that could be raised in submissions and could be capable of being relevant and important.

19 January 2018
Pat Hargreaves
Rail Central (Strategic Rail Freight Interchange)
Enquiry received via email
We write regarding two schemes for SRFIs at Milton Northants, namely Roxhill (Northampton Gateway) and (Rail Central) Ashfield Land, both developers have now clearly indicated that their proposals are running on very similar time lines Roxhill having commenced Phase 2 consultation and Ashfield Land indicating Phase 2 consultation expected in Q1/2 2018.

We write with regard to the potential adverse cumulative impacts the interrelationship of both schemes, now running it appears concurrently, may have.

We have referred to PINS advice note 17 “Cumulative Effects Assessment”(CEA)in section 1.3 reference is specifically made to environmental effects, and in section 1.4 Advice note 17 PINS also state “When considering cumulative effects the ES should provide information on how the effects of the applicants proposal would combine and interact with the effects of other development”.

Could PINS confirm if the Cumulative impact relating to the practical aspects of the scheme(as well as environmental issues),which in this instance is two SRFIs potentially connecting into the same very limited Northampton Loop of the WCML, would be deemed to fall under Advice note 17 1.4 and thereby would need to be considered by both developers, and given the importance of Rail connectivity should this be dealt with in this pre application period.

We would appreciate your advice on this
If a proposed development requires an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) to be submitted as part of the application, the EIA Regulations necessitate that the applicant undertakes an assessment of cumulative effects, and considers alternatives to the proposed development. The assessment of cumulative effects would take into account other reasonably foreseeable schemes including any other relevant Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIP). Both developers are undertaking an EIA and will therefore submit an Environmental Statement as part of their application.

It would be for the Applicant for each scheme to make the case for, and to assess the impacts of, their proposed development taking into consideration the cumulative effects of the relevant built, consented and/or proposed developments as appropriate at the time that their application is lodged. Each case would be judged on its individual merits, where the appointed Examining Authority (ExA) would assess the material of the Applicant’s application documents and submissions received during the Examination (should the application be Accepted for Examination by the Secretary of State (SoS) via the Acceptance process) from interested parties.

You made reference specifically to section 1.4 of Advice Note 17, however we would encourage you to review the document in its entirety as it provides more information on cumulative effects assessment and includes the proposed methodology for Applicants to consider when reviewing cumulative effects.

The Applicants for both the Northampton Gateway and Rail Central SRFI proposal, have confirmed that they would be undertaking a cumulative assessment which would include the others proposal and therefore this matter is being considered/dealt with at the pre-application stage. We would encourage you to review the meeting notes published on both project pages (Northampton Gateway Rail Freight Interchange and Rail Central SRFI) to have sight of discussions held between the Planning Inspectorate and the Applicants regarding their respective proposals. It is therefore safe to assume that as both Applicant’s would be considering each other’s proposal and their possible cumulative effects, that the decision maker (the SoS) would be equipped with an assessment of the likely cumulative effects associated with both schemes including if they were both operational.

It is essential to note, that when making a decision on whether or not to grant consent for an NSIP, the SoS will have regard to any important and relevant matter; as will the ExA appointed to examine an application and report to the SoS. The impact of a proposal on existing uses and its compatibility with other developments is a matter that could be raised in submissions and could be capable of being relevant and important.

19 January 2018
Alan Hargreaves
Northampton Gateway Rail Freight Interchange
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I write to oppose RSPs proposed DCO of Manston Airport Land
After deceiving myself, residents and yourself, for many months, and at previous unsatisfactory "consultations", RSP Have now come clean and have included in their Environmental Impact Statement a proposal for 4000 Q4 aircraft movements during the night time period, together with a further 2000 Q4 movements during a shoulder period defined as between 6:00 and 7:00 am.
That they wait until now, one week before what they hope will be a final acceptable consultation, to admit the necessity of extensive night flights to their plans, makes one question either their honesty or their understanding of what a nationally significant freight hub entails.
The residents of Ramsgate in particular, living between 200 yards and 2 miles of the end of the runway and directly on the most frequently used (70%) flight path, have been here before. Previous owners of the airport, that has now been closed for 3 years, have proposed night flights as a possible mitigation for the airport's repeated economic failure. Those proposals, similar to the current proposal, were met with a huge protest from Ramsgate residents, business owners, educationists etc. This was despite the offer then being passenger flights and state of the art aircraft rather than what is on offer now, which would have little direct benefit to residents. Residents were quite aware that the noise, sleep disturbance and environmental pollution would severely impact on their health and quality of life. The many tourist related businesses also saw a polluting airport as serious impediment to their viability, with predictable detrimental effects on employment.
In considering whether to support the application, I assume that it is necessary to consider the alternative proposal by the legitimate owners. I understand they have submitted a master plan that includes a heritage aviation facility that would honour the local history and enhance the visitor offer; an extensive business park building upon the owners extensive track record, and housing estate promising to be large enough to be sustainable, and avoiding the need to use green field land to meet the councils housing targets.
Taking land off of legitimate owners should not be done lightly. I see nothing in the Government's aviation plans that would justify doing this in this case.
Please refer to our FAQ for information and advice about how to engage with the process at the Pre-application stage: [attachment 1]

Our Advice Note 8 series explains how and when to register as an Interested Party and make representations about a proposed development if an application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate and subsequently found to be of a satisfactory standard to be examined: [attachment 2]

19 January 2018
David Green
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I am wondering if a past potential investor should make a submission to you when and if River Oak actually make the application to try to acquire Manston.
Anybody can choose to register as an Interested Party and make representations to an appointed Examining Authority in the manner set out in our Advice Note 8 series:
[attachment 1]

19 January 2018
Richard Card
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer sent his response to the Applicant's 2018 statutory consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
Helpfully your email is also addressed to Thanet District Council, which will be invited to make an Adequacy of Consultation Representation if an application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate in due course.

For more information and advice about the community consultation process, please see our FAQ: [attachment 1]

19 January 2018
Gary Ottewill
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I understand that, according to the DCO process, RSP should have prepared a Consultation Report to PINS outlining how it took into account the feedback responses from its public consultations held in June and July 2017. Am I correct in my understanding that no such report was prepared?
I have been told by RSP that, following the current January and February 2018 statutory consultations, it now intends to prepare a Consultation Report describing how it has responded to feedback from both the 2017 and 2018 consultations.
Would you not agree that that is less than satisfactory? Surely PINS should have received, and the public would rightly expect, the report from the 2017 consultations before a further consultation would take place?
The Applicant will be required to submit a Consultation Report with its application for development consent. The Consultation Report is not an iterative document and applicants are not required to produce a separate Report for each round of consultation that they undertake. The Planning Inspectorate cannot test the adequacy of an applicant’s Pre-application consultation until an application (including the Consultation Report) is formally submitted to it.

Notwithstanding the explicit statutory duties places on applicants in respect of their Pre-application consultation (under the Planning Act 2008), the Planning Inspectorate’s Advice Note 14 summarises the purpose and gives advice about the expected format and content of the Consultation Report: [attachment 1]

For more information and advice about the community consultation process, please see our FAQ: [attachment 2]

19 January 2018
Simon Crow
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
I’m writing as a resident of Ramsgate who’s recently received an email from a company currently calling itself ‘RSP’ informing me that they are planning yet another inadequate round of consultations pertaining to their attempted land grab of some 800 acres of brownfield land formerly known as Manston Airport. My question for you is thus: seeing as every independent report into the viability of an airport at Manston has come to the same conclusion, that it simply isn’t viable, it seems ridiculous that RSP can continue to blight an entire district indefinitely. So can RSP continue indefinitely in their pre-application? It would substantial flaw in the planning process to allow a company with no evidence of any funds whatsoever to create such uncertainty to an entire district based upon a totally unviable business plan with no recourse for their actions or time limit. Please can you let me know if this is case.
The PA2008 process is frontloaded, meaning the onus is on applicants to prepare their applications fully before they are submitted to the Planning Inspectorate. On that basis, provided that the statutory procedures set out in the PA2008 are satisfied there is no limit placed on the number of Pre-application consultation exercises a particular applicant may choose to undertake, and it is not unprecedented or unusual for an applicant to carry more than one statutory consultation exercise.

In respect of funding, an application for a Development Consent Order (DCO) that would authorise the Compulsory Acquisition (CA) of land/ rights must be accompanied by a Funding Statement which should demonstrate that adequate funding is likely to be available to enable the CA within the statutory period following the DCO being made. Funding Statements are published to the Planning Inspectorate’s website alongside the rest of the application documentation, and their content is routinely examined by appointed Examining Authorities.

19 January 2018
Aaron Oldale
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I'm writing to complain about the most recent consultation by RiverOak Strategic Partners.

Firstly, as a resident directly under the Manston flight path I have received no notification from them about the consultation and how I might participate. Given my keen interest in the subject, I have made myself aware but I am dismayed that yet again, so many residents directly affected by their proposals have been kept in the dark.

Secondly, as per the previous consultations the documentation available (allegedly) via RSP's website is actually not user friendly, in fact it can prove totally inaccessible. The files are so large that accessing them is extremely difficult as is downloading, let alone printing. It was only after several attempts and some help from others that I managed to access most at all. And with only 5 weeks to comment. There is no cross-referencing provided by RSP which means that I, and all residents, are presumably expected to wade through last year's documents together with this year's in order to identify any amendments or additions. This is completely unsatisfactory.

Finally, yet again those most affected by RSP's proposals have only a limited opportunity to attend. At least two opportunities, with one at the weekend, should have been provided.

Consultations, if meaningful, need to be properly announced, ensure accessible documentation, be of sufficient length and allow full participation by as many as possible Yet again, a failure on all counts.
Helpfully your email is also addressed to Thanet District Council, which will be invited to make an Adequacy of Consultation Representation if an application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate in due course.

For more information and advice about the community consultation process, please see our FAQ: [attachment 1]

19 January 2018
Susan Kennedy
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
It has come to my attention via a friend that RSP are doing another consultation with regards to Manston Airport.

I have not had notification to my address. If you look on a map you will see that I am two miles away, if not less, to the runway and in direct line of the flight path.

I would like to know why my house, and neighbours, as I have been along my street asking, have not had written notification about this. I thought all of Ramsgate had to be notified?

Please can you advise what the guidelines are?
The statutory guidance in respect of an Applicant’s Pre-application consultation duties is available here: [attachment 1]

The Planning Inspectorate has also produced an FAQ document which provides advice about Pre-application community consultation: [attachment 2]

19 January 2018
Anne-Marie Nixey
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I am writing to voice my utter disgust at the Riveroak proposition. PLEASE DO NOT LET IT GO AHEAD!!!!!!

I am concerned that overall the proposal would have a seriously detrimental to the town and its residents.

It will ruin lots of hard work and investment into regenerating this area, deterring people from moving here, ruining tourism and most importantly damaging the health of mine and other's children and inhibiting their ability to learn and prosper and social mobility.

I am concerned about the proposed leading to both noise and air pollution, sleepless nights, damage to the infrastructure and the prospect of thousands of lorries bringing fuel, clogging up the commuter roads in addition to the danger and extra carbon monoxide this will bring.

I am concerned for proposed detrimental effect on the nature reserves and the wildlife, some of which are rare and endangered.

I also want houses built on the Manston site because we need more housing in this area and I would prefer them to be built on brownfield rather than greenfield farm land. Again, for the sake of our environment and the children.

Also, I cannot see how the project is necessary or viable. There is not a shortage of capacity for cargo in the existing airports nearby.

Also, due to our positioning, the is only one entrance and exit and a lot of sea. If you put circles concentrically around the Manston site to achieve an economically viable capacity they would be needing to bypass existing airports, with capacity, to get to Manston. That cannot make sense. Surely, the Midlands and further up the country are in greater need than this location right in the corner of England.

I would also like to complain about the proposal process. The lack of information and consultation and time given. It is a shambles.

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE DO NOT LET THIS PROPOSAL GO THROUGH!!!!!!
Please refer to our FAQ for information and advice about how to engage with the process at the Pre-application stage: [attachment 1]

Our Advice Note 8 series explains how and when to register as an Interested Party and make representations about a proposed development if an application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate and subsequently found to be of a satisfactory standard to be examined: [attachment 2]

19 January 2018
Ceri Diffley
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
As you are probably aware South Northants is facing the prospect of two developments alongside each other and a relatively small group of people are dividing their time between putting a case against the two. The prospect of two massive SRFIs right on our doorstep is fairly unthinkable and the consequences devastating. We therefore need clarity on the planning process and to this end I was wondering whether you could answer a couple of questions for me.

1. Following the Pre Application phase there is the Acceptance phase which lasts 28 days (I believe). This acceptance stage will start as soon as you receive the Applicant's formal application. Can you clarify whether they have to submit all their relevant documentation in one go i.e. on the first day of the 28 day acceptance stage? Will everything they submit to you become immediately available to the public on the PINs web site? If all the information is not required from day one can you clarify what they have to submit.

2. Are we, as persons who have actively engaged in the planning process, allowed to give our views at the acceptance stage? If not how can the planning inspectorate know that the Developer has taken account of all of our responses? Can we submit the feedback we have already given to the Developer to the Planning Inspectorate to allow them to ensure that everything has been considered?

3. The guidance note mentions the Local Authority commenting on the adequacy of consultation. Are others also allowed to comment on the adequacy directly or would we have to channel our views through the Local Authority?

4. If we are able to see the Developer's submission and we believe that they have not followed due process then are we allowed to proffer this view?
1. Upon submission the Applicant would need to ensure that Regulations 5 and 6 of the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedures) Regulations 2009 are complied with, as this sets out the statutory requirements for what must accompany a development consent application. I draw your attention to Advice Note (AN) 6: Preparation and submission of application documents and AN8: Overview of the National Significant Infrastructure planning Process for members of the public and others, specifically Appendix 1 of AN6, which provides a suggestion of documents to be submitted with an Application.

The Acceptance stage begins when a developer formally submits an application for development consent to the Planning Inspectorate, to act on behalf of the Secretary of State to determine whether the application meets the relevant standards to be accepted into Examination. The 28 day Acceptance period starts the day after the application is received. The decision as to whether the Applicants application documents will be published at the start of Acceptance is decided by the Applicant and confirmed at receipt of submission, if the Applicant agrees that the application documents can be published during the Acceptance Stage, the Planning Inspectorate will publish the application documents as soon as practicable upon receipt of the documents. If the Applicant doesn’t wish to have their application documents published, then the Planning Inspectorate would publish these documents at the same time the decision is made for the proposal. In the latter scenario the Planning Inspectorate would publish the Applicant’s application documents regardless of the decision to accept/refuse into the Examination (unless the Applicant withdraws the Application) and would be accompanied by the s55 checklist, decision letter, the Local Authorities response on the Applicant’s Adequacy of Consultation (AoC) and possibly s51 advice (if required).

2. The acceptance stage would not be the appropriate time to provide views on the proposal. The applicant would need to submit as part of their application documents a consultation report, which details their consultation during the pre-application stage (incl. s42, s47, s48 consultation) and should also demonstrate whether they had taken responses into consideration during this process to inform their proposal. Furthermore, we would also request from the relevant Local Authorities during the acceptance stage their response to AoC. This should outline whether the local authority deems that the applicant had undertaken adequate consultation with all relevant parties during their statutory consultation. We would encourage you to liaise with the relevant Local Authority on any matters relating to the proposal as the Planning Inspectorate would take their AoC response into consideration during the acceptance stage. Information on the how to get involved during the pre-application period can be viewed via AN8 – 8.1: Responding to the developer’s pre-application consultation.
Should the application be accepted into the Examination, the Applicant will need to issue a s56 notice to all interested parties on the decision to Accept the proposed development into Examination, as part of this notice the Applicant would need to define the period for the opening and closing of the Relevant Representation (RR) period, which must run for a minimum of 28 days. During this period, you will have your opportunity to outline any matters via submission of a RR form to the Planning Inspectorate. I would advise you to review AN8 – 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination which provides practical advice on how to register a RR in order to formerly become an Interested Party (IP) during the Examination.

3. The Planning Inspectorate will request at the start of the Acceptance stage that the relevant Local Authority provide a response to the Applicant’s AoC, which must be received within the statutory 28 day acceptance period and therefore as noted above we would encourage you to channel your views via the relevant Local Authority to address these and if necessary within their AoC to the Planning Inspectorate.

4. Should a proposed development be accepted into Examination, then all the application documents submitted by the Applicant will be published to the project page for all members of the public to view. The Relevant Representation period would be the appropriate time to raise any issues/matters regarding the proposed development, which will be taken into consideration during the Examination period. I would advise you to review the following ANs to assist and inform you on how to influence an examination and attending any events during the Examination period, should an application be accepted.
AN8 – 8.3: Influencing how an application is Examined: the Preliminary Meeting
AN8 – 8.4: The Examination
AN8 – 8.5: The Examination: Hearings and Site Inspections

19 January 2018
Mark Redding
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project meeting
Please see attached meeting note

19 January 2018
Statera Energy Ltd - Andrew Troup
General
Enquiry received via phone
Query regarding timing of consultation
Further to our telephone conversation, about requesting a Scoping Opinion from the Planning Inspectorate (the Inspectorate) at the same time or closely followed by consultation on the Preliminary Environmental Information (PEI) and formal consultation, we are not aware that this approach has been used before.

The purpose of scoping is to gather information about the aspects and matters that should be assessed and considered in an Environmental Statement (ES) and how. The purpose of undertaking an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and producing an ES is to provide information about the likely significant effects (LSE) of a Proposed Development, and this is usually preceded by scoping, although scoping is not mandatory.

According to Regulation 12(2)(b) of the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 (EIA Regs 2017), PEI means:

‘information referred to in regulation 14(2) which is reasonably required for the consultation bodies to develop an informed view of the likely significant environmental effects of the development (and of any associated development)’.

Having considered the above, where the usual sequence is not followed (or are undertaken in rapid succession), it is the view of the Inspectorate that:

A) there is potential that the PEI report (PEIR) not provide sufficient information to allow consultees to reach informed views about the LSE, particularly if it contains similar information to that in the scoping report; or

B) it would be an unnecessary duplication of information and resources if the PEIR contained similar information about the potential LSE to that contained in the scoping report, and there appears to be no value therefore in requesting a scoping opinion for the purpose of informing the ES: and

C) should a scoping opinion be requested, an Applicant risks the Inspectorate deciding that certain matters need to be scoped in which have not been included in the PEI report, and therefore will not have been considered by consultees.

Aside from the above, there are also obvious practical problems of consultees being asked for comments on documents from the Applicant and the Inspectorate either at the same time or repeatedly within a short time period, potentially leading to confusion and/or responses that are of limited benefit to the Applicant.

Further advice about scoping and preparation of an ES is provided in the Inspectorate’s Advice Note Seven: ‘Environmental Impact Assessment: Process, Preliminary Environmental Information and Environmental Statements’, available on the National Infrastructure Planning website.

18 January 2018
Suffolk County Council - Michael Wilks
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Note of presentation to the Heathrow Airport Consultative Committee (HACC).
See attached meeting note and presentation.

17 January 2018
Heathrow Airport Consultative Committee - anon.
Expansion of Heathrow Airport (Third Runway)
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached

17 January 2018
Network Rail - anon.
Western Rail Link to Heathrow
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached meeting note

16 January 2018
Orsted - Stuart Livesey
Hornsea Project Three Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Would you be kind enough to advise me as to if and/or when the original Ferrybridge C power station is to be demolished please?
As grateful as I am for the information on offer regarding the multi fuel power project I have found that your information has provided to be 'heavy going'; I am keen to know if any of the new development will be visible from my home on Hillcrest Road Townville (ordinance survey explorer 289 map reference 463253). Currently I can only see the very tops of the old pair of chimneys in the winter months when there are no leaves on the trees. Due to the juxtaposition of the woods the view from the back of my house has been a major feature of my location. At the time of writing I do not see any of the new development from my property and am keen to know if it is to stay that way.
Thank you for your time.
Thank you for your email which has been received in the inbox for the Ferrybridge Multifuel 2 (FM2) Power Station. The FM2 project has been consented in July 2016. On 11th January 2018 the Applicant has made an application to the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy for a non-material change in relation to the alternative provision of land for landscaping and biodiversity enhancement.

However, it appears that you might be referring to the Ferrybridge D Combined Cycle Gas Turbine (CCGT) Power Station Project which is at the pre-application stage, and we would suggest that you direct all your queries to the developer at [email protected] as the project has not been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate yet.

Advice note eight provides information on how to get involved in the pre-application process, and later in the examination of the application, should it become accepted by the Planning Inspectorate. It can be found at this link: [attachment 1]

16 January 2018
Rowland Smith
Ferrybridge Multifuel 2 (FM2) Power Station
response has attachments
North Shropshire Reinforcement project update meeting
Please see attached.

12 January 2018
SP Manweb - anon.
Reinforcement to North Shropshire Electricity Distribution Network
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Scoping clarifications and project update meeting
Please see attached

12 January 2018
Highways England - anon.
A303 Sparkford to Ilchester Dualling
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Nodyn Cyfarfod - 12 Ionawr 2018 / Meeting Note - 12 January 2018

12 January 2018
National Grid - anon.
North Wales Connection
response has attachments
Pins meeting with Roxhill (Junction 15) Limited on 12 January 2018
See attached meeting note and 3 further attachments:
- Comments on draft documents
- Comments on Consultation Report
- Comments on draft Plans

12 January 2018
Roxhill (Junction 15) Limited - anon.
Northampton Gateway Rail Freight Interchange
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Nodyn Cyfarfod - 11 Ionawr 2018 / Meeting Note - 11 January 2018

11 January 2018
Natural Resources Wales - anon.
Wylfa Newydd Nuclear Power Station
Enquiry received via email
Having reviewed your hearing agendas I wish to raise an issue best discussed in your Issue Specific Hearing (ISH). However at this moment in time I don’t believe my attendance at this meeting is required.
Northern Gas Network own and operate a 12” steel intermediate pressure gas main that crosses the roundabout I believe you are carrying out work. (att is our plans)
We treat our IP pipelines with the same safety protocols as our HP assets which insist that all work carried out in proximity to this pipeline is subject to NGN procedure SSW22 which I have also attached. This includes supervision of work within 3m of the pipeline.

Have you/your other consultees considered our pipeline and discussed this with any other member of NGN such as our diversions team/major projects? (if you are planning to divert)
Please can you present to me the scope of your works and how this will affect our asset. I am happy to arrange a site meeting, free of charge, with one of our pipeline technicians to discuss the projection of our pipeline should you wish?
Firstly, Highways England (the Applicant) has submitted an application under Section 37 of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) for an order to grant development consent (a DCO) for the A19/A184 Testos Junction Improvement scheme. The application is currently being examined by the Planning Inspectorate on behalf of the Secretary of State for Transport (SoST). Therefore, I recommend you contacting Highways England directly with regards to the scope of the works.

As you are unable to attend the hearings next week to address your concerns set out in your email below to the Applicant, would you like the Examining Authority (ExA), appointed on behalf of the SoST to examine the application, to address these concerns to the Applicant? There is scope to accept your email as an ‘Additional Submission’ in order to refer to it during the Compulsory Acquisition Hearing (CAH1) scheduled for 18 January 2018, when addressing Statutory Undertakers provisions of the PA2008.

If you do wish for your concerns to be brought to the ExA’s attention, please advise if you wish to submit them again in a more formal letter or are happy for your email to be used.

11 January 2018
Northern Gas Networks - David Turner
A19 / A184 Testos Junction Improvement
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Nodyn Cyfarfod - 10 Ionawr 2018 / Meeting Note - 10 January 2018

10 January 2018
Horizon Nuclear Energy - David Palmer
Wylfa Newydd Nuclear Power Station
Enquiry received via phone
response has attachments
Draft document review teleconference
Please see attached meeting note and the draft application documents feedback summary

10 January 2018
Suffolk County Council - anon.
Lake Lothing Third Crossing
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I have read your recent report and this seems in conflict with a recent announcement that you were demolishing and going on to gas. Please confirm where we now stand. It is getting confusing.
Thank you for your email which has been received in the inbox for the Ferrybridge Multifuel 2 (FM2) Power Station. The FM2 project has been consented in July 2016. On 11th January 2018 the Applicant has made an application to the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy for a non-material change in relation to the alternative provision of land for landscaping and biodiversity enhancement.

However, it appears that you might be referring to the Ferrybridge D Combined Cycle Gas Turbine (CCGT) Power Station Project which is at the pre-application stage, and we would suggest that you direct all your queries to the developer at [email protected] as the project has not been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate yet.

Advice note eight provides information on how to get involved in the pre-application process, and later in the examination of the application, should it become accepted by the Planning Inspectorate. It can be found at this link: [attachment 1]

10 January 2018
James Smith
Ferrybridge Multifuel 2 (FM2) Power Station
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
With regards to Evidence Plans, you have advised that an Evidence Plan would definitely be advantageous, and that PINS may be able to provide some support. You have kindly agreed to look into the process and get back to me.
See attached document.

09 January 2018
Atkins - Paul Watts
M25 junction 10/A3 Wisley interchange improvement
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Rail Central - Project Update Meeting
Please see attached.

09 January 2018
Ashfield Land - anon.
Rail Central (Strategic Rail Freight Interchange)
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project meeting with Highways England
See attached meeting note

08 January 2018
Highways England - anon.
A585 Windy Harbour to Skippool Improvement Scheme
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Meeting to discuss the Scoping Opinion issued by the Planning Inspectorate and for the Applicant to provide a project update.
Please see attached meeting note.

08 January 2018
Highways England - anon.
A57 Link Roads (previously known as Trans Pennine Upgrade Programme)
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I have just revisited this application to check for any progress. Please excuse this email being a bit muddled and fragmentary but I am short of time at the moment and fitting writing it in between customers at work. I would respectfully remind you that while you get paid for responding to it I don’t get paid for writing it. As I am directly affected by having long delayed and unclear plans for a potentially significant national infrastructure project hanging over the town I live and trade in I am obliged to respond to it.
As far as I can see the majority of people living here have been subjected to ongoing cries of wolf mixed with confused objectives so that there is very little public awareness of the situation.
I think if asked most local people would like to save the local airport with a view to being able to fly locally to holiday destination and having historic air displays, which is roughly what has happened in the past.
The actuality of the result of any DCO would appear to be a highly polluting freight facility with very little likelihood of either leisure flights or airshows.
The actual DCO remit as stated on the pins website is. “The upgrade and reopening of Manston Airport primarily as a cargo airport, with some passenger services, with a capacity of at least 12,000 air cargo movements per year.” Without any more precise commitment at this level then I assume that would be applicant’s obligation. This has however been presented from inception as “saving Manston Airport” which is something very different, holidays in the sun, a boost to the local economy and additional leisure events.
My main concern from inception has been addressing pollution issues with respect to the amount freight movements that would be necessary to comply with DCO legislation.
At the moment there seems to be conflicting information as to whether it would be only necessary to build an airfreight hub at Manston with the capacity for 10,000 movements per annum, or whether it would be necessary to increase the airfreight capacity of Manston by 10,000 freight movements per annum to qualify for a DCO.
Further to this there seems to be some confusion as to whether the existing airfreight capacity of Manston would be taken as the capacity prior to its recent closure or whether some other figure is taken as the existing capacity.
Could you kindly clarify this?
My main concern from inception has been addressing air pollution issues with respect to the amount freight movements that would be necessary to comply with DCO legislation.
As per your recommendations [attachment 1] “we would advise you to liaise directly with the Applicant, as the application for the proposed development is still in the process of being developed, and as such your views still have the opportunity to shape the application.”
I have copied my emails to the aplicant to you so I assume you will know that liaising seems to have presented difficulties for the applicant and so far they haven’t made any meaningful response to me and to honest I have now given up trying.
As the scientific journals relating to particulate air pollution enter the public domain I had been passing the information on, but without any connected response it is difficult to tell if the applicant was taking this information onboard.
The main November publications being related to abnormal sperm [attachment 2] and pulmonary function of children [attachment 3]
In December another aspect that I hadn’t considered came up which is the affect of behaviour in adolescents, see [attachment 4]
Once again I should stress that it is the combination of burning at least 10,000 tones of jet fuel p.a. in a relatively small area, with a densely populated area immediately along the prevailing air flow direction and the onshore breezes action of reducing the air flow at the perimeter of the densely populated area, that looks particularly concerning.
With Ramsgate the other significant issue would be aircraft noise exacerbated by the difficulties associated with sound insulation in the conservation area with many listed buildings including several schools.
Do you know if there has been any progress in addressing this problem?
I am assuming that there would have to be a property compensation scheme in place prior to acceptance of the DCO, as dealing with the noise compensation property blight issue in Ramsgate is likely to be one of the more costly aspects of the project. Obviously as the applicant has to prove to pins that they have adequate legitimately sourced funding to qualify for a DCO then I assume the approximate costs have to be known to do this, can you confirm this is the case?

As a result of revisiting this issue I note that there will be further consultation events [attachment 5] “Following the recent announcement that RiverOak Strategic Partners will be offering the public an opportunity to comment on its now fully-developed proposals for Manston Airport, prior to submitting the Development Consent Order application, RSP can now confirm the dates and venues for consultation events will be as follows:
23 January: Comfort Inn, Ramsgate 14:00-20:00
24 January: The Kings Hall, Herne Bay 14:00-20:00
Further details about the consultation period and how to respond will be provided in due course.”
In the first instance, I can’t find any notification relating to this consultation elsewhere, nothing on the pins website [attachment 6] nothing posted up in the Ramsgate information centre, I registered my interest at both the previous consultations and haven’t had any notification from rsp. I run a retail business in Ramsgate and have asked some of my customers if the are aware of this consultation. I haven’t been able to find anyone who is aware of it.
I have been unable to find the “fully-developed proposals for Manston Airport” mentioned, do you know if the can be found online?
I also can’t fine any statement of community consultation relating to these events, either on the rsp website or the TDC one, as I now have accessibility issues, the time I have before the events to make arrangements to overcome them is important to me. Can you please tell me the last date the statement of community consultation has to appear before the consultation event?
In view of the large number of people, particularly under the unavoidable flight path in Ramsgate and the issue of having both to revisit extensive documentation and presumably read further new documentation I would think time is running out.
Can you please confirm that this is actually a third consultation and that there will be some point in interested parties like me attending it? To expand on this, will comments be collated in some way and count towards the decision to accept the DCO?
Personally I have developed tinnitus since this project started and I foresee that I would have considerable accessibility issues if the Ramsgate session is reasonably well attended. To expand on this, a lot of people in a confined space all talking at once would be very difficult if not impossible for me to attend.
The underlying issue here is that from a common sense point of view a freight hub at Manston progressively appears increasingly unlikely to be viable. The figures just don’t appear to add up, the site already has an experienced and enthusiastic ownership with plans to exploit its brownfield status, which would suggest site acquisition compensation around that of brownfield land value for southeast England making the site worth around £1bn.
Any compensation package for Ramsgate along the lines of the one proposed for London airport expansion would be very costly, unless of course it is envisaged that the freight hub would go ahead without reasonable compensation.
Conversely the applicant appears to have no other airfreight hubs in fact no airports whatsoever, no tangible existing business where one could see evidence of substantial and available funds, that would in some way be logically directed into a substantial freight business.
At the moment the only impact the DCO application appears to be having is a variable amount of localised economic blight dependent on the publicity related to the DCO and so perhaps this could be used for investment purposes.
So I think my main question relates to how I should proceed with this one, I have a limited amount of resources to put into responding to something that looks like an ongoing series of cry wolf in the hope that either there will eventually be no opposition, or the objective is not an aviation one.
Do pins consider that this application can remain open in perpetuity?
Have pins considered ways in which DCO application could be used to adjust an economic background for investment purposes?
As an interested party is there some way I can be notified about further consultations, or indeed anything I should read or respond to relating to this DCO?
At the moment there seems to be conflicting information as to whether it would be only necessary to build an airfreight hub at Manston with the capacity for 10,000 movements per annum, or whether it would be necessary to increase the airfreight capacity of Manston by 10,000 freight movements per annum to qualify for a DCO. Further to this there seems to be some confusion as to whether the existing airfreight capacity of Manston would be taken as the capacity prior to its recent closure or whether some other figure is taken as the existing capacity. Could you kindly clarify this?

A teleconference between the Planning Inspectorate and RiverOak Strategic Partners was held on 22 November 2017, a note of which has been published: [attachment 7];ipcadvice=05e3f8e2c6

In the teleconference the Applicant confirmed that the consultation documents informing its January 2018 consultation would set out the Applicant’s position on the baseline assumed in terms of flight numbers for the purposes of the capability test set out in the Planning Act 2008 (the PA2008).

The Planning Inspectorate, on behalf of the Secretary of State, cannot take a view on the Applicant’s approach in this regard until such time as an application is formally submitted and s55 of the PA2008 is engaged.

With Ramsgate the other significant issue would be aircraft noise exacerbated by the difficulties associated with sound insulation in the conservation area with many listed buildings including several schools. Do you know if there has been any progress in addressing this problem?

The Planning Inspectorate is unsighted on the detail of any updates in respect of the Applicant’s Environment Impact Assessment. The Applicant’s original Preliminary Environment Information Report is the only extant information about the likely significant effects of the Proposed Development in the public domain. The Applicant did confirm in the aforementioned 22 November 2017 teleconference that its draft Development Consent Order would include provisions to secure a Noise Mitigation Plan and Noise Quota Count; but any special provisions in respect of heritage assets have not at this stage been specified.

I am assuming that there would have to be a property compensation scheme in place prior to acceptance of the DCO, as dealing with the noise compensation property blight issue in Ramsgate is likely to be one of the more costly aspects of the project. Obviously as the applicant has to prove to pins that they have adequate legitimately sourced funding to qualify for a DCO then I assume the approximate costs have to be known to do this, can you confirm this is the case?

In respect of claims for compensation, the provisions under the PA2008 are set out in s44 and s55.

In its Environmental Statement, the Applicant will be required to provide a description of the expected significant adverse effects of the Proposed Development and include measures to prevent or mitigate them. Those measures must in turn be secured in the Development Consent Order. If a compensation package forms part of an applicant’s mitigation strategy then logically the associated cost would need to be factored-in to an applicant’s demonstration that adequate funding is likely to be available.

In respect of funding, paragraph 18 of the DCLG’s guidance related to procedures for the Compulsory Acquisition of land states that applicants should be able to demonstrate that adequate funding is likely to be available to enable the Compulsory Acquisition within the statutory period following the order being made, and that the resource implications of a possible acquisition resulting from a blight notice have been taken account of.

I have been unable to find the “fully-developed proposals for Manston Airport” mentioned, do you know if the can be found online?

In the 22 November 2017 teleconference, the Applicant stated that its consultation materials would include an updated full Preliminary Environmental Information Report (PEIR). The Planning Inspectorate would expect for the updated PEIR to be made available in conjunction with the Applicant’s formal notifications for its January 2018 consultation exercise.

Can you please tell me the last date the statement of community consultation has to appear before the consultation event?

The Applicant’s duties in respect of the preparation and publication of a Statement of Community Consultation (SoCC) are set out in s47 of the PA2008. The SoCC must be made available for inspection in a way that is reasonably convenient for people living in the vicinity of the land, and published in a local newspaper.

Can you please confirm that this is actually a third consultation and that there will be some point in interested parties like me attending it? To expand on this, will comments be collated in some way and count towards the decision to accept the DCO?

The Planning Inspectorate understands that the January 2018 consultation will be a second consultation carried out by the Applicant on a statutory basis. The first consultation undertaken by the Applicant was on a non-statutory basis. Anybody can make comments about the application to the Applicant in the same way as its previous statutory consultation exercise. As the consultation will be undertaken on a statutory basis, the Applicant will be required to have regard to the responses received as per the provisions in s49 of the PA2008.

Do pins consider that this application can remain open in perpetuity?

The PA2008 process is frontloaded, meaning the onus is on applicants to get their applications right before they are submitted to the Planning Inspectorate. On that basis, provided that the statutory procedures set out in the PA2008 are satisfied there is no limit placed on the number of Pre-application consultation exercises a particular applicant may choose to undertake, and it is not unprecedented or unusual for an applicant to carry more than one statutory consultation exercise.

Have pins considered ways in which DCO application could be used to adjust an economic background for investment purposes?

Speculation of this type does not fall within the remit of the Planning Inspectorate’s consideration of land-use development consent applications.

As an interested party is there some way I can be notified about further consultations, or indeed anything I should read or respond to relating to this DCO?

Applicants must publish a SoCC in the prescribed manner, as set out in s47 of the PA2008. Please contact the Applicant directly about any non-statutory means by which the local community can be kept up to date about its proposals.

05 January 2018
Michael Child
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I should be grateful for any advice you may be able to offer regarding what impact HMG would expect last year's EIA regulations to have upon the developer's forthcoming public consultation. What does he have to address that was not previously the case?

I have looked at the text of the new regulations and various on-line commentaries, including the guidance issued by the DCLG. I have tried to identify the changes which are directly relevant to the RSP proposal (see attached table).

Whilst I would not of course expect PINS to have time to mark my homework (as it were), it would be helpful to know if this analysis has got something badly wrong. What I am trying to work out is what additional information could reasonably be expected from RSP.

I appreciate that the new regulations are a transposition of EU law and that, as the law currently stands, their meaning is ultimately a matter for the Court of Justice. I am not expecting an authoritative reply, just your view on whether broadly I have identified the principal substantive points.
The attached document summarises some of the new requirements, but as you pre-empt I cannot authoritatively comment on whether or not its content is exhaustive in respect of what is directly relevant to the RSP proposal. The Secretary of State’s exclusive point of reference in testing whether an applicant’s EIA has complied with the 2017 Regulations are the 2017 Regulations themselves.

02 January 2018
Mark de Pulford
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I should be grateful for any advice you may be able to offer regarding what impact HMG would expect last year's EIA regulations to have upon the developer's forthcoming public consultation. What does he have to address that was not previously the case?

I have looked at the text of the new regulations and various on-line commentaries, including the guidance issued by the DCLG. I have tried to identify the changes which are directly relevant to the RSP proposal (see attached table).

Whilst I would not of course expect PINS to have time to mark my homework (as it were), it would be helpful to know if this analysis has got something badly wrong. What I am trying to work out is what additional information could reasonably be expected from RSP.

I appreciate that the new regulations are a transposition of EU law and that, as the law currently stands, their meaning is ultimately a matter for the Court of Justice. I am not expecting an authoritative reply, just your view on whether broadly I have identified the principal substantive points.

Naturally I appreciate that you cannot "approve" the list for any legal or official purpose and that any comments you may make can only be regarded as informal and not necessarily exhaustive.
The attached document summarises some of the new requirements, but as you pre-empt I cannot authoritatively comment on whether or not its content is exhaustive in respect of what is directly relevant to the RSP proposal. The Secretary of State’s exclusive point of reference in testing whether an applicant’s EIA has complied with the 2017 Regulations are the 2017 Regulations themselves.

Broadly however, the requirements identified in the left hand column of the table within your document reflect the new requirements which align with the stage of the EIA process that RSP currently considers itself be at. Other new requirements relate explicitly to the screening, scoping or decision stages.

02 January 2018
Mark de Pulford
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
You say that the onus is on applicants to get their applications right before they are submitted. How are they supposed to do this if the feedback they need is not given until later? For example, the local council will not be asked to provide their opinion on the adequacy of consultation until after the application has been submitted. Until the council is asked to comment you cannot know the full horror of what was done (or not done) and just how many people knew nothing about the proposal. Surely, the applicants need to know that their consultation has not been good enough if they are to design a better one? The points I have made in previous correspondence stand. RSP have not provided people who would be badly affected by noise from their proposed development, with adequate information about the likely impacts.

This proposed development is somewhat different from others, in that the applicants are seeking to use the DCO process to reopen something which previously existed. Quite how there can be a national need for a new freight airport, when the old one went bust because it wasn't viable, is something which needs to be explained. Three separate aviation consultants' reports have now concluded that an airport at Manston is not viable. These include York Aviation, whose claim that RSP have cherry-picked and misrepresented their findings. We know that it will generate unacceptable levels of noise because that's what it did when it was open previously. It is not acceptable for the applicants to make a unilateral decision not to advertise their consultation to large numbers of people who were previously affected by severe noise.

It would make a great deal of sense to separate the decision on whether a project is a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project from the rest of the application process. In many cases it will be obvious that a proposal is of national significance but, in this case, the rationale for needing a new freight depot really should have been established before the applicants were allowed to embark on this ridiculous exercise. When the vast bulk of freight is carried in the belly-hold compartments of passenger aircraft, it makes no sense whatsoever to be trying to create a facility which is dedicated to freight planes so far from the major passenger hubs. I have been in touch with the Infrastructure Planning Commission and they have confirmed that this project is not something which they have either considered or backed.

I would like to see this application put on hold pending a decision on whether it is or is not a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project. The ongoing uncertainty is causing a great deal of damage in Thanet, and the repeated delays just prolong the misery. I don't believe the DCO process was ever intended to be used in this way and it is incumbent on those in positions of authority not to allow it to be drawn out indefinitely.
I am only able to reiterate that the Secretary of State cannot test the project against the provisions in section 23 of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) until an application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate. The Applicant has however stated that the consultation documents for its 2018 exercise will set out its position on the baseline assumed in terms of flight numbers for the purposes of the capability test set out in the PA2008: [attachment 1]

21 December 2017
Peter Binding
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
I was surprised to read from paragraph 1.4.2 of the Report to the SoS that Royal Mail’s submission following the IP Registration date was not treated as a Relevant Representation despite correspondence from PINS accepting it as such (as attached) and subsequent dialogue with PINS and HE up to 22 May 2017 before completion of the Examination on 2 June 2017. Based on previous advice from PINS, as a statutory consultee Royal Mail is able to notify the Examining Authority under section 89(2A) b of the Planning Act 2008 that it wishes to become an IP post registration.

Please can you explain why Royal Mail was not advised that its submission was not being treated as a Relevant Representation during the Examination process.
The representations submitted by Royal Mail were received on 19 October 2016. The registration or ‘Relevant Representation’ period closed on 3 October 2016.

What constitutes a Relevant Representation is a matter of fact, as set out in s102(4) of the Planning Act 2008. The representations provided by RM were not in the prescribed form and were received later than the applicable deadline under s56 (3 October 2016). RM’s submission therefore could not be treated as a Relevant Representation. Please see my attached email to you dated 25 November 2016.

Notwithstanding this, statutory consultees such as RM can notify an Examining Authority of their wish to be considered as an Interested Party at any time prior to the close of an Examination.

In short, RM became an IP following our receipt of your 19 October 2016 email request, but the attached submission could not be treated as Relevant Representation. The submission was however accepted by the ExA to be read in conjunction with the Examination.

20 December 2017
BNP Paribas for Royal Mail - Daniel Parry-Jones
M20 Junction 10A
Enquiry received via post
response has attachments
Please see attached
As the project has not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate we have no formal powers to intervene on consultees behalf. The Applicant, Vattenfall Wind Power Ltd, has recently consulted on their proposed development and, while this closed on 11 December 2017, you may wish to contact them to give them your views, including on your preferred transmission technology.

National Policy Statements (NPS) set out Government policy which the Secretary of State is required to take into account when determining a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project. The overarching NPS for Energy (EN-1) recognises that virtually all nationally significant energy infrastructure will have effects on the landscape but the aim should be to minimise harm to the landscape, having regard to siting, operational and other relevant constraints and provide reasonable mitigation where possible. EN-1 also requires the Applicant to carry out a landscape and visual assessment and report it in the Environmental Statement which will be submitted as part of the application.

Once an application is made (currently anticipated to be in Q2 2018), the Inspectorate will have 28 days to decide whether to accept the application for Examination. A copy of your correspondence has been placed on our records and will be presented to the Inspector at the Acceptance stage, together with the application documents and local authorities’ comments on the Applicant’s consultation.
After the decision has been made regarding whether to accept the application for Examination all documents used to inform the decision will be published on our website. If the application for development consent is formally accepted you will be able to submit your views in relation to the project which will be considered by the Examining Authority during the Examination. The Inspectorate has published a series of advice notes which explain the Examination process, including information on how to get involved; of particular interest are advice notes 8.1 to 8.5. These are available at: [attachment 1]

19 December 2017
Little Dunham Parish Council - Simon Fowler
Norfolk Vanguard
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Inception Meeting
Please see attached

16 December 2017
SSE - anon.
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Nodyn Cyfarfod - 15 Rhagfyr 2017 / Meeting Note - 15 December 2017

15 December 2017
Abergelli Power Limited - anon.
Abergelli Power
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Thank you for your prompt response to my queries about RSP's forthcoming consultation exercise. Needless to say, your response is very unsatisfactory.

It may well be true that you are ticking all of the correct boxes to show that you did things by the book. But even you must be able to see how ridiculous your position is. You are suggesting that this company can go ahead and organise as many pre-application consultations as they like, and that none of them needs to include essential details like how many night flights they are planning to have or the mitigation measures they are planning. What on Earth is the point of the consultation? Meanwhile RSP are popping into your office on a regular basis for cosy chats over tea and biscuits. During those cosy chats you are under no obligation whatsoever, to steer them on what should or should not be included in a consultation. What on Earth is the point of your cosy chats? Is it not about time you had a meeting with the Minister to explain how this application is exposing some major shortcomings in the procedure which you are following in order to tick the boxes? Is it not about time the Planning Inspectorate told this company to do it properly or not at all?
Our Pre-application meetings with applicants are undertaken within the procedures set out in the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008). In accordance with section 51 of the PA2008 we record all advice that is issued in the meeting dialogue, along with a summary of the key issues discussed. Pre-application meetings form an important part of the Pre-application service for applicants for the reasons set out in our Pre-application Prospectus: [attachment 1]

The PA2008 process is frontloaded, meaning the onus is on applicants to get their applications right before they are submitted to the Planning Inspectorate. On that basis, provided that the statutory procedures set out in the PA2008 are satisfied there is no limit placed on the number of statutory Pre-application exercises a particular applicant may choose to undertake, and it is not unprecedented or unusual for an applicant to carry more than one statutory consultation exercise. Whether an application is sufficiently progressed and ready for submission is a judgment for applicants to take, at their own risk.

As you are aware, the Applicant has publicly summarised justification for its 2018 statutory consultation exercise and states that further details will follow in due course: [attachment 2]

14 December 2017
Peter Binding
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I’m writing to share my concerns regarding the proposed West Mids. Rail Freight Interchange at Four Ashes, in South Staffordshire. Please could these be forwarded directly to one of the case officers dealing with the application?

I believe it would be in everybody's best interests including the developers for these issues to be addressed sooner rather than later given the extent of the impact they are likely to have on the viability of the scheme.

I've expressed my concerns through the regular channels in the statutory and non-statutary consultations. However, given the fact the Stage 2a consultation is still completely failing to recognise these issues, I would suggest the developers have no intention to reconfigure their plans or offer any mitigating solutions this side of your decision.

If you could look at our concerns my family and I would be extremely grateful.
Thank you for your email.

We note that you have contacted the applicant in relation to the proposed West Midlands Interchange.

At this stage the application for this proposed development has not been finalised, and as such we advise for any concerns related to the project to be submitted directly to the developer, in order for your views to inform the application before formal submission to the Planning Inspectorate.

If your concerns are related to the applicant's consultation activities and you have not already done so, we would also advise you to contact the relevant local authority to inform them of your concerns, as your views may inform their Adequacy of Consultation response, once the application has been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate (the Acceptance stage of the Planning Act 2008 planning process for Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIPs)).

If the application for the West Midlands Interchange is submitted and subsequently accepted for examination, you will also have the opportunity to register to participate in that examination and make submissions on whether or not the form of the proposal that is described in the application is acceptable, and whether development consent should be granted.

The Planning Inspectorate has recently published to our website a Frequently Asked Questions document (attached to this email) which provides information on the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 planning process for Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIP), which you may find helpful.

Please contact us if you have any further queries

14 December 2017
Daniel Williams
West Midlands Interchange
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Meeting regarding update on the proposed scheme, feedback on the Scoping Opinion and outline of consultation approach
Please see attached

14 December 2017
Highways England - anon.
M42 Junction 6 Improvement
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I see that RSP did not submit their application for a DCO before the end of December 2017, as had been advertised on the Planning Inspectorate's website. I see that they now plan to engage in another round of consultation.

It has not been made clear how the new consultations will differ from the previous ones, or why new consultations are needed. One of the key issues with the previous consultations was the lack of clarity over what RSP is intending to do and how this was likely to affect local communities. The people staffing the consultations, who included senor directors of RSP, did not seem to be able to answer basic questions, such as whether there would be night-flights. Despite receiving many complaints about the previous consultations, the Planning Inspectorate has made no note of any criticism. If the Planning Inspectorate agreed that the previous consultations were inadequate, surely the organisation should have made some comment to RSP in advance of them repeating the consultation exercise?

Since meeting with the planning inspectorate, RSP has stated that they intend to introduce environmental controls on the levels of noise using a quota count system. None of this has been set out in black and white so that local people can read what they are planning to do.

It is very unclear what rationale there is for RSP's proposed controls. They have not produced any data to show how many flights there would be, what types of aircraft would be involved, the times of the day when these flights would be taking place and how much noise this would generate. This data, which would be an essential component of a statutory Environmental Impact Assessment, is needed before it is possible to decide which environmental controls are appropriate or required. In the absence of any companies who have said they would use Manston, I appreciate that the prediction of what will take place is difficult to achieve, but there are professional companies out there who specialise in making these kinds of projections. It would only require RSP to spend a small slice of the hundreds of millions to which they claim to have access to have a report prepared which would inform people about the likely environmental impact.

This brings me to my final. and most important point. The quota count system was devised at Heathrow to deal with the environmental impact of night-flights on local residents. It does not prevent night-flights from taking place, but restricts movements of the noisiest categories of aircraft and levies financial penalties on operators who breach the rules. It is the government which has imposed this system on the airport. However, it is not a perfect system and people living in the vicinity of the airport will confirm that it is nowhere near as effective as a total ban on night-flights such as they have at Frankfurt airport.

Who has decided that a quota count system is appropriate for Manston and will address the environmental issues which will arise from having freight aircraft overflying a historic seaside town at low altitude? Why is a quota count system being proposed when the local MP has been telling local people that RSP do not need or intend to have night-flights? The contradictions is glaring and ought to be resolved before any further consultation takes place.

In summary, the previous consultations were inadequate because the prospective applicants did not have an Environmental Impact Assessment including noise contour maps and projected noise levels over the residential areas adjacent to the site of the former airport. Can the Planning Inspectorate confirm that RSP will be required to produce this information in any new consultations? Can the Planning Inspectorate confirm that RSP will be required to confirm in writing whether or not their new freight depot will require night flights and, if so, the likely levels and patterns of this activity, before they engage in further consultation? Can the Planning Inspectorate confirm that RSP will be required to produce written details of their proposed quota count system before engaging in any further consultation? Can the Planning Inspectorate confirm that RSP will be required to discuss and agree their proposed quota count system with the local planning authority before presenting it to the public? (As far as I'm aware, RSP has not approached Thanet District Council to discuss their proposed quota count system).
If the Planning Inspectorate agreed that the previous consultations were inadequate, surely the organisation should have made some comment to RSP in advance of them repeating the consultation exercise?

The Planning Inspectorate cannot take a view on the adequacy of an applicant’s Pre-application consultation until an application is formally submitted to it. The Planning Inspectorate has therefore to date not tested the adequacy of the Applicant’s Pre-application consultation, has not ‘agreed’ that it was inadequate, or provided any advice to that effect. The Applicant’s rationale for carrying out a further round of consultation is explained on its website ([attachment 1]) and the Planning Inspectorate is not sighted on any further justification beyond that which is already in the public domain.

Can the Planning Inspectorate confirm that RSP will be required to produce this information [noise contour maps and projected noise levels] in any new consultations?

The Applicant summarised in its teleconference with the Planning Inspectorate on 22 November 2017 the materials which would inform its 2018 consultation exercise: [attachment 2]. The Planning Inspectorate cannot compel an applicant to include particular information in its Preliminary Environmental Information, which is defined in Regulation 2 of the 2009 EIA Regulations (and Regulation 12 of the 2017 EIA Regulations).
Can the Planning Inspectorate confirm that RSP will be required to confirm in writing whether or not their new freight depot will require night flights and, if so, the likely levels and patterns of this activity, before they engage in further consultation?

The position in respect of night flights remains the same as that outlined in previous advice issued by the Planning Inspectorate: [attachment 3]. The Planning Inspectorate has access to the same information as the local community and statutory consultees ie the Applicant’s Scoping Report states at paragraph 11.6.10 that “The airport will be operational during the day and may be operational to some extent at night. The noise generated due to this activity may give rise to potentially significant effects”. If night flights are proposed for the airport, the likely significant effects will need to be assessed by the Applicant as part of its Environmental Impact Assessment and presented in the Environmental Statement. The content of the Environmental Statement cannot be examined by an appointed Examining Authority until the Examination stage of the process.

Can the Planning Inspectorate confirm that RSP will be required to produce written details of their proposed quota count system before engaging in any further consultation?

Details of the Applicant’s proposed Noise Quota Count will be included in the application when it is formally submitted. This was confirmed by the Applicant in its meeting with the Planning Inspectorate on 2 November 2017. The strategy will be open to examination by an appointed Examining Authority, and members of the local community will be able to register to become an Interested Party and make representations to the Examining Authority about any mitigation strategies proposed by the Applicant. For more information about how (and when) to have your say please see the Planning Inspectorate’s Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 4]

Can the Planning Inspectorate confirm that RSP will be required to discuss and agree their proposed quota count system with the local planning authority before presenting it to the public?

The Applicant confirmed in the 22 November 2017 teleconference (link above) that its draft Development Consent Order (dDCO) would include provisions to secure its proposed Noise Mitigation Plan and Noise Quota Count. Applicants are encouraged to share draft iterations of their dDCOs with key stakeholders (including local authorities) at the Pre-application stage. See the Pre-application Prospectus: [attachment 5]. Local authorities are otherwise able to make representations to an appointed Examining Authority about the content of a submitted dDCO in the same way as the local community. They also have a special role in the Planning Act 2008 process as outlined in the Planning Inspectorate’s Advice Note 1 and Advice Note 2 ([attachment 6].

12 December 2017
Peter Binding
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I have written to you before with the argument that since Kent Health Protection Agency in 2009 said epidemiology inquiry is needed to investigate long term health impact of chemical contamination of Thanet water supply. This is preliminary scientific examination that triggers the compulsory application of precautionary principle. The situation is, as I understand it, when and if the application is made I can submit argument?
As you correctly anticipate, the matters covered in your email cannot be considered by the Planning Inspectorate at this stage. If an application is submitted and accepted for examination, the Applicant will advertise a period within which you and anybody else can register and make a Relevant Representation about RiverOak Strategic Partner’s proposals.

For information about how to engage with the process please refer to the Planning Inspectorate’s Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

11 December 2017
Richard Card
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Having now had the opportunity to review the re-aligned boundaries we are concerned that there is land identified (significant amounts) outside of the original NSIP boundary. Clearly this is being utilised for non-infrastructure purposes (eg land inside the Nissan MUK plant).

Can you confirm that the revised plan which has been signed off includes more land that that shown on the original NSIP? Could you also clarify the instances where greater land take is acceptable.
As you will be aware, the International Advanced Manufacturing Park Area Action Plan was adopted in November 2017, you may find this link helpful: [attachment 1] The Inspector’s final report on page 3 refers to ‘Allocation of 150ha (instead of 100ha) of employment land and deletion of proposed safeguarded land’.

As the IAMP Two Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP) application has yet to be submitted, the Applicant will need to ensure they undertake adequate statutory pre-application consultation on the proposal, in accordance with the Planning Act 2008 (as amended) and associated guidance. During this pre-application phase, I recommend that you contact the Applicant directly to discuss the details of their proposals, to ensure they are aware of any comments you may have, prior to submission.

11 December 2017
Hedley Planning Services Ltd - Sean Hedley
International Advanced Manufacturing Park TWO (IAMP TWO)
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I note that the notes of the meeting held on 2nd November 2017 have been published by the Planning Inspectorate. However, when considering the comments made in the Annex to the meeting note, it is difficult to understand these notes because they specifically reference the applicant's documentation but these documents are not available. I am sure that you will appreciate that this is not helpful with regards to transparency.

Please could you either make copies of the documentation available, or update the meeting notes to include a copy or quote of the specific elements of the documents which are being referred to.
The draft application documents review offer is a bespoke service for applicants. For more information please refer to our Pre-application Prospectus, available here: [attachment 1]

The advice that we issue in this respect is recorded and published in accordance with s51 of the Planning Act 2008, as per the meeting note that you have viewed.

It is not our policy to publish draft iterations of application documents that we do not own, however the Applicant in this case may be prepared to do so. Please therefore contact RSP with your request.

08 December 2017
Jonathan Fowler
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The Ramsgate Society of which I am a member of the Executive Committee understands you have recently published an interim report on the RSP DCO application.

I have been unable to trace such a document on your website and would be grateful if you could advise me as to whether you have issued anything of this nature.
The Planning Inspectorate has not issued a report on the emerging RSP application, but we have recently reviewed and provided advice about a suite of draft applications documents. The record of that exercise has been published and is available to view here:
[attachment 1]

08 December 2017
Nigel Phethean
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Telecon with IAMP LLP to discuss the IAMP Two proposal, following the section 35 Direction Variation
Please see attached meeting note

08 December 2017
IAMP LLP
International Advanced Manufacturing Park TWO (IAMP TWO)
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Introduction to the Southampton to London Pipeline Project
Please see attached

08 December 2017
Esso Petroleum Company, Limited - anon.
Southampton to London Pipeline Project
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The note [of the telecom between the Planning Inspectorate and the Applicant on 22 November 2017] suggests that the primary reason for the third consultation is to conform to the 2017 Environmental Regulations (implementing the latest EU Directive on the topic).

I note that this topic is recorded as having come up several times in the past few months but that RSP have been insistent that they need not comply with the new Regulations.

Perhaps they have now taken Counsel's advice.

Be that as it may, the present position feels like an abuse of process: how many bites at the cherry are these guys allowed? If they make a mess of this third consultation will they be able to undertake a fourth? A fifth? These things are divisive in the local community and waste a great deal of time and energy for all concerned.
Please refer to the DCLG’s statutory guidance on the Pre-application process which, amongst other things, sets out the principles in respect of the Pre-application consultation duties placed on applicants (in particular pages 5 through 22): [attachment 1]

Practically, provided that the statutory procedures set out in the Planning Act 2008 are satisfied there is no limit placed on the number of statutory Pre-application exercises a particular applicant may choose to undertake.

07 December 2017
Mark de Pulford
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
This is a bit of a lateral question in a way, but something that puzzles us greatly. Can you tell us why in a lot of the Vattenfall documents (SOCC and PEIR for instance) the Secretary of State refers to the life of the projects as being 50 years? Vattenfall say 25 years.

I hope you can help us understand.
Thank you for your email. The SoCC and PEIR are the Applicant’s documents and therefore the Secretary of State would not have stated anything within these. I note from the Applicant’s PEIR that they state the design life of the project is 25 years.

07 December 2017
Jenny Smedley
Norfolk Vanguard
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Planning Inspectorate project update and draft document feedback meeting with Suffolk County Council
See attached meeting note and draft docs review

07 December 2017
Suffolk County Council - anon.
Lake Lothing Third Crossing
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Could the department please clarify procedure for a Nuclear New Build projected for Bradwell in Essex.

The Government has given the project the go-ahead subject to planning.

Now the developer has submitted documents to Maldon Council for planning for groundwork investigation and our concern is that the site is surrounded by European protected sites and a MCZ yet there is no EIA.

There is an ecological statement which is frustratingly redacted for certain species on site.
The site is also a 'contaminated site' next to the old Bradwell Magnox site so a linked site with potential radioactive contamination. Maldon Council are aware of contamination but are relying on developer supplied data not their own.

I understand its up to the Council whether to declare this is as a 'special site' and if so its passed to the EA but relying on developer data alone seems to be avoiding legal obligations on the Council’s part.

Data supplied by the developer for planning supports concerns over site contamination, further adding that contamination through drilling could breach water courses effecting protected sites.

Our concern is that for a NIP there is no early public engagement and questions hang over planning procedures. The process appears biased from the start as Maldon Council have from the beginning announced support for the project.

Maldon Council stated to me that no EIA is required as this is not a planning application to build the new reactor but purely groundworks.

Surely at this stage we are looking at pre consultation work, the documents provided by the developer all refer to Bradwell B New Build and there is an obligation to meet Environmental Impact Assessment: Screening, Scoping and Preliminary Environmental Information.

Clarification of planning in this matter would be appreciated. This is going to planning on Thursday of next week.
Please see the attached meeting note

07 December 2017
Graham Farley
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting

06 December 2017
D S Smith - anon.
Kemsley Paper Mill (K4) CHP Plant
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please find attached my letter outlining my objections to Vattenfall's flawed proposal to put two huge substation at Necton/Ivy Todd in Norfolk. Please also find attached Necton Substation Action Group's objection document, which goes into wider detail. I look forward to hearing from you, thank you.
Thank you for your email. As the project has not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate (the Inspectorate) all responses to the Applicant’s consultation should be sent directly to them. We have no formal powers to intervene on consultees behalf therefore I would encourage you to contact the developer directly to make your concerns heard as the Applicant has a statutory duty to take your views into account. However, if you feel your comments are not being taken into account, I would advise you to write to your local authority and set out why you think the Applicant is failing to conduct its consultation properly. Your comments should be taken into account when the local authority sends the Inspectorate its comments on whether the Applicant has fulfilled its consultation duties. The local authority’s comments on the Applicant’s consultation will be taken into account when the Acceptance Inspector makes their decision whether to accept the application for Examination.

A copy of your correspondence has been placed on our records and will be presented to the Inspector at Acceptance, together with the application documents and local authorities’ comments on the Applicant’s consultation.

After the decision has been made regarding whether to accept the application for Examination all documents used to inform the decision will be published on our website. If the application for development consent is formally accepted you will be able to submit your views in relation to the project which will be considered by the Examining Authority during the Examination. The Inspectorate has published a series of advice notes which explain the Examination process, including information on how to get involved; of particular interest are advice notes 8.1 to 8.5. These are available at: [attachment 1]

We have also published a Frequently Asked Questions document regarding Pre-application consultation and this can be viewed on our website here: [attachment 2].

05 December 2017
H Phoenix
Norfolk Vanguard
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Note of tripartite meeting between the Planning Inspectorate, Heathrow Airport Ltd and the Civil Aviation Authority.
Please see attached meeting note.

05 December 2017
Heathrow Airport Ltd and Civil Aviation Authority - anon.
Expansion of Heathrow Airport (Third Runway)
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting.
See attached meeting note.

05 December 2017
Heathrow Airport Ltd - anon.
Expansion of Heathrow Airport (Third Runway)
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Meeting between Planning Inspectorate and Highways England
See attached meeting note

30 November 2017
Highways England - anon.
A19 Downhill Lane Junction Improvement
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Nodyn Cyfarfod - 29 Tachwedd 2017 / Meeting Note - 29 November 2017

29 November 2017
Horizon Nuclear Energy - David Palmer
Wylfa Newydd Nuclear Power Station
Enquiry received via email
Whilst I do understand that each case would be judged on its individual merits, for example there must surely be a point at which the cumulative impact of two schemes competing for rail connectivity on a stretch of track that is already nearing capacity is considered. If, as is widely thought to be the case, the West Coast Main Line could only handle the freight paths for one additional SRFI in the area, if one SRFI application is granted a DCO then any other similar proposals in the area would become “road-served” and non-compliant with the National Networks National Policy Statement. This would then remove other existing proposals from PINS’ jurisdiction.
At what stage would this happen?
In your email you refer to removing proposals from PINS’ jurisdiction and at what stage this would occur. To confirm, a proposal will be considered a nationally significant infrastructure project (NSIP) if it meets the thresholds set within the Planning Act 2008 (as amended). A decision to grant a development consent order for one project will not therefore remove the NSIP ‘status’ of another project.

It is for Applicant’s themselves to decide whether or not to progress with submitting their application for a development consent order under the Planning Act 2008 (as amended). The Planning Inspectorate would deal with any submitted application(s) [as detailed in our previous advice dated 2nd November 2017].

29 November 2017
Tommy Gilchrist Parliamentary Assistant to the Rt Hon Andrea Leadsom MP
Rail Central (Strategic Rail Freight Interchange)
Enquiry received via email
Whilst I do understand that each case would be judged on its individual merits, for example there must surely be a point at which the cumulative impact of two schemes competing for rail connectivity on a stretch of track that is already nearing capacity is considered. If, as is widely thought to be the case, the West Coast Main Line could only handle the freight paths for one additional SRFI in the area, if one SRFI application is granted a DCO then any other similar proposals in the area would become “road-served” and non-compliant with the National Networks National Policy Statement. This would then remove other existing proposals from PINS’ jurisdiction.
At what stage would this happen?
In your email you refer to removing proposals from PINS’ jurisdiction and at what stage this would occur. To confirm, a proposal will be considered a nationally significant infrastructure project (NSIP) if it meets the thresholds set within the Planning Act 2008 (as amended). A decision to grant a development consent order for one project will not therefore remove the NSIP ‘status’ of another project.

It is for Applicant’s themselves to decide whether or not to progress with submitting their application for a development consent order under the Planning Act 2008 (as amended). The Planning Inspectorate would deal with any submitted application(s) [as detailed in our previous advice dated 2nd November 2017].

29 November 2017
Tommy Gilchrist Parliamentary Assistant to the Rt Hon. Andrea Leadsom MP
Northampton Gateway Rail Freight Interchange
Enquiry received via email
We are instructed by the Kent County Council (the “KCC”). KCC has been approached by developers in connection with the proposed redevelopment of Manston Airport (formerly RAF Manston) situated near Ramsgate. The developers have sought information from the KCC in connection with land they believe to be owned or leased or otherwise connected with KCC which surrounds Manston Airport.

Manston Airport itself is a very large site with a perimeter measured in miles and the developers’ request is, as you might expect, demanding given the vast space Manston Airport comprises. The developers have provided KCC with a very extensive list comprising 11 pages for which they have requested details of all the property they believe KCC has an interest in. Having examined the list and the map schedules attached to the developer’s letter, we had to conduct an exercise which necessitated further examination of the maps supplied by the developer, which did not necessarily accord with the data available from HM Land Registry, that we would have ordinarily expected a sophisticated developer to have supplied our client with.

On the basis that the information supplied by the developer has not been as accurate as it would have wished, our client is concerned at the level of costs it would need to incur at this stage in order to comply with the request. As such we have asked the developer to meet our client’s costs in order to provide all the information and correct any inaccuracies but the developer’s land agent is very reluctant to accept responsibility for costs. This seems inequitable.

The results of our initial searches revealed a mixture of registered land as well as public highways. In order to be thorough and conduct the exercise in accordance with the spirit of the law, and further to other recent development in the area, this exercise would require significant input from Kent Highways too. Having reverted to our client, KCC is concerned that it is being asked, in effect, to provide a free service to the developer, entirely at KCC’s not inconsiderable cost, which, if the developer is proposing to redevelop an airport, surely has resources of its own to identify individual parcels of land and highways with absolute granularity in the same we can from HM Land Registry rather than taking a rather more general approach.

Our client is in no way seeking to shirk its responsibility but does not feel that it represents good value to the public purse to be conducting searches and research, which constitutes significant work, for and on behalf of commercial entities who stand to reap vast reward, at the expense of the council taxpayers.

Having looked at the Guidelines, we see that there is no apparent mention as to how costs are addressed.

Please can you provide us with your thoughts and guidance as to how the matter of costs for local authorities have been addressed in the past with regards to significant projects such as this. As we have stated, our client is not trying to absolve itself of responsibility but does not feel it is appropriate to have to conduct research on behalf of a sophisticated developer who has the resources and acumen to ensure that its requests are presented in sufficient but not adequate detail.
A person (‘the Applicant’) who proposes to make or who has made a Development Consent Order (‘DCO’) application under the Planning Act 2008, as amended (the
‘PA2008’) may apply for authorisation to serve a written notice (‘a land interests notice’) which requires the recipient to provide information to the Applicant about interests in land under s52 of the PA2008. This process is administered by the Planning Inspectorate (the Inspectorate) on behalf of the Secretary of State in line with our Advice Note 4: Section 52: Obtaining information about interests in land (Planning Act 2008).

No application for authorisation under s52 has been received by the Inspectorate at this time, although any DCO Applicant is entitled to make such a request.

The Inspectorate cannot comment on any private financial arrangements made between organisations.

28 November 2017
Invicta Law for Kent County Council - anon.
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
In the notes of the meeting held on the 26th September between RiverOak Strategic Partners and the Planning Inspectorate it states that :

"It was agreed that draft versions of certain documents would be submitted to the Inspectorate on Friday 29 September 2017, including the Development Consent Order (DCO), Explanatory Memorandum, Statement of Reasons, Book of Reference, Consultation Report and Funding Statement. Draft versions of the Land Plans and Works Plans would be submitted the following week, and chapters of the Environmental Statement and Habitats Regulations Assessment Report submitted the week after that. The Inspectorate advised that their review at this stage would involve examining the structure of the documents as well as their content, and requested at least one hard copy version of the draft documents."

Can the Planning Inspectorate please provide confirm the following:

1. Whether any of the above documents were submitted by RSP, and if so, what date these submissions were made, specifying which documents were submitted on which date.

2. What feedback, if any, the Planning Inspectorate have provided to RSP as a result of these submissions. Please provide copies of any written feedback, or, if the feedback was verbal, an indication of the general content of the feedback provided.

3. If RSP did not submit any of the documents listed above, please could you provide copies of any communication between the Planning Inspectorate and RSP in relation to their failure to submit those documents to the Planning Inspectorate, or, if the feedback was verbal, an indication of the general content of the feedback provided.
A meeting at which the Planning Inspectorate fed back to the Applicant on its suite of draft documents took place on 2 November 2017.

A note of that meeting is being finalised and will be published imminently, and I will provide a link to you directly as soon as I am able.

I believe that the content of the meeting note should answer each element of your enquiry, however, if having read the note you have any further questions or require clarification about its content, please do not hesitate to contact me again directly.

28 November 2017
Jonathan Fowler
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
In the name of honesty and of transparency, can PINS please shed some light on the facts behind the applicant’s news release, which appeared in my in box earlier today?

[attachment 1]

RSP’s position had been that they have done everything lawfully required of them in relation to the statutory consultation.

My question is a simple one: had they done everything required of them, according to PINS?

I don’t expect to be given commercially sensitive information, but I do not believe it is right to allow the wool to be pulled over the public’s eyes. That’s what has been so objectionable about the earlier consultations by RSP. If PINS, a public, accountable body, has advised the applicant to do another public consultation then I think we should be told plainly that this is the case.

I am sure you will understand the annoyance that three public consultations on the same basic subject will create. Fine, if a third is necessary for statutory reasons. Not fine, if it is – as RSP suggest – an optional matter.

Can we please have some transparency and truth here?

The 2008 planning regime does not appear to envisage three consultation exercises. What is going on?

If we must have a third consultation let’s start things off truthfully and not in a miasma of elision and half-truth.

Could you please include with your reply some information on any public bodies to whom you are accountable for the quality and impartiality of your advice?
By way of update, a meeting at which the Planning Inspectorate fed-back to the Applicant on its suite of draft application documents took place on 2 November 2017. A note of that meeting is being finalised and will be published to the project webpage imminently. I will provide a link to you directly as soon as I am able.

Arising from some elements of the advice issued by the Planning Inspectorate on 2 November 2017, a follow-up meeting was requested by the Applicant. This took place on 22 November 2017 by teleconference. A note of that meeting is also being finalised and will be published imminently. I will provide a link to you directly, as above.

I believe that the content of these meeting notes will provide the clarifications sought in your email, however, if having read the notes you have any further questions please do not hesitate to contact me again directly.

In respect of accountability, the Planning Inspectorate is an executive agency of the Department for Communities and Local Government. Our fundamental values are our commitment to openness, transparency and impartiality in the conduct of our business. We are committed to proactively publishing information which we hold unless to do so would be likely to damage the effective conduct of our statutory functions or the conduct of our business. Under section 51 of the Planning Act 2008 we have powers to issue advice about applying for an order granting development consent or making representations about an application (or proposed application). A record of all of the advice we provide is published on our website. Importantly, none of the advice that we issue under s51 of the PA2008 constitutes legal advice upon which applicants (or others) should rely.

28 November 2017
Mark de Pulford
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Hi thank you for the response, for clarity:-

The consultees to non material changes do not include interested or registered persons from the full formal process?
Who are the required consultees?
How do i register to receive or be made aware of any published item on the HPC inspectors page?
Increasing the size of a building by some 50% to form one of the largest building on site and major changes to the sea wall are not seen as a material change?

Thank you for your time.
Thank you for your email. I will attempt to answer your questions. The answers to questions 1 and 2 are found in regulation 7 of the Infrastructure Planning (Changes to, and Revocation of, Development Consent Orders) Regulations (as amended).

[attachment 1]

The copy on legislation.gov.uk does not include the amendments made in 2015:

[attachment 2]

1) Parties who registered as interested parties are not automatically consulted on a proposed non-material change.

2) The required consultees are each person for whose benefit the development consent order has effect; each person that was notified of the acceptance of the original application for a Development Consent Order by the applicant under S56 of the Planning Act 2008; and any other person who may be directly affected by the changes proposed in the application. This is subject to a provision that allows the Secretary of State to consent to a shorter list of consultees on a case-by-case basis. By way of an example, please see this letter here:

[attachment 3]

3) There is no way to register to be informed directly every time a document is published on our website.

4) This is a matter for the Secretary of State. The decision on the application will include a decision on whether or not the proposed change is material.

As I mentioned below, there is guidance on changes to development consent orders, which can be found here:

[attachment 4]

27 November 2017
Leigh Redman
Hinkley Point C New Nuclear Power Station
Enquiry received via phone
Query in relation to responding to the developer’s consultation during pre-application and, if the application is accepted to proceed to examination what a relevant representation could include.
Consultation material presented by the developer at the pre-application stage is not “the application”. The pre-application process is intended to allow the developer to gather useful information from the public and others that will influence the preparation of the application that is eventually submitted. Further information about responding to the developers pre-application consultation can be found in Advice Note 8.1 (see links below).

If an application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate and is accepted to proceed to examination there will be an opportunity for anyone who would like to register to take part in the examination, by making a Relevant Representation during the pre-examination stage of the process. The Applicant will advertise the period when a Relevant Representation can be made. There is no requirement for an individual to have responded to the developer’s pre-application consultation, to enable them to make a relevant representation.

If you participated in the pre-application consultation your views on the project at that stage should have been reflected in the Consultation Report that was submitted as part of the application. However, at this stage we are seeking your views on the application as it has been submitted. Remember, the project you commented on previously may have changed in response to the pre-application consultation carried out by the applicant. 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. Further information about registering to participate in an examination can be found in Advice Note 8.2 (see links below).

The Advice Note 8 series provides an overview of the Nationally Significant Infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others. I have included links to these documents below for your information:

Advice note eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others (PDF 2.2 MB) Published February 2017 Advice note eight has been produced in five sections and aims to take you step by step through the planning process for major infrastructure projects: Advice note 8.1: Responding to the developer’s pre-application consultation (PDF 2.1 MB) (version 2) Advice note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination (PDF 1.4 MB) (version 2) Advice note 8.3: Influencing how an application is Examined: the Preliminary Meeting (PDF 2 MB) (version 4) Advice note 8.4: The Examination (PDF 1.4 MB) (version 4) Advice note 8.5: The Examination: hearings and site inspections (PDF 2 MB) (version 4)

24 November 2017
Andrew Bodman
Northampton Gateway Rail Freight Interchange
response has attachments
Please find attached the report we commissioned from BLB Utilities on the alternative site we suggested to Vattenfall. This was paid for with donations from the residents of Necton. It has been send direct to Vattenfall, and will of course also go to other relevant bodies.
Thank you for your email. As the project has not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate (the Inspectorate), we have no formal powers to intervene on consultees behalf. I would therefore encourage you to contact the developer directly to make your concerns heard as the Applicant has a statutory duty to take your views into account. However, if you feel your comments are not being taken into account, I would advise you to write to your local authority and set out why you think the Applicant is failing to conduct its consultation properly. Your comments should be taken into account when the local authority sends the Inspectorate its comments on whether the Applicant has fulfilled its consultation duties. The local authority’s comments on the Applicant’s consultation will be taken into account when the Acceptance Inspector makes their decision whether to accept the application for Examination.

A copy of your correspondence has been placed on our records and will be presented to the Inspector at Acceptance, together with the application documents and local authorities’ comments on the Applicant’s consultation.

After the decision has been made regarding whether to accept the application for Examination all documents used to inform the decision will be published on our website. If the application for development consent is formally accepted you will be able to submit your views in relation to the project which will be considered by the Examining Authority during the Examination. The Inspectorate has published a series of advice notes which explain the Examination process, including information on how to get involved; of particular interest are advice notes 8.1 to 8.5. These are available at: [attachment 1]

We have also published a Frequently Asked Questions document regarding Pre-application consultation and this can be viewed on our website here: [attachment 2].

23 November 2017
Necton Substation Action Group - anon.
Norfolk Vanguard
Enquiry received via post
response has attachments
Please see attached letter from the North Wales Wildlife Trust, dated 24 October 2017
Please see the attached letter from the Planning inspectorate, dated 23 November 2017

23 November 2017
North Wales Wildlife Trust
Wylfa Newydd Nuclear Power Station
response has attachments
Please find attached the report we commissioned from BLB Utilities on the alternative site we suggested to Vattenfall. This was paid for with donations from the residents of Necton. It has been send direct to Vattenfall, and will of course also go to other relevant bodies.
Thank you for your email. As the project has not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate (the Inspectorate), we have no formal powers to intervene on consultees behalf. I would therefore encourage you to contact the developer directly to make your concerns heard as the Applicant has a statutory duty to take your views into account. However, if you feel your comments are not being taken into account, I would advise you to write to your local authority and set out why you think the Applicant is failing to conduct its consultation properly. Your comments should be taken into account when the local authority sends the Inspectorate its comments on whether the Applicant has fulfilled its consultation duties. The local authority’s comments on the Applicant’s consultation will be taken into account when the Acceptance Inspector makes their decision whether to accept the application for Examination.

A copy of your correspondence has been placed on our records and will be presented to the Inspector at Acceptance, together with the application documents and local authorities’ comments on the Applicant’s consultation.

After the decision has been made regarding whether to accept the application for Examination all documents used to inform the decision will be published on our website. If the application for development consent is formally accepted you will be able to submit your views in relation to the project which will be considered by the Examining Authority during the Examination. The Inspectorate has published a series of advice notes which explain the Examination process, including information on how to get involved; of particular interest are advice notes 8.1 to 8.5. These are available at: [attachment 1]

We have also published a Frequently Asked Questions document regarding Pre-application consultation and this can be viewed on our website here: [attachment 2].

23 November 2017
Necton Substation Action Group - anon.
Norfolk Boreas
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project feedback meeting with Wrexham Power Limited
Please see attached meeting note

23 November 2017
Wrexham Power Limited - anon.
Wrexham Energy Centre
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Good afternoon, i note on your website a number of ‘non material changes’ have both been advertised and confirmed, i was part of the original inspection, registering and speaking.

I am interested to understand why as has been indicated, I have an interest in the process, i do not appear to have received formal notification from you of these requests to change/vary the DCO.

During the process great play was made of the fact that ‘once agreed there will be no change to the DCO’.

Your response would be welcomed.
Thank you for your email. The process for making non-material changes to a Development Consent Order is governed by the Infrastructure Planning (Changes to, and Revocation of, Development Consent Orders) Regulations (as amended) which set out the parties who must be consulted, and allow the Secretary of State to give consent for the applicant to consult less widely.

The process can only be used if the change is not material. There are alternative processes for material changes, which can include a further examination of those changes in a similar fashion to the examination of the original application. The Secretary of State has published guidance on changes to development consent orders which can be found here and may answer many of your questions.

[attachment 1]

22 November 2017
Leigh Redman
Hinkley Point C New Nuclear Power Station
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting (teleconference).
See attached meeting note.

22 November 2017
RiverOak Strategic Partners - anon.
Manston Airport
response has attachments
West Burton C Project Draft Documents Feedback Meeting
Please see attached

22 November 2017
EDF Energy - anon.
West Burton C power station
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached meeting note

21 November 2017
Ørsted (previously DONG Energy) - Stuart Livesey
Hornsea Project Three Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via phone
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

17 November 2017
Vattenfall - anon.
Thanet Extension Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
As you are more than aware LRCH has now delayed the submission of its DCO Application for the The London Resort for a fourth time, further extending the uncertainties and potential disruption faced by local businesses, residents and communities, many of which are already treading on eggshells.

PMG, representing the 140 businesses on the Swanscombe Peninsular, has had some meetings with LRCH representatives and despite assurances that they want to work with us, it is now evident that they are pursuing a course through the Compulsory Acquisition route as LRCH currently has no funds to buy properties or relocate businesses. Thus, if the DCO Application is granted it could mean the extinguishment of many very successful, profitable and valuable businesses and the loss of thousands of full-time jobs, not to mention the impact on local communities.

Furthermore, LRCH and its sister businesses' financial credibility is open to question as they have yet again - for the third year running - failed to file annual accounts to Companies House on time, apart from for one dormant company. Surely the commercial NSIP process was not introduced to allow a near 'insolvent' business to undermine and kill-off many very successful smaller businesses.

I would welcome the DCLG's opinion on this situation and, in particular:

• Did DCLG undertake any financial checks on LRCH prior to granting NSIP status?
• Does PINS monitor applicants' financial credibility (accounts etc) during a DCO Application process?
• How long will DCLG allow an applicant to submit a potential commercial DCO Application before suggesting that any NSIP should be withdrawn if the timescales are constantly being deferred? Technically, I know there is no time limit but, in this case, I would be surprised if DCLG thought such applications could be used to undermine local businesses and communities. This is totally against the current Government's ethos and, if this commercial NSIP status is allowed to continue, will be a sign to any developer that there is potential to acquire land and property through this process irrespective of existing uses.

If you feel this matter is beyond your remit, I'd be grateful of you could forward it to the relevant contact within DCLG and the appropriate Minister. Many thanks for your time.
I apologise for the delay in replying to you. Two of your direct questions were matters for the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG). Having consulted my colleagues there, I will attempt to answer your questions:

1. DCLG is not required to undertake financial checks on applicants prior to making a direction that a project is nationally significant (where the project will be treated as development for which development consent is required). This is a matter which is explored during the examination of an application, please see below.

2. Any application for a development consent order must be accompanied by a statement to indicate how an order that contains the authorisation of compulsory acquisition is proposed to be funded. This is called a ‘funding statement’. The Secretary of State has published guidance which explains that this statement should provide as much information as possible about the resource implications of both acquiring the land and implementing the project for which the land is required.

You can find a copy of that guidance here: [attachment 1]

That funding statement, along with the remainder of the application documents, will be carefully considered by the examining authority if the application is accepted for examination; and the examining authority’s report will have regard to all relevant and important matters. If, having seen the funding statement, you wish to register to participate in the examination and make submissions to the examination on matters of funding, you are welcome to do so. Landowners identified by the applicant as affected by compulsory acquisition do not need to register in order to participate in the examination.

3. The Secretary of State took the view in issuing the direction on 9 May 2014 that this project is nationally significant for the reasons given in his letter, here: [attachment 2] Letter.pdf

The project is therefore considered to fall under the nationally significant infrastructure regime. Once a project has been directed into the regime in this way, it is for the applicant to take it forward to submit an application under the provisions of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended). As you indicate, the Secretary of State’s direction letter sets no time limit for that to happen and there is no legislative requirement to do so.

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me

16 November 2017
Dan Bramwell
The London Resort
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I understand that when EDFE submit their DCO for Sizewell C to the Planning Inspectorate for deliberation, the documents that the case will be considered against will be EN1 and EN6.

Are there any other Planning documents that will be pertinent to the Application?

As the Sizewell C site is in the Suffolk Coast and Heaths AONB I understand that IROPI may be used to by pass the AONB designation. Would you please tell me if this is the case.
I can confirm that, on the information currently before us, the relevant National Policy Statements are EN-1 (Energy) and EN-6 (Nuclear Power Generation). It would not be appropriate for us to advise what the relevant planning policy will be before the application has been submitted. This will be set out by the Applicant in their Planning Statement and, if the application is accepted for examination, the local authority(ies) will be invited to set out their local planning policy considerations as they relate to the proposed development in their Local Impact Report.

With regard to IROPI, this acronym is used with reference to impacts on European sites designated for nature conservation (for example Special Areas of Conservation, Special Protection Areas, Ramsar sites) that are protected under the Habitats Directive (The Habitats Regulations in the UK), not AONB. We are aware that there are a number of European nature conservation sites within the vicinity of the existing power station (and therefore, in the absence of a proposed boundary, within the likely vicinity of any proposals). For further information on this you may wish to see our Advice Note 10: Habitats Regulations Assessment relevant to nationally significant infrastructure projects: [attachment 1]

Alternatively, perhaps your reference to IROPI is in relation to EN1, which in paragraph 5.9.10 makes reference to demonstrating ‘public interest’ when considering development in an AONB. It will be for the applicant to present their case with regard to the ‘public interest’ (in whatever context) in their application.

14 November 2017
Joan Girling
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached meeting note

14 November 2017
Drax Power Limited - Jim Doyle
Drax Re-power
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I have come across a fault in the traffic assessment submitted and accepted for the DIRFT III project. That project has not developed sufficiently for the local community to 'encounter' that fault.

I am a retired scientist resident in Blisworth which is very near the sites of two major SRFI projects that are being presently prepared for submission to PINS. In my research associated with analysing the traffic forecasts for these projects I noticed how closely the applicants have formatted their traffic figures on the figures presented for DIRFT III and accepted a few years ago.

Just the current figures gave me concern enough and I will deal with them at the appropriate time.

However I wish to report the faulty DIRFT format, as it appears to me, found in the DIRFT data. This was prepared by Vectos and I refer you to Table 8.1 in the document entitled "Document 6.2 Regulation 5(2)(a) Environmental Statement Technical Appendices Transport Assessment, February 2013". The table is reproduced and annotated in the attachment.

Dealing with only the "total persons trips" there are six readily identifiable peak values in the one hour slots and these are coloured red for arrivals and blue for departures. There appears to be evidence for a traditional 3-shift employment system, the figures for which overlay 'background' streams of arrivals and departures throughout the day that correspond to office staff and support workers.

I try to concentrate on the shift worker contingents which I separate from the aforementioned background by a straight forward arithmetical procedure. I get from this:

1. 0600 shift, 1227 arrive and 8 hours later 731 depart.
2. 1400 shift, 550 arrive 430 depart.
3. 2200 shift, 440 arrive 311 depart.

If compared with the steady arrival of loads that need processing at a high and steady rate throughout the day (but with 10s of percentage fewer during night time), this profile of 1227, 550 and 440 contingents does not look right at all - the figures are too small. Here I suspect massaging of the figures at source probably in order to avoid local traffic overload in their forecast.

There is another issue: the contingents departing are only 60 to 78% of the corresponding arrivals. The rather obvious reason for this is that workers are charged with a shift duration that in many cases will differ from 8 hours, usually longer by up to 4 hours. Indeed it is entirely plausible that a proportion of workers are taken on with 12 hour shifts starting at various times.

There is choice in interpretation here: either the figures are carelessly massaged to avoid forecasting a traffic overload or a CONFIGURATION of shift allocations has been invoked and this done without any supporting textual description in the document as far as I can find. Both are a serious problem but what worries me most is that any 'configuration', whether explained to PINS or not, rather assumes that the group of various occupiers (or rather the group of CEOs) would be expected to form a 'club' in which it is agreed that such configuration shall be observed at least until such time that either (a) Highways England can continue to maintain a program of adequate improvements or (b) the onset of warehouse automation sweeps the problem away.

What is clearly unacceptable would be traffic pulses on completion of DIRFT III corresponding to 1500-2000 cars at each shift change arriving and departing whilst far fewer were actually forecasted.

I hope to receive a reply on the points in this letter so I will know whether I am barking at the wrong tree and this is why the letter is entitled "Seeking advice". This letter is not copied to anyone other than PINS but I wonder whether that is wisest.
Following an examination, which considered the Environmental Statement submitted alongside the application, a decision on the application for a development consent order for Daventry International Rail Freight Terminal was taken on 03 July 2014 and has now been issued. That examination cannot be reopened and that decision can only be challenged in the courts. You can find a copy of the Statement of Reasons and the Examining Authority's report to the Secretary of State on our website, here:

[attachment 1]

The period for legal challenge is defined in s118 of the Planning Act 2008. Further information about legal challenge can be found in the letter sent to all interested parties accompanying the statement of reasons.

If you have concerns about how the Development Consent Order is being implemented, I suggest you contact your local planning authority in the first instance.

If you have any questions about the process for considering applications for development consent, please do not hesitate to contact me.

13 November 2017
Tony Marsh
Daventry International Rail Freight Terminal
Enquiry received via phone
response has attachments
I recently attended a consultation event for the A303 Sparkford to Ilchester scheme and would like to register my interest in the application.
Further to our telephone conversation, please see the links below to the Planning Inspectorate Advice Notes Series 8 which give an overview of the planning process for Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects:

Advice note eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others (PDF 2.2 MB) Published February 2017
Advice note eight has been produced in five sections and aims to take you step by step through the planning process for major infrastructure projects:
Advice note 8.1: Responding to the developer’s pre-application consultation (PDF 2.1 MB) (version 2)
Advice note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination (PDF 1.4 MB) (version 2)
Advice note 8.3: Influencing how an application is Examined: the Preliminary Meeting (PDF 2 MB) (version 4)
Advice note 8.4: The Examination (PDF 1.4 MB) (version 4)
Advice note 8.5: The Examination: hearings and site inspections (PDF 2 MB) (version 4)

A project specific webpage for the A303 Sparkford to Ilchester proposal will be published on our website shortly. Once published, you will be able to sign up for project specific email updates. The Planning Inspectorate website can be accessed at the link below:

[attachment 1]

The project is currently at the pre-application stage of the process. During this stage of the process any comments you have regarding the proposals should be directed to the developer. The developer must demonstrate that they have had regard to consultation responses received during pre-application statutory consultation. You can access information about the project by visiting the developers website, which can be found at the link below:

[attachment 2]

If once an application is received, it is accepted to proceed to examination you will be able to register as an Interested Party and take part in the examination of the application.

13 November 2017
Clare Garrard
General
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I would like to add my name to what I believe is a growing list of people concerned with the potential adverse effects on the environment of Norfolk by the increasing amount of onshore infrastructure inflicted on the County for offshore windfarms. My personal concern being Vattenfalls Norfolk Vanguard and Norfolk Boreas offshore windfarms and the location of the onshore substation at Necton.
I believe that Vattenfall, et al are riding roughshod over the Norfolk populace by hiding behind an outdated mandate used by the National Grid. This is resulting in, among other things, the ludicrous cable routing and crossing issues ensuing between Vattenfall and Dong near Salle. Plus the building of huge onshore substations in totally inappropriate locations.
In addition I am very concerned that companies such as Vattenfall are being economical with the truth when explaining/indoctrinating local people on their consultations.
Despite what is said, in usually patronising terms, local people have no real say in determining the final outcome of such consultations. Companies such as Vattenfall do them purely as a paper exercise because they are required to consult, without actually heeding too much to local opinion. To them we are a nuisance to be brushed aside.
They are not doing these projects to be altruistic and save the world. They do them to make money. And by the way, Vattenfall, which is owned by the Swedish Government, also build coal fired power stations. Are they being selective in which parts of the world they want to save? Or is it all down to money?
Thank you for your email. As the projects have not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate (the Inspectorate), we have no formal powers to intervene on consultees behalf. I would therefore encourage you to contact the developer directly to make your concerns heard as the Applicant has a statutory duty to take your views into account. However, if you feel your comments are not being taken into account, I would advise you to write to your local authority and set out why you think the Applicant is failing to conduct its consultation properly. Your comments should be taken into account when the local authority sends the Inspectorate its comments on whether the Applicant has fulfilled its consultation duties. The local authority’s comments on the Applicant’s consultation will be taken into account when the Acceptance Inspector makes their decision whether to accept the applications for Examination.

A copy of your correspondence has been placed on our records and will be presented to the Inspector at Acceptance, together with the application documents and local authorities’ comments on the Applicant’s consultation.

After the decision has been made regarding whether to accept the applications for Examination all documents used to inform the decisions will be published on our website. If the applications for development consent are formally accepted you will be able to submit your views in relation to the projects which will be considered by the Examining Authority during the Examinations. The Inspectorate has published a series of advice notes which explain the Examination process, including information on how to get involved; of particular interest are advice notes 8.1 to 8.5. These are available at: [attachment 1]

We have also published a Frequently Asked Questions document regarding Pre-application consultation and this can be viewed on our website here: [attachment 2].

09 November 2017
Tony Smedley
Norfolk Vanguard
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I would like to add my name to what I believe is a growing list of people concerned with the potential adverse effects on the environment of Norfolk by the increasing amount of onshore infrastructure inflicted on the County for offshore windfarms. My personal concern being Vattenfalls Norfolk Vanguard and Norfolk Boreas offshore windfarms and the location of the onshore substation at Necton.
I believe that Vattenfall, et al are riding roughshod over the Norfolk populace by hiding behind an outdated mandate used by the National Grid. This is resulting in, among other things, the ludicrous cable routing and crossing issues ensuing between Vattenfall and Dong near Salle. Plus the building of huge onshore substations in totally inappropriate locations.
In addition I am very concerned that companies such as Vattenfall are being economical with the truth when explaining/indoctrinating local people on their consultations.
Despite what is said, in usually patronising terms, local people have no real say in determining the final outcome of such consultations. Companies such as Vattenfall do them purely as a paper exercise because they are required to consult, without actually heeding too much to local opinion. To them we are a nuisance to be brushed aside.
They are not doing these projects to be altruistic and save the world. They do them to make money. And by the way, Vattenfall, which is owned by the Swedish Government, also build coal fired power stations. Are they being selective in which parts of the world they want to save? Or is it all down to money?
Thank you for your email. As the projects have not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate (the Inspectorate), we have no formal powers to intervene on consultees behalf. I would therefore encourage you to contact the developer directly to make your concerns heard as the Applicant has a statutory duty to take your views into account. However, if you feel your comments are not being taken into account, I would advise you to write to your local authority and set out why you think the Applicant is failing to conduct its consultation properly. Your comments should be taken into account when the local authority sends the Inspectorate its comments on whether the Applicant has fulfilled its consultation duties. The local authority’s comments on the Applicant’s consultation will be taken into account when the Acceptance Inspector makes their decision whether to accept the applications for Examination.

A copy of your correspondence has been placed on our records and will be presented to the Inspector at Acceptance, together with the application documents and local authorities’ comments on the Applicant’s consultation.

After the decision has been made regarding whether to accept the applications for Examination all documents used to inform the decisions will be published on our website. If the applications for development consent are formally accepted you will be able to submit your views in relation to the projects which will be considered by the Examining Authority during the Examinations. The Inspectorate has published a series of advice notes which explain the Examination process, including information on how to get involved; of particular interest are advice notes 8.1 to 8.5. These are available at: [attachment 1]

We have also published a Frequently Asked Questions document regarding Pre-application consultation and this can be viewed on our website here: [attachment 2].

09 November 2017
Tony Smedley
Norfolk Boreas
Enquiry received via email
I would like to know whether the decision to go ahead with a Development Consent Order is based on what is theoretically possible or what is actually being proposed. I am asking this question because one prominent campaigner in favour of the airport, XXX, is claiming that she attended a meeting organised by RSP to keep their faithful supporters updated. At this meeting, XXX says that they drew a distinction between the plans which had been presented to the Planning Inspectorate and what they were actually intending to do. The essence of the comments is that RSP are only putting forward plans for a very large cargo hub to justify the DCO. They don't actually intend to deliver anything of that scale.

I don't know what was said at this meeting. I wasn't there because I'm not one of RSP's faithful supporters. However, in light of XXX's comments, I have serious concerns that the Planning Inspectorate may be being misled. I don't know whether this would be a criminal offence, but I am concerned that the DCO process should only be used where and when it is needed. It should not be used as a technique for one developer to wrest control of a plot of land from another developer.

I have pasted a screenshot of XXX's comments below. There are others I could supply but please can you explain whether the application for a DCO has to specify what will be done, rather than portraying a hypothetical scenario which the company involved has not intention of delivering?
Development consent can be granted where the project is for the alteration of an airport where the alteration is expected to have the effect of increasing the number of cargo aircraft movements by at least 10,000 per year (s23(4) and (5) of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008)). The Applicant should be able to demonstrate in its application that the alteration it is proposing would be expected to increase the number of aircraft movements by the legislated amount. The extent of the alterations which will lead to the increase should be clear from the description of the works in the draft Development Consent Order (dDCO) and the accompanying plans.

If there is doubt as to whether an Applicant will build out a full Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project under s23(4) and (5) of the PA2008 and if the application is accepted the appointed Examining Authority, if it considered it necessary or appropriate, would be able to explore with/ suggest to the Applicant the possibility of including wording in the dDCO to specify a minimum number of works that when provided could have the effect of increasing aircraft movements. Alternatively, it would be possible for the Examining Authority to ask the Applicant to include a Requirement in the dDCO to specify that particular parts of the development must not be commenced until other enabling infrastructure is provided (eg a sufficient number of aircraft stands must be provided which would be expected to have the effect of increasing the number of aircraft movements to at least 10,000).

Both of these approaches may enable enforcement action to be taken against the Undertaker if there were to be a breach of the terms of the made DCO or a failure to comply with the terms of the DCO (offences under s161 of the PA2008).

09 November 2017
Peter Binding
Manston Airport
response has attachments
Meeting regarding a potential non-material change request
Please see the attached meeting note

09 November 2017
North London Waste Authority - Ursula Taylor
North London Heat and Power Project
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Inception Meeting
Please see attached

08 November 2017
Highways England - anon.
A303 Sparkford to Ilchester Dualling
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Meeting with SSE Group
Please see attached

07 November 2017
SSE - anon.
Dogger Bank Creyke Beck
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Meeting with SSE Group
Please see attached

07 November 2017
SSE - anon.
Dogger Bank Teesside A / Sofia Offshore Wind Farm (formerly Dogger Bank Teesside B) - Project previously known as Dogger Bank Teesside A&B
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Below is a copy of my email to Vattenfall. Astonishingly, Necton and Ivy Todd residents haven't been given any graphical projection as to what we are really talking about in terms of mass and position. I would hope that we can look forward to this information.

Dear Vattenfall

I am writing to ask if you would please supply us with aerial views, accurately plotting the positions of the 4 proposed sitings, to scale.

So far, there haven't been any simulations to show the mass, the perspective from the villages, in order to gain an insight as to what is being proposed. We need graphics to be able to understand the actual impact the substations will have. Your photomontages show small distant views which do not serve the purpose of letting residents clearly see the true impact of the proposals. We need the views to represent Necton and Ivy Todd, with the inclusion of the properties which will be worst affected, and showing the substations in relation to the properties.

I was astounded at the July presentation at Swaffham, that your photomontages were so inadequate, and were, what I felt to be less than truly representative and transparent.

Thank you.
Yours faithfully
Diana Lockwood
Thank you for the copy of your email to Vattenfall. As the project has not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate (the Inspectorate), we have no formal powers to intervene on consultees behalf. You are doing what we would encourage you to do, which is to contact the developer directly to make your concerns heard as the Applicant has a statutory duty to take your views into account. However, if you feel your comments are not being taken into account, I would advise you to write to your local authority and set out why you think the Applicant is failing to conduct its consultation properly. Your comments should be taken into account when the local authority sends the Inspectorate its comments on whether the Applicant has fulfilled its consultation duties. The local authority’s comments on the Applicant’s consultation will be taken into account when the Acceptance Inspector makes their decision whether to accept the application for Examination.

A copy of your correspondence has been placed on our records and will be presented to the Inspector at Acceptance, together with the application documents and local authorities’ comments on the Applicant’s consultation.

After the decision has been made regarding whether to accept the application for Examination all documents used to inform the decision will be published on our website. If the application for development consent is formally accepted you will be able to submit your views in relation to the project which will be considered by the Examining Authority during the Examination. The Inspectorate has published a series of advice notes which explain the Examination process, including information on how to get involved; of particular interest are advice notes 8.1 to 8.5. These are available at: [attachment 1].

We have also published a Frequently Asked Questions document regarding Pre-application consultation and this can be viewed on our website here: [attachment 2].

06 November 2017
Diana Lockwood
Norfolk Vanguard
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
A number of my constituents are of the opinion that the Northampton Gateway proposals have now leapfrogged Rail Central, with Roxhill having now entered the statutory consultation phase. Some months ago it appeared that Rail Central / Ashfield Land were more progressed in their plans.

Does PINS have a view on whether it is likely that both SRFIs could be granted a Development Consent Order? I appreciate you won’t be able to comment on the merits of either scheme – I do not seek any such – but I would be interested to know if it was a case of “first come first served”, and if the granting of one would remove the business case for the other.
Thank you for your correspondence below. It would be for the Applicant for each scheme to make the case for, and to assess the impacts of, their proposed development taking into consideration the cumulative effects of the relevant built, consented and/or proposed developments as appropriate at the time that their application is lodged. Each case would be judged on its individual merits, where the appointed Examining Authority (ExA)/Panel would assess the material of the Applicant’s application documents and submissions received during the Examination (should the application be Accepted for Examination by the SoS via the Acceptance process) from interested parties. It is not possible to state whether the granting of consent for one project would necessarily remove the business case for another, it would be for the appointed ExA/Panel to assess all relevant material during the Examination on its individual merits to conclude on such matters and provide to the Secretary of State a recommendation on the matters assessed during the Examination. It would ultimately be the decision of the relevant Secretary of State (in this instance DfT) to decide on such matters.

PINS acts on behalf of the relevant Secretary of State on Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIP) and does not consider any NSIP proposals on a “first come first served” basis. All material and discussions had with the Applicants have all been published on the relevant webpage for their projects. It is the Applicant’s decision to determine when they deem their proposal is adequate for submission.

We provide for information a link to the note of our last meeting with Rail Central and subsequent advice issued to them:

[attachment 1];ipcadvice=c2a692a96e

02 November 2017
Andrea Leadsom MP
Rail Central (Strategic Rail Freight Interchange)
Enquiry received via email
Vattenfall sent their draft Statement of Community Consultation to the Planning Inspectorate for comment
We note that you have consulted Thanet and Dover District Councils and Kent County Council on the SoCC however due to the offshore elements of the project you may wish to also consult the Marine Management Organisation.

We note that the table at 10.1 lists the places that the SoCC will be available to view. Paragraph 57 of the Communities and Local Government pre-application guidance also advises that the SoCC should be made available online, at any exhibitions or other events (such as those listed at 10.3), placed at local deposit points (such as those listed at 10.2) and sent to local community groups as appropriate.

We note the list of newspapers in which the consultation will be advertised at table 7.1.1.1. Due to the offshore element of the project you may also wish to advertise in a fishing trade journal. Please note that a notice stating where the SoCC can be inspected must be published in a local newspaper.

The dates for the consultation period are not yet set out in the SoCC. In accordance with paragraph 23 of the Communities and Local Government pre-application guidance the deadline for consultation responses should be not less than 28 days from the day after receipt/last publication.

02 November 2017
Vattenfall Wind Power Ltd - Joanna Clements
Thanet Extension Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
A number of my constituents are of the opinion that the Northampton Gateway proposals have now leapfrogged Rail Central, with Roxhill having now entered the statutory consultation phase. Some months ago it appeared that Rail Central / Ashfield Land were more progressed in their plans.

Does PINS have a view on whether it is likely that both SRFIs could be granted a Development Consent Order? I appreciate you won’t be able to comment on the merits of either scheme – I do not seek any such – but I would be interested to know if it was a case of “first come first served”, and if the granting of one would remove the business case for the other.
Thank you for your correspondence below. It would be for the Applicant for each scheme to make the case for, and to assess the impacts of, their proposed development taking into consideration the cumulative effects of the relevant built, consented and/or proposed developments as appropriate at the time that their application is lodged. Each case would be judged on its individual merits, where the appointed Examining Authority (ExA)/Panel would assess the material of the Applicant’s application documents and submissions received during the Examination (should the application be Accepted for Examination by the SoS via the Acceptance process) from interested parties. It is not possible to state whether the granting of consent for one project would necessarily remove the business case for another, it would be for the appointed ExA/Panel to assess all relevant material during the Examination on its individual merits to conclude on such matters and provide to the Secretary of State a recommendation on the matters assessed during the Examination. It would ultimately be the decision of the relevant Secretary of State (in this instance DfT) to decide on such matters.

PINS acts on behalf of the relevant Secretary of State on Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIP) and does not consider any NSIP proposals on a “first come first served” basis. All material and discussions had with the Applicants have all been published on the relevant webpage for their projects. It is the Applicant’s decision to determine when they deem their proposal is adequate for submission.

We provide for information a link to the note of our last meeting with Rail Central and subsequent advice issued to them:

[attachment 1];ipcadvice=c2a692a96e

02 November 2017
Andrea Leadsom MP
Northampton Gateway Rail Freight Interchange
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

02 November 2017
Cory Riverside Energy - anon.
Riverside Energy Park
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Draft application documents feedback meeting.
See attached meeting note.

02 November 2017
RiverOak Strategic Partners - anon.
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
A meeting was held to discuss EIA scoping for the A1 Morpeth to Felton scheme
A note of the meeting is attached

02 November 2017
Highways England - anon.
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached meeting note

01 November 2017
Highways England
A63 Castle Street Improvement-Hull
Enquiry received via email
Further to our telephone call letting me know that members of the public cannot comment on the published “scoping report” for the A303 by Stonehenge WHS, would you be kind enough to let me know who the consultees are? I might be able to contact one of them to discuss further.

I’ve obviously not understood the report’s status or the opportunity it presents.
Thank you for your email. There is no statutory provision for us to issue the full list of consultation bodies at this point. However, the Scoping Opinion (when it is published on or before 30 November) will include in it, a list of all the EIA scoping consultation bodies.

The process of identifying EIA consultation bodies is set out in the Planning Inspectorate’s Advice note three: EIA consultation and notification and they include the relevant parish councils which have responsibility for the location where the proposals may or will be sited (ie parishes within which the application site boundary falls). I understand from your discussion with my colleague Rob that it is the parish councils which we consulted that you were particularly interested in, and these are as follows:

• Berwick St. James Parish Council
• Winterbourne Stoke Parish Council
• Shrewton Parish Council
• Amesbury Town Council
• Durrington Town Council
• Bulford Parish Council
• Steeple Langford Parish Council
• Woodford Parish Council
• Wilsford cum Lake Parish Meeting
• Cholderton Parish Meeting

We would encourage you, if possible, to engage with one of the parish councils and seek to convey your views as part of their response to the EIA scoping consultation if you wish to do so.

You should also note that there are statutory pre-application consultation requirements which the applicant must undertake in accordance with section 42 (Duty to consult) and section 47 (Duty to consult local community) of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended). There is further information on this process in the Planning Inspectorate’s Advice note eight series, including information as to how members of the public and other persons interested in the project can participate in the process. The statutory consultation process under the Planning Act is separate to the EIA scoping consultation process and is undertaken by the applicant themselves. I understand from Highways England’s own A303 Stonehenge project page that the statutory consultation process is planned to take place in “early 2018” and this is also referred to at section 4.4 of their Scoping Report which I understand you may have already seen. I would encourage you to speak to the applicant directly regarding the specific arrangements for their consultation process, and you will be able to participate in this process that the applicant is required to undertake (should you wish to do so). It is also worth noting that the applicant has a specific duty under s49 of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended) to have regard to relevant responses to their consultation in the preparation of their application.

26 October 2017
Kate Freeman
A303 Stonehenge
Enquiry received via email
I am contacting you on behalf of Holme Hale Parish Council in Norfolk who have an interest in the proposals coming forward from Vattenfall concerning the development of the Norfolk Vanguard Offshore windfarm. In particular, councillors are seeking information as to whether the parish council would be regarded as a statutory consultee for this project (as prescribed in Schedule 1 of the Infrastructure Planning Regulations 2009) with whom the developer has a duty to consult, as prescribed under s.42 of the Planning Act 2008?
This development is a large scale project and the proposals are likely to have a significant impact upon the landowners and parishioners in the local communities like Holme Hale. As such, councillors in Holme Hale would wish to be included in the statutory consultation phase/process relating to the application from Norfolk Vanguard.

Any help you can give in relation to this matter would be most appreciated.
Thank you for your email. We can confirm that, on the information provided to us by Vattenfall when they submitted their Scoping Report to the Planning Inspectorate, Holme Hale Parish Council are a statutory consultee as prescribed in Schedule 1 of the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009. You should have a received a letter from us, dated 5 October 2016, advising that the Secretary of State had identified Holme Hale Parish Council as a consultation body for the scoping opinion and inviting comments on the information to be provided in the Environmental Statement.

However, regardless of the information above anyone, with an interest in the project, whether they are a statutory consultee or not, is encouraged to respond to the consultation.

25 October 2017
Holme Hale Parish Council - Ron Graham
Norfolk Vanguard
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
In the course of conversation with friends I have discovered that parish council has been sent a letter from The Planning Inspectorate in respect of Highways England Development Consent for the A303 Stonehenge to Berwick Down.
I am aware that I am not a consultation body as such, but as the owner and farmer of land where the western portal and surface carriageway is being proposed I am surprised that I am not also included in these communications. I have a lifetime of knowledge of this landscape but as time progresses I am feeling increasingly marginalised with little opportunity to feed in this information until decisions have already been made. I would like to be able to add my experience into the development process so the resulting scheme will be harmonious to our environmental projects and farm business as well as benefit the whole of the World Heritage Site.
The applicant has requested a Scoping Opinion under Regulation 10 of The Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 (the EIA Regulations). They have also formally notified the Secretary of State under Regulation 8(1)(b) of the same regulations that they are proposing to provide an Environmental Statement in respect of the development. The Planning Inspectorate administers the processes relating to requests for scoping opinions on behalf of the Secretary of State.

Under Regulation 10 of the EIA Regulations, the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) must not adopt a scoping opinion until they have consulted the “consultation bodies”, which are defined as:

(a) a body prescribed under section 42(1)(a)(c) (duty to consult) [of the Planning Act 2008] 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;

(b) each authority that is within section 43(e) (local authorities for purposes of section 42(1)(b)) [of the Planning Act 2008]; and

(c) 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;

These “consultation bodies” includes local planning authorities, parish councils, statutory advisory bodies (such as Historic England, Natural England and the Environment Agency) and others. Further details on the process of defining the consultation bodies can be found in the Planning Inspectorate’s Advice note three: EIA consultation and notification.

By way of a response to your query, the regulations do not provide for any other persons outside of the defined “consultation bodies” being consulted as to the scope of the Environmental Statement, so you are correct in that you cannot be a consultation body as such under the EIA Regulations. It should also be noted that the requesting of a Scoping Opinion is not a mandatory requirement in the Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project process, but it is an option which applicants typically take.

However, there are statutory pre-application consultation requirements which the applicant must undertake in accordance with section 42 (Duty to consult) and section 47 (Duty to consult local community) of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended). There is further information on this process in the Planning Inspectorate’s Advice note eight series, including information as to how members of the public and other persons interested in the project can participate in the process. The statutory consultation process under the Planning Act is separate to the EIA scoping consultation process and is undertaken by the applicant themselves. I understand from Highways England’s own A303 Stonehenge project page that the statutory consultation process is planned to take place in “early 2018” and this is also referred to at section 4.4 of their Scoping Report which I understand you may have already seen. I would encourage you to speak to the applicant directly regarding the specific arrangements for their consultation process.

I understand your wish to participate in the EIA scoping process at this time, and to this end I would encourage you, if possible, to engage with your local parish council and seek to convey your views as part of their response to the EIA scoping consultation. You will also be able to participate in the separate statutory consultation process that the applicant is required to undertake as described above (should you wish to do so) and the applicant has a specific duty under s49 of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended) to have regard to relevant responses to their consultation in the preparation of their application.

The relevant pieces of legislation referred to in this email can be found on our website: [attachment 1]

Whilst we are not able to accommodate your request to be a consultation body for the purposes of the EIA Regulations, I trust the above is helpful.

25 October 2017
Rachel Hosier
A303 Stonehenge
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
We spoke on the telephone this morning about the statutory consultation on Highways England’s scoping report on the A303 Stonehenge scheme. You advised me that only statutory consultees could be asked to comment on the report.

I am wondering if you are able to tell me, please, whether the National Trust is being consulted on the report and, if so, on what basis? I’d also be grateful if you should tell me whether all land owners whose land would be affected by the scheme are being consulted on the scoping report.
The applicant has requested a Scoping Opinion under Regulation 10 of The Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 (the EIA Regulations). They have also formally notified the Secretary of State under Regulation 8(1)(b) of the same regulations that they are proposing to provide an Environmental Statement in respect of the development. The Planning Inspectorate administers the processes relating to requests for scoping opinions on behalf of the Secretary of State.

Under Regulation 10 of the EIA Regulations, the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) must not adopt a scoping opinion until they have consulted the “consultation bodies”, which are defined as:

(a) a body prescribed under section 42(1)(a)(c) (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;

(b) each authority that is within section 43(e) (local authorities for purposes of section 42(1)(b)); and

(c) 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 relevant pieces of legislation referred to here can be found on our website: [attachment 1]

As discussed on the phone yesterday the “consultation bodies” includes local planning authorities, parish councils, statutory advisory bodies (such as Historic England, Natural England and the Environment Agency) and others. Further details on the process of defining the consultation bodies can be found in the Planning Inspectorate’s Advice note three: EIA consultation and notification.

By way of a response to your query, the National Trust and land owners whose land would be affected by the scheme do not fall within the definition of “consultation bodies” for the purposes of the EIA Regulations. However, there are other statutory pre-application consultation duties which the applicant must undertake in accordance with section 42 (Duty to consult) and section 47 (Duty to consult local community) of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended). There is further information on this process in the Planning Inspectorate’s Advice note eight series. I understand from Highways England’s own A303 Stonehenge project page that the statutory consultation process is planned to take place in “early 2018” and this is also referred to at section 4.4 of their Scoping Report which I understand you have already seen.

25 October 2017
Kate Fielden
A303 Stonehenge
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I thought I would give you the heads up that, as previously indicated, we will shortly be sending to you draft documentation for consideration. This will comprise the documentation identified with a “Y” in the fourth column on the attached document list. I anticipate sending the documentation during the course of next week with the exception of the Consultation Report which will follow in approximately 3 weeks’ time.

In the meantime I have an urgent query on the above scheme relating to the need for further consultation. In response to consultation responses there are some changes that we intend to make to the scheme basically comprising:
- some tweaks to junction improvements which may require additional third party land;
- the inclusion of a lorry park within the SRFI scheme; and
- the inclusion of a facility for an aggregate terminal within the rail terminal

We obviously will do a focussed consultation with the owners of any additional land required for highway works but wanted to check whether you would expect a full consultation be undertaken in respect of the second two issues. We intend to submit our application by the end of January 2017 and wish to be sure we have undertaken all necessary consultation you feel is required.
Thanks for your correspondence provided below regarding submission of draft application documents for PINS to review.

Regarding your query on the other matters below, please be advised that the decision on whether to undertake full statutory consultation is a decision for yourselves (‘the Applicant’) to consider and dependent on whether the changes described below amount to material changes to the proposed application. If the Applicant is of the opinion that any of these changes is a material change then this indicates that a full consultation would need to be facilitated. The Applicant should also consider whether these changes have previously been consulted on as part of the preparation of the ES or adequately addressed within the ES (e.g. introduction of Lorry Park, could increase traffic movement not previously assessed). If not, then this points to a need to carry out a full statutory consultation including consultation with the relevant statutory bodies.

It should be noted that as the scoping request was submitted in December 2016, under the transitional provisions (regulation 37) in the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017, the 2009 Infrastructure Planning (EIA) Regulations would normally apply. However, if the Proposed Development has altered since the version described in the Scoping Report, the 2009 EIA Regulations may no longer apply. You should satisfy yourselves that the ES has been based on the appropriate set of EIA Regulations.

We note in your correspondence below that you intend to submit a draft Consultation Report for comment within the next 3 weeks (separate from those to be received shortly), if you could provide us with a specific date that would be appreciated, so we can take this into consideration when issuing final comments on all draft documents. We would also like to draw your attention to PINS Prospectus for Applicants, regarding reviewing of draft application documents (Section 3.3)

[attachment 1]

It is note therein, that the Applicant should allow around 3 months for review of draft documents and/or as a minimum 6 weeks. Given the timing of these submission and the Applicants anticipated submission date (end January 2018), it would be useful if you could confirm whether there are any specific documents you would like us to review? We would also need to diarise a date for PINS case team to meet your project team to discuss our feedback, which we could hopefully discuss upon receipt of draft documents. Please note that owing to resource constraints we are not able to provide comments on the whole ES. We are however happy to comment on the chapter that deals with the project description and on any report relating to the Habitats Regulations.

25 October 2017
Morag Thomson
Northampton Gateway Rail Freight Interchange
Enquiry received via phone
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

24 October 2017
Scottish Power Renewables - anon.
East Anglia ONE North Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via phone
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

24 October 2017
Scottish Power Renewables - anon.
East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm
response has attachments
A project update meeting took place on 23 October 2017
A note of that meeting is attached.

23 October 2017
Highways England - anon.
Lower Thames Crossing
Enquiry received via email
I have a query about some of the Regulation 5 plans – specifically the Location Plan and the historical/ecological plans.

Due to the scale of both the project, and the search area for these topics, some of these plans will need to be at a smaller scale that 1:2500 as required by the Regulations in order that the appropriate context can be seen for the location of the Scheme, historical assets and ecological sites.

I am seeking to ensure that despite this that scale bars and north arrows are included in all these plans, but it will not be feasible to change the plan scale.

In light of the above, please could you confirm that it would be acceptable for such smaller scale plans to be submitted?
An application can only be accepted for examination if the application is of a standard that the Secretary of State considers satisfactory. Applications can be accepted if there are minor discrepancies.

Whether an application is of a satisfactory standard is a decision that is made after it is submitted. There is precedent for the plans you mention to be submitted at a smaller scale, and for the application to be accepted for examination. You may wish to explicitly justify departures of this sort in the covering letter to your application.

19 October 2017
Pinsent Masons LLP - Matthew Fox
Tilbury2
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
See attached meeting note

19 October 2017
Vattenfall - anon.
Norfolk Boreas
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project feedback meeting with National Grid
Please see attached meeting note

19 October 2017
National Grid
Richborough Connection Project
Enquiry received via email
In the MetroWest Scoping Opinion (August 2015), PINS identified LNG at Appendix 1 as a "relevant statutory undertaker" for EIA consultation purposes.

In March 2017, LNG was dissolved and struck off the Companies House register. The relevant strike-off notice published by Companies House (dated 27 December 2016) stated that "Upon dissolution all property and rights vested in, or held in trust for, the company are deemed to be bona vacantia, and accordingly will belong to the crown."

As we finalise our list of MetroWest S42 consultees, could you confirm please if MetroWest should remove any successor to LNG from the list of consultees? We are not aware of any successor company, and do not know if LNG's property and rights now belong to Crown. We could send a consultation letter to the Treasury Solicitor as the relevant Crown representative in case LNG's property and rights are bona vacantia, but we would welcome PINS' view before doing so.
If there is a possibility that the property and rights of LNG Portable Pipeline Services Limited are bona vacantia then our advice would be for you to consult the relevant part of the Government Legal Department in respect of this matter.

17 October 2017
Bond Dickinson LLP - George Morton Jack
Portishead Branch Line - MetroWest Phase 1
Enquiry received via email
My query relates to Regulation 11(c)(ii) of the Infrastructure Planning (EIA) Regulations 2017.

Regulation 11(c)(ii) requires the Secretary of State or relevant authority to notify the applicant in writing of any particular person it considers likely to be affected by the proposed development, but unlikely to become aware of the development by means of the measures taken in compliance with Part 5 (applications for orders granting development consent) of the Planning Act 2008.

Our understanding is that for MetroWest, there has been no Regulation 11(c)(ii) notification in writing from PINS to North Somerset District Council as the promoter. Please can you confirm?
Regulation 11(c)(ii) is part of the Infrastructure Planning (EIA) Regulations 2017. As far as we are aware, the Applicant is relying on the transitional provisions in the new Regulations and therefore would be subject to the Infrastructure Planning (EIA) Regulations 2009. This means that there is no requirement for a Regulation 11(c)ii notification. However, as part of the scoping process, we considered whether there were any Regulation 9(1)c persons when preparing the Regulation 9 list that was issued to the Applicant. We did not identify any 9(1)c persons for the MetroWest project.

17 October 2017
Bond Dickinson LLP - George Morton Jack
Portishead Branch Line - MetroWest Phase 1
Enquiry received via email
Could you please clarify for us the position of our Parish Council in respect to the above project?

You already kindly said this in a previous email: “Parish Councils are one of the bodies we would expect the developer to engage with at the pre-application stage.” (their pre-application stage started 7th October and will run to 11th December – according to Norfolk County Council ).

However, despite this our Parish Council are still saying “"when the planning application is presented, this Council will be in a position to deliberate and make decisions", a quote from their minutes which seems to indicate that they still believe that they are not allowed to make any comments on suitability or otherwise of sitings until after planning application is put it, by which time of course it will be too late.

Could you be very kind and clarify things for us from your point of view?
We understand from the Applicant that they have engaged fully with the local parish councils. Statutory consultation for the Norfolk Vanguard project will open on 7 November and run until 11 December 2017 and all members of the community, including parish councils, are encouraged to participate and respond to the consultation material provided by the Applicant.

17 October 2017
Jenny Smedley
Norfolk Vanguard
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached note.

17 October 2017
Ørsted Hornsea Project Three (UK) Ltd - Stuart Livesey
Hornsea Project Three Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
My late father came to xxxx, Necton in 1956, and I have lived and worked here all of my life.
The proposed Norfolk Vanguard Substation site would be closest to my home and also too close to many other homes. No body wants it here, spoiling a peaceful rural area which provides much habitat for wildlife and productive farmland. People choose to live here because they want the quiet surroundings it offers.

As I am farming on a relatively small scale, it is becoming financially necessary to look at farm diversification. I have been looking into offering bespoke holiday accommodation and in particular maximising the asset of our tranquil rural countryside.
I consider the location of my farm very important to my livelihood, and the potential to offer rural retreats, away from noise and pressures of everyday life, would be lost.
Necton already has the Dudgeon Substation and the far reaching views across my fields have been spoilt; I do not want more large structures encroaching my view, especially when even closer to xxxx.

What can be done to protect my potential farm diversification plans and earnings?
Planting tall screening to try and hide the substation would restrict views and would not compensate for such a terrible loss of countryside.

My mother, aged 82, does not want this industrial monstrosity so close to her home, she is very worried, as this would change and spoil the area where she has lived for 61 years.

Property devaluation (obviously, any houses in close proximity to giant substations would be much less desirable ) would also effect the potential development of a range of old farm buildings, which would not be viable anymore.

There is a small stream, tributary of the river Wissey, running along side my house which regularly floods into the adjoining road, and in 1982 after prolonged heavy rain, flooded the ground floor of the house.

This small watercourse would need significant work to enable it to cope with excess run off water from the substation and to protect an area already prone to flooding. Land drains stop this land being waterlogged, so it is not an ideal site for infrastructure, and I am very concerned of further flood risk.
This is a real worry, can it be guaranteed this would not flood our house again?

The EMF of this substation is very concerning due to its enormity The biological effectof EMFs is currently under debate and still a controversial issue. Is comparable data even available for a site of this size? .

Background noise is another concern, a hum would be especially noticeable in the quiet of night or crackleing in damp weather . This would be unacceptable and a cause anxiety which can also impact health. There was a misunderstanding regarding background noise monitoring carried out on behalf of Vattenfall so I can only hope their results are accurate. Can it be guaranteed there would be no background noise hum or crackle?

xxxx wants to sell his farm to Vattenfall, (I think 172 acres) but they have declined to purchase. Please could you look into this? It is close to Vattenfall's preferred connection point and further away from the many residents of Ivy Todd, Necton and Necton Village. It does however affect the residents of xxxx, who have recently moved there, but overall this seems a better option.

Infrastructure of this scale and capacity shouldn't be cited so close to any populated area. It is too invasive, but the worst thing for me would be to walk a short distance from my house, along a farm track, and instead of wonderful field views see an ugly industrialised area of massive substations.

If Norfolk Vanguard receives development consent then Boreas will be sure to follow and how many more? We do not want Necton surrounded by Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects.

The stress of many years of construction disturbance and then to have the imposition of living next to this intrusive site is causing much distress and anxiety to both myself and my mother.
As the project has not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate (the Inspectorate), we have no formal powers to intervene on consultees behalf. I would therefore encourage you to contact the developer directly to make your concerns heard as the Applicant has a statutory duty to take your views into account. However, if you feel your comments are not being taken into account, I would advise you to write to your local authority and set out why you think the Applicant is failing to conduct its consultation properly. Your comments should be taken into account when the local authority sends the Inspectorate its comments on whether the Applicant has fulfilled its consultation duties. The local authority’s comments on the Applicant’s consultation will be taken into account when the Acceptance Inspector makes their decision whether to accept the application for Examination.

A copy of your correspondence has been placed on our records and will be presented to the Inspector at Acceptance, together with the application documents and local authorities’ comments on the Applicant’s consultation.

After the decision has been made regarding whether to accept the application for Examination all documents used to inform the decision will be published on our website. If the application for development consent is formally accepted you will be able to submit your views in relation to the project which will be considered by the Examining Authority during the Examination. The Inspectorate has published a series of advice notes which explain the Examination process, including information on how to get involved; of particular interest are advice notes 8.1 to 8.5. These are available at: [attachment 1]

We also recently published a Frequently Asked Questions document regarding Pre-application consultation and this can be viewed on our website here: [attachment 2].

16 October 2017
Colin King
Norfolk Vanguard
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I came to **** in 1956 with my husband, the farm has been my life, providing work place and home, where we raised 3 children.

My husband passed away in 2010 and I now live here with my son and we rely on farming our 80 acres for income, which is becoming more difficult to achieve due to changing markets etc.

I am very upset, that without our agreement, this massive substation can violate the quality of my life by ruining the beautiful location of our home. We are looking into farm diversification ideas too, which rely on the peaceful, rural nature of where we live.

Our house was flooded in 1982, as the adjacent stream could not contain excessive storm water. I am very concerned about increased flood risk, will there be more run off water from the substation than our stream can cope with?

I am retired and enjoy the peace and tranquillity of my life here, and strongly object to Vattenfall building giant substations so close by.
As the project has not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate (the Inspectorate), we have no formal powers to intervene on consultees behalf. I would therefore encourage you to contact the developer directly to make your concerns heard as the Applicant has a statutory duty to take your views into account. However, if you feel your comments are not being taken into account, I would advise you to write to your local authority and set out why you think the Applicant is failing to conduct its consultation properly. Your comments should be taken into account when the local authority sends the Inspectorate its comments on whether the Applicant has fulfilled its consultation duties. The local authority’s comments on the Applicant’s consultation will be taken into account when the Acceptance Inspector makes their decision whether to accept the application for Examination.

A copy of your correspondence has been placed on our records and will be presented to the Inspector at Acceptance, together with the application documents and local authorities’ comments on the Applicant’s consultation.

After the decision has been made regarding whether to accept the application for Examination all documents used to inform the decision will be published on our website. If the application for development consent is formally accepted you will be able to submit your views in relation to the project which will be considered by the Examining Authority during the Examination. The Inspectorate has published a series of advice notes which explain the Examination process, including information on how to get involved; of particular interest are advice notes 8.1 to 8.5. These are available at: [attachment 1]

We also recently published a Frequently Asked Questions document regarding Pre-application consultation and this can be viewed on our website here: [attachment 2].

16 October 2017
Margaret King
Norfolk Vanguard
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
As a local resident of South Staffordshire, we are at present campaigning against the proposed West Midland Strategic Rail Freight Interchange (WM SFRI)
We have had public consultations with the developers where we have expressed our opinions and opposition to this proposal, on many issues.
One of the issues being the development on 700 acres of Green Belt land, and the impact this will have on the Wildlife and destruction of Mature Trees.
I urge you to look into your governments policies regarding Green Belt and the Natural Environment and Rural communities, with regard to this matter.
At present this proposed development is in the Pre-Application stage of the planning process for nationally significant infrastructure projects (NSIPs); during this stage the developer will be preparing their application documents to be submitted to us, as well as consulting with the local community on their proposals. At this stage the application has not been finalised, and as such we advise for any concerns related to the project to be submitted directly to the developer, in order for your views to inform the application before the final version is submitted to us for consideration.

The contact information for the developer is as follows:

[email protected]
tel. 0800 377 7345

We also advise you to contact the relevant local authority with any concerns, as they are required to submit a report to us on the consultation activities undertaken by the Applicant during the Pre-Application stage once the application for the project has been submitted.

If the application is submitted and accepted by us, the appointed Examining Authority is required to take the relevant National Policy Statement into consideration, along with any other relevant policies as part of their Examination of the application prior to submitting their recommendation to the Secretary of State.

I have attached a copy of our Advice Note: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public, which I hope you will find helpful. Please also refer to our website for further information.

16 October 2017
Mary Jones
West Midlands Interchange
Enquiry received via email
GEFS and UK partners are looking to build a biorefinery under two Department for Transport programmes to provide alternative fuels for transport and aviation. The project will take waste wood category B and C and ligno cellulosic waste from composting operations. This material is unsuitable for normal combustion and must be treated in WID compliant biomass plant and we propose also in MECC biorefinery process producing diesel.

The question is would the scope and definition of the project fall under National Infrastructure Planning either as a stand alone project or as an adjunct to an existing biomass waste recycling and/ energy facility and or an oil storage and refinery facilities. The answer would clearly impact on the location of any project and the timeframe predicated by DfT.

Project definition

The Project is to provide a MECC biorefinery processing waste wood into drop in fuel as part of licenced materials recycling facility incorporating

• Waste materials handling
• Biomass CHP plant providing all heat and electricity
• MECC 4/600 or MECC 8/1200 conversion process from organic material to synthetic fuel MSF
• Hydrotreating or Na-DSF process to upgrade fuel to drop in diesel MSF-D

Project Boundaries

Single site, in or over the fence supply of WID designated waste ligno cellulosic (LC) feedstock
Road transport supply of waste lubricating oil
Biomass WID compliant CHP plant
On site conversion of feedstock into Biofuels and Bitumen’s
Small scale fuel upgrading (hydrotreater) to en590
Fuel distribution

Feedstocks

Wood waste fines sawdust B/C 0-10
Wood waste unsuitable for other uses i.e. contaminated.
Waste lubricating oil

Bio-refinery processes.

1/ Feedstock preparation

• Sorting and size screening
• Metal and inorganic separation
• Feedstock selection for CHP or MECC lines.
• Drying and particle size reduction
• Conveyance and storage
• Feedstock induction without O2 into MECC.

2/ Biomass Heater and Rankin cycle CHP plant SUGIMAT-TURBODEN.
• Inputs 12000 tons biomass producing…..
• 950kwh electricity providing all electricity and work for MECC conversion process
• 3.8 mw heat to be utilised in reducing moisture of feedstocks to nominal 10%

3/ MECC conversion process

1. Induction of feedstock into mixing circuit of hot waste oil which is used to transport the feedstocks and catalyst at 180C < 1barm
2. Transfer from mixing circuit into the reactor circuit at 370C 1.5 bar
3. Splitting of molecular structures where decomposition progress is optimized by temperature, mechanical shearing forces and catalyst
4. Solid components are transformed into a gaseous phase
5. Resultant fuel gas immediately leaves the reaction zone
6. Regulation and fractionation of the gaseous fuel
7. Condensation / Liquefaction
8. Separation of solid process remains to be further processed into MSF & Carbon Black or Bio-bitumen.

Conversion Efficiency based on mass/energy balance

Process-related conversion losses, H2O and CO2 = 11,3%
Process and plant parasitic energy load = 11,6 %, (energy provided by CHP plant)

4/ Hydrotreating scaled fuel upgrading facility;

• Secondary distillation to remove residual water
• Reduction of Sulphur from +/- 200ppm to > 10ppm
• Control of aromatics
• Enhance oxidation stability
Final product, MSF-D, meets EN590 diesel standard for fossil fuels

Whilst capacity for initial project would be a single module MECC 4, the final economic model would be double the size a MECC 8

The biomass unit would utilise 1200tons and each MECC module 12,000 tons. Producing 4 mw heat, 1 mw electricity and 5 or 10ml of fuel. So the headline figure could be 36kton of feedstock and 10ml of fuel.

Appreciate your help as I cannot find the exact definitions that might apply to our pathway and project scope.
Thank you for your email. The definition of Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects, which require Development Consent, is found in Section 14 of the Planning Act 2008. It includes:

• generating stations that meet certain criteria set out in Section 15 (notably, that when constructed or extended they generate more than 50 megawatts if in England); and,

• hazardous waste facilities that meet the criteria in Section 30 (notably that they are in England, are not landfills or deep storage facilities, and can process more than 30,000 tonnes per annum, or an additional 30,000tpa if the proposal is the alteration of an existing facility).

Whether or not your proposal would be a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project may depend upon what the quantity of waste capable of being processed in your proposed facility would be, whether it would classed as hazardous and/or what the facility’s maximum generating capacity would be. In any case, we would not be able to advise you on whether or not your proposed facility represents an NSIP, because this would be legal advice that we cannot provide.

I suggest that you seek your own legal advice if you are unsure as to the correct consenting route for your proposed scheme. If you have any questions about the process by which applications for Development Consent are considered, please do not hesitate to contact me.

16 October 2017
Global Ecofuel Solutions S.L. - Barrie King
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Draft documents review meeting
Please see attached documents.

13 October 2017
Sembcorp Utilities (UK) Limited - Scott Taylor
Tees CCPP
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
See attached meeting note

12 October 2017
Vattenfall - anon.
Norfolk Vanguard
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached meeting note

12 October 2017
RPS for Wheelabrator Technologies Inc - Chris LeCointe
Wheelabrator Kemsley Generating Station (K3) and Wheelabrator Kemsley North (WKN) Waste to Energy Facility
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
A meeting to discuss draft documents took place on 12 October 2017
A note of the meeting is attached

12 October 2017
Port of Tilbury London Limited - anon.
Tilbury2
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I have lived in Necton for over twenty years now and have always enjoyed village life and loved living with open views and rolling countryside.
When Dudgeon substation came along as a whole residents had no conception of how much land would be taken up by this huge monstrosity
and I, as one that overlooks the present one, have been affected for the past three years with noise and light pollution. With full blackout
curtains searchlights, which were left on continually overnight, lit up my bedroom despite various promises and apologies this problem
continued. Of course, as the hedgerows are lowered and the winter months approach bringing lacing to the hedgerows we will view more of
this substation. Of course we then had our lanes and roads dug up to accommodate the underground electrical cabling which went on and on
and on.
Vattenfall who also now want to invade our village of course say they are very aware of environmental issues, respect the wishes of residents, etc.
etc., have listened and have 'learned from the Dudgeon mistakes' - I DON'T THINK SO! We are now at the pre-application stage and have been
told that no views can be taken into consideration until the application has been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate - of course this gives no time
for changes.
Two very obvious alternative sites have been put before Vattenfall by Necton Substations Action Group as very much more suitable positions which
are away from villages. We are not prepared to sit down and be bullied by these people who put profit before people and the environment.

The Vattenfall proposal is much larger than the Dudgeon site which I understand will in total take up 70 acres and be 80ft high. How can anybody
in their right mind give the OK for our village, or any other, to be invaded and spoilt forever by these people. I understand these substations have
a very limited life so, of course, once all this countryside has been concreted over we are left with large areas of farmland which can then only be used
for industrial purposes - GREAT!

Has anyone got the message yet - WE DON'T WANT ANY MORE SUBSTATIONS - WE'VE DONE OUR BIT.
As the project has not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate (the Inspectorate), we have no formal powers to intervene on consultees behalf. I note you have contacted the developer directly and we would encourage you to do this to make your concerns heard as the Applicant has a statutory duty to take your views into account. However, if you feel your comments are not being taken into account, I would advise you to write to your local authority and set out why you think the Applicant is failing to conduct its consultation properly. Your comments should be taken into account when the local authority sends the Inspectorate its comments on whether the Applicant has fulfilled its consultation duties. The local authority’s comments on the Applicant’s consultation will be taken into account when the Acceptance Inspector makes their decision whether to accept the application for Examination.

A copy of your correspondence has been placed on our records and will be presented to the Inspector at Acceptance, together with the application documents and local authorities’ comments on the Applicant’s consultation.

After the decision has been made regarding whether to accept the application for Examination all documents used to inform the decision will be published on our website. If the application for development consent is formally accepted you will be able to submit your views in relation to the project which will be considered by the Examining Authority during the Examination. The Inspectorate has published a series of advice notes which explain the Examination process, including information on how to get involved; of particular interest are advice notes 8.1 to 8.5. These are available here: [attachment 1].

You may also wish to see our compilation of advice about the Pre-application procedure and community consultation: [attachment 2]

09 October 2017
Edna Greening
Norfolk Vanguard
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
We are writing to all concerned regarding the proposed location for Vattenfalls Substation which they hope to site close to Necton Village.
We are deeply concerned that Vattenfall are still hell bent on siting this monstrosity so close to a rural village. It is a quiet village consisting of a large percentage of retired and elderly residents who are distressed that their way of life will be ruined by siting this substation close to residential properties.
There is also a primary school which will also be affected - who knows what impact this will have on young lives.
We feel our complaint is justified especially as two other sites have been put forward for consideration that would have little or no impact on peoples lives and way of living.
One site - 185 acres at Top Farm is available for purchase by the owner who contacted Vattenfall . Joe Hill had thought they were definitely buying it, but had then heard no more until VF announced their preferred site on the land that is NOT for sale on Necton Farm (close to Ivy Todd). Necton Farm is not for sale and would therefore have to be subject to a compulsory purchase. This seems madness !
Top farm would be an appropriate site because it has no flooding issues, it is closer to the pylon than Necton Farm would be. It also has natural landscaping and topography . The structures would not been seen from Necton, Holme Hale, West End or Ivy Todd.

Other alternative sites would be near Scarning as proposed by Tony Smedley. One site would be close to the cable corridor at a crossing point on the A47.
The other site being beyond this one down Watery Lane where there is land on either side of the road. This total lot being 165 acres which is for sale on the open market.
Both sites at Scarning are sparsely populated and would have little or no impact on peoples lives. So why does Vattenfall refuse to consider these sites?

Why also is Necton Parish Council only able to speak against the proposals once the planning applications have gone in. By that time it is too late for them to make any objections as the chosen site would by then be impossible to change. This to us seems extremely unfair and biased. This means that Vattenfall have no consideration for the lives of the people who live in Necton and the impact on them.
Why are our human rights not being considered ???

We have sent various emails to Vattenfall in the past but have never had any reply from them. Only an automatic reply saying they will get back to us.
It shows their contempt for the people of Necton. !!
As the project has not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate (the Inspectorate), we have no formal powers to intervene on consultees behalf. I note you have contacted the developer directly and we would encourage you to do this to make your concerns heard as the Applicant has a statutory duty to take your views, as well as any Parish Council’s views, into account. However, if you feel your comments are not being taken into account, I would advise you to write to your local authority and set out why you think the Applicant is failing to conduct its consultation properly. Your comments should be taken into account when the local authority sends the Inspectorate its comments on whether the Applicant has fulfilled its consultation duties. The local authority’s comments on the Applicant’s consultation will be taken into account when the Acceptance Inspector makes their decision whether to accept the application for Examination.

A copy of your correspondence has been placed on our records and will be presented to the Inspector at Acceptance, together with the application documents and local authorities’ comments on the Applicant’s consultation.

After the decision has been made regarding whether to accept the application for Examination all documents used to inform the decision will be published on our website. If the application for development consent is formally accepted you will be able to submit your views in relation to the project which will be considered by the Examining Authority during the Examination. The Inspectorate has published a series of advice notes which explain the Examination process, including information on how to get involved; of particular interest are advice notes 8.1 to 8.5. These are available here: [attachment 1].

You may also wish to see our compilation of advice about the Pre-application procedure and community consultation: [attachment 2]

09 October 2017
Roy and Angela Campbell
Norfolk Vanguard
Enquiry received via email
This is a general question on Projects of National Importance and the Statutory Consultations that I hope you can help with, as to us people ‘on the ground’ these parts of the process are most puzzling and, a lot of the time, most infuriating.

Can you tell us why the very people who should be available to represent the residents at this time, and those with the most knowledge of the village in general, and it’s needs, are effectively gagged by the consultation process?

I’m talking about our Parish Councils, who are apparently, only able to speak for or against a proposal, once siting has been decided and planning permission has been applied for.

It seems totally bizarre to us that our PC are not allowed to give an opinions, good or bad, on the various proposals being considered for planning applications. Because of course by the time planning applications go in, the site has been refined and chosen and would be, at that stage, almost impossible to change.

Surely the PC, as our representative body, should be consulted, and allowed to represent Necton, before the final site is chosen, ie before planning is applied for, as afterwards it is far too late for them to have any useful input.

Please can you help us with this, as it has caused terrible dissent and fracturing of the society of our village because so many people think that the PC is not responding by choice, and don’t understand that they are effectively gagged by the terms of the consultation process?
Parish Councils are one of the bodies we would expect the developer to engage with at the pre-application stage. As advised previously, as the projects have not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate we have no formal powers to intervene on consultees behalf therefore if the Parish Council has concerns about the consultation process then they should contact the developer directly to make their concerns heard as the Applicant has a statutory duty to take their views into account. If the Parish Council feels their views are not being taken into account I would advise them to contact the local authority.

06 October 2017
Jenny Smedley
Norfolk Boreas
Enquiry received via email
This is a general question on Projects of National Importance and the Statutory Consultations that I hope you can help with, as to us people ‘on the ground’ these parts of the process are most puzzling and, a lot of the time, most infuriating.

Can you tell us why the very people who should be available to represent the residents at this time, and those with the most knowledge of the village in general, and it’s needs, are effectively gagged by the consultation process?

I’m talking about our Parish Councils, who are apparently, only able to speak for or against a proposal, once siting has been decided and planning permission has been applied for.

It seems totally bizarre to us that our PC are not allowed to give an opinions, good or bad, on the various proposals being considered for planning applications. Because of course by the time planning applications go in, the site has been refined and chosen and would be, at that stage, almost impossible to change.

Surely the PC, as our representative body, should be consulted, and allowed to represent Necton, before the final site is chosen, ie before planning is applied for, as afterwards it is far too late for them to have any useful input.

Please can you help us with this, as it has caused terrible dissent and fracturing of the society of our village because so many people think that the PC is not responding by choice, and don’t understand that they are effectively gagged by the terms of the consultation process?
Parish Councils are one of the bodies we would expect the developer to engage with at the pre-application stage. As advised previously, as the projects have not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate we have no formal powers to intervene on consultees behalf therefore if the Parish Council has concerns about the consultation process then they should contact the developer directly to make their concerns heard as the Applicant has a statutory duty to take their views into account. If the Parish Council feels their views are not being taken into account I would advise them to contact the local authority.

06 October 2017
Jenny Smedley
Norfolk Vanguard
When does the inspectors work start officially? Is there a public announcement and can members of the public attend.
Once an application has been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate we have 28 days to decide whether it is of a satisfactory standard to be examined. An Acceptance Inspector, along with the Case Team, will check the application against the statutory Acceptance tests under section 55 of the Planning Act 2008, on behalf of the Secretary of State. This process is not open to the public, however we will invite the host and neighbouring local authorities to submit a representation on the adequacy of consultation. We will also pass the Acceptance Inspector all correspondence that we have received in the pre-application period. Our website will be updated to advise the public that an application has been received and, if the applicant agrees, the application documents will be published on our website.

05 October 2017
Katie Taylor
Norfolk Vanguard
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I OBJECT to the current plans to build West Burton C Power Plant (a gas-fired peaking plant) adjacent to the existing power stations in West Burton, Nottinghamshire.

I strongly believe if this development is approved it will have an adverse impact on the local community: this structure will further spoil the landscape character of the surrounding countryside, generate more traffic during the construction stages and ongoing maintenance, as well as reduce the quality of air, once commissioned.
Please see attached letter

05 October 2017
Caroline Merriman
West Burton C power station
Enquiry received via email
I am writing regarding a query on the Planning Act 2008 requirements of an NSIP. I would like to find out whether it would be possible to gain any clarification whether the requirements that qualify a generating station as a NSIP within the Planning Act 2008 would include the generating stations associated gas pipeline that exceeds the 16.093 km (Pipelines Act 1962) requirement. Where in general a pipeline that exceeds this limit, and is not a gas transporter, is classed as a NSIP and therefore must have a single DCO application.

It is not clear by reading between the lines that a pipeline exceeding the requirement above could fall under the main generating station projects DCO application, but it also does not make sense why these would be separated, unless the pipeline was of such an extent (e.g. possibly >100 km), that the Secretary of State deems the pipeline to be a NSIP in its own right, and therefore would request a single DCO application.
If I correctly understand the crux of your enquiry, there is nothing to prevent more than one Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP) being included in a Development Consent Order (DCO), and there are precedents for this (see for example the East Midlands Gateway Rail Freight Interchange and Galloper Offshore Wind Farm). In effect, an NSIP generating station and an NSIP pipeline could be delivered through the same DCO.

I would caveat that development for which development consent is required a matter of fact, in accordance with the provisions set out in sections 14 to 30A of the Planning Act 2008; but the Planning Inspectorate cannot take a decision on whether development constitutes an NSIP until such time as the associated application for development consent is formally submitted.

05 October 2017
Wood Group - Jonathan Capanda
General
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I am interested in having a much better understanding the road safety implications of two major projects under consideration:-

Rail Central (Strategic Rail Freight Interchange)
Ashfield Land Limited Pre Application

Northampton Gateway Rail Freight Interchange
Roxhill Developments Limited Pre Application

I want to see any information you have regarding:-

• Projected increases in traffic density on the local roads M1 A508, A45, A43, A5 and all the Rat Runs trough the local villages such as Stoke Bruerne, Shutlanger, Blisworth, Whittlebury etc.
• Increase in Dark Hours HGV (24 Hour Operation).
• Road Traffic Accident assessment due to the increased traffic density, increase HGV volume and HGV night operations.
• Increased delay times at the well known rush hour blackspots such as J15 and J15A
• Contingency plans for traffic diversion when say the M1 or A45 is closed due to RTA
• Anything else you think may be of interest.

Thank you.
Both the Rail Central and Northampton Gateway Rail Freight Interchange projects are currently in the Pre-Application stage of the planning process for nationally significant infrastructure projects under the Planning Act 2008 (as amended) (PA2008). During this stage the developer is responsible for all information submitted, and we advise you to contact them directly in the first instance.

The contact information for both projects is as follows:

Rail Central (Strategic Rail Freight Interchange): Point of Contact: Ben Copithorne, 0207 6367366, Website: [attachment 1]

Northampton Gateway Rail Freight Interchange:
Email: [email protected],
Tel: 01788 538 440
Postal Address: Northampton Gateway SRFI, P O Box 10570, Nottingham, NG2 9RG
Online contact form: [attachment 2]

I have also attached our Advice Note 8: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public, which I hope you will find helpful.

03 October 2017
Terry Owen
Rail Central (Strategic Rail Freight Interchange)
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update and draft documents review meeting
Please see attached meeting note

03 October 2017
Horizon Nuclear Power
Wylfa Newydd Nuclear Power Station
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Cyfarfod Diweddaru Prosiectau
Gweler y nodyn cyfarfod sydd ynghlwm

03 October 2017
Horizon Nuclear Power
Wylfa Newydd Nuclear Power Station
Enquiry received via email
Queries raised following the issue of the Kemsley Paper Mill (K4) CHP Plant Scoping Opinion
Further to my email below we have looked into your queries and have the following comments. For ease of reference my comments are made under the same headings as in your email.

Risks of Accidents and Disasters

You have asked the Inspectorate to confirm if your proposed approach to assessing the risk of major accidents and disasters during construction and decommissioning set out in your email below is an acceptable one. The approach described was not contained in your Scoping Report and so the Inspectorate did not address this specifically in the Scoping Opinion. The Inspectorate does not consider it appropriate to comment in detail on the scope of an assessment outside of the formal Scoping Opinion process. However, the Applicant is reminded that an Environmental Statement (ES) must include (amongst other things) a description of the likely significant effects and of any features of the Proposed Development or measures envisaged in order to avoid, prevent or reduce and, if possible, offset likely significant adverse effects on the environment. Therefore, if the proposed approach described by the Applicant is sufficient to address the requirements of the EIA Regulations in this regard then it may be regarded as an acceptable one. The Applicant should note that in any event the Inspectorate, on behalf of the Secretary of State, is required to consider the overall adequacy of the information provided with an application for a Development Consent Order. The consideration will include whether the ES is adequate according to the EIA Regulations.

The Inspectorate’s comments contained in the ‘Risk of accidents and disasters’ section of the topic-based scoping table (page 46) in the Scoping Opinion the location of which you have queried refer to points raised at paragraphs 3.3.19 – 3.3.20 of the Scoping Opinion.

Human Health

It is correct that the Inspectorate did not comment specifically on human health in the Scoping Opinion. The information contained in Table 2.1 of the Scoping Report indicated that matters relating to human health would be scoped in for all phases of the Proposed Development, and that it will be considered under other topics, such as, for example, air quality, ground conditions and noise. The Inspectorate did not feel the need to comment on this approach.

Community, Social and Economic, Land Use and Waste Effects

To clarify, the Inspectorate agreed, in paragraph 3.3.7 of the Scoping Opinion, that these topics do not need to be included in the ES as standalone chapters. However, as you note, the Inspectorate considers that matters relating to waste should be considered within relevant topic chapters as appropriate and in particular where there may be potential for significant effects, such as, for example, in relation to increased traffic.

In relation to your final point, our understanding according to paragraph 1.4.9 of the Scoping Report is that K3 will supply energy in the form of steam to the paper mill; not to K4, the Proposed Development.

02 October 2017
DHA Planning - Tim Spicer
Kemsley Paper Mill (K4) CHP Plant
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Varying a DCO Requirement

Could you briefly explain how a developer would formally vary a Requirement imposed on a DCO? In the absence of any specific legislation covering this point, I am assuming this would be achieved via the non-material (or material) amendment process however I am hoping there is a less onerous route.
The Secretary of State has published guidance on changes to Development Consent Orders, including changes to their schedules, which can be found here:

[attachment 1]

If you have any other questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.

02 October 2017
Innogy Renewables UK Limited - Eleri Davies
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting.
See attached meeting note.

29 September 2017
Heathrow Airport Ltd - anon.
Expansion of Heathrow Airport (Third Runway)
Enquiry received via phone
response has attachments
Nodyn Cyfarfod - 28 Medi 2017 / Meeting Note - 28 September 2017

28 September 2017
Abergelli Power Limited - Dermot Scanlon
Abergelli Power
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Initial meeting to discuss the A1 Alnwick to Ellingham scheme
A note of the meeting is attached

28 September 2017
Highways England - anon.
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Note of meeting between the Planning Inspectorate and Stone Hill Park Ltd (the Manston Airport landowner) to request advice in accordance with section 51 of the Planning Act 2008 about matters relating to applying for an order granting development consent and making representations about a proposed application
See attached meeting note.

27 September 2017
Pinsent Masons for Stone Hill Park Ltd - anon.
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Inception meeting for A303 Stonehenge – Amesbury to Berwick Down
Please see attached

27 September 2017
Highways England - anon.
A303 Stonehenge
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I have finally got from the project team a copy of the Statement of Community Consultation

Is this normally made available to the public?

It is not on the project website and if you had not told me they have to produce it, I would not have known about it. I had to ask several times before they sent me a link to it on their main website
The Statement of Community Consultation (SoCC) is available on National Grid’s website here: [attachment 1]. In accordance with s47(6)(za) of the Planning Act 2008 the SoCC should be made available for inspection by the public in a way that is reasonably convenient for people living in the vicinity of the land. In accordance with s47(6)(a) the SoCC should also be published in a newspaper circulating in the vicinity of the land.

How National Grid has met these requirements should be set out in their Consultation Report which will be submitted with their application and we will be looking at this as part of our compliance checks with s55 of PA2008.

26 September 2017
Jonathan Dean
North Wales Connection
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached meeting note.

26 September 2017
RiverOak Strategic Partners - anon.
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Nodyn Cyfarfod - 26 Medi 2017/ Meeting Note - 26 September 2017

26 September 2017
Cyngor Sir Ynys Môn/ Isle of Anglesey C Council - anon.
North Wales Connection
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Nodyn Cyfarfod - 26 Medi 2017/ Meeting Note - 26 September 2017

26 September 2017
Cyngor Sir Ynys Môn/ Isle of Anglesey C Council - anon.
Wylfa Newydd Nuclear Power Station
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
DCO amendment meeting
Please see attached

25 September 2017
Multifuel Energy Ltd - anon.
Ferrybridge Multifuel 2 (FM2) Power Station
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update telecon meeting
Please see attached meeting note

22 September 2017
National Grid - Eloise Frank
North Wales Connection
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Thurrock Hybrid Power Plant - Project Update Meeting
Please see attached meeting note.

22 September 2017
Statera Energy - anon.
General
Enquiry received via email
Local Authorities have had a well-established role in the Secretary of State’s determination of Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects and in implementing/enforcing Development Consent Orders. Given that metro-mayors have responsibility for Planning and Transport, I would be grateful if you would please specify the role, if any, a metro-mayor would have in the determination of a NSIP affecting land in their Combined Authority and how it would relate to the role(s) previously played by the Local Authority or Local Authorities affected.
Local authorities have a special role in the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) process which, dependant on their spatial status, enables them to:

• Engage with the preparation of an applicant’s Statement of Community Consultation;
• Submit representations about the adequacy of an applicant’s Pre-application consultation; and
• Submit a Local Impact Report (see our Advice note one).

Local authorities are usually also a discharging authority (and/ or consultee) in respect of Requirements attached to a Development Consent Order.

The status and role of local authorities is prescribed by the PA2008.

Metro mayors/ combined authorities do not have a prescribed role in the PA2008 process. At the Pre-application stage of the process therefore, it will be at the discretion of an applicant whether a metro mayor is notified and directly consulted about an application. Notwithstanding this, a metro mayor would never be precluded from having his/ her say in respect of shaping a project at the Pre-application stage as he/ she could engage with the Applicant through the processes set out under s47 of the PA2008.

The Planning Inspectorate has statutory functions in respect of the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017. When consulting on the information to be included in an Environmental Statement the Inspectorate can consult with metro mayors/ combined authorities as non-prescribed consultation bodies where we consider that they have relevant functions and responsibilities which are akin to other statutory consultation bodies (see our Advice note three).

If an application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, and subsequently accepted for examination, in order to engage with the examination of a specific application metro mayors/ combined authorities will need to register as an Interested Party in the same way as any other non-prescribed individual or organisation (see our Advice note eight).

21 September 2017
Des Brennan
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
An initial meeting regarding a non-material change application
A note of the meeting is attached

21 September 2017
Augean - Augean
East Northants Resource Management Facility
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Meeting between the Planning Inspectorate and Natural Resources Wales to discuss the Wylfa Newydd Generating Station project
Please see attached meeting note

21 September 2017
Natural Resources Wales - Henry Aron
Wylfa Newydd Nuclear Power Station
Enquiry received via post
response has attachments
See attached letter
I note you acknowledge that National Grid has paused its work on the North West Coast Connection project and as the project has not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate (the Inspectorate), we have no formal powers to intervene on consultees behalf. However the Applicant has a statutory duty to take consultation responses into account and, if the application is submitted to us, part of our compliance checks are to ensure the consultation has been conducted properly.

With regard to your concern about the timeframe for the Applicant’s response to nopylons’ alternative proposal for an offshore route from Selker Bay to Walney, this is something the Applicant may respond to in their Consultation Report, which would be submitted to the Inspectorate as part of the application documentation. The Applicant has stated in their Scoping Report that a description of the alternatives considered, and an explanation of the decisions taken, will be provided within the Environmental Statement, which will also be submitted as part of the application documentation. The Examining Authority can also request the Applicant’s view on nopylons’ proposal during the Examination, if they consider it relevant to their examination of the application.

A copy of your correspondence has been placed on our records and will be presented to the Inspector at Acceptance, together with the application documents and local authorities’ comments on the Applicant’s consultation.

After the decision has been made regarding whether to accept the application for Examination all documents used to inform the decision will be published on our website.

If the application for development consent is formally accepted you will be able to submit your views in relation to the project which will be considered by the Examining Authority during the Examination.

The Inspectorate has published a series of advice notes which explain the Examination process, including information on how to get involved; of particular interest are advice notes 8.1 to 8.5. These are available at: [attachment 1]

We also recently published a Frequently Asked Questions document regarding Pre-application consultation and this can be viewed on our website here: [attachment 2].

20 September 2017
C A Rowntree
General
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I know that residents are not normally involved in the consultation process until the decisions have been made, and with my neighbours, I have been collating the regular lack of publicity and invitations to information sessions. I live a mere 200m from one of the proposed sites and with my neighbours, were not included in invitations to an information evening about the proposed “Cable Relay Station” which will have a huge impact and blight on our lives and businesses.

However, on Friday I became aware of some rather alarming news;

A little while ago Vattenfall changed the dates of publication of the PEIA and thereby appear to have engineered a situation where the report is too late for discussion in Council meetings in November and too early for the meeting in December.

In County Council speak; the result of this is that the consultation period (27/10 - 4/12) does not fit into any of the County Council’s scheduled Environmental Development and Transport Committee dates and will therefore be taken as an “urgent Decision”, i.e. decision to be taken by Chief Officer (Executive Director of Community and Environmental Services in consultation with the EDT Committee Chair and Vice Chair.

This means Norfolk County Council is going to use delegated powers to process the statutory response to the inspectorate. As I see it, this tactic avoids public scrutiny via Cabinet. At the Cabinet meeting at NNDC last week where the Dong application was discussed many councillors only became aware of issues because well informed members of the public were able to speak. As mentioned above, I am really concerned that the publicity of the Vattenfall proposal has been limited and many people are just not yet aware of the huge scope of this project, or the choices available. One of my neighbours visited the building associated with the Sheringham Shoal offshore generation and described it as more akin to a nuclear power station and the constant hum being very intrusive.

So, not only is Norfolk facing two/three huge infrastructure projects (with probably more to follow), but the dates of one of them is resulting in an absence of the normal public scrutiny………!

I can’t believe that Norfolk residents are being hoodwinked in such a callous manner.

Do you have any powers to ensure that there is full, open and proper public consultation on such an important issue?
As the project has not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate (the Inspectorate), we have no formal powers to intervene on consultees behalf. I would therefore encourage you to contact the developer directly to make your concerns heard as the Applicant has a statutory duty to take your views into account. However, if you feel your comments are not being taken into account, I would advise you to write to your local authority and set out why you think the Applicant is failing to conduct its consultation properly.

The Norfolk Vanguard draft Statement of Community Consultation is currently with Norfolk County Council for consultation. This document sets out how Vattenfall will conduct their statutory consultation and prior to finalisation of their draft it was sent to Norfolk County Council for their feedback. Therefore they have an opportunity to comment on the proposed dates of public consultation.

The statutory consultation period will not be the only opportunity for Norfolk County Council to comment on the proposals. Once the applications are submitted to the Inspectorate the Council will be invited to comment on whether the Applicant has fulfilled its consultation duties. The local authority’s comments on the Applicant’s consultation will be taken into account when the Acceptance Inspector makes their decision whether to accept the application for Examination.

Local authorities have a very important role in the 2008 Act process. If the Norfolk Vanguard project is accepted for Examination, the Examining Authority will invite Norfolk County Council to submit a Local Impact Report (LIR), which can give details of the likely impact of the proposed development on the authority’s area. In coming to a decision on whether or not to grant consent for the project, the Secretary of State must have regard to any LIRs that are submitted by the deadline. Norfolk County Council will also have an opportunity to submit written representations and make oral representations at hearings.

A copy of your correspondence has been placed on our records and will be presented to the Inspector at Acceptance, together with the application documents and local authorities’ comments on the Applicant’s consultation.

After the decision has been made regarding whether to accept the application for Examination all documents used to inform the decision will be published on our website. If the application for development consent is formally accepted you will be able to submit your views in relation to the project which will be considered by the Examining Authority during the Examination. The Inspectorate has published a series of advice notes which explain the Examination process, including information on how to get involved; of particular interest are advice notes 8.1 to 8.5. These are available at: [attachment 1]

20 September 2017
Geraldine Watson
Norfolk Vanguard
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Meeting to discuss and provide feedback from the Examination of the
application for the North Wales Wind Farms Connection project.
See attached meeting note

20 September 2017
SP Energy Networks - anon.
North Wales Wind Farms Connection
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
We noted comments, in relation to London Resort, that DCO’s may now include Housing.
Can you tell us if Highways DCO’s are included in this change?
The guidance on Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects and Housing published by the Department for Communities and Local Government in March 2017 states:

“The changes made by the 2016 Act allow development consent to be granted for housing related to any infrastructure project that requires development consent under the 2008 Act as long as the project is to be carried out in England, and/or in waters adjacent to England (up to the seaward limits of the territorial sea).”

The guidance can be found here: [attachment 1]

19 September 2017
Bean Residents Association - Linda Collins
The London Resort
Enquiry received via email
Vattenfall sent their draft Statement of Community Consultation to the Planning Inspectorate for comment.
Your SoCC states that consultation is open to all with an interest in the project but there is no specific information on how you plan to engage with hard to reach communities. You may wish to consider how your SoCC, and in due course, your Consultation Report, demonstrates your strategy for such groups, for example, groups that have limited literacy skills or due to disabilities are unable to partake in your public events.

Please note that the SoCC needs to be published in such a manner that may be prescribed to comply with s47(6)(b) of the Act.

18 September 2017
Vattenfall - anon.
Norfolk Vanguard
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

18 September 2017
Millbrook Power Ltd - Nick Johnson
Millbrook Power
Enquiry received via email
Save Manston Airport association (SMAa) note :
“The Inspectorate confirmed that it had received a large volume of correspondence which raised concerns relating to the statutory consultation events ….”
We also note that we have been encouraged by yourselves to collate communications from our members to yourselves, rather than having them all writing individually.
Thus we would like to enquire of the Planning Inspectorate as to why at no stage has the 286 signatory letter dated 2017-07-21, from SMAa, been acknowledged ? I attach all three parts for your convenience.
This letter, with its two attachments, from 286 of our members, confirmed a broad satisfaction with the RSP Consultation process, across a range of considerations.
Surely such a communication from so many must justify a mention in comparison with the much smaller number of writers who do have concerns regarding the RSP statutory consultation ?
The above documents refer to the list of 286 members who engaged in this response over 10 days, and who should be regarded as signers of that letter.

On behalf of these members. The Save Manston Airport association committee :

• Dr. Beau Webber (Chairman)
• David Stevens (Vice-Chairman)
• R. John Pritchard (Treasurer)
• Clive Cripps (Secretary)
• Liam Coyle
• Bryan Girdler
• Ela Lodge-Pritchard
• Linda Wright
• Gary Dumigan
• Gregory Nocentini
Thank you for your email.
Our meeting notes provide a record of the key topics discussed and any advice issued by the Planning Inspectorate under s51 of the Planning Act 2008.
In the note of the 23 August meeting, reference to the concerns raised in respect of the Applicant’s statutory consultation placed in context our production of the community consultation Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) document. The correspondence from SMAa was not referred to at the meeting, either by the Inspectorate or the Applicant, hence a record of it was not made in the meeting note. The Applicant was provided with an opportunity to comment on a draft of the meeting note before it was published and in response did not raise any concerns in respect of the accuracy of the record.
We encourage and advise all of stakeholders who share similar views to collate communications to us because this assists the process. Thank you therefore to SMAa for positively contributing in this way. However we cannot compel dispersed interest groups to engage in the same way.
As per the advice in our FAQ document, in the same way as the correspondence expressing concerns, your positive commentary about the Applicant’s consultation can be considered by the Secretary of State in addition to the statutorily required Acceptance tests if an application for development consent is submitted.

15 September 2017
Save Manston Airport Association - J B W Webber
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
There is a lot of deep mistrust of Vattenfall's reference to the standards/guidelines relating to visuals/graphics being used to 'demonstrate' the impact of the Norfolk Vanguard on shore installations. We were told that guidance was being adhered to. We believe they are referring to Scottish guidelines. Can you help us out here?
The Applicant has notified the Planning Inspectorate of its intent to submit an Environmental Statement (ES) with their applications for these projects. In their scoping report for both projects (available on our website), the Applicant set out their proposed approach to assessing potential landscape and visual impacts and the guidelines they intend to utilise. This includes:

- The Landscape Institute with the Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (2013). Guidelines for the Assessment of Landscape and Visual Impacts. Third Edition;
- Landscape and Seascape Character Assessments published by Natural England and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (2014);
- An Approach to Landscape Character Assessment (2014). Natural England;
- Scottish Natural Heritage (2012). Assessing the Cumulative Impact of Onshore Wind Energy Developments;
- Scottish Natural Heritage (December 2014). Visual Representation of Wind Farms: Version 2.1; and
- The Landscape Institute (2011). Landscape Institute Advice Note 01/11, Photography and photomontage in landscape and visual impact assessment.

14 September 2017
Katie Taylor
Norfolk Boreas
Enquiry received via email
There is a lot of deep mistrust of Vattenfall's reference to the standards/guidelines relating to visuals/graphics being used to 'demonstrate' the impact of the Norfolk Vanguard on shore installations. We were told that guidance was being adhered to. We believe they are referring to Scottish guidelines. Can you help us out here?
The Applicant has notified the Planning Inspectorate of its intent to submit an Environmental Statement (ES) with their applications for these projects. In their scoping report for both projects (available on our website), the Applicant set out their proposed approach to assessing potential landscape and visual impacts and the guidelines they intend to utilise. This includes:

- The Landscape Institute with the Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (2013). Guidelines for the Assessment of Landscape and Visual Impacts. Third Edition;
- Landscape and Seascape Character Assessments published by Natural England and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (2014);
- An Approach to Landscape Character Assessment (2014). Natural England;
- Scottish Natural Heritage (2012). Assessing the Cumulative Impact of Onshore Wind Energy Developments;
- Scottish Natural Heritage (December 2014). Visual Representation of Wind Farms: Version 2.1; and
- The Landscape Institute (2011). Landscape Institute Advice Note 01/11, Photography and photomontage in landscape and visual impact assessment.

14 September 2017
Katie Taylor
Norfolk Vanguard
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I am a member of the Necton Substations Action Group and have found your contact details from the group, as I can't find a link to register my interest with the Planning Inspectorate.

I am extremely concerned about the proposed sittings of Vattenfall's Norfolk Vanguard and Norfolk Boreas, and the National Grid Extension, at Necton, Norfolk.

I strongly believe Necton is the wrong area for these Nationally Significant infrastructure Projects and attach my thoughts, reasoning and and opinions.

Please can these be looked at and taken into consideration at this crucial pre application stage?

(See attachment)
As the project has not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate (the Inspectorate), we have no formal powers to intervene on consultees behalf. I would therefore encourage you to contact the developer directly to make your concerns heard as the Applicant has a statutory duty to take your views into account. However, if you feel your comments are not being taken into account, I would advise you to write to your local authority and set out why you think the Applicant is failing to conduct its consultation properly. Your comments should be taken into account when the local authority sends the Inspectorate its comments on whether the Applicant has fulfilled its consultation duties. The local authority’s comments on the Applicant’s consultation will be taken into account when the Acceptance Inspector makes their decision whether to accept the application for Examination.

A copy of your correspondence has been placed on our records and will be presented to the Inspector at Acceptance, together with the application documents and local authorities’ comments on the Applicant’s consultation.

After the decision has been made regarding whether to accept the application for Examination all documents used to inform the decision will be published on our website.
If the application for development consent is formally accepted you will be able to submit your views in relation to the project which will be considered by the Examining Authority during the Examination.
The Inspectorate has published a series of advice notes which explain the Examination process, including information on how to get involved; of particular interest are advice notes 8.1 to 8.5. These are available at: [attachment 1]

We also recently published a Frequently Asked Questions document regarding Pre-application consultation and this can be viewed on our website here: [attachment 2].

14 September 2017
Patricia Lockwood
Norfolk Vanguard
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I am a member of the Necton Substations Action Group and have found your contact details from the group, as I can't find a link to register my interest with the Planning Inspectorate.

I am extremely concerned about the proposed sittings of Vattenfall's Norfolk Vanguard and Norfolk Boreas, and the National Grid Extension, at Necton, Norfolk.

I strongly believe Necton is the wrong area for these Nationally Significant infrastructure Projects and attach my thoughts, reasoning and and opinions.

Please can these be looked at and taken into consideration at this crucial pre application stage?

(See attachment)
As the project has not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate (the Inspectorate), we have no formal powers to intervene on consultees behalf. I would therefore encourage you to contact the developer directly to make your concerns heard as the Applicant has a statutory duty to take your views into account. However, if you feel your comments are not being taken into account, I would advise you to write to your local authority and set out why you think the Applicant is failing to conduct its consultation properly. Your comments should be taken into account when the local authority sends the Inspectorate its comments on whether the Applicant has fulfilled its consultation duties. The local authority’s comments on the Applicant’s consultation will be taken into account when the Acceptance Inspector makes their decision whether to accept the application for Examination.

A copy of your correspondence has been placed on our records and will be presented to the Inspector at Acceptance, together with the application documents and local authorities’ comments on the Applicant’s consultation.

After the decision has been made regarding whether to accept the application for Examination all documents used to inform the decision will be published on our website.
If the application for development consent is formally accepted you will be able to submit your views in relation to the project which will be considered by the Examining Authority during the Examination.
The Inspectorate has published a series of advice notes which explain the Examination process, including information on how to get involved; of particular interest are advice notes 8.1 to 8.5. These are available at: [attachment 1]

We also recently published a Frequently Asked Questions document regarding Pre-application consultation and this can be viewed on our website here: [attachment 2].

14 September 2017
Patricia Lockwood
Norfolk Boreas
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Inception meeting, to introduce the scheme
A note of the meeting is attached

14 September 2017
Highways England - anon.
M25 junction 28 improvements
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Inception meeting, to introduce the scheme
A note of the meeting is attached

14 September 2017
Highways England - anon.
M25 junction 10/A3 Wisley interchange improvement
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Inception Meeting
Please see attached

12 September 2017
Drax Power Ltd - Jim Doyle
Drax Re-power
response has attachments
I strongly object to this development and wish to protest at this scale and need for this freight hub.

I have and met with the representatives at Coven Memorial as part of their submission piece on the 22nd July.

My concerns relate to the devastating impact in regards to traffic congestion and air, noise and sound pollution due to increased volume of traffic.

In this location in regards to the A449 we already have significant issues within the Brewood Coven Penkridge area and this development will see increase in pollution and nitrous oxide levels due to the increase in HGV traffic.

I myself have breathing difficulties in regards to asthma and this will have significant impact upon the vulnerable within the community both old and young.

It has been estimated that 5000 HGVs will be making the journey in and out of the hub if it was to proceed.

There has already been a declaration from one of their officials to myself and my neighbours that there are very high levels of existing pollution noted on the A5 truck stop and feel this proposed development should have undertaken a through and robust impact health environmental assessment. The numbers and figures have not been authentically checked and they are weighted. What has not been made clear even during intensive scrutiny of the figures that this operation is a 24 our 7 day a week and therefore the residents of the A449 and A5 will see intensive noise sound air pollution. This area already has issues when the M6 becomes congested.

The developers have not undertaken a thorough needs impact health assessment and have not sufficiently research ed in regards to existing pollution levels on the A449 Stafford Road.This has been requested via our Councillor Sutton to ensure the pollution levels are correctly assessed in order to see how much they would gain. Currently we need to meet these obligations regarding increasing air quality.

My concerns also relate to the significance of jobs which will be low paid and will be few in number. Going forward these jobs would be likely be lowered due to the rise of robot technology. This development will only benefit the landowner who has currently have low rewarding agricultural land but due to this proposal see his assets rise excrementally. Also the hub if not proved to be successful can be later developed into nothing more than another road warehouse facility. I feel (FAL) Four Ashes Limited are using the special measures in order to overcome Greenbelt strict planning restrictions. This location does not provide the road infrastructure to sustain such traffic. Other locations such as Stoke do wish to have this facility therefore this should carry more weight in respect to other sites and wishes of residents regarding these developments.

Most people who struggle with plans will not realise the size and enormity of this development which has been proposed. The height and scale of this proposals is absolutely monstrous. The need has not been proven and the attempt to provide banking and build a park is nothing more than a low grade gesture in order to attempt some form of Community Relations PR exercise which most residents will see
through.

The area and beauty should be maintained, we already have seen other schemes rail- roaded to include the recycle centre and the visual impact and congestion in the area that enough is enough.

I have credibility concerns which I raised to the FAL Representative about the misrepresentation of traffic facts and figures to manipulate their shared outcome to the community within their PR information. All of these figures and claims should be independently scrutinized to ensure the community are provided with accurate facts and figures. We deserve to have FAL data verified and checked as part of the scrutiny process by experts who are independent and not on the payroll of FAL.
The staff were shipped in from London and do not have any knowledge or expertise of the area and the current traffic issues we face every day which shows utter contempt for us living in the community.

Please can you send my email and collate my concerns towards your collective campaign
Thank you for including PINS in your correspondence to the Applicant, which raises concerns relating to the proposed development.

We acknowledge that your correspondence was submitted to the Applicant in relation to their Statutory Consultation (‘Stage 2 Consultation’) carried out from 5 July to 30 August 2017. The Planning Act 2008 sets out the legislation and regulations that guides a developer on who and how to consult during the Pre-Application stage - the stage at which the West Midlands interchange project is currently in.

To assist various interest groups, PINS has recently published to our website Frequently Asked Questions ( [attachment 1] ) which provides information on the Pre-Application stage of the Planning Act 2008 planning process for Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIP), which you may find helpful.

Please contact us if you have any further queries related to this project.

08 September 2017
Natalie Fraser
West Midlands Interchange
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Further to our last exchange there have been statutory consultations by the proposer in July and consequential feedback response.
You will no doubt have been copied in by some respondents.
Whilst there is now considerable awareness and resistance to the proposal by the local populace, the proposer has resisted requests to engage with the affected community or the main community representatives. As the main opposition group we have made several requests both direct and indirect - without response.

We previously made you aware of an intimidating style adopted by their land agents. There has been further incidence by the same agent of secretively posting notices requesting land ownership interest details. A number of persons within the community have suggested that they may have certain land interests. However the proposer has not responded to written requests. Copy letter attached.

Additionally we note that despite the massive size of the proposal there has been no community impact assessment made. This should be a minimum requirement for all planning applications in the "strategic" category.
Thank you for your email. We note your concerns below.
As you are aware the Applicant carried out their period of statutory consultation (‘Stage 2 Consultation’) from 5 July to 30 August 2017 which invited responses on the proposed development. The Applicant via their website [attachment 1] made available copies of all Stage 2 Consultation documents for download from their Document Library. These draft documents produced by the Applicant for the proposed development are still available to review (under ‘Stage 2 Technical Documents’ tab) on their website and includes the Interim Consultation Report. If you have not already reviewed these technical documents, we would encourage you to visit the Applicants website and assess the full list available to download.

We note your concern regarding the Applicant’s Land Agents and letter issued to Four Ashes Limited on this matter. It may be useful if you contacted their Land Agents directly (BNP Paribas). Any owners, occupiers or any person with an interest in any of the Order Land associated to the West Midlands Interchange project who wish to discuss matters relating to the negotiation of agreements should contact Derry Mockett of BNP Paribas, One Redcliffe Street, Bristol, BS1 6NP (0117 98 48 424) or [email protected].

If you have not already done so, we would also advise you to contact the relevant local authority to inform them of your concerns regarding the applicant’s consultation, as your views may be added to their Adequacy of Consultation report which the local authority is required to provide to us once the application has been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate (the Acceptance stage of the Planning Act 2008 planning process for Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIPs)).

To assist various interest groups, PINS has recently published to our website Frequently Asked Questions which provides information on the Pre-Application stage of the Planning Act 2008 planning process for NSIPs. The FAQ also covers matters such as the community consultation, which may be of interest to you.

08 September 2017
Maurice Cotton
West Midlands Interchange
Enquiry received via email
So the NWConnection is not yet a NSIP? They are telling the public it already is, and threatening compulsory purchase on this basis
As advised previously, NSIPs are defined in ss14 through s30A of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended). In the Non-Technical Summary of the Applicant’s Preliminary Environmental Information Report it states: “The connection project is an overhead line with a voltage greater than 132 kV, and is longer than 2km; hence the project is classed as a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP) under the Planning Act 2008.”

The application is therefore being progressed under the Planning Act 2008 and we will check that the application meets the criteria under s14(1)(b) and s16 once it is submitted.

07 September 2017
Jonathan Dean
North Wales Connection
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Meeting regarding proposed non-material change application
Please see attached meeting note

07 September 2017
DONG Energy - Natasha Litten
Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm (Zone 4) - Project Two
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Feedback on draft documents meeting note and advice
Please see attached

07 September 2017
anon.
West Midlands Interchange
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

07 September 2017
Scottish Power Renewables - anon.
East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

07 September 2017
Scottish Power Renewables - anon.
East Anglia ONE North Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
At what point in the development process does a project become a NSIP?

National Grid were telling the public that the NWC had the potential to be one in 2012, while it was one by 2015

As no DCO has been submitted, is it a NSIP yet?

I have spoken to many people who have basically been mislead. They think pylons are unstoppable as it is a NSIP so have not bothered engaging in the consultation. They do not know that a buried cable would not be a NSIP as information like this has never been publicised
It is for an applicant to decide on the design of their application, in consultation with the local community and stakeholders and taking into account the cost and effects on the environment.

NSIPs are defined in ss14 through s30A of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended). It will be for National Grid to show in their application for a Development Consent Order that the development falls under s14(1)(b) and s16.

06 September 2017
Jonathan Dean
North Wales Connection
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Many thanks for the update, I fully understand that a large volume of enquiries would be an issue as the airfreight hub would have a considerable impact on several thousand people.
A problem is, that because the applicant failed to notify the people who would be directly and negatively affected by the DCO, that the applicant had applied for a DCO and how people would be negatively effected by its implementation, then there will be an ongoing drift of information into local communities and ongoing repetition of the same information, by pins and everyone else involved.
The applicants own PEIR clearly states:-
1 That there will be a noise impact particularly on Residents of Ramsgate who are under the immediate low flying and unchangeable runway approach and on the takeoff route which is yet to be determined so could have noise impact on any of the towns and villages to the west of the runway up to about 20km away and covering the north south East Kent landmass.
2 That there may be night flights.
3 That there will be reductions in life expectancy related to air pollution particularly PM2.5 particulates. These wouldn’t have dispersed significantly before reaching the coastline when travelling in the prevailing wind direction and would probably be concentrated in the coastal towns when the airflow meets the onshore sea breeze.
It is important that affected people should be aware of the DCO and be able to make and informed choice, balancing the economic benefits against negative health impacts affecting them personally.
The most important aspect of this is the air pollution issue, assuming the “reduced life expectancy” stated in applicant’s PEIR document translates as “kill people” and while the DCO process is a slow, research into air pollution issue is moving rapidly at the moment.
The most recent related news item being The Ford Motor Company’s announcement of a scrappage scheme.
The PEIR document’s information on particulate air pollution was already out of date when it was published as it failed to include the recently published results of studies involving 312,944 people in nine European countries, these results concluded the situation was much worse than previously thought and stated also in the PEIR.
Many NHS websites detail these studies here is a link to one of the clearest articles [attachment 1]
I am interested in the rapidly changing situation regarding air pollution related to airport facilities e.g. this important and related report has only just been published [attachment 2]
I did try to enter into a dialogue with the applicant’s environmental team after the previous non statutory consultation and was encouraged to do this by pins, however communication was unsatisfactory inasmuch as they failed to reply after asking for my contact details and saying that they would.
My understanding is that at the moment the DCO process is still front loaded and that environmental mitigation measures are still being formulated, so should I be communicating recent related information to either pins or the applicant or still be engaged in any dialogue related to the DCO with pins, the applicant, any other body?
At this point in the planning process (the Pre-Application stage) we would advise you to liaise directly with the Applicant, as the application for the proposed development is still in the process of being developed, and as such your views still have the opportunity to shape the application.

If the application is accepted for Examination you will be able to submit your views to the Planning Inspectorate during the Relevant Representation stage. By submitting a representation during this stage you will be registered as an Interested Party to the project, whereby you will be kept informed of the progress of the project, and your views may be taken into consideration by the Examining Authority assigned to the Examination of the project. I have attached for your information our Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination, which explains in detail the Relevant Representation stage process.

06 September 2017
Michael Child
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via phone
response has attachments
Project update meeting
See attached meeting note

06 September 2017
Sembcorp Utilities (UK) Limited - Scott Taylor
Tees CCPP
Enquiry received via phone
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

05 September 2017
Vattenfall Wind Power Ltd - Helen Jameson
Thanet Extension Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via email
I wish to inspect the Book of Reference for the Rookery South Energy from Waste Generating Station, which is no longer available for inspection on the National Infrastructure Planning website.

Please could you advise on how I may obtain access to it?
The Explanatory Note at the end of the Order states:

A copy of the plans and book of reference referred to in this Order and certified in accordance with article 32 of this Order may be inspected free of charge at the offices of Central Bedfordshire Council at Monks Walk, Chicksands, Shefford, Bedfordshire SG17 5TQ and Bedford Borough Council at Borough Hall, Cauldwell Street, Bedford MK42 9AP.

31 August 2017
Pinsent Masons - Marie Neirynck
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Meeting to discuss progress of potential NSIP applications
Please see the attached meeting note

29 August 2017
Highways England - James Powis
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see the attached meeting note

23 August 2017
anon.
Manston Airport
response has attachments
Tripartite meeting with London Resort and Highways England on 23 August 2017
A note of the meeting is attached

23 August 2017
Highways England and London Resort - anon.
The London Resort
response has attachments
A tripartite meeting held with London Resort and Highways England on 23 August 2017
A note of the meeting is attached

23 August 2017
Highways England and London Resort - anon.
General
Enquiry received via email
I would be most grateful if you could please add Kent Wildlife Trust to your list of consultees for Manston Airport. I attach our recent letter to RiverOak for your information.

I would also like to know if it is possible for Kent Wildlife Trust to be added to the Planning Inspectorate’s list for early engagement at the Scoping stage of projects? Whilst I understand that we are not statutory consultees as listed in your guidance, it is very difficult if we are not made aware of major projects until after the Scoping Opinion has been issued. This has happened more than once recently, with this project and also Vattenfall Thanet Extension. Is there anything at all that can be done about this despite being non-statutory? I would be most grateful for a response on this request, although I appreciate that you may need to refer my request to another colleague
As you correctly state the Kent Wildlife Trust is not a prescribed consultation body for the purposes of EIA scoping under the Planning Act 2008. Applicants can carry out wider scoping consultation (ie with non-prescribed bodies) but their approach in this regard is discretionary.

The Planning Inspectorate does not compile a list of non-statutory consultees to send updates to during the Pre-application stage of the process; for example to notify of the publication of a scoping report. There is functionality on the project-specific webpage for each project for anybody to sign-up for email updates, but those updates are not activated until an application is formally submitted to the Planning Inspectorate at the Acceptance stage.

The onus is on applicants to keep their stakeholders informed about a project at the Pre-application stage of the process. To that end we can only also advise for you to engage proactively with relevant applicants and monitor their, and our, websites for any updates.

22 August 2017
Kent Wildlife Trust - Vanessa Evans
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
When National Grid submit their DCO and the LA provide their adequacy of consultation report, please could you outline the metrics you will look at and what form of communication is accepted

Specifically, are the following viewed as acceptable forms of communication about the project:

Letters
Phone calls
Public conversations
Email
Facebook posts
Tweets
Petitions
Other social media
Filled in template forms on paper
Ditto online

It would help me prepare for the DCO response.
In section 37(7) of the Planning Act 2008 it states that ‘“the consultation report” means a report giving details of-

(a) what has been done in compliance with sections 42, 47 and 48 in relation to a proposed application that has become the application,
(b) any relevant responses, and
(c) the account taken of any relevant responses.’

Once the application is submitted, and as part of our Acceptance check we will look at how the Applicant said they were going to consult the local community (which is set out in their Statement of Community Consultation (SoCC)), and what the Applicant describes what they did do.

We will be looking for evidence in the Applicant’s Consultation Report to demonstrate what they did. It is up to the Applicant to decide how to present any feedback they may have received via the methods you have listed below.

At Acceptance stage we must also have regard to any representations received from any local authority consultees about how the Applicant carried out consultation in the pre-application stage. We look at these responses to confirm whether the consultation has been carried out in accordance with the SoCC.

For further information you may wish to look at the Department for Communities and Local Government’s guidance on the pre-application process:

[attachment 1]

15 August 2017
Jonathan Dean
North Wales Connection
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
See attached meeting note

11 August 2017
Vattenfall - Ruari Lean
Norfolk Vanguard
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Comments regarding the Norfolk Boreas project from the following:
Tina Hicks received on 3 August 2017
Jenny Smedley 4 August 2017
Margaret Woodall 4 August 2017
As the project has not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate (the Inspectorate), we have no formal powers to intervene on consultees behalf. I would therefore encourage you to contact the developer directly to make your concerns heard as the Applicant has a statutory duty to take your views into account. However, if you feel your comments are not being taken into account, I would advise you to write to your local authority and set out why you think the Applicant is failing to conduct its consultation properly. Your comments should be taken into account when the local authority sends the Inspectorate its comments on whether the Applicant has fulfilled its consultation duties. The local authority’s comments on the Applicant’s consultation will be taken into account when the Acceptance Inspector makes their decision whether to accept the application for Examination.

A copy of your correspondence has been placed on our records and will be presented to the Inspector at Acceptance, together with the application documents and local authorities’ comments on the Applicant’s consultation.

After the decision has been made regarding whether to accept the application for Examination all documents used to inform the decision will be published on our website.

If the application for development consent is formally accepted you will be able to submit your views in relation to the project which will be considered by the Examining Authority during the Examination.

The Inspectorate has published a series of advice notes which explain the Examination process, including information on how to get involved; of particular interest are advice notes 8.1 to 8.5. These are available at: [attachment 1].

09 August 2017
See below
Norfolk Boreas
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Comments regarding the Norfolk Vanguard project from the following:
Sue Allen received on 14 July 2017
Wendy Englestone 19 July 2017
Peter Woodings and Paula Woodings 21 July 2017
Wendy Englestone 2 and 3 August 2017
Tina Hicks 3 August 2017
Jenny Smedley 4 August 2017
Margaret Woodall 4 August 2017
As the project has not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate (the Inspectorate), we have no formal powers to intervene on consultees behalf. I would therefore encourage you to contact the developer directly to make your concerns heard as the Applicant has a statutory duty to take your views into account. However, if you feel your comments are not being taken into account, I would advise you to write to your local authority and set out why you think the Applicant is failing to conduct its consultation properly. Your comments should be taken into account when the local authority sends the Inspectorate its comments on whether the Applicant has fulfilled its consultation duties. The local authority’s comments on the Applicant’s consultation will be taken into account when the Acceptance Inspector makes their decision whether to accept the application for Examination.

A copy of your correspondence has been placed on our records and will be presented to the Inspector at Acceptance, together with the application documents and local authorities’ comments on the Applicant’s consultation.

After the decision has been made regarding whether to accept the application for Examination all documents used to inform the decision will be published on our website.

If the application for development consent is formally accepted you will be able to submit your views in relation to the project which will be considered by the Examining Authority during the Examination.

The Inspectorate has published a series of advice notes which explain the Examination process, including information on how to get involved; of particular interest are advice notes 8.1 to 8.5. These are available at: [attachment 1].

09 August 2017
See below
Norfolk Vanguard
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
A meeting between Highways England and the Planning Inspectorate to discuss the A1 Morpeth to Felton proposals
A note of the meeting is attached

09 August 2017
Highways England - anon.
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
See attached meeting note

09 August 2017
Port of Tilbury London Limited - anon.
Tilbury2
Enquiry received via phone
response has attachments
Project update telecon meeting
Please see the attached meeting note

08 August 2017
National Grid - anon.
North Wales Connection
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached meeting note

08 August 2017
DONG Energy - Stuart Livesey
Hornsea Project Three Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
A meeting to discuss the Planning Act 2008 process for Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIPs)
Please see attached meeting note

08 August 2017
Radioactive Waste Management
General
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Has the Inspectorate, at any time to date, advised the Developer to consider any potential for transboundary impacts of the Developers’ proposal for the construction and operation of a new nuclear power station (Wylfa Newydd) on Anglesey? Please identify as well justification and reasoning.
I can confirm that the Planning Inspectorate has discussed transboundary impacts with Horizon Nuclear Power on a number of occasions. In particular, please see the note of a meeting held specifically to discuss their approach to transboundary consultation, which is available here: [attachment 1].

I have also provided below a number of links to further meeting notes where transboundary issues have been discussed.
• [attachment 2]
• [attachment 3]
• [attachment 4]
• [attachment 5]
• [attachment 6]
• [attachment 7]
• [attachment 1]

In addition to meetings, transboundary impacts are considered within the EIA Scoping Opinion’s produced by the Planning Inspectorate on behalf of the Secretary of State. These are available on our website at the following links:
• April 2016 [attachment 9]
• June 2017 [attachment 10] .

07 August 2017
J Chanay
Wylfa Newydd Nuclear Power Station
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Presumably if we feel they have made no effort to engage with PMG, we can submit a summary case during the initial 28 day period as to why we believe the Application shouldn't be accepted? If it is accepted, then we can register as witnesses to present evidence and speak against it.
We have recently published a set of Frequently Asked Questions which contains information about what to do if you are not satisfied with a developer’s pre-application consultation - [attachment 1] . If an application were to be accepted, you would be able to register and become an “interested party”. Advice Note 8.3 - [attachment 2] - contains more information about that process.

07 August 2017
Bramwell Associates - Dan Bramwell
The London Resort
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project meeting
Please see the attached meeting note

07 August 2017
AES Electric Ltd - anon.
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Introduction to the battery storage project at Culham Science Centre, Abingdon
Please see attached

07 August 2017
AES Electric Ltd - anon.
General
Enquiry received via email
I am writing to seek clarification regarding the environmental impact assessment (EIA) in respect of the examination of the application for an order granting development consent for a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP) for the Wylfa Newydd project. I seek clarification specifically in reference to paragraph 3.26 of the Scoping Opinion.

As you will be aware, NRW is considering applying an exception to the requirement for it to carry out EIA in respect of a marine licence application for marine works associated with the proposed Wyfla Newydd project pursuant to regulation 10(1)(b) of the Marine Works (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2007 (the 2007 Regulations). In order to apply regulation 10(1)(b) of the 2007 Regulations, NRW has to be satisfied that the assessment of any effects on the environment of the project in question has already been, is being or is to be carried out by another consenting authority; and, that such assessment is (or will be) sufficient to meet the requirements of the EIA Directive in relation to that project.

Therefore, please can PINs confirm that the examination of the DCO application will consider whether the applicant’s Environmental Statement adequately assesses the likely significant effects of the development on the environment from the project as a whole, and not just those activities that would be authorised by the DCO?

We are aware that it is the role of the marine licensing process to identify and secure any appropriate mitigation for marine works, and are only seeking clarification on the consideration of the assessment of potential environmental effects.
Your letter requests confirmation from the Planning Inspectorate with regards to
matters in respect of the examination process. As previously advised, the Planning
Inspectorate confirms that it will be for the Examining Authority to decide how to
examine the application (Section 87(1) of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended));
however, this must be done in accordance with relevant legislation and policy. As I am
sure you will appreciate, the decision to apply the exception in accordance with
Regulation 10(1)(b) of the 2007 Regulations is a matter for NRW.

Paragraph 3.26 of the Secretary of State’s Scoping Opinion (June 2017) is consistent
with the responsibilities of the Secretary of State for projects located within Wales.
These responsibilities do not extend to consenting licensed marine works, which are
the responsibility of NRW. The Planning Inspectorate can confirm that ES adequacy
and the examination of environmental information will be undertaken by the
Examining Authority. The examination will be primarily concerned with the works that
the DCO, if granted, would authorise.

04 August 2017
Natural Resources Wales - Adam Cooper
Wylfa Newydd Nuclear Power Station
Enquiry received via email
Can you say confirm that there were Meetings between PINS and LRCH on the following dates: -

22-Mar-17, 4-July-17 and 21-July-17 and Notes will be issued?

Shouldn’t LRCH re-apply for NSIP approval as the scheme now departs from the attached 9-May-14 Direction Letter?

Among changes to matters considered since it was issued are: -

The Direction describes the project as “LONDON PARAMOUNT”;
The license agreement between LRCH and Paramount ended 21-Jun-17. The project appears without International Media support.

The extent in the Direction is given as “SWANSCOMBE PENINSULAR AND LAND SOUTHWARDS TOWARDS EBBSFLEET STATION”
In March 2015 Ardent and now Savills, told occupants in 300 acres of Green Belt south of A296/A2 that LRCH want CA Powers.
The 10-Nov-15 Site Visit Notes show that the itinerary excluded viewing this land.

The Direction states that the development does not include the construction of any dwellings.
The 19-May-17 Meeting Notes say, “The Applicant is currently considering whether to include operational housing in the DCO …”.
This could impact on Green Belt land in Bean & Southfleet Parishes, enclosed in a red-line without any previously stated plans.
The 7-Oct-16 Notes say LRCH hope to “pull back” the red line boundary. Savills haven’t been told, as they continue cause stress.

The Direction says, “The Secretary of State also considers the substantial physical size of the proposal is relevant to his decision ….”
However, the 19-May-17 Notes of the “London Paramount project update meeting” show that everything is under review.
It is noted that there were no attendees from EDC, KCC, DBC or GBC.
I can confirm that there were meetings between The Planning Inspectorate and London Resort Company Holdings on 22 March 2017, 4 July 2017 and 21 July 2017. The meeting note for the 22 March 2017 meeting has now been published and I apologise for the delay in publication. The remaining notes will be published shortly.

At this stage, it is a matter for the developer to be satisfied that the project they intend to submit to the Planning Inspectorate is covered by the S35 direction and needs development consent.

One of the questions that The Planning Inspectorate has to consider at the acceptance stage is whether a proposed development is a nationally significant infrastructure project as defined in the Planning Act 2008 and this would include a consideration of the terms of any direction under s35 that an applicant is relying on.

02 August 2017
Bean Residents Association - Linda Collins
The London Resort
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Compilation of advice to local communities about the Pre-application procedure and community consultation.
Please see attached Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) document.

02 August 2017
General - anon.
General
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Good afternoon, I would note from the minutes of the June 2017 meeting you are the case officer for PINS for the Wylfa Newydd NSIP Case. Please find attached the response from National Trust to Pre application 3 for the project, in which National Trust expresses concern about the nature of pre application taken forward by Horizon, and the timeline currently being proposed for submission of the Development Consent Order. A2.1 in our response to PAC3 makes reference to PINS Guidance on Effective Pre application advice. We would wish to discuss this matter further.

Could you confirm acknowledgement of this communication and also confirm a contact at PINS for the project if this is possible at this stage.

We met previously with PINS to discuss matters of interest between National Trust and PINS in relation to NSIP Projects, and we were encouraged to provide copies of pre application commentary, hence my email.
Please see attached

28 July 2017
Ymddiriedolaeth Genedlaethol / National Trust - John Pearson
Wylfa Newydd Nuclear Power Station
Enquiry received via email
Gowling WLG submitted correspondence to the Planning Inspectorate after the statutory six month examination deadline of 2 June 2017.
Because your submission was received after the statutory six month deadline of 2 June 2017, the Examining Authority (ExA) will be unable to consider it as part of his recommendation to the Secretary of State for Transport (SoST).

However, your submission will be forwarded to the SoST alongside the ExA’s recommendation report on or before 2 September 2017. It will be for the SoST to decide whether to consider the content of your submission in making his final decision.

28 July 2017
Gowling WLG for Friends Life Ltd - Vicky Fowler
M20 Junction 10A
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Meeting to discuss the role of the CAA in the Planning Act 2008 process
Please see the attached meeting note

27 July 2017
Civil Aviation Authority - Imogen Brooks
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached meeting note

26 July 2017
Horizon Nuclear Power
Wylfa Newydd Nuclear Power Station
response has attachments
Mr Miller wrote to ask about the proposed Upper Orwell Crossings scheme. He asked that we clarify its current status and what happens next.
The proposed Upper Orwell Crossings project has been identified as being of national significance and the Secretary of State has directed that it requires Development Consent. Therefore, it will follow the process set out in the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) for such schemes, rather than being the subject of an application for planning permission, for example.

The PA2008 process requires consultation with the public before an application can be made, and applications are subject to an examination, which the public can participate in. This application is currently in the Pre-Application stage of the PA2008 process. During this stage, the Planning Inspectorate does not have any influence over the consultation activities undertaken by the developer, who will be consulting as required by the PA2008 process. You can find more information about the PA2008 process on our website, here; [attachment 1], and also in our advice notes which can be found on the website under the heading ‘legislation and advice’.

If you have views on the proposal, this is an important opportunity to participate in the process. During the Pre-Application stage the developer will be preparing their application documents to be submitted to us. At this stage the application has not been finalised, and as such we advise for any concerns related to the project or any of the developer’s consultation activities to be submitted directly to the developer, in order for your views to inform the application before it is finalised and submitted to us for consideration.

Once an application has been submitted, the Planning Inspectorate will scrutinise all of the application documents, including the evidence provided in the Consultation Report, applying the statutory tests set out in s55 of the PA2008. By the end of the Acceptance period the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) must decide, in accordance with the tests in s55 of the PA2008, whether or not an application is of a satisfactory standard to be examined. If it is, there will be an opportunity to register to participate in the examination.

Because the scheme is at a relatively early stage, there is no page on our website specific to it.

25 July 2017
Peter Miller
General
Enquiry received via phone
Can section 53 (s53) of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) authorise the pumping of water?
The Inspectorate cannot provide legal advice on the scope of activities that s53 of the PA2008 can authorise, which will ultimately be decided by the courts. However, I hope the following comments are helpful, which are provided under section 51 PA2008.

As highlighted in our Advice Note 5: Section 53 – Rights of Entry, a person(s) may apply for authorisation from the Secretary of State for a right to enter land owned by third parties, in order to carry out surveys and take levels and/or in order to facilitate compliance with statutory provisions implementing the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive or Habitats Directive, under s53 of the PA2008.

The power of entry for those purposes includes the power to search and bore for limited reasons, i.e. to ascertain the nature of the subsoil or the presence of minerals or other matter in it and/or to take and process samples. Under section 53(3A) this includes “power to take, and process, samples of or from any of the following found on, in or over the land—
(a) water,
(b) air,
(c) soil or rock,
(d) its flora,
(e) bodily excretions, or dead bodies, of non-human creatures, or
(f) any non-living thing present as a result of human action.”

The Inspectorate notes that the powers to enter land under s53 are only available for the particular purposes set out in that section, and that whilst the drainage of boreholes made for those purposes is not precluded, this does not negate the need to obtain any relevant permits or licences that would otherwise be required for such an activity.

25 July 2017
NFU - Louise Staples
General
Enquiry received via post
response has attachments
JLL have been instructed by AES Electric Ltd to provide planning strategy advice regarding developing and operating a grid scale battery storage project located at the Culham Science Centre, Abingdon.

AES Electrical Ltd intend to construct and operate a battery storage facility in excess of 50 MW at the Culham Science Centre.

You will be aware that South Oxfordshire District Council granted planning permission for a grid scale battery storage project, with a 250MW transformer, in November of 2016 at the Culham Science Centre (Ref: P16/S2368/FUL) .

You will also be aware that in response to a pre-application Inquiry, on 4th January 2017 the Planning Inspectorate (PINS) issued advice regarding the planning permission granted by South Oxfordshire District in that the project likely requires to have a development consent order under the terms of section 31 of the Planning Act 2008. However, there remains some uncertainty regarding whether a grid scale battery storage facility should be treated as a ‘generating station’ and accordingly whether a Development Consent Order should be required.

There is uncertainty due to it being unclear whether a rechargeable battery can be considered as resulting in the generation of electricity on its discharge cycle and accordingly it is unclear whether it should be treated as a ‘generating station’ (See: R. on the application of Redcar and Cleveland BC) v Secretary of State for Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform [2008] EWHC 1847 (Admin)). The call for evidence document ‘A smart, flexible energy system (2016)’, which is cited in the PINS advice that is referred to above, sets out the Governments position on battery storage, in that it is considered as generation “for the time being”. This implies the matter is under consideration, the document remains in draft form and the position set out within it is by no means definitive in terms of the legal definition of a ‘generating station’.

On this basis, this letter constitutes a formal request under the terms of section 51 of the Planning Act 2008, for PINS to advise whether a grid scale battery storage facility of over 50 MW in installed capacity will be treated as a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project under the terms of the 2008 Act.
The Planning Inspectorate (the Inspectorate) recognises that battery storage is a new and novel form of energy infrastructure and further consideration and work is ongoing to understand the technology better and the regulatory framework it will operate in. The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) issued a call for evidence regarding energy storage on 10 November 2016. The call for evidence closed on 12 January 2017: [attachment 1]. Paragraph 22 of the call for evidence document states that, "For the time being BEIS, the Scottish Government and the Welsh Government agree that a storage facility is a form of electricity generating station. This means that a storage facility with a capacity of >50MW in England and Wales will need development consent as required by sections 15 and 31 of the Planning Act 2008 or Scottish Ministers’ consent under section 36 of the Electricity Act. We believe further clarity is needed within the planning framework about how to classify and treat storage projects, given the emerging nature of the market and new technologies." BEIS are currently reviewing the responses received from the call for evidence and considering how battery storage fits into the wider energy infrastructure landscape.

The Inspectorate does not have the power to give a legally binding interpretation on whether the potential battery storage proposal to which you refer would be classed as a National Significant Infrastructure Project. Only the Courts can ultimately determine the interpretation of legislation, and to date there has been no case law on this point under the PA 2008 regime. It will of course be for the developer who wants to construct the generating station to decide whether or not to apply for development consent taking their own legal advice which they can rely on.

Within the context of the PA 2008, it is an offence under section 160 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 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 44 of PA 2008, once an application has been formally submitted. Please note that the Inspectorate has a statutory duty under section 51 of PA2008 to record any advice given in relationship to an application or potential application and make it publicly available.

24 July 2017
JLL - Stuart Winter
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see the attached meeting note

24 July 2017
anon.
Lake Lothing Third Crossing
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see the attached meeting note

21 July 2017
Savills - Chris Potts
The London Resort
Enquiry received via email
It is hoped that considerable thought is given to the development of a cargo hub airport on the current brown field site, previously the war time airport for Manston. If allowed, such a development would fracture the fragile nature of Thanet. This area is one of deprivation which has occurred over many years but, now with the development of the high speed railway and low cost housing, is becoming a desirable destination for those who wish to escape city life but still enjoy employment in the capital.
You will have received, by other concerned residents of Thanet, many arguments both technical and emotional. There is no need for me to reiterate same but I would ask you and your team to allow their comments to be put forward and given very, very serious consideration.
The decision of the Inspectorate could give prosperity to this area or destroy all that has been achieved over the past twenty years.
I sincerely hope that the application to site a cargo hub airport at Manston is denied.
Currently this proposed development is in the Pre-Application stage of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) planning process for nationally significant infrastructure projects (NSIPs), and there is no mechanism through which the Planning Inspectorate can influence a developer’s consultation during this stage.

During the Pre-Application stage the developer will be preparing their application documents to be submitted to us, as well as consulting with the local community on their proposals. At this stage the application has not been finalised, and as such we advise for any concerns related to the project or any of the developer’s consultation activities to be submitted directly to the developer, in order for your views to inform the application before it is finalised and submitted to us for consideration.

You have also copied in Thanet Borough Council to your email. Once an application has been submitted, the Planning Inspectorate will scrutinise all of the application documents, including the evidence provided in the Consultation Report, applying the statutory tests set out in s55 of the PA2008. By the end of the Acceptance period the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) must decide, in accordance with the tests in s55 of the PA2008, whether or not an application is of a satisfactory standard to be examined.

In reaching the above decision, s55(4) makes explicit that the Planning Inspectorate must have regard to the Consultation Report and any Adequacy of Consultation Representations made by local authority consultees. Adequacy of Consultation Representations are defined by s55(5) of the PA2008 as representations about whether the applicant complied with its duties under sections 42, 47 and 48. They are requested from all relevant local authorities on receipt of an application for development consent.

To that end, in providing your comments to your local authority they may be considered in the Council’s preparation of its Adequacy of Consultation Representation; if an application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate.

We are in the process of preparing a Frequently Asked Questions document to assist local communities in respect of Pre-application community consultation. It will be published to our website shortly.

If you have any queries regarding the PA2008 process in relation to this project please do not hesitate to contact us.

20 July 2017
Anne Peers
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
• "Your proposals will ruin this area and I object to your proposal”
• “I strongly object to the noise pollution, air pollution and road congestion that your project will bring to this area”
• “No night flights. Absolutely none”
• “All the research says that living near an airport is bad for residents’ health and that it holds back children at school. I object to your proposals”,
• I didn't hear about RSP's consultation from RSP but a neighbour told me!
Thank you for your email which outlined your opposition to the proposed Manston Airport project.

The proposed Manston Airport project us currently in the Pre-Application stage of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) process. There is no mechanism through which the Planning Inspectorate can influence an Applicant’s consultation at this stage.

We advise that you submit your concerns directly to the developer for this project at [email protected]. At this stage the application documents for the proposed project will still be in development, and by providing your views directly to the developer they may inform the application before it is finalised and submitted to the Planning Inspectorate.

If you are not satisfied that the developer has or will take your comments into account, we advise that you submit your concerns regarding the developer’s consultation to the relevant local authority, Thanet District Council. The Planning Inspectorate when considering whether or not to accept an application, must have regard to the Consultation Report and any Adequacy of Consultation representations made by local authority consultees. Adequacy of Consultation Representations are defined by s55(5) of the PA2008 as representations about whether the applicant complied with its duties under sections 42, 47 and 48. They are requested from all relevant local authorities on receipt of an application for development consent. In providing your comments to your local authority they may be considered in the Council’s preparation of its Adequacy of Consultation Representation, if an application is subsequently submitted to the Planning Inspectorate.

Please note we are in the process of preparing a Frequently Asked Questions document to assist local communities in respect of Pre-application community consultation. It will be published to our website shortly.

If you have any queries regarding the PA2008 process in relation to this project please do not hesitate to contact us.

20 July 2017
Phil Hutt
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
I am emailing you, because to my horror, I have just found out that Riveroak stategic partners has and have constructed a consultation document on the reopening of Manston Airport. I have heard it is to be developed as a cargo hub, with many flights, including night time flying very low above our houses. My neighbours and I have experienced this in the past when the noise has been deafening and frightening and there were no night flights then. I know that I and many of my neighbours would like the opportunity to raise objections to the reopening of the airport and because of the noise and pollution over the densely populated area of Herne Bay. So, therefore am requesting that the consultation period be extended.

None of my neighbours or I have been informed by letter, nor leaflets about this, and none of the leaflets during the general election that was put through our letter box's stated anything about reopening Manston. Obviously, if we heard sooner, there would have been a lot more objections from the residents under the flight path in Swalecliffe, Herne Bay, Beltinge, St Nicholas at Wade and Ramsgate. I do feel that more time should be made avilable for Riveroak and the local authority to authorise a postal survey, which is limited to near or under the flight path.

People living in unaffected areas, should not be included. The survey should be accompanied by information from Riveroak which reveals their intensions and need to have 12 or more night flights 7 days a week.
The proposed Manston Airport project is currently in the Pre-Application stage of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) process. During this stage, the Planning Inspectorate does not have any influence over the non-statutory consultation activities undertaken by the developer.

I note that you copied the developer for the proposed development in to your email. During the Pre-Application stage the developer will be preparing their application documents to be submitted to us. At this stage the application has not been finalised, and as such we advise for any concerns related to the project or any of the developer’s consultation activities to be submitted directly to the developer, in order for your views to inform the application before it is finalised and submitted to us for consideration.

If you are not satisfied that the developer has or will take account of your comments, we would advise you to submit your concerns regarding the developer’s consultation activities to the relevant local planning authority, which in this case is Thanet Borough Council. Once an application has been submitted, the Planning Inspectorate will scrutinise all of the application documents, including the evidence provided in the Consultation Report, applying the statutory tests set out in s55 of the PA2008. By the end of the Acceptance period the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) must decide, in accordance with the tests in s55 of the PA2008, whether or not an application is of a satisfactory standard to be examined.

In reaching the above decision, s55(4) makes explicit that the Planning Inspectorate must have regard to the Consultation Report and any Adequacy of Consultation Representations made by local authority consultees. Adequacy of Consultation Representations are defined by s55(5) of the PA2008 as representations about whether the applicant complied with its duties under sections 42, 47 and 48. They are requested from all relevant local authorities on receipt of an application for development consent. As such, by providing your comments to your local authority they may be considered in the Council’s preparation of its Adequacy of Consultation Representation; if an application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate.

In respect of night flights, the Planning Inspectorate has access to the same information as the local community and statutory consultees ie the Applicant’s Scoping Report states at paragraph 11.6.10 that “The airport will be operational during the day and may be operational to some extent at night. The noise generated due to this activity may give rise to potentially significant effects”. If night flights are proposed for the airport, the likely significant effects will need to be assessed by the Applicant as part of its Environmental Impact Assessment and presented in the Environmental Statement.

Please note we are in the process of preparing a Frequently Asked Questions document to assist local communities in respect of Pre-application community consultation. It will be published to our website shortly.

20 July 2017
Gillian Archer
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Having just completed a thorough reading of all plans put forward by RiverOak for the development of Manston Airport I have the following observations to make:

1) Unless some massive seismic meteorological change has taken place in East Kent's topography in the last three years, the suggested flight paths are wrong. The last time Manston was operating as a commercial airport I regularly could not maintain a conversation in my own home due to low-flying commercial aircraft passing over my house. This occurred several times a day when the wind was blowing in the "wrong" direction, which happened at least twice a week and on many occasions much more often. I live in Herne Bay. Goodness only knows what aircraft noise will be like for those even closer to the airport, who will be subject to this noice each and every day.

2)On those occasions that the wind was blowing in the "wrong" direction I was woken several times a night by low-flying aircraft passing over my house. This proposal suggests "no more than" 14 aircraft movements per night. If one sleeps from 11 to 7 this number is the average equivalent of being awoken every 34 minutes. That will be the case for people much closer to the airport each and every night.This is clearly unacceptable and absurd.

3)And finally, and in my opinion, most seriously - despite their proclamations RoverOak made no attempt whatsoever to properly communicate with people in my area about their proposals AND their consultation period - obviously that had the effect that they probably received very few complaints during the correct time frame.

I am an active and engaged member of my community. I knew absolutely nothing about this until a group to which I subscribe (No Night Flights) sent me an email at the beginning of July. I live under this proposed flight path - contrary to their very inaccurate map. I received no leaflet. Neither did others I know living here in Herne Bay who are concerned about this matter. As soon as I had read that notification, I went and registered my displeasure at the RoverOak website.

This must be seen as a classic case of a greedy and dishonest company using any possible loophole to get their own way. It is not acceptable. Thanet Council must not cave in to an alluring commercial temptation which bribes them into ignoring this blatant lack of regard for fair process.

If this company is producing erroneous information in their so-calle4d "information pack" and deliberately attempting to avoid informing all who may be affected of their right to be consulted, then it is quite plain that many of their "proposals" are also liable to be dishonest or misrepresented isn't it?

This is unacceptable. Please ensure due process is applied, at the very least.
Thank you for your email.

The proposed Manston Airport project us currently in the Pre-Application stage of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) process. There is no mechanism through which the Planning Inspectorate can influence an Applicant’s consultation at this stage.

In accordance with the PA2008 process, you have correctly sent your comments about the statutory consultation to the local authority Thanet District Council, as well as the Applicant, RiverOak Strategic Partners. Section 55(4) states that in making its decision about whether an application is of a satisfactory standard to be examined the Planning Inspectorate must have regard to the Consultation Report and any Adequacy of Consultation Representations made by local authority consultees. Adequacy of Consultation Representations are defined by s55(5) of the PA2008 as representations about whether the applicant complied with its duties under sections 42, 47 and 48. They are requested from all relevant local authorities on receipt of an application for development consent and considered in a statutory 28 day ‘Acceptance’ period. In providing your comments to your local authority they may be considered in the Council’s preparation of its Adequacy of Consultation Representation; if an application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate.

I have attached the following Advice Notes which I hope you will find helpful:

Advice Note 8.0 Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public
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
Advice Note 2 The role of local authorities in the development consent process

Our full suite of Advice Notes and legislation/guidance related to NSIPs can be found at the following link:
[attachment 1]

If the application is submitted and subsequently accepted for examination, you will also have the opportunity to register to participate in that examination and make submissions on whether or not the form of the proposal that is described in the application is acceptable, and whether development consent should be granted. You can register for automatic email updates on the progress of this project on our webpage.

Please note that we are in the process of preparing a Frequently Asked Questions document to assist local communities in respect of Pre-application community consultation. It will be published to our website shortly.

If you have any queries regarding the PA2008 process in relation to this project please do not hesitate to contact us.

20 July 2017
Jan Shepherd
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via phone
response has attachments
Query regarding the role of local authorities in NSIP applications
As discussed here is a link to our Advice Note 2 concerning the role of local authorities in the development consent process: [attachment 1]

19 July 2017
Katie Taylor
Norfolk Vanguard
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting 19 July 2017
See attached meeting note

19 July 2017
National Grid
North Wales Connection
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Inception Meeting with Heathrow Southern Railway Ltd - 19/07/2017
Please see attached

19 July 2017
Heathrow Southern Railway Ltd - anon.
General
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I live at Fox Hill Ruston Norwich Norfolk. I recently learned that a proposed cable relay station may be built very close to where I live. Please could you give me as much information as possible! On how this is possible that a company can propose to do this , this sight is so beautiful! Or is this a case of it will happen any way because the alternative is too expensive, eating into profit. I am all for greener energy! Wind solar ! But I do not want to see this beautiful part of Norfolk trashed !
Your comments may relate to the proposals for the Norfolk Vanguard offshore wind farm project. Once the project has been accepted by the Planning Inspectorate (the Inspectorate) you will have an opportunity to register your interest in the application and make representations to us. However the project has not yet been submitted to the Inspectorate and therefore I would encourage you to contact the developer directly to make your concerns heard as the Applicant has a statutory duty to take your views into account.

Advice about responding to the developer's pre-application consultation can be found here: [attachment 1]

Information about the project can be found on our website: [attachment 2] and the developer's website: [attachment 3]

The developer, Vattenfall, can be contacted by email [email protected] or phone 01603 567995.

18 July 2017
Wendy Englestone
Norfolk Vanguard
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I am writing to you in relation to your proposed DCO of the land presently owned by Stone Hill Park (previously Manston Airport), which aims to establish a Cargo Hub and smaller passenger service with night flights included.
I live on the Nethercourt Estate in Ramsgate, which lies under the direct flight path of the former Manston Airport.
I attended the RSP consultation meeting recently.
My concerns are the amount of flights that are being proposed, both day and night, would have a devastating effect on both Ramsgate and the local area.
The consultation was very poorly executed, when we asked about night flights we were given contradictory answers.
We had a letter from RSP about the consultation, only to find that this was not distributed to the whole area that would be affected by the re-opening of the Manston airport and the noise and pollution that would be generated.
The time given to the meeting in Ramsgate was 4 hours, but in the surrounding villages and towns it was 6 hours. Seems that they didn’t want many people to attend the Ramsgate meeting.
The estimation on the jobs that will be created seems to be greatly exaggerated.
The area has greatly improved since the closure of the former airport. Tourism has improved and many businesses have invested money in the area.
Our quality of life has improved since the airport closed. We are once again able to enjoy the outside world without being deafened by the noise of aeroplanes. My health has improved with the improvement of air quality.
If passed, this would be a disaster for the area with the noise and pollution.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider objections to a proposal at the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) process. For information about when and how to register as an Interested Party in the Examination (if an application is submitted and the Secretary of State decides that it is of a satisfactory standard to be examined), please see Advice Note Eight here: [attachment 1]

There is also no mechanism through which the Planning Inspectorate can influence an Applicant’s consultation at the Pre-application stage of the PA2008 process.

If you have not done so already, please provide your comments to the Applicant and your local authority. Local authorities have a special role in the PA2008 process, which I explain in the content of this advice.

The PA2008 places a number of duties on Applicants in respect of Pre-application consultation and all applications for development consent must be accompanied by a ‘Consultation Report’. The Consultation Report is prepared under section 37 of the PA2008 and must give details of:

a) what has been done in compliance with sections 42, 47 and 48 of the PA2008 in relation to an application;
b) any relevant responses; and
c) the account taken of any relevant responses.

In the Acceptance period (ie the 28 days following the formal submission of an application) the Planning Inspectorate will scrutinise all of the application documents, including the evidence provided in the Consultation Report, applying the statutory tests set out in s55 of the PA2008. By the end of the Acceptance period the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) must decide, in accordance with the tests in s55 of the PA2008, whether or not an application is of a satisfactory standard to be examined.

In reaching the above decision, s55(4) makes explicit that the Planning Inspectorate must have regard to the Consultation Report and any Adequacy of Consultation Representations made by local authority consultees. Adequacy of Consultation Representations are defined by s55(5) of the PA2008 as representations about whether the applicant complied with its duties under sections 42, 47 and 48. They are requested from all relevant local authorities on receipt of an application for development consent.

To that end, in providing your comments to your local authority they may be considered in the Council’s preparation of its Adequacy of Consultation Representation; if an application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate.

In respect of night flights, the Planning Inspectorate has access to the same information as the local community and statutory consultees ie the Applicant’s Scoping Report states at paragraph 11.6.10 that “The airport will be operational during the day and may be operational to some extent at night. The noise generated due to this activity may give rise to potentially significant effects”. If night flights are proposed for the airport, the likely significant effects will need to be assessed by the Applicant as part of its Environmental Impact Assessment and presented in the Environmental Statement

Please send any future email correspondence about the Proposed Development to [email protected]

17 July 2017
Thomas Norton
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Further to my earlier e-mail, I am contacting you in respect to the American Hedge Fund company, Riveroak, who are trying to force the owners of the old Manston airport about 2 miles away from the centre of Ramsgate, which has a history of failure for use as a passenger air carrier, into re-opening it for cargo use only, 24 hours a day via a Compulsory Purchase/Development Consent Order! The present owners want to build much needed affordable housing, Hi and Lo tech facilities (which they have plenty of experience of!) and park and recreation land on it. The two local MP's Craig Mackinlay, and Sir Roger Gale, neither of whom live in Thanet, are promoting Riveroak, mainly because they think its popular with the local population, to garner votes! It is a popular proposition, until people learn that NO passenger aircraft are planned, as all previous passenger carriers have failed! Below is a copy of my submission to the ongoing Riveroak public Consultation, and I would welcome your comments. Best Regards Dennis Franklin.


From: Dennis Franklin, address withheld for security reasons!

Submission for the "Riveroak Strategic Partners" Consultation to re-open Manston Airport, for consideration in their Development Consent Application to the Planning Inspector this year.

INTRODUCTION:

I am retired, and a former member of the Chartered Institute of Building, and was once Assistant Property Manager at Worsfolds Estate Agents & Chartered Surveyors. Worsfolds no longer exists, but they had 15 offices from Herne Bay to Ashford. I was also a Building Surveyor with Smith, Woolly, & Perry, Estate Agents & Chartered Surveyors. I worked mainly in Estate Management, and as a mortgage/building surveyor in South East Kent. I must make it clear I have no business interests inThanet at all!

FINDINGS:

1) It is my understanding a Development Consent Order can only be made providing the application relates to a strategic necessity in the national interest. It is my contention as the RAF found Manston airport surplus to requirements decades ago, it is no longer required for the nations defence. Also, as far as I am aware no aircraft has ever had to make use of the airfield in an emergency since it was relinquished by the RAF. Several commercial air carriers have failed to make the airport viable since the RAF disposed of it, largely due to lack of demand, and poor rail availability to London.

2) I further contend there is no commercial future for the airport, even for cargo carriers, should it re-open for this purpose, as is proposed, and would be doomed to fail on the grounds it is in the wrong location, and the lack of transport infrastructure to support it.

3) In my submission I would like to draw attention to the damaging affect of aircraft noise, and air pollution, that will seriously harm the tourist industry, and the devaluing of property that would occur to the towns of Thanet, and elsewhere that lie under the flight paths.

4) I have an interest in animal welfare, and stood outside the Wilko store in Ramsgate every Saturday morning for two years, from 2012 to 2014, collecting for an animal charity. During this period Manston was once again closed, but was used for cargo planes to practice take off, and landing Saturday mornings. These aircraft would fly low over Ramsgate Harbour, and up Ramsgate High Street as they are directly under the flight path, drowning out any attempt at conversation, and causing much alarm, and distress amongst shoppers, and tourists, many of which come down to Ramsgate from London at weekends.

5) Ramsgate is now a bustling town enjoying a renaissance, and is attracting new businesses mainly for the tourists who visit during the week, and at weekends. The Harbour also attracts tourists with its many Hotels, pubs, and restaurants, and can be said to be thriving.

6) Ramsgate property seems to be attracting people who commute to London to work, and prices, and demand appears to be on the up!

7) Many local residents like myself choose to retire to Thanet, so there is a large elderly population, many of which like myself are not in the best of health!

CONCLUSION:

1) As a former building valuation, and mortgage surveyor, I can say should Manston re-open, especially on the scale proposed, it will have a serious detrimental affect on property values, and health in Ramsgate especially, and in the surrounding areas.

2) It is a well researched medical fact aircraft noise induces early deaths of people due to stress. The airport runway is less than two miles from the centre of Ramsgate town, and the flight paths will cover a large part of the Ramsgate housing area, including St Lawrence. These aircraft as I have seen, and from what is proposed, will approach the runway over the Harbour at virtually chimney pot level, screaming low overhead day and night, perhaps upwards of one every 20 minutes as has been reported!

3) In addition to the harmful affects from low flying aircraft, there is the question of air pollution. These aircraft will be dumping large quantities of air pollution on the people of Thanet, and especially Ramsgate, as they approach over the Harbour, up the High Street, and on towards St Lawrence at almost zero height, before landing!

4) Air pollution according to the Royal College of Physicians in a recent report, causes upwards of 40,000 deaths a year in Britain. Low flying aircraft approaching, and taking off from Manston will obviously pollute the air, and contribute to the early deaths of the local poplulation!

5) Aircraft noise day and night, and dangerously poor air quality will cause a massive devaluation of property prices, and conveyancing solicitors will be professionally bound to make prospective house buyers aware of houses that lay under a flight path, or is otherwise affected by aircraft noise, and pollution.

6) As a mortgage building surveyor in the past, I have seen large areas which had a Red Line drawn through them, indicating the properties in these area were considered un-mortgagable due to detrimental environmental problems. This will occur in Thanet, and especially to property directly under flight paths!

7) The affect of low flying aircraft over densely populated areas such as Ramsgate, and the other towns in Thanet/Herne Bay, day and night will devalue thousands of properties, perhaps by as much 25% to 50%, and make many unsalable in my opinion!

8) Many tourists, and locals enjoy eating/drinking al fresco around Ramsgate Harbour, but low flying aircraft approaching over the Harbour several times an hour, will devastate the tourist industry here! No one will want to stay at a Hotel twice, if they can't get a good nights sleep!

SUMMING UP:

1) A Development Consent Order should fail as Manston airport can never be considered as vital to the National interest, or even as an air cargo hub, when other airports north of London have spare capacity!

2) Manston airport is in the wrong location! It is too close to a large population, and does not have the transport infrastructure to move large quantities of cargo, except by road!

3) Should Manston ever re-open as an airport as proposed, it will cause serious health risks, and early deaths due to air, and noise pollution!

4) The proposed low flying aircraft over Ramsgate Harbour, town, and other populated areas will seriously devalue thousands of properties, and devastate the tourist industry!

5) The proposed development by Stone Hill Park, the owners of Manston must be encouraged, as it will provide much needed low cost housing, Hi & Lo Tech jobs, and recreational space, all of which are preferable to a company who will only pollute Thanet, devalue property, and devastate a flourishing tourist industry!

I look forward to your comments with anticipation.
There is no mechanism through which the Planning Inspectorate can influence an Applicant’s consultation at the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) process.

In accordance with the PA2008 process, you have correctly sent your comments about the statutory consultation to the Applicant, RiverOak Strategic Partners.

If you have not already done so, please also provide your comments to your local authority. Local authorities have a special role in the PA2008 process, which I explain in the content of this advice.

The PA2008 places a number of duties on Applicants in respect of Pre-application consultation and all applications for development consent must be accompanied by a ‘Consultation Report’. The Consultation Report is prepared under section 37 of the PA2008 and must give details of:

a) what has been done in compliance with sections 42, 47 and 48 of the PA2008 in relation to an application;
b) any relevant responses; and
c) the account taken of any relevant responses.

In the Acceptance period (ie the 28 days following the formal submission of an application) the Planning Inspectorate will scrutinise all of the application documents, including the evidence provided in the Consultation Report, applying the statutory tests set out in s55 of the PA2008. By the end of the Acceptance period the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) must decide, in accordance with the tests in s55 of the PA2008, whether or not an application is of a satisfactory standard to be examined.

In reaching the above decision, s55(4) makes explicit that the Planning Inspectorate must have regard to the Consultation Report and any Adequacy of Consultation Representations made by local authority consultees. Adequacy of Consultation Representations are defined by s55(5) of the PA2008 as representations about whether the applicant complied with its duties under sections 42, 47 and 48. They are requested from all relevant local authorities on receipt of an application for development consent.

To that end, in providing your comments to your local authority they may be considered in the Council’s preparation of its Adequacy of Consultation Representation; if an application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate.

For information about when and how to register as an Interested Party in the Examination (if an application is submitted and the Secretary of State decides that it is of a satisfactory standard to be examined), please see Advice Note Eight here: [attachment 1]

Please send any future email correspondence about the Proposed Development to [email protected]

17 July 2017
Dennis Franklin
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I am contacting you to express our complete disapproval of the plans to reopen Manston Airport.

We, like most of Ramsgate, live on the flight path of aircraft landing at Manston airport from the east.

The planes will pass over us at about 1,000 feet and with the quantity of proposed flights the noise and disruption to us will be totally unacceptable.

Night flights can never be accepted.

As residents of Ramsgate we are totally opposed to these plans.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider objections to a proposal at the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 process. For information about when and how to register as an Interested Party in the Examination (if an application is submitted and the Secretary of State decides that it is of a satisfactory standard to be examined), please see Advice Note Eight here: [attachment 1]

Please send any future email correspondence about the Proposed Development to [email protected]

17 July 2017
Mr and Mrs Williamson
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I have not been informed of any official consultation into running the site at Manston as an airport. And yet I have found out that there is such a consultation.
I live in the village of Herne and would be under the flight path of any flights day or night into Manston. I am totally object to any such use of the Manston sight.
Your proposals will ruin this area. The roads into and out of the county of Kent and Thanet cannot cope as it is with the volume of traffic, this idea will only make this situation far worse.
I strongly object to the noise pollution, road congestion and air pollution that your project will bring to this area.
All the research is such that living near an airport is bad for residents health and that it holds back children at school.
I have a young family and I object totally to your proposals.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider objections to a proposal at the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) process. For information about when and how to register as an Interested Party in the Examination (if an application is submitted and the Secretary of State decides that it is of a satisfactory standard to be examined), please see Advice Note Eight here: [attachment 1]

There is also no mechanism through which the Planning Inspectorate can influence an Applicant’s consultation at the Pre-application stage of the PA2008 process.

In accordance with the PA2008 process, you have correctly sent your comments about the statutory consultation to the Applicant, RiverOak Strategic Partners, and to your local authority.

Local authorities have a special role in the PA2008 process, which I explain in the content of this advice.

The PA2008 places a number of duties on Applicants in respect of Pre-application consultation and all applications for development consent must be accompanied by a ‘Consultation Report’. The Consultation Report is prepared under section 37 of the PA2008 and must give details of:

a) what has been done in compliance with sections 42, 47 and 48 of the PA2008 in relation to an application;
b) any relevant responses; and
c) the account taken of any relevant responses.

In the Acceptance period (ie the 28 days following the formal submission of an application) the Planning Inspectorate will scrutinise all of the application documents, including the evidence provided in the Consultation Report, applying the statutory tests set out in s55 of the PA2008. By the end of the Acceptance period the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) must decide, in accordance with the tests in s55 of the PA2008, whether or not an application is of a satisfactory standard to be examined.

In reaching the above decision, s55(4) makes explicit that the Planning Inspectorate must have regard to the Consultation Report and any Adequacy of Consultation Representations made by local authority consultees. Adequacy of Consultation Representations are defined by s55(5) of the PA2008 as representations about whether the applicant complied with its duties under sections 42, 47 and 48. They are requested from all relevant local authorities on receipt of an application for development consent.

To that end, in providing your comments to your local authority they may be considered in the Council’s preparation of its Adequacy of Consultation Representation; if an application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate.

Please send any future email correspondence about the Proposed Development to [email protected]

17 July 2017
Fred Skinner
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Query regarding targeted consultation
As the project has not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate (the Inspectorate), we have no formal powers to intervene on consultees behalf. I would therefore encourage you to contact the developer directly to make your concerns heard as the Applicant has a statutory duty to take your views into account. However, if you feel your comments are not being taken into account, I would advise you to write to your local authority and set out why you think the Applicant is failing to conduct its consultation properly. Your comments should be taken into account when the local authority sends the Inspectorate its comments on whether the Applicant has fulfilled its consultation duties. The local authority’s comments on the Applicant’s consultation will be taken into account when the Acceptance Inspector makes their decision whether to accept the application for Examination.

A copy of your correspondence has been placed on our records and will be presented to the Inspector at Acceptance, together with the application documents and local authorities’ comments on the Applicant’s consultation.

After the decision has been made regarding whether to accept the application for Examination all documents used to inform the decision will be published on our website.

If the application for development consent is formally accepted you will be able to submit your views in relation to the project which will be considered by the Examining Authority during the Examination.

The Inspectorate has published a series of advice notes which explain the Examination process, including information on how to get involved; of particular interest are advice notes 8.1 to 8.5. These are available at: [attachment 1].

17 July 2017
Jonathan Dean
North Wales Connection
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Query regarding targeted consultation
As the project has not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate (the Inspectorate), we have no formal powers to intervene on consultees behalf. I would therefore encourage you to contact the developer directly to make your concerns heard as the Applicant has a statutory duty to take your views into account. However, if you feel your comments are not being taken into account, I would advise you to write to your local authority and set out why you think the Applicant is failing to conduct its consultation properly. Your comments should be taken into account when the local authority sends the Inspectorate its comments on whether the Applicant has fulfilled its consultation duties. The local authority’s comments on the Applicant’s consultation will be taken into account when the Acceptance Inspector makes their decision whether to accept the application for Examination.

A copy of your correspondence has been placed on our records and will be presented to the Inspector at Acceptance, together with the application documents and local authorities’ comments on the Applicant’s consultation.

After the decision has been made regarding whether to accept the application for Examination all documents used to inform the decision will be published on our website.

If the application for development consent is formally accepted you will be able to submit your views in relation to the project which will be considered by the Examining Authority during the Examination.

The Inspectorate has published a series of advice notes which explain the Examination process, including information on how to get involved; of particular interest are advice notes 8.1 to 8.5. These are available at: [attachment 1].

17 July 2017
Pam Roberts
North Wales Connection
Recent decisions by the Secretary of State (e.g. Radlett) have contained an opinion as to whether the proposed development will work as an SRFI. I am therefore writing to ask what tests would be applied by the Planning Inspectorate to establish this.

The term Strategic Rail Freight Interchange does not appear within the Planning Act 2008 (PA08). PA08 considers all such sites to be Rail Freight Interchanges (RFI), making a distinction in terms of scale and capacity to classify the larger sites as Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects, thereby altering the approval process through the transfer of responsibility to the Planning Inspectorate.

NPSNN distinguishes between SRFI and RFI as follows:
Section 2.43 states that “Rail Freight Interchanges (RFI) enable freight to be transferred between transport modes, thus allowing rail to be used to best effect to undertake the long-haul primary trunk journey, with other modes (usually road) providing the secondary (final delivery) leg of the journey.”

Section 2.44 states that “The aim of a strategic rail freight interchange (SRFI) is to optimise the use of rail in the freight journey by maximising rail trunk haul and minimising some elements of the secondary distribution leg by road, through the co-location of other distribution and freight activities. SRFIs are a key element in reducing the cost to users of moving freight by rail and are important in facilitating the transfer of freight from road to rail, thereby reducing trip mileage of freight movements on both the national and local freight networks.”

I suggest that the differences between the two paragraphs above provide for a series of critical tests as to whether any of the four proposals will indeed function as an SRFI, viz:
• Is the use of rail freight optimised?
• Has rail trunk haul been maximised, e.g. in comparison to alternative sites?
• What elements of secondary distribution have been minimised?
• Is the proposal likely to reduce the cost to users of moving freight by rail?
• Will trip mileage of freight movements on both the national and local freight networks be reduced by the proposal?

I would further contend that the Developer should provide evidence, based on a full analysis of current and future freight flows, of the effect that the proposal would have towards meeting the stated aim of SRFI, as stated in the NPSNN.

In my view, the Developer’s analysis of Needs and Alternatives should also assess each alternative site against the site’s ability to meet the aims of SRFI policy, as set out in the NPSNN.
However, this is merely my view. Can you therefore please clarify the standard tests that the Planning Inspectorate would apply? Is there, perhaps, a need to issue a formal guidance note on this matter?
As you note, s26 of the Planning Act 2008 sets at number of conditions which must be met for a rail freight interchange threshold to be a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project for the purposes of that Act. Assessment principles are set out in the National Networks National Policy Statement (NPSNN) but there is no standard test which The Planning Inspectorate applies as to whether a proposed development would function as a strategic rail freight interchange. The Planning Inspectorate does not have any plans to produce guidance on this matter.

Paragraphs 2.43 and 2.44 of NPSNN have not been considered by the Courts and there is no authoritative legal interpretation of this on which one can rely. Clarification/ interpretation of Government policy does not fall within the remit of the Planning Inspectorate and therefore we are unable to advise you in this matter further, however if you wish to pursue the matter further we would advise you to contact the Department for Transport (DfT) with your query.

14 July 2017
Andrew Gough
General
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Compilation of advice relating to section 53 of the Planning Act 2008.
Please see attached Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) document.

13 July 2017
General - anon.
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached meeting note

13 July 2017
Scottish Power Renewables - anon.
East Anglia ONE North Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached meeting note

13 July 2017
Scottish Power Renewables - anon.
East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
(In your previous response) you refer to my local council. To date, having emailed Mr Richard Price (N Norfolk District Council) I have received no reply. I wish to register the ambivalence shown by the local council and the ambivalence of Norman Lamb MP who wrote a general letter taking no position on the issues other than platitudes. To whom does one now refer my concerns as a citizen?
As the project has not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate (the Inspectorate), we have no formal powers to intervene on consultees behalf. I would therefore encourage you to contact the developer directly to make your concerns heard as the Applicant has a statutory duty to take your views into account. I note that you have already contacted your local authority however, if you feel your views are not being taken into account by the developer I would advise you to write to your local authority again and set out why you think the Applicant is failing to conduct its consultation properly. Your comments should be taken into account when the local authority sends the Inspectorate its comments on whether the Applicant has fulfilled its consultation duties. The local authority’s comments on the Applicant’s consultation will be taken into account when the Acceptance Inspector makes their decision whether to accept the application for Examination.

A copy of your correspondence has been placed on our records and will be presented to the Inspector at Acceptance, together with the application documents and local authorities’ comments on the Applicant’s consultation.

After the decision has been made regarding whether to accept the application for Examination, your email will be published on our website together with all documents used to inform the decision.

If the application for development consent is formally accepted you will be able to submit your views in relation to the project which will be considered by the Examining Authority during the Examination.

The Inspectorate has published a series of advice notes which explain the Examination process, including information on how to get involved; of particular interest are advice notes 8.1 to 8.5. These are available at: [attachment 1].

12 July 2017
Katie Taylor
Norfolk Vanguard
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I am writing to let you know that I am most unhappy regarding the resent Consultations regarding the re-opening of the former Manston Airport - I strongly object on the grounds of noise and /or air pollution.

I have lived in my present home for over 30 years and I am under the flight path - when the airport was previously used there were very few flights and night flights were very few and far between but they did wake me up. I am extremely concerned that were the airport to re-open my health and well being will be compromised. Not to mention the value of my property would fall which would mean I would be unable to move should I wish to do so - which I do not.

I also feel that the manner in which some of the consultations have been conducted have been less than professional.

At these Consultations it would appear that:

1. No-one could tell what the procedure for compensation to residents for loss of value to homes would be.

2. My understanding is that additional presentations were added to the timetable of RSP events, yet when RSP were requested to have an additional event in Ramsgate they refused. Ramsgate was one of the areas where the Consultation was 2 hours shorter then many other areas.

3. Contradictory advice given during the consultations regarding the need for night flights.

4. RSP's failure to describe the proposal accurately.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider objections to a proposal at the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) process. For information about when and how to register as an Interested Party in the Examination (if an application is submitted and the Secretary of State decides that it is of a satisfactory standard to be examined), please see Advice Note Eight here: [attachment 1]

There is also no mechanism through which the Planning Inspectorate can influence an Applicant’s consultation at the Pre-application stage of the PA2008 process.

If you have not done so already, please provide your comments to the Applicant and your local authority. Local authorities have a special role in the PA2008 process, which I explain in the content of this advice.

The PA2008 places a number of duties on Applicants in respect of Pre-application consultation and all applications for development consent must be accompanied by a ‘Consultation Report’. The Consultation Report is prepared under section 37 of the PA2008 and must give details of:

a) what has been done in compliance with sections 42, 47 and 48 of the PA2008 in relation to an application;
b) any relevant responses; and
c) the account taken of any relevant responses.

In the Acceptance period (ie the 28 days following the formal submission of an application) the Planning Inspectorate will scrutinise all of the application documents, including the evidence provided in the Consultation Report, applying the statutory tests set out in s55 of the PA2008. By the end of the Acceptance period the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) must decide, in accordance with the tests in s55 of the PA2008, whether or not an application is of a satisfactory standard to be examined.

In reaching the above decision, s55(4) makes explicit that the Planning Inspectorate must have regard to the Consultation Report and any Adequacy of Consultation Representations made by local authority consultees. Adequacy of Consultation Representations are defined by s55(5) of the PA2008 as representations about whether the applicant complied with its duties under sections 42, 47 and 48. They are requested from all relevant local authorities on receipt of an application for development consent.

To that end, in providing your comments to your local authority they may be considered in the Council’s preparation of its Adequacy of Consultation Representation; if an application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate.

In respect of night flights, the Planning Inspectorate has access to the same information as the local community and statutory consultees ie the Applicant’s Scoping Report states at paragraph 11.6.10 that “The airport will be operational during the day and may be operational to some extent at night. The noise generated due to this activity may give rise to potentially significant effects”. If night flights are proposed for the airport, the likely significant effects will need to be assessed by the Applicant as part of its Environmental Impact Assessment and presented in the Environmental Statement.

In respect of compensation claims, please refer to extant advice available here:
[attachment 2]

The Planning Inspectorate's Scoping Opinion at paragraphs 2.34 through 2.51 provided advice to the Applicant in respect of the description of the proposed development: [attachment 3]

12 July 2017
Rita Burns
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
The enquirer expressed concern about the Applicant's Pre-application community consultation. The Applicant had provided contradictory information about the potential for night flights.
There is also no mechanism through which the Planning Inspectorate can influence an Applicant’s consultation at the Pre-application stage of the PA2008 process.

I note that you have copied your comments to the Applicant and your local authority. These are the correct channels for making comments about an application at the Pre-application stage of the process.

Local authorities have a special role in the PA2008 process, which I explain in the content of this advice.

The PA2008 places a number of duties on Applicants in respect of Pre-application consultation and all applications for development consent must be accompanied by a ‘Consultation Report’. The Consultation Report is prepared under section 37 of the PA2008 and must give details of:

a) what has been done in compliance with sections 42, 47 and 48 of the PA2008 in relation to an application;
b) any relevant responses; and
c) the account taken of any relevant responses.

In the Acceptance period (ie the 28 days following the formal submission of an application) the Planning Inspectorate will scrutinise all of the application documents, including the evidence provided in the Consultation Report, applying the statutory tests set out in s55 of the PA2008. By the end of the Acceptance period the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) must decide, in accordance with the tests in s55 of the PA2008, whether or not an application is of a satisfactory standard to be examined.

In reaching the above decision, s55(4) makes explicit that the Planning Inspectorate must have regard to the Consultation Report and any Adequacy of Consultation Representations made by local authority consultees. Adequacy of Consultation Representations are defined by s55(5) of the PA2008 as representations about whether the applicant complied with its duties under sections 42, 47 and 48. They are requested from all relevant local authorities on receipt of an application for development consent.

To that end, in providing your comments to your local authority they may be considered in the Council’s preparation of its Adequacy of Consultation Representation; if an application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate.

In respect of night flights, the Planning Inspectorate has access to the same information as the local community and statutory consultees ie the Applicant’s Scoping Report states at paragraph 11.6.10 that “The airport will be operational during the day and may be operational to some extent at night. The noise generated due to this activity may give rise to potentially significant effects”. If night flights are proposed for the airport, the likely significant effects will need to be assessed by the Applicant as part of its Environmental Impact Assessment and presented in the Environmental Statement.

12 July 2017
Jane Hetherington
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Do PINS hold a breakdown of approximate required compensation amounts and is this in the public domain?

At what point in the DCO application does the applicant have to show pins evidence of funding adequacy?

What form would this evidence need to take?

Would this evidence be presented to the public in a transparent way?
As explained in my previous response to you, claims and any associated amount of compensation would be something for the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) to consider. It is not within the remit of the Planning Inspectorate to comment in this regard.

The Department for Communities and Local Government has published guidance on the procedures for Compulsory Acquisition (CA): [attachment 1]

In respect of the resource implications for a Proposed Development, the requirements placed on Applicants are explained in paragraphs 17 and 18 of that guidance. In short an Application for a DCO that would authorise CA must be accompanied by a Funding Statement which should demonstrate that adequate funding is likely to be available to enable the CA within the statutory period following the DCO being made, and that the resource implications of a possible acquisition resulting from a blight notice have been taken account of. The Funding Statement would be published to the Planning Inspectorate’s website alongside the rest of the application documentation.

There are many examples of Funding Statements associated with other submitted applications available to view on the Planning Inspectorate’s website: [attachment 2]

12 July 2017
Michael Child
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Mr Owen expressed a number of concerns in respect of the Applicant's Pre-application community consultation and stated his objection to the Proposed Development.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider objections to a proposal at the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) process. For information about when and how to register as an Interested Party in the Examination (if an application is submitted and the Secretary of State decides that it is of a satisfactory standard to be examined), please see Advice Note Eight here: [attachment 1]

There is also no mechanism through which the Planning Inspectorate can influence an Applicant’s consultation at the Pre-application stage of the PA2008 process.

I note that you have copied your comments to the Applicant and your local authority. These are the correct channels for making comments about an application at the Pre-application stage of the process.

Local authorities have a special role in the PA2008 process, which I explain in the content of this advice.

The PA2008 places a number of duties on Applicants in respect of Pre-application consultation and all applications for development consent must be accompanied by a ‘Consultation Report’. The Consultation Report is prepared under section 37 of the PA2008 and must give details of:

a) what has been done in compliance with sections 42, 47 and 48 of the PA2008 in relation to an application;
b) any relevant responses; and
c) the account taken of any relevant responses.

In the Acceptance period (ie the 28 days following the formal submission of an application) the Planning Inspectorate will scrutinise all of the application documents, including the evidence provided in the Consultation Report, applying the statutory tests set out in s55 of the PA2008. By the end of the Acceptance period the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) must decide, in accordance with the tests in s55 of the PA2008, whether or not an application is of a satisfactory standard to be examined.

In reaching the above decision, s55(4) makes explicit that the Planning Inspectorate must have regard to the Consultation Report and any Adequacy of Consultation Representations made by local authority consultees. Adequacy of Consultation Representations are defined by s55(5) of the PA2008 as representations about whether the applicant complied with its duties under sections 42, 47 and 48. They are requested from all relevant local authorities on receipt of an application for development consent.

To that end, in providing your comments to your local authority they may be considered in the Council’s preparation of its Adequacy of Consultation Representation; if an application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate.

In respect of night flights, the Planning Inspectorate has access to the same information as the local community and statutory consultees ie the Applicant’s Scoping Report states at paragraph 11.6.10 that “The airport will be operational during the day and may be operational to some extent at night. The noise generated due to this activity may give rise to potentially significant effects”. If night flights are proposed for the airport, the likely significant effects will need to be assessed by the Applicant as part of its Environmental Impact Assessment and presented in the Environmental Statement.

12 July 2017
Keith Owen
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I am writing in response to RSP’s recent Consultation event held in Ramsgate

I was dismayed that people in Ramsgate were not contacted by RSP informing them of the consultation taking despite living directly under the flightpath. Whereas for example people in Chislet and Birchington (neither nowhere as close to the flightpath as central Ramsgate) received personal letters inviting them to attend a presentation/consultation. Was this a ploy to limit the number of objectors I wonder? Instead, Ramsgate residents were left to find out by either the local paper or social media.

During the consultation taking place in Ramsgate I was given conflicting answers as to whether night flights were happening. One consultant said they were not, and had only been included in the report because PINS demanded it. However another consultant said that they might be necessary and a third one said that the flightpath would be altered so that most planes coming in at night would come in from the west (not possible as this would fly in the face of the conventional practice of flying into prevailing winds). The lack of noise contours for Ramsgate worried me a great deal. It appears no consideration has been given to the impact of noise on Ramsgate residents.

No-one could tell what the procedure for compensation to residents for loss of value to homes would be.

Job claims of 30000 jobs in the East Kent economy are laughable and when I challenged a consultant, they admitted the figure was untrue.

What I am trying to convey to you is that the proposal appears to be vague, or else downright untrue and lacking precise information what the impact of a cargo hub would mean for myself and local residents.
Please refer to extant advice about how the Applicant’s Pre-application consultation will be tested if an application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate: [attachment 1]

In respect of night flights, the Planning Inspectorate has access to the same information as the local community and statutory consultees ie the Applicant’s Scoping Report states at paragraph 11.6.10 that “The airport will be operational during the day and may be operational to some extent at night. The noise generated due to this activity may give rise to potentially significant effects”. If night flights are proposed for the airport, the likely significant effects will need to be assessed by the Applicant as part of its Environmental Impact Assessment and presented in the Environmental Statement.

In respect of claims for compensation, this is a matter dealt with outside of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) process. Matters of financial compensation do not fall to be considered during the scope of the Examination which is limited to the consideration of whether the proposed Compulsory Acquisition powers meet the tests set out in the PA2008. Broadly such claims can be made by persons or organisations whose land or whose rights in land could be affected by a Proposed Development. Their land or rights may not be subject to Compulsory Acquisition powers sought in an application or indeed be within the land to which an application relates, but they may have a right to compensation under either Part 1 of the Land Compensation Act 1973, s10 of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 or s152 of the PA2008, if their land or interest is affected by the development.

The issue of compensation could arise in the event that development consent is granted, and the Applicant implements the Development Consent Order (DCO). As these matters are governed by the relevant compulsory purchase legislation (see above), the claim and any associated amount of compensation may be something for the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) to consider. However, the adequacy of funding to meet any likely future compensation liabilities arising from the implementation of a DCO, and any mechanisms proposed by the applicant to secure the funding, are issues which would be considered by the Examining Authority as part of an Examination.

11 July 2017
H Frencken
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I have several specific concerns about the hopelessly inadequate consultation process conducted by the RSP company in relation to their attempt to submit a DCO for the site of the former airport at Manston in East Kent. I have noted that the Planning Inspectorate has directed others with serious concerns to address those concerns to the local Council. This seems somewhat bizarre as the purpose of the DCO is to bypass the local Council. They have not been involved in the process at all and the pro-airport campaign groups have been keen to tell everyone that the Council has no role.

I have tried to contact the Leader of the Council to ask him whether the Council will be collating and reporting complaints about the consultation process but he has not responded to me. Can the Planning Inspectorate confirm that the Council is under a statutory duty to collate people's complaints and to report them back to the Planning Inspectorate?
The purpose of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) process is not to ‘bypass local authorities’. Local authorities have a special role which is summarised in a video at the bottom of the following page on our website: [attachment 1]

Our ‘Advice note two: The role of local authorities in the development consent process’ provides more detail in this regard: [attachment 2]

The Planning Inspectorate has advised you previously about how it will test whether an Applicant has satisfied its Pre-application duties. That advice introduced the role of Adequacy of Consultation Representations from local authorities: [attachment 3]

There is no statutory duty under the PA2008 for relevant local authorities to ‘collate and report complaints’ to the Planning Inspectorate; but where an Adequacy of Consultation Representation is received the Planning Inspectorate must have regard to it (or them) in making its decision about whether an application is of a satisfactory standard to proceed to be examined.

11 July 2017
Peter Binding
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I recently attended the RSP’S consultation in Ramsgate, and am now asking you, if it could be re-held. And this time in a more professional manner.

I was expecting a presentation, and then an opportunity for the audience to ask questions and get real answers.

Instead we were confronted with a farce:

A room full of RSP representatives, who had clearly not all been briefed on what the answers to key questions should be, prior to the meeting. Therefore on the question of Night Flights, the answers were conflicting.

No information on the noise levels over Ramsgate, was available, as apparently It is not ready yet. Surely this should be a key content of the presentation.

The main wall had a large map of Manston, and its surrounding area, but did not include most of Ramsgate. Yet the maps showing the planned flight paths over Ramsgate and Herne Bay, (attached) were A3 sheets tucked way in a corner. These should have been at the centre of the consultation.

Apparently all the documents available for inspecting, on one side of the room, were still only drafts. So still 'work in progress', and therefore changeable.

By the time I heard from one visitor, that the runway on the architectural model at the centre of the room, could be facing the wrong way – I was not surprised.

I and many others, live directly under the proposed flight path, and our life's and the value of our properties, will be seriously blighted if this proposed airport happens. Which raises the issue of compensation.

Therefore the fact that I (and many others) received no invitation, and only found out about the meeting, from the local paper, might be due to incompetence, but could also be seen as corrupt.

RSP need to treat the residents of Ramsgate with respect, and re visit the consultation process in a truly transparent and professional manner.
There is no mechanism through which the Planning Inspectorate can influence an Applicant’s consultation at the Pre-application stage of the PA2008 process. The Planning Inspectorate therefore cannot compel an Applicant to re-hold a consultation event.

If you have not done so already, please provide your comments to the Applicant and your local authority. Local authorities have a special role in the PA2008 process, which I explain in the content of this advice.

The PA2008 places a number of duties on Applicants in respect of Pre-application consultation and all applications for development consent must be accompanied by a ‘Consultation Report’. The Consultation Report is prepared under section 37 of the PA2008 and must give details of:

a) what has been done in compliance with sections 42, 47 and 48 of the PA2008 in relation to an application;
b) any relevant responses; and
c) the account taken of any relevant responses.

In the Acceptance period (ie the 28 days following the formal submission of an application) the Planning Inspectorate will scrutinise all of the application documents, including the evidence provided in the Consultation Report, applying the statutory tests set out in s55 of the PA2008. By the end of the Acceptance period the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) must decide, in accordance with the tests in s55 of the PA2008, whether or not an application is of a satisfactory standard to be examined.

In reaching the above decision, s55(4) makes explicit that the Planning Inspectorate must have regard to the Consultation Report and any Adequacy of Consultation Representations made by local authority consultees. Adequacy of Consultation Representations are defined by s55(5) of the PA2008 as representations about whether the applicant complied with its duties under sections 42, 47 and 48. They are requested from all relevant local authorities on receipt of an application for development consent.

To that end, in providing your comments to your local authority they may be considered in the Council’s preparation of its Adequacy of Consultation Representation; if an application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate.

I suspect that the documents made available for inspection by the Applicant at the consultation event comprised its Preliminary Environmental Information (PEI). For Environmental Impact Assessment development (EIA), Applicants are required to consult with the local community about their PEI. Advice about the content of an Applicant’s PEI is provided in our ‘Advice note seven: Preliminary Environmental Information, Screening and Scoping’, available here: [attachment 1]

In respect of night flights, the Planning Inspectorate has access to the same information as the local community and statutory consultees ie the Applicant’s Scoping Report states at paragraph 11.6.10 that “The airport will be operational during the day and may be operational to some extent at night. The noise generated due to this activity may give rise to potentially significant effects”. If night flights are proposed for the airport, the likely significant effects will need to be assessed by the Applicant as part of its EIA and presented in the Environmental Statement.

In respect of compensation claims, please refer to extant advice available here: [attachment 2]

11 July 2017
Judith Castle
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I am a resident of Broadstairs, within the area of Thanet District Council (TDC). I have today learnt that TDC have restricted the consultation with RiverOak to a closed meeting with the Cabinet. The Monitoring Officer has justified this as follows:

"RSP has been undertaking public consultation at various meetings throughout the district as part of the pre-application steps in support of its DCO process. As part of that process, RSP is obliged to consult with Thanet District Council who are the ‘host’ authority for this DCO application. The council welcomes this engagement by RSP as it is something that we initially requested in October 2016. DCO matters (under parts 4 to 8 of the Planning Act 2008) are what is known as ‘executive functions’ which means that the legal authority to deal with these matters rests with the executive and not with Full Council. That is why RSP are being asked to undertake their consultation with the Leader and his Cabinet together with senior council officers and not at a Full Council meeting. Indeed, it would be unlawful for Full Council to deal with this matter, since under the Local Government Act 2000, any function which is the responsibility of an executive of a local authority, may not be discharged by the Full Council, In dealing with this DCO, Thanet District Council is acting in accordance with the Planning Inspectorate guidance. The Planning Inspectorate expect us to ensure delegations are in place and explains that it won’t be possible for the DCO process to be structured around the council’s committee cycles. At Dover District Council for example they delegated all their functions in relation to DCOs to a senior officer in order to enable the council’s functions in relation to Development Consent for Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects to be discharged quickly, effectively and efficiently. Similar arrangements are in place for those local authorities dealing with DCOs in relation to nuclear power generation. Other authorities may be dealing with the matter slightly differently because they are not the ‘host authority’. As ‘host authority’ Thanet District Council are (if the DCO is successful) likely to become responsible for discharging many of the requirements (akin to planning conditions) associated with the project. The council are also likely to have a role in monitoring and enforcing many of the DCO provisions and requirements."

I would be grateful for your guidance in this matter since it does seem to be somewhat at odds with the whole ethos of the consultation process.
It is not within the remit of the Planning Inspectorate to comment on operational aspects of a local authority’s functions.

In respect of the Planning Act 2008 process, local authorities have a special role which is summarised in a video at the bottom of the following page on our website: [attachment 1]

Our ‘Advice note two: The role of local authorities in the development consent process’ provides more detail in this regard: [attachment 2]

The PA2008 sets out the statutory consultation duties place on Applicants, and I refer you to Chapter 2 of the PA2008 in this regard: [attachment 3]

The Department for Communities and Local Government has also published guidance on the Pre-application process: [attachment 4]

For the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) to find that an application is of a satisfactory standard to be examined, it must be satisfied that an Applicant has carried out its Pre-application consultation duties in accordance with the statutory requirements in the PA2008. The tests in this regard are applied in a statutory 28 day ‘Acceptance’ period. More information about the process is available via the first link provided in this response.

11 July 2017
Andrew McCulloch
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
It is being reported on social media that RiverOak Strategic Partners' DCO for the site of the former airport at Manston is guaranteed to succeed because it is being backed by a local MP. Can you confirm this?
If an application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, and if it is subsequently found to be of a satisfactory standard to be examined, an independent and impartial Examining Authority will be appointed to gather evidence and test information during the six month Examination of the application. A recommendation will then be made to the Secretary of State for Transport who must make his/ her decision in accordance with Chapter 5 of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008). More information about the process is available on our website here: [attachment 1]

Anybody can register their interest in an Examination and become an Interested Party (at the appropriate time in the process), and all Interested Parties have the same status in accordance with s102 of the PA2008.

The PA2008 establishes that no individual or organisation (ie Interested Party), politically affiliated or otherwise, is afforded the potential to have more influence over the Examination of an application than another.

11 July 2017
Peter Binding
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
Would an individual homeowner or business proprietor have to claim compensation within specific time scales related to the progress of the DCO application?

Are there other instances of busy airports with a significant airfreight component where the runway approach makes overlying an architectural conservation area unavoidable and if so how was the issue resolved?
In respect of claims for compensation, this is a matter dealt with outside of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) process. Matters of financial compensation do not fall to be considered during the scope of the Examination which is limited to the consideration of whether the proposed Compulsory Acquisition powers meet the tests set out in the PA2008. Broadly such claims can be made by persons or organisations whose land or whose rights in land could be affected by a Proposed Development. Their land or rights may not be subject to Compulsory Acquisition powers sought in an application or indeed be within the land to which an application relates, but they may have a right to compensation under either Part 1 of the Land Compensation Act 1973, s10 of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 or s152 of the PA2008, if their land or interest is affected by the development.

The issue of compensation could arise in the event that development consent is granted, and the Applicant implements the Development Consent Order (DCO). As these matters are governed by the relevant compulsory purchase legislation (see above), the claim and any associated amount of compensation may be something for the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) to consider. However, the adequacy of funding to meet any likely future compensation liabilities arising from the implementation of a DCO, and any mechanisms proposed by the applicant to secure the funding, are issues which would be considered by the Examining Authority as part of an Examination.

There are no precedents for development under s23 of the PA2008, and it is not within the remit of the Planning Inspectorate to comment on the operations of existing airports.

11 July 2017
Michael Child
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
RSP who wish to reopen Manston airport have published a glossy 48 page brochure laying out all their plans for the future development of the site. I believe that RSP have deliberately ignored Ramsgate, the town most affected by their plans. Ramsgate is mentioned only 5 times in the RSP brochure without once addressing the concerns of the population most affected by the flight path.

It appears that RSP have decided that as they cannot explain away the problems that will befall Ramsgate once their airport is running, it is simpler to ignore the people of Ramsgate.

We have not been informed by door to door leafleting, we have not been consulted by holding a public meeting, as held by RSP in Westgate on Sea (a suburb of Margate, not under any flight path). I have no doubt that for these reasons the RSP consultation is greatly flawed and should be rejected as unprofessional.
Please provide your comments to the Applicant and to your local authority. Local authorities have a special role in the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) process, which I explain in the content of this letter.

The PA2008 places a number of duties on Applicants in respect of Pre-application consultation and all applications for development consent must be accompanied by a ‘Consultation Report’. The Consultation Report is prepared under section 37 of the PA2008 and must give details of:

a) what has been done in compliance with sections 42, 47 and 48 of the PA2008 in relation to an application;
b) any relevant responses; and
c) the account taken of any relevant responses.

In the Acceptance period (ie the 28 days following the formal submission of an application) the Planning Inspectorate will scrutinise all of the application documents, including the evidence provided in the Consultation Report, applying the statutory tests set out in s55 of the PA2008. By the end of the Acceptance period the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) must decide, in accordance with the tests in s55 of the PA2008, whether or not an application is of a satisfactory standard to be examined.

In reaching the above decision, s55(4) makes explicit that the Planning Inspectorate must have regard to the Consultation Report and any Adequacy of Consultation Representations made by local authority consultees. Adequacy of Consultation Representations are defined by s55(5) of the PA2008 as representations about whether the applicant complied with its duties under sections 42, 47 and 48. They are requested from all relevant local authorities on receipt of an application for development consent.

To that end, in providing your comments to your local authority they may be considered in the Council’s preparation of its Adequacy of Consultation Representation; if an application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate.

11 July 2017
Col Longmore
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I have several concerns re the recent presentations / consultations mainly that when approached about particulates none of your so called experts appeared to know what they were nor how dangerous and what levels fuel is burnt at when air craft are landing and taking off. Nor could the tell anyone the amount of lorries etc burning diesel so the whole air pollution issue both aircraft and ground based is left unanswered and I understand from different locations different answers were given on the issue.
Compensation about air pollution because it will be an ongoing issue I myself suffer from respiratory problems am in Margate but people directly under the airpath will suffer far more. Noise pollution levels still not covered and as these jets will be far from new they will be more prone to noise pollution. The fleet mentioned in one article I read about were all in excess of twenty year old planes so not only will the be noisier they will bun more aviation fuel levels of which are around one ton per landing and take off. Particulate levels for diesel are strictly measured and these planes if they are that age will be banned from some airports because of air pollution levels, why are they being allowed to land at Manston surely we in Thanet deserve to be on the best level of pollutants not the worst? are we second class citizens?

Other issues are:

- Additional presentations were added to the timetable of RSP events, yet when RSP were requested to have an additional event in Ramsgate they refused.
- Most residents apart from those within the contour map around the airport did not know that a consultation was going to take place. As a result, most residents in Ramsgate who live directly under the flight path and will suffer the most were ignorant of the consultation taking place.
* Residents of Birchington received personal letters from RSP yet people in Ramsgate and Herne Bay did not.
- Contradictory advice given during the consultations regarding the need for night flights.
In copying your comments to the Applicant and local authority, you have pre-empted my advice.

Local authorities have a special role in the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) process, which I explain in the content of this email.

The PA2008 places a number of duties on Applicants in respect of Pre-application consultation and all applications for development consent must be accompanied by a ‘Consultation Report’. The Consultation Report is prepared under section 37 of the PA2008 and must give details of:

a) what has been done in compliance with sections 42, 47 and 48 of the PA2008 in relation to an application;
b) any relevant responses; and
c) the account taken of any relevant responses.

In the Acceptance period (ie the 28 days following the formal submission of an application) the Planning Inspectorate will scrutinise all of the application documents, including the evidence provided in the Consultation Report, applying the statutory tests set out in s55 of the PA2008. By the end of the Acceptance period the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) must decide, in accordance with the tests in s55 of the PA2008, whether or not an application is of a satisfactory standard to be examined.

In reaching the above decision, s55(4) makes explicit that the Planning Inspectorate must have regard to the Consultation Report and any Adequacy of Consultation Representations made by local authority consultees. Adequacy of Consultation Representations are defined by s55(5) of the PA2008 as representations about whether the applicant complied with its duties under sections 42, 47 and 48. They are requested from all relevant local authorities on receipt of an application for development consent.

To that end, in providing your comments to your local authority they may be considered in the Council’s preparation of its Adequacy of Consultation Representation; if an application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate.

In respect of compensation claims, please refer to extant advice available here: [attachment 1]

In respect of night flights, the Planning Inspectorate has access to the same information as the local community and statutory consultees ie the Applicant’s Scoping Report states at paragraph 11.6.10 that “The airport will be operational during the day and may be operational to some extent at night. The noise generated due to this activity may give rise to potentially significant effects”. If night flights are proposed for the airport, the likely significant effects will need to be assessed by the Applicant as part of its EIA and presented in the Environmental Statement.

11 July 2017
Don Wood
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
River Oak Strategic Partnership recently held a consultation in Ramsgate regarding the re-opening of Manston as an airport. The online consultation finishes on 23rd July.

I wish to register a complaint about both the offline and online consultation. The process is flawed.

1. Failure to Notify Affected Residents of the Consultation in Ramsgate - When the airport was operational, planes used to line up at 300 metres over the clock tower in the harbour and descend across the town to runway 28. Those of us living under this flight path should have received written notification from River Oak Strategic Partnership that a consultation was taking place in Ramsgate. We received no notification whatsoever from River Oak of this consultation or the online version. I understand though cannot confirm, that River Oak were advised by Thanet District Council that they needed to notify us of the consultation.

2. Failure to Supply Relevant Information for the Online Consultation - The Master Plan from River Oak does not include any information about Public Safety Zones despite the predicted levels of air traffic showing that they would be necessary. Infratil, the previous owners of the airport, acknowledged that they should have been done in 2006. A PSZ covers the 1 in 100,000 risk area. It is estimated that there are 4,500 homes in Ramsgate that are within this risk contour and three schools - Clarendon Grammar, Christ Church Primary School and Ellington Infant School. They would all suffer planning blight as there is 'a general presumption against new or replacement development or changes of use of existing buildings within a Public Safety Zone' (DfT Circular 1/2010). Some properties will fall within the 1 in 10,000 contour. 'The Secretary of State wishes to see the emptying of all occupied residential properties, and of all commercial and industrial properties occupied as normal all-day workplaces, within the 1 in 10,000 individual risk contour' (DfT Circular 1/2010) This contour would include the residential streets - Kirkstone, Whinfell, Drybeck, Kentmere and part of Windemere Avenue. These residents would need to be moved out of their homes.
There is no mechanism through which the Planning Inspectorate can influence an Applicant’s consultation at the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) process.

Please provide your comments to the Applicant and to your local authority. Local authorities have a special role in the PA2008 process, which I explain in the content of this advice.

The PA2008 places a number of duties on Applicants in respect of Pre-application consultation and all applications for development consent must be accompanied by a ‘Consultation Report’. The Consultation Report is prepared under section 37 of the PA2008 and must give details of:

a) what has been done in compliance with sections 42, 47 and 48 of the PA2008 in relation to an application;
b) any relevant responses; and
c) the account taken of any relevant responses.

In the Acceptance period (ie the 28 days following the formal submission of an application) the Planning Inspectorate will scrutinise all of the application documents, including the evidence provided in the Consultation Report, applying the statutory tests set out in s55 of the PA2008. By the end of the Acceptance period the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) must decide, in accordance with the tests in s55 of the PA2008, whether or not an application is of a satisfactory standard to be examined.

In reaching the above decision, s55(4) makes explicit that the Planning Inspectorate must have regard to the Consultation Report and any Adequacy of Consultation Representations made by local authority consultees. Adequacy of Consultation Representations are defined by s55(5) of the PA2008 as representations about whether the applicant complied with its duties under sections 42, 47 and 48. They are requested from all relevant local authorities on receipt of an application for development consent.

To that end, in providing your comments to your local authority they may be considered in the Council’s preparation of its Adequacy of Consultation Representation; if an application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate.

10 July 2017
Janet Davies
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer expressed a number of concerns in respect of RSP's Pre-application community consultation.
There is no mechanism through which the Planning Inspectorate can influence an Applicant’s consultation at the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) process.

To that end it is appropriate that you to have sent your comments to the Applicant and to the host local authority. Local authorities have a special role in the PA2008 process, which I explain in the content of this advice.

The PA2008 places a number of duties on Applicants in respect of Pre-application consultation and all applications for development consent must be accompanied by a ‘Consultation Report’. The Consultation Report is prepared under section 37 of the PA2008 and must give details of:

a) what has been done in compliance with sections 42, 47 and 48 of the PA2008 in relation to an application;
b) any relevant responses; and
c) the account taken of any relevant responses.

In the Acceptance period (ie the 28 days following the formal submission of an application) the Planning Inspectorate will scrutinise all of the application documents, including the evidence provided in the Consultation Report, applying the statutory tests set out in s55 of the PA2008. By the end of the Acceptance period the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) must decide, in accordance with the tests in s55 of the PA2008, whether or not an application is of a satisfactory standard to be examined.

In reaching the above decision, s55(4) makes explicit that the Planning Inspectorate must have regard to the Consultation Report and any Adequacy of Consultation Representations made by local authority consultees. Adequacy of Consultation Representations are defined by s55(5) of the PA2008 as representations about whether the applicant complied with its duties under sections 42, 47 and 48. They are requested from all relevant local authorities on receipt of an application for development consent.

To that end, in providing your comments to your local authority they may be considered in the Council’s preparation of its Adequacy of Consultation Representation; if an application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate.

If an application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate and subsequently found to be of a satisfactory standard, the merits of the Proposed Development will be tested by an appointed Examining Authority in accordance with s104 or s105 of the PA2008. The Planning Inspectorate’s Advice Note Eight explains the Examination process and how to have your say: [attachment 1]

10 July 2017
Diane Cleak
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
As a long time resident of the town of Ramsgate and having lived under the flight path of the previous commercial airport at Manston I would like to register my objection to any plan to reopen the airport as I believe it will affect both my health and my wealth. Health through lack of sleep and air pollution. My wealth through the damage it will do to the value of my home.

RSP who wish to reopen the airport have published a glossy 48 page brochure laying out all their plans for the future development. This brochure, which was made available only to those who knew of or could attend one of their consultation meeting, makes very interesting reading not for what it says but for what it does not say.

• The population of Ramsgate is 40,000.
• The flight path is directly over Ramsgate.
• The end of the runway is half a mile from the edge of Ramsgate.
• The RSP brochure mentions Ramsgate 5 times in 48 pages.

Now you may think there is nothing strange there but let me assure you that under any other planning application of this significance the town and population of Ramsgate by the simple fact of their location would be the only matter under discussion. It appears that RSP have decided that as they cannot explain away the problems that will befall Ramsgate once their airport is running, they are simply pretending that Ramsgate does not exist!

We have not been informed by door to door leafleting, we have not been consulted by holding a public meeting, as held by RSP in Westgate on Sea (a suburb of Margate, not under any flight path). There is in my mind a high degree of deceitfulness by RSP here and it should not be tolerated for a moment.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider objections to a proposal at the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) process. For information about when and how to register as an Interested Party in the Examination (if an application is submitted and the Secretary of State decides that it is of a satisfactory standard to be examined), please see Advice Note Eight here: [attachment 1]

There is also no mechanism through which the Planning Inspectorate can influence an Applicant’s consultation at the Pre-application stage of the PA2008 process.

Please provide your comments to the Applicant and to your local authority. Local authorities have a special role in the PA2008 process, which I explain in the content of this advice.

The PA2008 places a number of duties on Applicants in respect of Pre-application consultation and all applications for development consent must be accompanied by a ‘Consultation Report’. The Consultation Report is prepared under section 37 of the PA2008 and must give details of:

a) what has been done in compliance with sections 42, 47 and 48 of the PA2008 in relation to an application;
b) any relevant responses; and
c) the account taken of any relevant responses.

In the Acceptance period (ie the 28 days following the formal submission of an application) the Planning Inspectorate will scrutinise all of the application documents, including the evidence provided in the Consultation Report, applying the statutory tests set out in s55 of the PA2008. By the end of the Acceptance period the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) must decide, in accordance with the tests in s55 of the PA2008, whether or not an application is of a satisfactory standard to be examined.

In reaching the above decision, s55(4) makes explicit that the Planning Inspectorate must have regard to the Consultation Report and any Adequacy of Consultation Representations made by local authority consultees. Adequacy of Consultation Representations are defined by s55(5) of the PA2008 as representations about whether the applicant complied with its duties under sections 42, 47 and 48. They are requested from all relevant local authorities on receipt of an application for development consent.

To that end, in providing your comments to your local authority they may be considered in the Council’s preparation of its Adequacy of Consultation Representation; if an application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate.

10 July 2017
Col Longmore
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
1. RSP have not followed the legislation laid down in the Planning Act 2008 and that because the document fails to identify the flight path and as a consequence which areas will be affected directly by in-coming and out going aircraft, it has attempted to mislead and avoid informing those residents that would have their lives seriously blighted and property drastically devalued. I am one of those residents and have received no information, other than by word of mouth.

2.The Consultation Overview Report relies on a 'desk study' which has restricted the impact of an airport and associated activities, primary to the site and does not seriously explore the impact of aircraft along any flight path including the land below and airspace. The report in my opinion is seriously flawed and as you can see I have requested additional information in relation to details within the report which do not seem to have been appropriately evidence based or referenced. In short, there is too much opinion and not enough fact.

As a result, I do not feel they have appropriately applied the Planning Act 2008 or the Land Compensation Act 1973 and would therefor request that the planning inspectorate takes a 'long hard look' at the RSP DCO application.
There is no mechanism through which the Planning Inspectorate can influence an Applicant’s consultation at the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) process.

To that end it is appropriate that you to have sent your comments to the Applicant and to the host local authorities. Local authorities have a special role in the PA2008 process, which I explain in the content of this advice.

The PA2008 places a number of duties on Applicants in respect of Pre-application consultation and all applications for development consent must be accompanied by a ‘Consultation Report’. The Consultation Report is prepared under section 37 of the PA2008 and must give details of:

a) what has been done in compliance with sections 42, 47 and 48 of the PA2008 in relation to an application;
b) any relevant responses; and
c) the account taken of any relevant responses.

In the Acceptance period (ie the 28 days following the formal submission of an application) the Planning Inspectorate will scrutinise all of the application documents, including the evidence provided in the Consultation Report, applying the statutory tests set out in s55 of the PA2008. By the end of the Acceptance period the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) must decide, in accordance with the tests in s55 of the PA2008, whether or not an application is of a satisfactory standard to be examined.

In reaching the above decision, s55(4) makes explicit that the Planning Inspectorate must have regard to the Consultation Report and any Adequacy of Consultation Representations made by local authority consultees. Adequacy of Consultation Representations are defined by s55(5) of the PA2008 as representations about whether the applicant complied with its duties under sections 42, 47 and 48. They are requested from all relevant local authorities on receipt of an application for development consent.

To that end, in providing your comments to your local authority they may be considered in the Council’s preparation of its Adequacy of Consultation Representation; if an application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate.

If an application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate and subsequently found to be of a satisfactory standard, the merits of the Proposed Development will be tested by an appointed Examining Authority in accordance with s104 or s105 of the PA2008. Advice Note Eight, and link to which was provided previously, explains the Examination process and how to have your say.

10 July 2017
Becky Wing
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer expressed concern about the lack of consultation events offered in Ramsgate about the proposed reopening of Manston Airport.

1. Failure to notify affected residents:

During the time that the airport was operational, cargo planes would line up over Ramsgate Harbour and descend over the town towards the runway. We who live under this flight path should have received written notification that River Oak Strategic Partnership were planning to hold a consultation event in Ramsgate. A very few people in this area, mainly those who live within a short distance of the perimeter of the airport, were sent leaflets about this consultation. The residents of Birchington also received personal letters from RSP, yet the populations of Herne Bay and Ramsgate, who will live directly under the flight path, were not. We only found out from the local paper (which has a low circulation) or from Facebook.

2. Failure to supply relevant information:

The RSP plan does not include any information regarding Public Safety Zones. I understand there are some 4-5,000 homes in Ramsgate and 3 schools situated within the risk area, as well as Pegwell Bay and Sandwich Bay National Nature Reserves. Different consultants at the Ramsgate consultation offered different advice as to flight paths, number of flights, etc. One said the flight paths were not decided - however, unless RSP plan to turn the runway around, I cannot see how the flight path would not pass directly over Ramsgate, at an admitted height of around 600 feet. Another consultant claimed night flights "were only included in the documentation because the CAA require it" and that they had no intention of having night flights. I have no idea how a freight-based airport could possibly be successful unless it offered night flights, particularly one stuck in the south-easternmost corner of England. The last time the airport was operational and Thanet District Council conducted a survey about potential night flights, 73% of Ramsgate residents were opposed to them. The claims as to the number of jobs created are also farcical.

Please be aware that I am strongly opposed to this proposed scheme.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider objections to a proposal at the Pre-application stage of the PA2008 process. For information about when and how to register as an Interested Party in the Examination (if an application is submitted and the Secretary of State decides that it is of a satisfactory standard to be examined), please see Advice Note Eight here: [attachment 1]

There is also no mechanism through which the Planning Inspectorate can influence an Applicant’s consultation at the Pre-application stage of the PA2008 process.

Please provide your comments to the Applicant if you have not done so already. I note you have copied-in Thanet District Council. Local authorities have a special role in the PA2008 process, which I explain in the content of this advice.

The PA2008 places a number of duties on Applicants in respect of Pre-application consultation and all applications for development consent must be accompanied by a ‘Consultation Report’. The Consultation Report is prepared under section 37 of the PA2008 and must give details of:

a) what has been done in compliance with sections 42, 47 and 48 of the PA2008 in relation to an application;
b) any relevant responses; and
c) the account taken of any relevant responses.

In the Acceptance period (ie the 28 days following the formal submission of an application) the Planning Inspectorate will scrutinise all of the application documents, including the evidence provided in the Consultation Report, applying the statutory tests set out in s55 of the PA2008. By the end of the Acceptance period the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) must decide, in accordance with the tests in s55 of the PA2008, whether or not an application is of a satisfactory standard to be examined.

In reaching the above decision, s55(4) makes explicit that the Planning Inspectorate must have regard to the Consultation Report and any Adequacy of Consultation Representations made by local authority consultees. Adequacy of Consultation Representations are defined by s55(5) of the PA2008 as representations about whether the applicant complied with its duties under sections 42, 47 and 48. They are requested from all relevant local authorities on receipt of an application for development consent.

To that end, in providing your comments to your local authority they may be considered in the Council’s preparation of its Adequacy of Consultation Representation; if an application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate.

10 July 2017
Jane Roberts
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
Para 4.27 states that “All projects should be subject to an options appraisal” but then goes on to say that the appraisal “should consider viable modal alternatives”. The remainder of the paragraph cross refers to paragraphs 3.23 and 3.27 which deal with road and rail schemes and then contains further text which also is only referable to road and rail schemes.

Given that the whole purpose of the SRFI scheme is to provide a modal alternative, and given the exclusive application of the majority of the text in paragraph 4.27 to road and rail schemes (not RFI) we have come to the conclusion that this paragraph is not aimed at schemes such as ours. Accordingly we do not propose to include an options appraisal considering viable modal alternatives in our application documentation.

I would be grateful if you could indicate any disagreement with the above as soon as possible.
It will be for the Secretary of State to decide on basis of the facts of any application in respect of the proposed Northampton Gateway SRFI whether and, if so, to what extent, the appraisal required by paragraph 4.27 of the National Networks NPS is required in respect of that scheme or part of that scheme. If the applicant considers that it does not apply in the case of that scheme then it should set out its reasoning clearly in its consideration of the policy context of the scheme. You will no doubt be aware of how the Secretary of State considered para. 4.27 in the case of the East Midlands Gateway Rail Freight Interchange but will understand that that reasoning was based on the specific facts of that application.

Paragraph 4.27 of NPSNN has not been considered by the Courts and there is no authoritative legal interpretation of this on which one can rely. Clarification/ interpretation of Government policy does not fall within the remit of the Planning Inspectorate and therefore we are unable to advise you in this matter further, however if you wish to pursue the matter further we would advise you to contact the Department for Transport (DfT) with your query.

10 July 2017
Eversheds Sutherland - Morag Thomson
Northampton Gateway Rail Freight Interchange
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Please see attached meeting note
Please see attached meeting note

10 July 2017
SP Manweb - Steven Edwards
Reinforcement to North Shropshire Electricity Distribution Network
Enquiry received via email
I would like to express my concern regarding the lack of information provided to Ramsgate residents regarding the consultations. It was only by chance that my husband and I became aware of the consultation event at The Comfort Inn. Surely this cannot be following guidelines?

At the event itself, although there were several River Oak staff present, responses to questions were poor and the attitude of one member of staff that I spoke to could only be described as aggressive and very over-bearing. At a consultation event surely residents are expected to ask questions and query information provided – sadly, rather than getting clear answers, my questions were often deflected by further statements or I was simply referred to various documents.

I also wonder about the lack of information in the consultation about Public Safety Zones (PSZ)? As you will be aware, a PSZ covers the 1 in 100,000 risk area; I believe it is estimated that there are 4,500 homes in Ramsgate that are within this risk area and three schools. As the Secretary of State wishes to see the emptying of all occupied residential properties, and of all commercial and industrial properties occupied as normal all-day workplaces, within the 1 in 10,000 individual risk contour, this has significant implications including for the occupants of the residential streets - Kirkstone, Whinfell, Drybeck, Kentmere and part of Windemere Avenue; these residents could be required to vacate their homes. Given the requirements relating to PSZs, it is particularly alarming that Ramsgate residents were not alerted by mail regarding the consultation and that more information is not available to the general public regarding the implications of the re-opening of the airport at Manston. If people are not fully informed how can they take part appropriately in the consultation process? How and what arrangements can be put in place to ensure the community is in receipt of all the information required?

I shall also be raising my concerns with the Council so that these can be considered in the Council’s preparation of its Adequacy of Consultation Representation.

The redevelopment of an airport at Manston will not only have a detrimental impact for local residents but it is also contrary to the economic regeneration of a tourist area with significant architectural, historic and cultural significance. Alarmingly, there also seems to be little evidence that there is a proper business case establishing the need or the financial viability of such a scheme.
You have pre-empted my advice as you intend to send your written comments to the local authority. If you have not done so already, you should also send them directly to the Applicant.

The Planning Act 2008 places a number of duties on Applicants in respect of Pre-application consultation.

All applications for development consent must be accompanied by a ‘Consultation Report’. The Consultation Report is prepared under section 37 of the Planning Act 2008 and must give details of:

a) what has been done in compliance with sections 42, 47 and 48 of the Planning Act 2008 in relation to a proposed application that has become the application;
b) any relevant responses; and
c) the account taken of any relevant responses.
In the Acceptance period (ie the 28 days following the formal submission of an application) the Planning Inspectorate will scrutinise all of the application documents, including the evidence provided in the Consultation Report, applying the statutory tests set out in s55 of the Planning Act 2008. By the end of the Acceptance period the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) must decide, in accordance with the tests in s55 of the Planning Act 2008, whether or not an application is of a satisfactory standard to be examined. In reaching this decision, s55(4) makes explicit that the Planning Inspectorate must have regard to the Consultation Report and any Adequacy of Consultation Representations made by local authority consultees.

07 July 2017
Lesley Chater
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I am writing a legal dissertation focusing on nationally significant infrastructure projects including related housing developments, under s160 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016.

I was just wondering if there are any applications for NSIPs with related housing currently in existence?

If you have any other information you could offer me about the potential effects of including housing provision within the NSIP planning process, that would be brilliant.
Thank you for your query regarding inclusion of housing in a National Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP) application. There is currently no NSIP application submitted to the Planning Inspectorate that has included housing as a part of the application. Nor are there any projects in the pre-application stage that has included housing as part of the project.

In regards of your second query, the Department for Communities and Local Government issued in March 2017 guidance on including housing in an NSIP application which might be of interest to you.

[attachment 1]

Further information about how many NSIP application the Planning Inspectorate has received and which of those has been approved can be found on the National Infrastructure Planning website under the tab Projects

[attachment 2]

07 July 2017
Katie Excell
General
Enquiry received via post
The enquirer raised concerns about the Applicant's Pre-application community consultation.
In the first instance, I advise for you to provide your comments to the Applicant and to your local authority. Local authorities have a special role in the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) process, which I explain in the content of this letter.

The PA2008 places a number of duties on Applicants in respect of Pre-application consultation and all applications for development consent must be accompanied by a ‘Consultation Report’. The Consultation Report is prepared under section 37 of the PA2008 and must give details of:

a) what has been done in compliance with sections 42, 47 and 48 of the PA2008 in relation to an application;
b) any relevant responses; and
c) the account taken of any relevant responses.

In the Acceptance period (ie the 28 days following the formal submission of an application) the Planning Inspectorate will scrutinise all of the application documents, including the evidence provided in the Consultation Report, applying the statutory tests set out in s55 of the PA2008. By the end of the Acceptance period the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) must decide, in accordance with the tests in s55 of the PA2008, whether or not an application is of a satisfactory standard to be examined.

In reaching the above decision, s55(4) makes explicit that the Planning Inspectorate must have regard to the Consultation Report and any Adequacy of Consultation Representations made by local authority consultees. Adequacy of Consultation Representations are defined by s55(5) of the PA2008 as representations about whether the applicant complied with its duties under sections 42, 47 and 48. They are requested from all relevant local authorities on receipt of an application for development consent.

To that end, in providing your comments to your local authority they may be considered in the Council’s preparation of its Adequacy of Consultation Representation; if an application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate.

07 July 2017
Rupert Allason
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I am writing in response to RSP’s recent Consultation event held in Ramsgate.

Firstly, I’m disappointed in the lack of opportunity presented to the 40000 people in Ramsgate to participate in the Consultation. Although RSP saw fit to directly mail and or leaflet people living within a few hundred yards of the site, such an outreach was not offered to Ramsgate’s population. They were expected to find out by reading a local paper (very poor circulation) or by word of mouth via social media. When I contacted RSP to find out why some dwellings near the site had been contacted directly, I was told:

“With regards to your second point, in order to prepare for our application for a Development Consent Order to rebuild and reopen Manston Airport we are legally required to make a ‘diligent inquiry’ to establish who owns and occupies the land that will be affected by the project.”

The implication is that people who live in Ramsgate, under the flight path, won’t be (in RSP’s) view, affected by the Development.

So the likely impact on Ramsgate and its residents was uppermost on my mind when I visited the Ramsgate Consultation. Which brings me to my second point: I managed to talk to one of the Consultants about the anticipated noise levels over Ramsgate. First, he said that it was not possible to give an answer, because the flight paths were not decided. I pointed out that the map he was standing in front of clearly showed several flight paths, both approaching and departing Ramsgate. I pointed out that there were no noise contours on the map. He explained that because the DCO was in respect of the infrastructure alone, then noise didn’t matter.

Is this in fact the case? That the Consultation is only about the bricks, mortar and concrete, and nothing about the environmental impacts of the operation?

My third point concerns the issue of Night Flights. I managed to talk with [a member of the RSP team]. She assured me that Night Flights were only included in the documentation because the CAA required it. There was no intention to have night flights per se, she said.

This appears to be at odds with Q6 of RSP Consultation Feedback form, which says:

“As part of the development of the project, RiverOak have been exploring the potential impacts and benefits of limited night flights at Manston Airport. Night flights will make Manston Airport even more attractive for air freight and will allow us to explore more opportunities for benefits in the region but come with additional impacts. We have assessed for up to eight flights a night but we have not made a decision about whether to include night flights (or how many) in our application” [[attachment 1]]

So, no night flights or an indeterminate number depending on business opportunities?

I understand that the Consultation is being held under the auspices of the Rochdale Envelope. I looked up a Guidance Note and two things struck me.

“.. taken with those defined parameters of the project, the level of detail of the proposals must be such as to enable a proper assessment of the likely environmental effects, and necessary mitigation - if necessary considering a range of possibilities”

and

“This does not give developers an excuse to provide inadequate descriptions of their projects. It will be for the authority responsible for issuing the development consent to decide whether it is satisfied, given the nature of the project in question, that it has ‘full knowledge’ of its likely significant effects on the environment. If it considers that an unnecessary degree of flexibility, and hence uncertainty as to the likely significant environmental effects, has been incorporated into the description of the development, then it can require more detail, or refuse consent’ (para.95 of the Judgment[sic])” [[attachment 2]]

This is a most unsatisfactory state of affairs. It seems that RSP has written off Ramsgate. They - it can be concluded from their own words - do not consider the town to be affected by the project.
The Consultation was a farce. One consultant was most unsure as to what he was talking about, and, indeed, seemed to be making it up as he went along. [Another consultant's] assertions were at odds with RSP’s own documentation. And Rochdale Envelope or not, how is it possible to make a meaningful response to a consultation when crucially important information on noise impact and night flights is either missing or contradictory?
I respond to your points under three headings.

Land referencing and diligent inquiry (heading)

In respect of land referencing, please refer to previous advice issued in April 2017: [attachment 3]

The process of due diligence also applies to an Applicant’s identification of persons who it thinks, if a DCO was made, would or might be entitled to make a relevant claim under the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965; Part 1 of the Land Compensation Act 1973; or s152(3) of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008). Such persons are referred to as ‘category 3’ interests.

Where a person is not identified by an Applicant to be a category 3 interest who could make a relevant claim, that person is not precluded from making a relevant claim, or from applying to an appointed Examining Authority to become an Interested Party for the purposes of the examination of an application (under s102(A) of the PA2008).

Environmental Impacts Assessment (EIA) methodology (heading)

The Proposed Development is EIA development, and Chapter 11 of the Applicant’s Scoping Report identifies the potential for significant noise effects to arise during construction and operation of the proposed airport. It is available to view here: [attachment 4] In its Scoping Opinion, the Planning Inspectorate stated that noise and vibration effects are a potential main issue and should be included in the Environmental Statement (ES) for the Proposed Development. The Scoping Opinion is available to view here: [attachment 5]

The ES will be a material consideration in the Examination of any application that is made.

In respect of the Applicant’s proposed assessment methodology, the Rochdale Envelope principle is an accepted way of dealing with uncertainty in preparing applications for development consent. The Applicant should make every attempt to narrow the range of options and explain clearly in the ES which elements of the Proposed Development have yet to be finalised and provide the reasons. Where some flexibility is sought and the precise details are not known (eg specific flight paths), the Applicant should assess a worst case scenario based on the maximum likely envelope of potential adverse impacts that the Proposed Development could have. This is to ensure that the full effects of a development as it may be constructed have been properly assessed.

In respect of the Proposed Development, we understand that the Applicant intends to represent the maximum potential adverse impacts through assessing route swathes (see next section).

In respect of night flights, the Planning Inspectorate has access to the same information as the local community and statutory consultees. Together with the excerpt from the feedback form which you provide, the Applicant’s Scoping Report states at paragraph 11.6.10 that “The airport will be operational during the day and may be operational to some extent at night. The noise generated due to this activity may give rise to potentially significant effects”. If night flights are proposed for the airport, the likely significant effects will need to be assessed by the Applicant as part of its EIA and presented in the ES.

We note that Chapter 12 of the Applicant’s Preliminary Environmental Information Report sets out its current understanding of noise effects arising from the Proposed Development and also considers matters such as mitigation and compensation for noise impacts.

The Airspace Change Process (heading)

The Planning Inspectorate attended a process evaluation workshop with the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) and the Applicant on 12 June 2017. The note of the meeting is in the process of being finalised and will published to our website shortly. Appended to it are the slides from a presentation delivered by the Applicant.

The Applicant would be required to redesign the airspace around the airfield in order to make an operational cargo airport viable. Airspace redesign is subject to a separate ‘Airspace Change Process’ (ACP) which is owned by the CAA. From the Applicant’s presentation we understand that the ACP is subject to its own technical environmental assessment requirements (including specific requirements in respect of noise) and consultation processes. We understand that the ACP will require for precise flight paths to be provided to the CAA. These flight paths would be required to fall within the route swathes assessed by the Applicant as part of the EIA associated with the preparation of the application for development consent.

For advice about the ACP and how to make comments on an airspace change proposal, please contact the CAA directly using the appropriate channels.

06 July 2017
James Chappell
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
The enquirer, a local councillor, set out a number of concerns in respect of RiverOak Strategic Partner's community consultation.
Section 47 of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) sets out an applicant’s duties in respect of consulting the local community. Section 47(2) states that before preparing the Statement of Community Consultation (SoCC), the Applicant must consult each host authority about what is to be in the SoCC. Section 47(5) states that in preparing the SoCC, the Applicant must have regard to any responses to consultation under s47(2).

Subsequently, upon the submission of an application the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) has a statutory duty to invite comments from all s43 authorities about whether an Applicant has complied with its duties under ss42, 47 and 48 of the PA2008. Comments received in response are “Adequacy of Consultation Representations”, as defined in s55 of the PA2008. The Planning Inspectorate must have regard to any Adequacy of Consultation Representations in making its decision about whether an application is of a satisfactory standard to be examined.

If you have not already, I would advise for you to share your concerns with the appropriate technical department within Thanet District Council in order that they may be considered in the Council’s preparation of its Adequacy of Consultation Representation; if an application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate.

06 July 2017
Susan Kennedy
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
As I understand all statutory consultees must be informed by the project leaders about the plans.
In the event the statutory consultees refuses to engage, where does this leave the DCO prospects?
The Planning Inspectorate’s Advice Note Eleven explains the framework which governs the involvement of relevant consultees and consenting bodies at each stage in the process and sets out the key principles which the Planning Inspectorate hopes will underpin working arrangements. It is available to view here: [attachment 1]

Different statutory consultees are bound by different obligations in respect of how and when they may respond to the Planning Inspectorate on specific issues. The Planning Inspectorate also has certain powers to compel statutory bodies to provide advice or evidence to it at specific stages of the process.

06 July 2017
Kirrien Wilson
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
I am writing with regards to the recent consultations about a potential cargo hub at the former Manston airport, Kent, and my concerns over the consultation process.

I bought my house two years ago and live at XXXXXXX, which is directly in line with the runway. As the airport was closed, at the time I bought my house, it was not an issue that I live less than 2 miles as the crow flies from the end of the runway, but I was surprised to find out, through a friend, that there were consultations in Thanet about a DCO to create a cargo hub, yet I, as a resident that will be effected greatly, was not notified of this.

I work 6 days a week and could not get to the Ramsgate meeting, instead I went to the Herne Bay one. There I asked several questions. Firstly, why my house / street / ward were not notified that there were consultations about this proposal? I was told, 'I found out anyway, and no one else had complained, it had been on the RSP website'. I didn't find that to be a satisfactory reply to my concerns.

I then asked why the Ramsgate meeting was shorter than the others, and why not the evening? I was informed that they thought that at the weekend most people could make it during the day and that they couldn't book the venue for longer. again, I find that answer wholly unsatisfactory. I have later found out that various areas in Thanet have been added onto the list of venues, and residents written to that do not live under the flight path, how is this deemed as fair?

I then asked about night flights, as cargo generally needs night flights. Two different people answered this question, both with different answers. A gentleman introduced as the business expert explained to me that they had assessed for night flights, but were not sure of they would be needed. When I questioned him further, he explained, that they might be needed as in his research companies wanted to bring in freight at night and that most of the companies that he knew used night flights. Again, pressed on this point, he said that RSP had no cargo companied lined up yet, so this was all in the future and they couldn't comment on it now. Yet, there was no information as to the potential impact on night time flying, the noise it would cause, health problems or so on. I was left with the knowledge that when the companies come and they want night flights, that is the problem that would be sorted out then. At another time, I causally asked another RSP employee about night flights, and was told 'Oh yes, we need them, but only want them to be for passengers', completely at odds with what I was originally told.

I asked about the information being in different languages for other people to access if need be and was told this wasn't necessary.

To not make this proposal accessible, to not notify people in the direct flight path, especially when night flights are a possibility and to give insufficient information at a presentation doesn't seem to me to be adequate as a robust consultation. At one point I was asked if I had been to their earlier consultation, to which I pointed out that I had indeed been to Riveroak's preliminary meeting, but as the company was now RSP, and no longer affiliated with that company I did not see how those two meetings could be linked.

I will be writing this to RSP directly, and I would like to send it to my council too, although I am unsure as to where to email it to. But firstly, as the potential to be the first DCO of an airport in the country I wanted to ask you about this as I feel that RSP have been wholly unprofessional with their format and making the game up as they go along. At the end of the day, this effects people at both ends of the runway and has great implications for schools, residents and so on, so think that a far more thorough process be put in place.
If/ when an application is submitted, the Planning Inspectorate, on behalf of the Secretary of State, has a statutory duty to invite comments from all relevant local authorities (see s43 of the Planning Act 2008) about whether an Applicant has complied with its statutory Pre-application consultation duties (see s42, s47 and s48 of the Planning Act 2008). Responses received are ‘Adequacy of Consultation Representations’.
All applications for development consent must also be accompanied by a ‘Consultation Report’. The Consultation Report is prepared under section 37 of the Planning Act 2008 and must give details of:

a) what has been done in compliance with sections 42, 47 and 48 of the Planning Act 2008 in relation to a proposed application that has become the application;
b) any relevant responses; and
c) the account taken of any relevant responses.

In the Acceptance period (ie the 28 days following the formal submission of an application) the Planning Inspectorate will scrutinise all of the application documents, including the evidence provided in the Consultation Report, applying the statutory tests set out in s55 of the Planning Act 2008. By the end of the Acceptance period the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) must decide, in accordance with the tests in s55 of the Planning Act 2008, whether or not to accept an application for examination. In reaching this decision, s55(4) makes explicit that the Planning Inspectorate must have regard to the Consultation Report and any Adequacy of Consultation Representations made by local authority consultees.

On the basis of the above, I would advise for you to provide your comments to your local authority, copying-in the Applicant. This will enable your local authority to consider your comments in the preparation of its Adequacy of Consultation Representation; if/ when an application for development consent is submitted.

06 July 2017
Ann-Marie Nixey
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
I'm writing with regard to my grave concerns about the consultation process being conducted by River Oak Strategic Partners, or RSP as part of their plans to develop the former Manston airport.

I am a local Ramsgate resident and live directly under what is most likely to be the flightpath. I am absolutely opposed to RSPs plans to re-open Manston airport as a cargo hub, which they have said themselves in their proposal documents may involve night flights - up to eight every night. The noise from these flights would radically disrupt the peace and quiet, and more importantly the sleep of our entire town.

Like most of our 40,000 residents I was not directly consulted about this plan. I received no letter, or indeed any information by post, not even a leaflet containing the most basic information. The first I heard about it was around a week ago when I came across a flyer in a local restaurant by a group opposed to the plans.

By the time I looked into the issue I realised it was too late to attend any of the Ramsgate consultations. I am extremely disappointed at not being given any decent warning about this issue.

Extra meeting dates at other locations were added to the calendar, but when RSP were asked to host another one for Ramsgate they refused.

Residents in Birchington - not directly under the flight path - got personal letters, but Ramsgate resident received nothing. This seems blatantly unfair, and tactical on RSP's part. Clearly Ramsgate residents are being deliberately ignored.

I am a relatively young resident, mobile and connected in terms of media and the web so I hate to think of how in the dark more hard to reach residents - especially older folks, or those with mobility issues - are. I imagine thousands of Ramsgate residents will be poorly informed about RSPs plans and unable to engage with the consultation process. This is totally unacceptable.

I hope this matter will be looked into more. RSP clearly have a very blunt corporate agenda and is deliberately not involving the entire town of Ramsgate in this process because they know that Ramsgate is the largest town within close range of the operations and pose a threat to their plans.

This consultation process should be transparent, open to all and conducted over a reasonable period of time,. So far it has been none of these things. Our town is being ignored in a rush to get the consultation process over and done with, with as little resistance as possible.
If/ when an application is submitted, the Planning Inspectorate, on behalf of the Secretary of State, has a statutory duty to invite comments from all relevant local authorities (see s43 of the Planning Act 2008) about whether an Applicant has complied with its statutory Pre-application consultation duties (see s42, s47 and s48 of the Planning Act 2008). Responses received are ‘Adequacy of Consultation Representations’.

All applications for development consent must be accompanied by a ‘Consultation Report’. The Consultation Report is prepared under section 37 of the Planning Act 2008 and must give details of:

a) what has been done in compliance with sections 42, 47 and 48 of the Planning Act 2008 in relation to a proposed application that has become the application;
b) any relevant responses; and
c) the account taken of any relevant responses.

In the Acceptance period (ie the 28 days following the formal submission of an application) the Planning Inspectorate will scrutinise all of the application documents, including the evidence provided in the Consultation Report, applying the statutory tests set out in s55 of the Planning Act 2008. By the end of the Acceptance period the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) must decide, in accordance with the tests in s55 of the Planning Act 2008, whether or not to accept an application for examination. In reaching this decision, s55(4) makes explicit that the Planning Inspectorate must have regard to the Consultation Report and any Adequacy of Consultation Representations made by local authority consultees.

On the basis of the above, I would advise for you to provide your comments to your local authority, copying-in the Applicant. This will enable your local authority to consider your comments in the preparation of its Adequacy of Consultation Representation; if/ when an application for development consent is submitted.

In respect of the duration of the consultation period, section 45 of the Planning Act 2008 prescribes that an Applicant’s statutory Pre-application consultation must run for a minimum of 28 days. RiverOak Strategic Partners Ltd opened its statutory consultation period on 12 June 2017. The consultation period will close on 23 July 2017, having run for 42 days.

06 July 2017
Whetham Allpress
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
See attached letter dated 6 April 2017
See attached letter dated 6 July 2017

06 July 2017
The Wildlife Trusts - anon.
General
Enquiry received via email
Do you advise that I endeavour to complete the consultation trying to use the existing website or to wait and see if I get some reply from the Applicant or Thanet District Council that results in a website that is navigable, shows whole images and text in the browser and is generally fit for purpose?
I was copied in to this afternoon’s response from Thanet District Council. I hope this provides you with some reassurance about the local authority’s role in considering and making representations about the adequacy of the Applicant’s Pre-application consultation.

Without deflecting from the website problems that you report, the Statement of Community Consultation does include details of other means by which the consultation documentation may be accessed. I understand that these means may not be convenient to you (or other members of the community), but they do provide a channel for you to access the full suite of documents and make a fully informed response to them. Alternatively it may be worth contacting the Applicant to ask for a copy of the consultation documents on CD or USB drive.

05 July 2017
Michael Child
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Observations on
Wylfa Newydd DCO PAC 3, Exhibition Events and Consultation Bus, May/June 2017


1. Potentially material flaws in the Public Notice published 19.05.2017

1.1.1 Horizon Nuclear Power and Hitachi Limited published a Public Notice in The Guardian newspaper on 19th May 2017, regarding their Proposed Application for a Development Consent Order (DCO) for Wylfa Newydd. The Notice stated, in numbered paragraph 3, an intention to submit a DCO Application for a new nuclear power station on Anglesey in the third quarter of 2017. Hitachi intend to install two newly modified UK Advanced Boiling Water Reactor (UK ABWR) design nuclear reactors at Wylfa. It would be the first ever deployment of this reactor design in the UK.

1.1.2 Potentially material flaws may exist in that Public Notice. Six notable flaws are explored below, under numbered subsections and relevant headings.


1.2 Interim storage buildings for radioactive waste and spent fuel

1.2.1 In the first instance, at numbered paragraph 4(a)(ii)(A) of the Public Notice, Horizon-Hitachi have indiscriminately lumped together materially discrete elements of the buildings (purposed with distinctly differing functions) proposed for the storage of nuclear waste at the Wylfa Newydd site.

a. Indecipherable amalgamation of discrete elements in a Public Notice has the effect of obscuring matters of significant public interest, which should otherwise be readily identifiable by the wider public. The Applicants propose the construction of essentially two different types of nuclear waste storage buildings, for distinctly different purposes. In the interest of convenience, the following extracts summarise chapter B14 in PAC 2 Preliminary Environmental Information (dated August 2016).

(i) A primary radioactive waste building, located in or adjacent to the main reactor island, which would be designed to house:

? buffer storage tanks, plus packaging facility for wet-solid Intermediate Level Waste (ILW: Table B14.3);

? spent fuel pool for dry solid High Level Waste (HLW: Table B14.4), and for the spent fuel assemblies periodically discharged from each reactor (Table B14.5);

? facility for packaging HLW into stainless steel canisters, after cooling for 10 years (Table B14.4); and,

? facility for packaging spent fuel assemblies into spent fuel casks, after cooling for 10 years (Table B14.5).

The radioactive waste building would be constructed at the same time as the main reactor island. The radioactive waste building would be emptied following permanent reactor shutdown at the end of planned 60-year reactor operating life span, and decommissioned alongside the twin reactors within 20 years of end of electricity generation by Wylfa Newydd (paragraph B14.70).

(ii) Separately, possibly two interim waste storage buildings, located elsewhere on the Wylfa Newydd site, which would be designed to house:

? ILW storage facility, to receive and hold packaged ILW (Table B14.3);

? HLW decay storage facility, to receive and hold HLW steel canisters (Table B14.4); and,

? spent fuel storage facility, to receive and hold spent fuel casks (Table B14.5).

The construction of interim waste storage buildings would commence after the reactors have started operating, and are expected to become available for use within 5 to 10 years of the twin UK ABWRs starting up at Wylfa Newydd. The interim waste storage buildings would be designed accommodate the entire lifetime inventories of packaged radioactive wastes. The buildings would be designed to be safely operated and maintained for appropriate management of the accumulated radioactive waste and spent fuel inventories for an interim period, while awaiting final removal to a geological disposal facility elsewhere (as and when available). The Applicants envisage interim storage for a further period of up to 140 years, following the end of electricity generation by Wylfa Newydd, until a geological disposal facility becomes available and ready to accept the accumulated radioactive waste inventories. The interim waste storage buildings would be decommissioned only when eventually emptied, in around two centuries’ time.

b. Plainly, on the face of it, lack of clarity on materially discrete significant development elements in a Public Notice risks confusing and misleading the wider public. Clarity and transparency should be paramount in a Public Notice, not something deducible only by the reasonably informed or upon reading through highly complex supporting documents.

c. Considering the circumstance and context in this instance, confusing or misleading information is arguably capable of rendering the Public Notice flawed.

1.2.2 In the second instance, there arises a question over inclusion of interim waste storage facilities in the proposed DCO Application.

a. Given the obvious direct and intimate connection with the main reactor island NSIP, it is plain why the radioactive waste building (paragraph 1.2.1(a)(i) hereof, referring) could be treated as part of a generating station NSIP, and could therefore be included in the proposed DCO Application.

b. However, Horizon-Hitachi would not appear to have identified (in the supporting documents) direct instruction in Government policy, or express requirement under relevant statutory measure, commanding the inclusion of interim waste storage buildings/facilities (paragraph 1.2.1(a)(ii) hereof, referring) in a DCO Application for a nationally significant electricity generating project, the location of facilities in question not withstanding (whether on- or off-site).


1.3 Marine works (cooling water system, marine off-loading facility and breakwater structures)

Numbered paragraph 4(a)(ii)(C) in the Public Notice states categorically that Horizon-Hitachi intend to seek consents for marine works under a DCO. The assertion is repeated at paragraph 1.6.5 in the PAC 3 Main Consultation Document (dated May 2017).

a. On the face of it, the Notice risks misleading the public as to appropriate consents jurisdiction for the marine components. All proposed marine works, including a marine off-loading facility (MOLF), would be situated in tidal waters, demarcated on the landward side by the Mean High Water Spring Tides.

b. Moreover, it is confounding to discover the Applicants’ submission on page 14 of the Overview Document in contradiction of the Public Notice. Namely, these works require separate marine licences from Natural Resources Wales.

c. Apparent failure to distinguish appropriate jurisdictions gives rise to manifest confusion in the public mind and, as such, is capable of rendering the Public Notice flawed.


1.4 Environmental Statement

In numbered paragraph 7, the Public Notice admits environmental impact assessments have still not been completed.

a. Consequently, even at PAC Stage 3, the public are left uninformed as to the full implication of all significant environmental effects, not withstanding Notice paragraph 8 regarding the Preliminary Environmental Information (published during PAC Stage 2).

b. It flouts the fairness principle for it to be acceptable for Horizon-Hitachi to magic final environmental impact assessment reports at the last minute (say, at the time of its formal DCO Application). And, it affronts legitimate public interest expectation. These assessments ought to be fully available amply in advance of a DCO Application. Otherwise, the public are deliberately denied sufficiency of time for proper consideration of complex assessments, at the same time as labouring under the constraints of DCO Examination time limits. While doubtless to the advantage of the Applicants, a drip-drip tactic comprises manifest disservice to the public.

c. In essence, paragraph 7 constitutes little more than a promissory note. It fails to confirm contemporary availability of the environmental statement. At the very least, such failure renders the Public Notice premature. And, may be said capable of tainting the Notice as potentially flawed.


1.5 Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and the designated North Anglesey Heritage Coast: the shoreline at Porth-y-pistyll

Horizon-Hitachi remain conspicuously silent in the Public Notice on direct physical damage, under the proposed DCO Application, to the shoreline sections of the AONB and the associated Heritage Coast designation at Porth-y-pistyll.

a. Given public sensitivity on such impacts, it is puzzling Horizon-Hitachi could not countenance bringing this expressly to public attention in their Public Notice.

b. By virtue of salient omission, the Public Notice may be rendered materially flawed.


1.6 Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI): Tre’r Gof

Horizon-Hitachi have also omitted from the Public Notice reference to risk of long term deterioration, and even complete loss, of the Tre’r Gof SSSI as a result of residual impact of the proposed DCO Application.

a. Information on this potential outcome lies buried in a pithy sentence on page 107 of the Stage 3 Main Consultation Document.

b. Such explicit omission of potentially severe direct risk to the integrity and sustainability of a protected site may be capable of rendering the Public Notice materially flawed.


2. Other deficiency

2.1 Stage 3 Exhibition Events: location, duration and content

2.1.1 There were no events arranged in towns and villages beyond North West Wales, despite numerous invocations of North Wales as a whole in the Overview Document (pages 7, 20, 21, 35, 36 and 39, referring). Horizon-Hitachi restricted all six venues to Anglesey (albeit, appearing twice in Cemaes). Even so, on the day of each event, additional publicity sign posts within reasonable vicinity of the venue were nowhere to be seen, to catch the public’s attention.

2.1.2 With the seven one off events lasting six hours each, is it any wonder Horizon-Hitachi’s enthusiasm for venturing into wide public spaces should seemingly resemble a fly-by-night sales pitch? The Applicants failed yet again to arrange prolonged displays of exhibition panels in prominent public places, in all the principal towns and villages across North Wales, presenting the full scope of information highlighted at paragraph 1.4 in the previous Comment (submitted in response to PAC 2 Community Exhibition Events, dated 13.10.2016).

Having attended one PAC 3 Exhibition Event, Horizon-Hitachi’s Events further warrant inclusion of the following additional display boards, presenting clear information on:

• radioactive waste production, storage packages, storage structures, on-site storage duration, storage risk, and the history of Wales/UK search for a final geological disposal facility;

• major nuclear incident emergency preparedness measures; seasonal wind directions and speeds; and, marine currents around Anglesey and the North Wales coast;

• truncation of an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and the North Anglesey Heritage Coast at Porth-y-pistyll; and,

• the precarious status of the Tre’r Gof Site of Special Scientific Interest, at Wylfa Head on Anglesey.

2.1.3 Anyone visiting the PAC 3 Exhibition Events would have witnessed excessively narrow selective information on large display boards, table maps and schematic landscape graphics on proposed alterations to roadways, the proposed workforce campus, site layout, and the like; as well as a 3-D bird’s eye view flight animation over the A5025 alterations, the proposed Nuclear Power Station layout, and the Wylfa Newydd Development Site.

Horizon-Hitachi did not display any large information boards for the visiting public, showing:

• the sections of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and the North Anglesey Heritage Coast impacted directly by the proposed marine off-loading facility at Porth-y-pistyll;

• modelled degradation states of the Tre’r Gof Site of Special Scientific Interest at Wylfa Head;

• site/area seismology, incidence history, event projections, and outcomes/implications;

• historical extreme weather events at the site, and outcomes;

• extreme weather event projections modelled for the site between the years 2025 and 2225 (based on a 60-year reactor life span, followed by a 140-year on-site radioactive waste storage period), and implications;

• meteorological and marine currents charts modelling footprints of radiation plumes in the event of serious breach in reactor containment, or serious incident in the interim storage facilities for the accumulated inventories of high level radioactive waste and spent fuel discharged from the twin reactors;

• emergency preparedness and public protection measures in the event of serious nuclear incident at Wylfa Newydd;

• indicative site appearance at various stages of reactor decommissioning;

• post construction photomontages of Porth-y-pistyll viewed from the sea; the site viewed from the Porth-y-pistyll coastal footpath; views from Tre’r Gof site; and the like;

• the identity of lead investor and status of any co-investors in the Wylfa Newydd project; the primary reason for reactor choice; the level of guaranteed capital finance currently in hand, and the amount of current shortfall; the status of proposals and certainty of timescales for bridging the shortfall;

• the identity of lead operator and any operating partner(s); the status of arrangements for any proposed operating consortium; and,

• Horizon’s business experience to date in reliably, safely and successfully managing and running any trade or enterprise (small or large), anywhere.


2.2 Stage 3 Consultation Bus and locations

2.2.1 Horizon-Hitachi have resorted to an ice-cream van sized “Consultation” Bus, featuring a customer service style counter on one side of the van, for face time with visitors. The Bus schedule totalled six locations in Anglesey, stopping for three hours each time, save for a five hour stop in Menai Bridge (at the Anglesey Farmers’ Market). The Bus also put in a three-hour appearance each in Bangor (out of town centre Tesco Extra Car Park), Caernarfon (town centre Castle Square) and the Conwy Quay.

a. Other than a novel Consultation stunt, does the duration and number of stops echo anything more than another fly-by-night sales pitch?

b. In any case, the nature and extent of information omission, highlighted in paragraph 2.1.3 hereof, is rendered even more acute in an ice-cream van sized Bus.


2.3 Stage 3 Consultation Overview Document (undated)

2.3.1 Horizon-Hitachi have distributed the Overview Document to public libraries in Anglesey, Conwy and Gwynedd, as well as respective Council Offices in Llangefni, Conwy and Caernarfon, and the Anglesey Business Centre in Llangefni. It was also available at Exhibition Events and from the Consultation Bus. Yet this key document stands out as excessively selective in the information communicated to the public. It omits a number of issues of significance and wide public interest, concerning the Horizon-Hitachi proposal for a new nuclear power station at Wylfa, as illustrated below.

2.3.2 It is disingenuous of Horizon-Hitachi to capitalise selectively on a single waste product from electricity generation. On pages 1 and 7 of the Overview Document, the Applicants boast low carbon electricity generation while patently refusing to headline simultaneously a corollary: high nuclear waste electricity generation by Wylfa Newydd. Horizon-Hitachi appear welded to perpetuating a false comforting headline message: the Hitachi nuclear reactors are low carbon – perfect! No worries!

2.3.3 Not a single structure is identified in the schematic graphic spread across pages 1 and 2.

2.3.4 No depiction whatever of removal of sections of the shoreline AONB and the North Anglesey Heritage Coast in the following graphics:

• the indicative power station site layout, on page 9;

• the existing baseline, on page 42;

• completion of earthworks for unit 2, on page 43; and

• permanent landscape setting, on page 44.

2.3.5 No information is provided on where the pre-constructed modular components for the entire Wylfa Newydd build will be sourced, pre-assembled, or built from scratch (page 10).

2.3.6 No information provided on expected date of application for a marine licence for the MOLF (page 14), or the expected MOLF construction commencement date (page 27).

2.3.7 There is no mention whatever of erasure of the shoreline AONB and the associated North Anglesey Heritage Coast, in the section headlined “Marine Works” on page 14. No sea views either of Porth-y-pistyll, pre- and post- MOLF and other structures.

2.3.8 No indicative illustration (aerial and side elevations) of the decommissioned site after 2085, on page 16. This was curiously also missing from the 3-D animation video! The omission contrasts with a Site Campus image produced on page 24.

2.3.9 No schematic graphics illustrating the interior of proposed radioactive waste and spent fuel storage facilities, on page 16, complementing the reactor building graphic on page15.

2.3.10 No accompanying illustrations of the packaged ILW, HLW canisters and spent fuel casks, on page 15.

2.3.11 No disclosure on page 15 of explicit instruction from the Government, or express statutory measure, commanding Horizon-Hitachi to install interim nuclear waste storage facilities on-site in Anglesey, for the purpose of holding 60 years’ accumulated output of spent nuclear fuel, intermediate level waste and dry high level radioactive waste, for up to a further 140 years after the Wylfa Newydd nuclear power station permanently stops generating electricity.

2.3.12 No information disclosed on page 15 on all the alternatives to on-site interim storage of nuclear waste (up until the year 2225), examined by Horizon-Hitachi to any extent. Nor is there disclosure of reasons for rejecting all other specific options.

2.3.13 No explanation provided on signal inconsistency between the duration of the Wylfa Newydd site nuclear licence persisting up to the year 2225 (60-year reactor life span, followed by 140-year on-site nuclear waste storage: pages 15-16), and an absolute assurance on page 2 of the Community Update Issue 19. Namely, that Horizon banks on leaving Anglesey by the year 2117: “We are proposing to be part of the community for around the next 100 years, …”


2.4 Stage 3 Main Consultation Document (dated May 2017)

2.4.1 Not in a position to comment. Lack the time commitments warranted for consideration.


3. Conclusions

3.1 An occurrence of potentially material multiple flaws in the Horizon-Hitachi Public Notice on their proposed DCO Application is one too many to be lightly dismissed. Individually arguable, collectively the flaws appear disquieting, the validity of the Public Notice notwithstanding.

3.2 Significant further apparent deficiency in documentation and relevant information arguably begs the acceptability of Horizon-Hitachi’s deliberate, and excessively, narrow consultation exercise. To what extent would a reasonably informed fair minded bystander expect the Infrastructure Planning Inspectorate to tolerate this state of affairs, at Stage 3?
See attached reply

05 July 2017
J Channay
Wylfa Newydd Nuclear Power Station
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Discussion of generic planning issues
Please see the attached meeting note

05 July 2017
Mace - Martin Clarke
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached meeting note

05 July 2017
Sembcorp Utilities (UK) Limited - Scott Taylor
Tees CCPP
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Mr Child expressed a number of concerns about the accessibility of consultation documents on RiverOak Strategic Partner's website.
In respect of your concerns about the Applicant’s website, I would refer you to the principles in the latter half of the advice that I issued to you on 2 March 2017: [attachment 1]

For convenience, my advice states that if/ when an application is submitted, the Planning Inspectorate, on behalf of the Secretary of State, has a statutory duty to invite comments from all s43 authorities about whether an Applicant has complied with its duties under ss42, 47 and 48 of the Planning Act 2008. The Planning Inspectorate must then have regard to any ‘Adequacy of Consultation Representations’ received in taking its decision about whether an application should be accepted for examination.

With that in mind, if you have concerns about the Applicant’s Pre-application consultation I would advise for you to provide your comments to the local authority(ies) (copying in the Applicant).

04 July 2017
Michael Child
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I am writing after reading the minutes of a meeting which took place between the Planning Inspectorate and RiverOak Strategic Partners (RSP) on the 12th May 2017. The meeting related to a potential DCO application to reopen the airport at Manston and the minutes have been published on the planning inspectorate web-site.

According to the minutes, the planning inspectorate has agreed to a tripartite meeting between themselves, RSP and the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) to discuss the licencing of the airfield. The planning inspectorate agreed to this meeting once the consultation process had taken place.

You may, or may not, be aware that the CAA will not accept an application for a licence unless the applicant owns the land or has specific permission from the owners of the land. This being the case I have to ask what purpose is served by holding this meeting?

I have two concerns. Firstly, RSP intend to use this meeting to persuade the CAA that they have a realistic prospect of acquiring the land and, by so doing, would be able to press the CAA to commence the process of licensing before they have acquired the land. Secondly, the Planning Inspectorate would be then be portrayed as having given some kind of assurance to the CAA that the DCO would be accepted and would be successful. In other words, the Planning Inspectorate would be guilty of pre-determination.

I would like to suggest that the Planning Inspectorate should resist any attempt to meet with the CAA in relation to Manston. No DCO application has been submitted and, even if such an application is made, it would not be sensible for the Planning Inspectorate to meet with the CAA in advance of the application being determined.

Unfortunately, there is an aggressive campaign group (SMA) which is hell-bent on seeing Manston reopened. This group is highly active on social media with a mailing list running into thousands. This doesn't mean that thousands of people support the campaign. It just means that they have been able to add people to the mailing list. Over the course of the last year, this group has repeatedly bombarded people with misinformation about the DCO application. People have been told that this is a National Infrastructure Project whereas, in truth, this decision has not been made. People have been led to believe that the DCO is bound to succeed and that the Planning Inspectorate is helping to ensure that the application succeeds. The Planning Inspectorate has held regular meetings with the potential applicant but has not met with the local council or with any of the many thousands of people who would be badly affected by this ridiculous proposal. I trust that nothing is further from the truth and that the Planning Inspectorate has confined itself to assisting RSP with the mechanics of the application. Nevertheless, an impression has been created that the Planning Inspectorate is not acting impartially. If the Planning Inspectorate goes ahead and meets with the CAA, this will do nothing to allay fears that this DCO application is a done deal and that the Planning Inspectorate has not acted as an independent arbiter.
I respond to your substantive points under the following three headings.

Process evaluation workshop (heading)

Where the need arises, the Planning Inspectorate can offer a facilitation role by participating in round table meetings for example, between an Applicant, local authority and statutory consultees. The purpose of such meetings is explained in our Pre-application Prospectus: [attachment 1]

A process evaluation workshop was held on 12 June 2017. It was attended by the Planning Inspectorate, the Civil Aviation Authority (a statutory consultee) and RiverOak Strategic Partners (RSP, the Applicant). The note of the meeting is being prepared and will be published to the Planning Inspectorate’s website in due course.

By way of summary, the meeting included:

• A presentation by RSP on its Pre-application programme;
• Consideration of how the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) process and Airspace Change Process (ACP) interact;
• Consideration of RSP’s preferred timescale in respect of initiation of the ACP; and
• Consideration of complexities associated with assessing noise impacts between Environmental Impact Assessment and the requirements of the ACP.

No project-specific advice was issued by the Planning Inspectorate in the course of the meeting.

The PA2008 process and the ACP (heading)

Inevitably the PA2008 process and the ACP will be concerned with similar issues, but procedurally the processes are entirely distinct. The Planning Inspectorate will administer and examine any forthcoming land-use application which includes a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP), and the CAA will administer and consider any forthcoming application to redesign airspace. In respect of the latter, it is not for the Planning Inspectorate to decide when the CAA will be prepared to accept and consider an application for airspace change, or to consider any perquisites for any such application. This is a matter for the CAA to provide advice about. Therefore if you have any further queries about the ACP you should contact the CAA directly using the appropriate channels.

The fundamental values of the Planning Inspectorate are its commitment to openness, transparency and impartiality in the conduct of its business. Absolutely no assurances have been provided to the CAA or RSP in respect of the outcome of any application for development consent. Indeed, you are correct that a decision will not be made about whether the proposed development includes an NSIP until such time as an application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate and the suite of statutory Acceptance tests are applied.

Pre-application meetings with RSP (heading)

In respect of the Planning Inspectorate’s meetings with RSP, the advice issued at each of them has been recorded and published to our website in line with the requirements of the PA2008.

There are various benefits to the Planning Inspectorate to be kept up to date with an applicant’s Pre-application programme, not least in respect of our own resourcing, and regular meetings are helpful to this end. Notwithstanding this, the Planning Inspectorate is responsive to meetings requested by any of the PA2008’s stakeholders; including outreach events in local communities. The holding of any such meetings or events would be considered by the Planning Inspectorate wherever it thought there would be value in the meeting or event taking place, and where the meeting or event was proposed to be held at an appropriate time in the PA2008 process. As you are aware, there are also other channels through which anybody can request and receive procedural advice from the Planning Inspectorate, including by phone; email; or letter.

04 July 2017
Peter Binding
Manston Airport
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached meeting note

04 July 2017
EDF Energy – Carly Vince
West Burton C power station
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see the attached meeting note

04 July 2017
Savills - Chris Potts
The London Resort
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Mr Kirkaldie expressed concerns in respect of the Planning Inspectorate's handling of three planning appeals at the site of the former Manston Airport in conjunction with RiverOak Strategic Partner's emerging application for development consent.
The planning appeal process under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (TCPA) is different to the decision-making process for Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects under the separate Planning Act 2008 (PA2008). The handling of these processes is distinct.

The Public Inquiry into the four planning appeals at the site of the former Manston Airport sat in March 2017, the Inquiry has concluded and the Inspector is writing the decision on these appeals. Having consulted with colleagues, I understand that the decision in respect of these appeals is expected to be issued soon.

The PA2008 process places specific duties on prospective NSIP applicants in respect of how they must consult with statutory consultees (s42 PA2008) and local communities (s47 PA2008) at the Pre-application stage, that is, before an application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate. In the Pre-application stage, it is entirely for the applicant to decide when they carry out their statutory consultation exercises. We understand that RiverOak Strategic Partners Ltd (RSP) opened its statutory consultation period for its development proposals on 12 June 2017. The consultation period will close on 23 July 2017, having run for 42 days.

I can assure you that the Planning Inspectorate has no influence as to the timing of RSP’s consultation. I can also assure you that there is no question of the Inspectorate having any regard to the prospective applicant’s statutory consultation in respect of the timing of the determination of the four planning appeals. Decisions will be issued when the Inspector is ready to issue them.

If an application for development consent is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate by RSP it will be subject to rigorous testing in the 28-day Acceptance period before a decision is made about whether it is of a satisfactory standard to be examined. These tests include detailed scrutiny as to whether the applicant has satisfied its consultation duties under s42 and s47 of the PA2008, referred to above.

All of the legislation and statutory guidance that governs the PA2008 process is accessible on the Planning Inspectorate’s website, together with our own suite of non-statutory advice notes: [attachment 1]

30 June 2017
Malcolm Kirkaldie
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
1. Is the submission of one WFD Compliance Assessment to cover the DCO, environmental permit and marine licence applications acceptable to PINS?

2. If a case is to be made under Article 4(7) of the WFD, can the preparation of the Article 4(7) case can made post-submission?

3. If the WFD Compliance Assessment concludes that an Article 4.7 case will need to be made, please could you advise what the regulatory relationship is between NRW and PINS? Who will the ‘competent authority’ preparing the case for the DCO?

4. When will the WFD guidance note is likely to be published?
1. The Secretary of State (SoS) is the decision maker for determining any DCO application and as such would be the appropriate authority in respect of the WFD. The SoS has an obligation to ensure that the requirements of the WFD are met and Applicant’s need to provide suitable information to support the appropriate authority in meeting this requirement. If it is possible to do this through the submission of a single WFD compliance assessment then there is no obvious reason to prevent this from taking place. However, as with all other application documents, it will be important that the document is clear in describing the likely significant effects applicable to each consent sought. This is particularly important as the assessment undertaken by relevant appropriate authorities needs to be certain where necessary mitigation is required and how this will be appropriately secured.

2. The Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009 (as amended), require Applicants to submit ‘where applicable, a plan with accompanying information identifying… water bodies in a river basin management plan…together with an assessment of any effects on such sites, features, habitats or bodies likely to be caused by the proposed development’. There is therefore no specific requirement for an Applicant to submit supporting information to an Article 4(7) derogation with an application. However, the Planning Inspectorate is aware that a derogation in accordance with Article 4.7 requires significant and often complex evidence to be made available and assessed. The Planning Inspectorate considers that it is critical that the potential requirement for Article 4.7 derogation is considered as early as possible in the pre-application stage of the PA2008 process. Applicants should engage early with the appropriate agencies for WFD, NRW in respect of Wylfa. NRW should be able to provide advice on the necessary information that is required to inform the Article 4.7 derogation tests. The Inspectorate also strongly encourages Applicants to seek the comments of the appropriate agencies on draft documents where Article 4.7 tests are to be engaged during the pre-application process.

3. NRW is a statutory consultee under the DCO process and an appropriate agency in respect of WFD, they will no doubt provide their expert opinion to an examining authority during an examination. The examining authority will make a recommendation and it is ultimately for the SoS to make the decision on whether to grant development consent.

4. The advice note has been published today at the following link [attachment 1].

29 June 2017
(Atkins, on behalf of Horizon Nuclear Power) - Stuart Smith
Wylfa Newydd Nuclear Power Station
Enquiry received via email
Mrs Swandale submitted a suite of photographs in support of her 31 May 2017 submission.
Because your submission was received after the statutory six month deadline of 2 June 2017, the Examining Authority (ExA) will be unable to consider it as part of his recommendation to the Secretary of State for Transport (SoST).

However, your submission will be forwarded to the SoST alongside the ExA’s recommendation report on or before 2 September 2017. It will be for the SoST to decide whether to consider the content of your submission in making his final decision.

28 June 2017
Sharon Swandale
M20 Junction 10A
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Meeting regarding proposed non-material change application
Please see attached meeting note

28 June 2017
EDF Energy - Carly Vince
Hinkley Point C New Nuclear Power Station
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update Meeting
Overview of project, consultation and EIA

27 June 2017
Highways England
A428 Black Cat to Caxton Gibbet Road Improvement scheme
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting.
See attached meeting note.

26 June 2017
Heathrow Airport Ltd - anon.
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting.
See attached meeting note.

This meeting note was originally published (and remains published) on the general register of advice: [attachment 1]

26 June 2017
Heathrow Airport Ltd - anon.
Expansion of Heathrow Airport (Third Runway)
response has attachments
The Planning Inspectorate met with the developer for the Hinckley National Rail Freight Interchange proposal on 26 June 2017
Please see note of the meeting below

26 June 2017
Framptons and db symmetry - anon.
Hinckley National Rail Freight Interchange
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The Health and Safety Executive has received a concern regarding the design of Swansea Bay Tidal Lagoon’s impounding wall, specifically it’s rock armour/concrete composition. I am the Construction Inspector who is dealing with the matter.

I would be grateful if you could provide me with a steer as to where in the planning process design issues such as the efficacy, and stability of the lagoon wall structure would be considered.

This will enable me to contact the relevant persons to discuss this matter further.
Statutory parties including the Health and Safety Executive were consulted amongst others, before the application was submitted to the Planning Inspectorate and given the opportunity to influence the design and the many other aspects of the project.

During the pre-examination stage of the process the opportunity was provided for anyone who wished to register by way of making a Relevant Representation to put their case on the Tidal Lagoon Swansea Bay application. These representations assisted the Examining Authority in identifying the Principal Issues to be examined. Following a six month examination of the Tidal Lagoon Swansea Bay project which concluded on 10 December 2014, a recommendation was submitted to the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change. The Secretary of State made the decision to grant the Development Consent Order on 9 June 2015.

Design issues would have been considered by the Applicant and evidence supplied in the application documents, which would have subsequently been examined by the Examining Authority during the examination stage of the process. I have included for your information a link to the Recommendation Report and a link to the Development Consent Order which you may find useful:

Recommendation Report
[attachment 1]

Development Consent Order
[attachment 2]

All application documents; including the Design and Access Statement and Environmental Statement which may be of interest and documents submitted by interested parties and statutory parties during examination are published on the project specific webpage under the ‘Documents’ tab and can be found at the following link:
[attachment 3]

With regards to the detail you require you may wish to consider contacting Natural Resources Wales as they would be the licensing authority. The certified documents which may also be of interest can be inspected free of charge at the offices of the City and County of Swansea Council, Civic Centre, Oystermouth Road, Swansea SA1 3SN.

23 June 2017
Health and Safety Executive - Phil Nicolle
Tidal Lagoon Swansea Bay
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached meeting note

22 June 2017
Horizon Nuclear Power - anon.
Wylfa Newydd Nuclear Power Station
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
What steps will the Planning Inspectorate take to ensure there is a proper and unencumbered consultation?
Following a suite of non-statutory consultation events held in 2016, the Planning Inspectorate issued the following advice to the Applicant:
[attachment 1]

This advice was issued by the Inspectorate proactively, and was in part driven by communicated concerns analogous to those set out in your email.

All applications for development consent must be accompanied by a ‘Consultation Report’. The Consultation Report is prepared under section 37 of the Planning Act 2008 (the PA2008) and must give details of:

a) what has been done in compliance with sections 42, 47 and 48 of the PA2008 in relation to a proposed application that has become the application;
b) any relevant responses; and
c) the account taken of any relevant responses.

In the Acceptance period (ie the 28 days following the formal submission of an application) the Planning Inspectorate will scrutinise all of the application documents, including the evidence provided in the Consultation Report, applying the statutory tests set out in s55 of the PA2008.

By the end of the Acceptance period the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) must decide, in accordance with the tests in s55 of the PA2008, whether or not to accept an application for examination. In reaching this decision, s55(4) makes explicit that the Planning Inspectorate must have regard to the Consultation Report and any adequacy of consultation representations made by local authority consultees.

21 June 2017
Andrew Hollins
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
I do understand that every situation is unique and the appointed Planning Inspector has to use his own judgement in making his recommendations to the Secretary of State. Section 5.184 of the NPSNN states that consideration needs to be given to the use, character, attractiveness and convenience of the right of way. To a lay person this would appear to have very similar meaning to the wording in the 1980 Highways Act. in that a diverted path should not be substantially less convenient to the public [in terms of being less scenic and less convenient in terms of distance and accessibility].

My question is - am I missing something or would the above considerations be the things that a Planning Inspector would take into account when making a recommendation?
An appointed Examining Authority would be required to have regard to the content of the National Policy Statement for National Networks (NPSNN) in making its recommendations to the Secretary of State (eg the mitigation considerations in paras 5.184 and 5.185). Moreover, the Secretary of State must make its decision in accordance with the NPSNN.

21 June 2017
Brian Sumpton
General
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
In respect of his experience at a recent consultation event, Mr de Pulford expressed concern that the Applicant "could not answer basic questions about the impact of their development on local residents".
The Applicant’s Preliminary Environment Impact Report (PEIR) has been published to its website: [attachment 1] The PEIR presents the preliminary findings of the Environmental Impact Assessment being undertaken for the proposed development. In the context of your enquiry, Chapter 3 of the PEIR describes the proposed development and makes reference to night flights. Chapter 11 deals with landscape and visual impacts.

Applicants can assess the likely significant impacts of a proposed development using the ‘Rochdale Envelope’ (RE) approach; this is used to assess a likely or reasonable ‘worst case scenario’. This approach is consistent with the objective of the EIA Directive, and the Planning Inspectorate acknowledges the Rochdale approach is a way of dealing with an application comprising EIA development where details of a project have not been resolved at the time when an application is submitted. The Planning Inspectorate’s Advice note 9 explains how Applicants can use the Rochdale approach where a degree of flexibility is stated to be required within the consent sought: [attachment 2]

In the context of your concerns therefore, the Planning Inspectorate would anticipate that during statutory consultation at the Pre-application stage of the process an Applicant may be cautious about giving, or unable to give, detailed and precise advice in respect of the likely impacts on a specific receptor(s).

If an application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, and if that application is found to be of a satisfactory standard to be examined, you will have the opportunity to register your interest in the Examination and make representations to the appointed Examining Authority about the merits of the proposed development. Details about how to engage with an Examination and have your say, at the appropriate time, are set out in the suite of Advice notes forming the Planning Inspectorate’s Advice note 8: [attachment 3]

In the meantime if you wish to make any comments about the Applicant’s Pre-application consultation exercise please do so to the relevant local authority, in this case Thanet District Council; and to the Applicant itself.

21 June 2017
Mark de Pulford
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Highways England submitted a draft Consultation Report and draft Planning Statement for comment
Please see the attached feedback summaries

21 June 2017
Highways England - Helen Apps
A19 / A184 Testos Junction Improvement
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached meeting note

21 June 2017
DONG Energy - Stuart Livesey
Hornsea Project Three Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Meeting to discuss implications for Heathrow Immigration Removal Centre.
See attached meeting note.

21 June 2017
The Home Office - anon.
Expansion of Heathrow Airport (Third Runway)
Enquiry received via email
I am a member of the community affected by the onshore part of this project. I am involved in a local group which has serious concerns about the project and in particular about the informal consultation process now underway.
If you have concerns about the consultation I would advise, in the first instance, you speak to your local council. I understand that they will shortly/ are currently reviewing the draft Statement of Community Consultation which sets out how the applicant intends to undertake their statutory consultation. Any concerns you may have may then be fed back, via your local council, to the applicant.

20 June 2017
Katie Taylor
Norfolk Vanguard
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Pins Meeting with Highways England relating to A12 Chelmsford to A120
See attached meeting note

20 June 2017
Highways England - anon.
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Inception meeting with Highways England for the A12 Chelmsford to A120 scheme.
See attached meeting note.

20 June 2017
Highways England - anon.
A12 Chelmsford to A120 Widening Scheme
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached meeting note and Applicant's presentation

15 June 2017
D S Smith
Kemsley Paper Mill (K4) CHP Plant
Enquiry received via email
As I understand the process, in order for a NSIP to proceed, a DCO application must be made to the Planning Inspectorate.

What if a relatively small infrastructure project (a railway re-opening) fails to meet all of the legal criteria for being classed as a NSIP?

Can a DCO application for a non-NSIP infrastructure project still be submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, later to be signed by the Secretary of State (or delegate)?

Or must a non-NSIP infrastructure project use some other process, such as a TWAct Order?
Development consent (ie consent in the form of a Development Consent Order) is required for development to the extent that the development is or forms part of a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP). NSIPs are defined in ss14 through s30A of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended) (the PA2008).

Section 35 of the PA2008 though states that the Secretary of State may give a direction for development to be treated as development for which development consent is required. A ‘s35 direction’ is the only mechanism through which development which is not an NSIP (or part of an NSIP) can be caused to require development consent.

14 June 2017
Dave Chillistone
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Inception Meeting to discuss the A30 Chiverton to Carland Cross scheme
Please see the attached meeting note

14 June 2017
Highways England - Josh Hodder
A30 Chiverton to Carland Cross Scheme
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached meeting note

13 June 2017
Vattenfall - Helen Jameson
Thanet Extension Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see the attached meeting note

13 June 2017
Highways England - Helen Apps
A19 / A184 Testos Junction Improvement
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update meeting
Please see the attached meeting note and annex

13 June 2017
Ashfield Land - David Diggle
Rail Central (Strategic Rail Freight Interchange)
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Process evaluation presentation by RiverOak Strategic Partners.
See attached meeting note.

12 June 2017
anon.
Manston Airport
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
See attached meeting note

07 June 2017
Sembcorp Utilities (UK) Limited - anon.
Tees CCPP
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached meeting note

07 June 2017
Horizon Nuclear Power
Wylfa Newydd Nuclear Power Station
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Could you please help clarify the legal position regarding proposed diversions to public rights of way.

The Highways Act 1980 section 119 suggests that the SoS can not confirm a diversion order if the proposed diversion is substantially less convenient to the public.

The PINS Advice note no.9 confirms the above and gives some definition of the word 'convenient'. eg the length of the diversion, accessibility and scenic value.

However when looking at the Planning Act 2008 section 136 says the decision maker may grant a development consent order if he is satisfied that an alternative right of way has been or will be provided. In this case no conditions regarding 'convenience' are attached.

My question is in the case of a DCO application under the NSIP process do the requirements of the Highways Act still apply?
The Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) establishes a distinct regime for decision-making in respect of Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIPs). Provisions of the Highways Act 1980 do not generally apply to an NSIP development unless expressly caused to do so in the relevant Development Consent Order.

The suite of National Policy Statements have primacy in the decision-making process under the PA2008 and these establish the Secretary of State’s considerations in respect of mitigation where public rights of way would be affected by a proposed development (see for example para 5.184 and 5.185 of the National Policy Statement for National Networks, available here: [attachment 1].

06 June 2017
Brian Sumpton
General
response has attachments
It has come to my notice that the deadline for Consultation Bodies to respond to the above is 6th June.

What constitutes a Consultation Body?

We are a new action group set up to campaign against cable relay stations in unspoilt countryside. Since Vattenfall’s public consultation so far has been flawed, in terms of reach and transparency, we are playing ‘catch up’ with the planning process. It is not yet clear how we can make our voice be properly heard and I’m not sure whether this imminent deadline should have applied to us.

Please could you advise whether we should be consulting with you and if so on what basis?
A consultation body (‘consultation body’) is defined under The Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2009 (as amended) as:

• a body prescribed under s.42(a) and listed in column 1 of the table set out in Schedule 1 of the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedures) Regulations 2009 (‘the APFP Regulations’) as amended, where the circumstances set out in column 2 are satisfied in respect of that body
• each authority that is within s.43 (‘local authorities’); 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’s interpretation of this is explained in our Advice note three and its associated annexe which is available at the following link: [attachment 1]

The action group you describe below would not be considered by the Planning Inspectorate to be a consultation body for the purposes of scoping. At the pre-application stage, we would therefore encourage you to contact the developer directly should you have any comments to make on the proposed development. Information on how you can be involved in the Planning Act 2008 process is contained within our Advice note 8 series which is also available at the link above.

05 June 2017
Beverley Wigg
Norfolk Boreas
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
It has come to my notice that the deadline for Consultation Bodies to respond to the above is 6th June.

What constitutes a Consultation Body?

We are a new action group set up to campaign against cable relay stations in unspoilt countryside. Since Vattenfall’s public consultation so far has been flawed, in terms of reach and transparency, we are playing ‘catch up’ with the planning process. It is not yet clear how we can make our voice be properly heard and I’m not sure whether this imminent deadline should have applied to us.

Please could you advise whether we should be consulting with you and if so on what basis?
A consultation body (‘consultation body’) is defined under The Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2009 (as amended) as:

• a body prescribed under s.42(a) and listed in column 1 of the table set out in Schedule 1 of the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedures) Regulations 2009 (‘the APFP Regulations’) as amended, where the circumstances set out in column 2 are satisfied in respect of that body
• each authority that is within s.43 (‘local authorities’); 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’s interpretation of this is explained in our Advice note three and its associated annexe which is available at the following link: [attachment 1]

The action group you describe below would not be considered by the Planning Inspectorate to be a consultation body for the purposes of scoping. At the pre-application stage, we would therefore encourage you to contact the developer directly should you have any comments to make on the proposed development. Information on how you can be involved in the Planning Act 2008 process is contained within our Advice note 8 series which is also available at the link above.

05 June 2017
Beverley Wigg
Norfolk Vanguard
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
SMAa have compared the final version of the RiverOak SoCC (May 2017) with the earlier draft version (Feb 2017), and noted where some changes have occurred, with particular reference to the responses by Thanet District Council and the No Night Flights group. Please see attached.
It is not within the remit of the Planning Inspectorate to consider submissions of this type at the Pre-application stage the process.

Please make any comments about the Applicant’s Pre-application consultation duties to the relevant local authority.

01 June 2017
Save Manston Airport Association - Dr Beau Webber
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Inception meeting
Please see attached meeting note.

25 May 2017
RWE - Matthew Trigg
General
response has attachments
Pins Teleconference with Isle of Anglesey County Council
See attached meeting note

24 May 2017
Isle of Anglesey County Council - anon.
North Wales Connection
response has attachments
Pins Teleconference with Isle of Anglesey County Council
See attached meeting note

24 May 2017
Isle of Anglesey County Council - anon.
Wylfa Newydd Nuclear Power Station
Enquiry received via email
I would like to know whether any DCO has been subject to longer examination/determination timescales than those outlined in the Planning Act 2008 (i.e. 6 months for examination, 3 months for the panel to write their report, and 3 months for the SoS to make their decision)?
For the 65 applications decided to date, the statutory time-limit for examination (6 months) and reporting (3 months) has not been exceeded.

In a very limited number of cases, and for important and justified reasons, the Secretary of State has taken longer than 3 months to make his/ her decision.

23 May 2017
David Hoare
General
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Can you please explain how RiverOak Strategic Partners Ltd will ensure that, during the formal consultation period, the public's expressed views will be properly recognised, recorded and taken into account? We need assurance that the public interest is safeguarded.
All applications for development consent must be accompanied by a ‘Consultation Report’. The Consultation Report is prepared under section 37 of the Planning Act 2008 (the PA2008) and must give details of:

a) what has been done in compliance with sections 42, 47 and 48 of the PA2008 in relation to a proposed application that has become the application,
b) any relevant responses, and
c) the account taken of any relevant responses.

In the Acceptance period (ie the 28 days following the formal submission of an application) the Planning Inspectorate will scrutinise all of the application documents, including the evidence provided in the Consultation Report, applying the statutory tests set out in s55 of the PA2008.

By the end of the Acceptance period the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) must decide, in accordance with the tests in s55 of the PA2008, whether or not to accept an application for examination. In reaching this decision, s55(4) makes explicit that the Planning Inspectorate must have regard to the Consultation Report and any adequacy of consultation representations made by local authority consultees.

The Department for Communities and Local Government has published guidance about the Pre-application process. Pages 5 through 20 of this document deal with the Pre-application consultation process and should help to contextualise the tests described above: [attachment 1]

This Guidance is statutory and the Planning Inspectorate must therefore in making its Acceptance decision have regard to the extent to which an applicant has followed its content.

The Planning Inspectorate’s Advice Note 14, which sets out the expected format and content of Consultation Reports, may also be of interest to you: [attachment 2]

23 May 2017
Simon Crow
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I would like to speak to someone regarding the recent changes (March 2017) to the Planning Act 2008 to allow 500 houses to be included within a DCO application. I am keen to understand who or what prompted this change and what organisations have been involved in such a policy change. It is a concerning turn of events for those communities already facing extreme disruption so I would like to understand more about the logic behind it.
The Planning Inspectorate is impartial and does not comment on Government policy.

Our parent ministerial department, and owner of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) regime, is the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG). DCLG may be able to assist with your enquiry, and details about how to contact the department are available on its website here: [attachment 1]

For information, I am providing a link to DCLG’s guidance which has been published in conjunction to the changes to section 160 of the PA2008: [attachment 2]

22 May 2017
Mark Redding
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Site visit 22 May 2017 meeting note
Please see attached meeting note

22 May 2017
EDF Energy - Carly Vince
West Burton C power station
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached meeting note

19 May 2017
Savills for London Resort Company Holdings - Chris Potts
The London Resort
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached meeting note

19 May 2017
Bond Dickinson LLP - Richard Guyatt
Portishead Branch Line - MetroWest Phase 1
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached meeting note.

18 May 2017
DONG Energy - Stuart Livesey
Hornsea Project Three Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached meeting note

17 May 2017
Vattenfall - anon.
Norfolk Vanguard
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Meeting to discuss project update and the Secretary of State's scoping opinion
See attached

17 May 2017
Port of Tilbury London Ltd
Tilbury2
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
To discuss the process for applying for an application under section 53 of the Planning Act to access land for the purposes of environmental surveys and to provide a brief project update for the A303 Amesbury to Berwick Down application.
Please see the attached meeting note

17 May 2017
Highways England - Will Spencer
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting.
See attached meeting note.

12 May 2017
RiverOak Strategic Partners - anon.
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see the attached meeting note

12 May 2017
National Grid - Eloise Frank
North Wales Connection
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project inception meeting
Please see attached meeting note

12 May 2017
Highways England - Tim Wright
Lower Thames Crossing
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Draft document review meeting
Please see attached meeting note and the draft application documents feedback summary.

11 May 2017
Highways England - Helen Apps
A19 / A184 Testos Junction Improvement
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached meeting note

10 May 2017
Sembcorp Utilities (UK) Limited - Scott Taylor
Tees CCPP
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Inception meeting
Please see attached meeting note

10 May 2017
Highways England - Jonathan Pizzey
M42 Junction 6 Improvement
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I would like to register my disgust in this proposal. There is already a site near by which is not fully developed at Daventry so what is the logic for this proposal. This is not an environmentally friendly propsAl and does not fit with the government's proposal to reduce emissions. At the moment the uk fails to meet EU directives reference clean air and this proposal will not help this situation. This proposal does not make any sense at any level. The government want decisions to be made at a local level yet here this is denied? This gives me no confidence in any government or developer who says they can justify this.
Currently this proposed development is in the Pre-Application stage of the planning process for nationally significant infrastructure projects (NSIPs); during this stage the developer will be preparing their application documents to be submitted to us, as well as consulting with the local community on their proposals. At this stage the application has not been finalised, and as such we advise for any concerns related to the project to be submitted directly to the applicant, in order for your views to inform the application before it is finalised and submitted to us for consideration.

[email protected]
Telephone: 0845 543 8967 Monday to Friday, 9am to 5.30pm (calls are charged at local rates)
Post: FREEPOST Rail Central
Website: www.railcentral.com

The developer’s second round of Pre-Application consultation is due to take place in September 2017, the details of which are set out in the developer’s recently issued Community Newsletter which I have attached for your information along with the following Advice Notes which provide further information on the planning process for NSIPs:

Advice Note 8.0 Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public
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
Advice Note 2 The role of local authorities in the development consent process

Our full suite of Advice Notes and legislation/guidance related to NSIPs can be found at the following link:

[attachment 1]


If you have any issues with the consultation carried out by the developer, we would advise you to highlight these concerns to the relevant local authority, as they will be required to submit an Adequacy of Consultation report to us, once the application for this project has been submitted. We will have regard to any comments received from the relevant host or neighbouring authorities when making the decision whether or not to accept the application for Examination.


If the application is submitted and subsequently accepted for examination, you will also have the opportunity to register to participate in that examination and make submissions on whether or not the form of the proposal that is described in the application is acceptable, and whether development consent should be granted. You can register for automatic email updates on the progress of this project on our webpage:

[attachment 2]

09 May 2017
N Henry
Rail Central (Strategic Rail Freight Interchange)
Enquiry received via email
Query regarding the EIA regulations applicable to the project.
Please note that the Planning Inspectorate does not provide legal advice; it is the applicant’s responsibility to seek legal opinions from their own advisers. However I can confirm that the Planning Inspectorate will apply the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2009 to nationally significant infrastructure projects which have requested a scoping opinion in relation to those projects before the 2017 regulations come into force.

09 May 2017
London Resort Holdings - Karl Cradick
The London Resort
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Introduction to six Highways England schemes in the north of England.
See attached meeting note.

09 May 2017
anon.
General
Enquiry received via email
What are your organisations concerns if you were to receive a digital, web based, versus a paper based Environmental Statement? Do you think your organisation would accept a digital ES (assuming it contains the correct information you would expect from an ES)? Do you foresee any legal or regulatory reasons why your organisation would not accept a digital Environmental Statement?
Dear Rufus, Many thanks for your patience in waiting for our response to the questions you asked in your email 21st April 2017. My assumption based on earlier correspondence is that the questions below relate primarily to applications prepared in respect of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended). For ease of reading I have duplicated your questions (in blue text) and then follow with my response. I hope these points will provide you with the information that you require. What are your organisations concerns if you were to receive a digital, web based, versus a paper based Environmental Statement? The Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2009 (2009 EIA Regulations) includes a definition of Environmental Statement (ES) and states that: “environmental statement” means a statement— (a) that includes such of the information referred to in Part 1 of Schedule 4 as is reasonably required to assess the environmental effects of the development and of any associated development and which the applicant can, having regard in particular to current knowledge and methods of assessment, reasonably be required to compile; but (b) that includes at least the information referred to in Part 2 of Schedule 4; Accordingly it is apparent that the 2009 EIA Regulations do not explicitly define the ES as being (or needing to be) a paper based document. However, the 2009 EIA Regulations do frequently refer to ‘copies’ in respect of the ES, which may imply that the Regulations envisage the ES is a physical entity rather than a digital only document. Nonetheless this is not explicitly stated in the 2009 EIA Regulations. The Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) 2017 Regulations (2017 EIA Regulations) which have now been made and will come into force on 16th May 2017 includes provision requiring that the ES is available on a website maintained by or on behalf of the Secretary of State. As with the existing 2009 EIA Regulations the 2017 EIA Regulations do not explicitly state that the ES should be a paper based document. The Infrastructure Planning (Applications Prescribed Forms and Procedures) Regulations 2009 (as amended) state that if requested by the Planning Inspectorate the Applicant should provide three paper copies of the application form and other supporting documents and plans. This would include paper copies of the ES as a supporting document. Further to this the Planning Inspectorate Advice Note 6: Preparation and submission of application documents includes advice that states: The applicant is required to submit its full application in both electronic and hard copy format. Whilst the Planning Inspectorate encourages electronic working, the submission of hard copy documents and plans is required in order to ensure the smooth running of the examination process. Applicants should agree with the case manager how many paper and electronic copies of the application should be submitted as this depends on the scale and complexity of the project. Usually two paper copies of the full application submission are required along with three electronic (eg DVD, memory stick) copies. Following the acceptance of an application, further paper and/or electronic copies of the application may be requested depending on the number of Inspectors, assessors or legal advisors that are appointed to the case. The applicant may also be requested to provide further copies of the entire application or copies of particular individual documents at any point throughout the pre-examination and examination stages. Therefore, it is clear that at this present time the Planning Inspectorate considers that paper copies of the application documents are necessary for the smooth running of the examination process. Do you think your organisation would accept a digital ES (assuming it contains the correct information you would expect from an ES)? As the advice states above the submission of the application should include electronic versions of the application documents (eg DVD or memory stick). Do you foresee any legal or regulatory reasons why your organisation would not accept a digital Environmental Statement? The Planning Inspectorate is unable to provide legal advice and so is unable to answer this question comprehensively; however, the advice contained above provides examples of the legislative requirements regarding the preparation of an application including any ES necessary. The current advice prepared by the Planning Inspectorate requires that paper copies of the application documents are necessary for the smooth running of the examination process.

05 May 2017
Royal Haskoning DHV - Rufus Howard
General
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The Hornsea Project Three Offshore Wind Farm is currently at the pre-application stage, the first of the six stages of the national infrastructure planning process and having read Advice notes 8.1 – 8.5 on your website I am fully aware that at the pre-application stage concerns of local residents should be addressed to the developer DONG Energy. This I have done by making representations under the Phase 1.b Community Consultation to DONG Energy as a 26 page report entitled: ‘HORNSEA PROJECT THREE OFFSHORE WIND FARM, REPORT REGARDING POTENTIAL CANDIDATE SITE FOR HVAC BOOSTER STATION AT POND HILLS, NORFOLK – OPTION A’, dated March 2017.

I understand that after the Planning Inspectorate has accepted the application I will be able to register as an interested party at the pre-examination stage and make representations to you at the examination stage. This I intend to do when I will forward you a copy of the above report.

Advice note 8.1 advises “it is not normally possible for substantial changes to be made to an application once it has been submitted. So, if you want to influence the project, you should take part in the developer’s pre-application consultation process”.

It is on the basis of this advice that I reproduce below for your attention an extract from my report to DONG Energy regarding their site search and selection methodology for the HVAC booster station:

“18. Methodology Used to Identify Potential Sites for the HVAC Booster Station
Section 9.3 of Hornsea Project Three Offshore Wind Farm, Phase 1.b Consultation Event Overview, Spring 2017 (available at [attachment 1] ) states that the three potential sites for locating the HVAC booster station were determined by Dong Energy’s constraint mapping exercise and initial feedback from informal consultation. The lighter the segment the less constrained the area is and the more suitable it is considered to be. The heatmap for the onshore HVAC booster station (available at [attachment 2] ) shows the most and least constrained areas within the onshore HVAC booster station search based upon overlaying maps of areas of outstanding natural beauty, historic parks and gardens, listed buildings and scheduled monuments, distance to residential properties, woodland (including ancient woodland), county wildlife sites, watercourses, Ramsar/SSSIs/ SACs/SPAs.

This exercise is flawed in that it does not recognise locations of high landscape value, conservation areas, locations where visual intrusion would be unacceptable, locations where a HVAC booster station would be totally out of character with the environmental setting, locations of high tranquillity, and remote areas renowned for their beauty and special character such as Pond Hills. Identifying the least constrained areas using Dong Energy’s heat map is a desk-top study that has resulted in identifying remote rural areas, many of which may well need protecting to preserve their remote rural character, and suffers from a lack of local knowledge.”

Using Dong's search methodology would mean that no large electrical sub-station would ever be sited within towns and cities, when this is clearly not the case.

As a substantial industrial development the booster station would be alien to the proposed setting at Pond Hills and be in highly discordant contrast to its surroundings.
I note that the Triton Knoll Offshore Wind Farm development identified 29 sites for the Intermediate Electrical Compound that were shortlisted to 3 sites, and 19 sites for the new substation that were shortlisted to 4 sites. Did DONG Energy look at more than the 3 sites put forward?

Whilst I appreciate that now is not the time for me to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, given that this is such a fundamental issue, I just wish to ensure that DONG Energy’s site search and selection methodology for the location of the HVAC booster station is acceptable to the Planning Inspectorate at this stage of the process in assessing alternatives.
Please see attached letter

04 May 2017
Dr. William Brian Ankers
Hornsea Project Three Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached meeting note

04 May 2017
Scottish Power Renewables
East Anglia ONE North Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached meeting note

04 May 2017
Scottish Power Renewables
East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting and approach to the Rochdale envelope
Please see attached meeting note

03 May 2017
Horizon Nuclear Power
Wylfa Newydd Nuclear Power Station
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Inception meeting
Please see the attached meeting

03 May 2017
Cleve Hill Solar Park - Mike Brid
Cleve Hill Solar Park
Enquiry received via post
As you may be aware, the Isle of Anglesey County Council is the host authority for two NSIP applications which are both due for submission later this year. It is expected that the examinations for these applications will overlap and as a result, the impacts of these examinations on the Planning Inspectorate and the Council will need careful planning, not least in terms of resources. I hope that by raising these issues now, both examinations will run smoothly.

1) I cannot overemphasise the importance of ensuring that suitable measures are in place to encourage and allow all Interested Parties to participate fully in the examination. Welsh is the first language for residents of Anglesey and Gwynedd and many relevant representations will be submitted in Welsh. Interested Parties will also wish to participate in the Preliminary Meeting and Open Floor Hearings in their own language.

2) In order to assist you in the organisation of the Examination hearings, it would be useful to understand the Planning Inspectorate’s requirements for access etc so that we may suggest the most suitable locations.

3) The timing of the two examinations will be crucial as many of my colleagues are working on both NSIPs and responding to two Examining Authorities and, for example, differing rounds of questions at the same time, will need extremely careful forward planning in order to avoid undue pressure on Council, and presumably Inspectorate, staff.
It would be helpful to discuss these points with you as soon as possible and understand how the Inspectorate is planning to manage both examinations.
The Planning Inspectorate appreciates your concerns and I can assure you that we are making all necessary preparations to ensure that the two NSIPs can be conducted within the statutory timetable whilst keeping this manageable for all parties involved.

As you will appreciate, it is for an applicant to decide when to submit an application. The Inspectorate has, therefore, only limited influence over this key ‘trigger date’. However, setting the examination timetable including determining when to start the 6 months’ examination (within reasonable parameters set out in guidance) is within the power of the Examining Authority employed by the Planning Inspectorate. We will ensure that the Examining Authorities for both Wylfa Newydd and the North Wales Connection projects are informed by and take each other’s emerging timetables into consideration to avoid any timetable conflicts as far as possible.

To explore the above and any other relevant points more fully as you suggest in your letter, I propose a telephone conference between key personnel involved in the preparations for the two NSIPs from both our organisations. I would be grateful if you could liaise with Chris White, the infrastructure planning lead responsible for both these projects, about setting this up. His contact details are: [email protected] or telephone 0303 444 5107.

I am grateful for the support and advice you are offering to and seeking from us.

28 April 2017
Isle of Anglesey County Council - Dylan Williams
Wylfa Newydd Nuclear Power Station
Enquiry received via email
Can I ask you to ensure that [RiverOak Strategic Partners] RSP make a public statement clarifying that compensation is not dependent on completion of the land referencing survey, as the Save Manston Airport Association [SMAa] campaign group is making this case to anyone and everyone, and I am aware that many people are providing information in fear of losing their right to compensation.

Can you ask RSP to clarify the relationship between the two parties, as Beau Webber, SMAa chair, has the appearance of acting as a RiverOak spokesman. Without clarification, this further adds to the ambiguity surrounding RSP's communications and plans for Manston.

It would also be beneficial if RSP could confirm whether they have provided funding to SMAa, either directly from RSP, or via one of the Company's directors or other employee.
The Planning Inspectorate has recently issued clear advice to a number of individuals in relation to the land referencing exercise being undertaken by RiverOak Strategic Partners (RSP). This advice has been published on our website and is available for the public to inspect.

If you have not already, please make your views about the Save Manston Airport Association's (SMAa) recent statements known to RSP. It will be for RSP to decide whether making a clarificatory public statement would be an appropriate and proportionate response to the concerns raised.

I would reiterate that the Planning Inspectorate has not been informed about any relationship between the applicant, RSP, and the SMAa.

28 April 2017
Robert Bird
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Note of presentation to the Civil Aviation Authority and airlines, airport tour and project update meeting
Please see attached

27 April 2017
Heathrow Airport Ltd
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Note of presentation to the Civil Aviation Authority and airlines, airport tour and project update meeting.
See attached meeting note.

This meeting note was originally published (and remains published) on the general register of advice: [attachment 1]

27 April 2017
Heathrow Airport Ltd - anon.
Expansion of Heathrow Airport (Third Runway)
Enquiry received via email
Is “Land referencing [...] a key part of the DCO process and [...] strictly governed by statute and regulation”?
Where a Development Consent Order (DCO) would seek powers of Compulsory Acquisition and/ or Temporary Possession, sections 44, 57 and 59 of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) establish that in seeking to identify all land interests and persons who may be entitled to make a relevant claim an applicant must make diligent inquiry. Paragraph 50 of the Department for Communities and Local Government’s Planning Act 2008: Guidance on the pre-application process explains:

“It is the applicant’s responsibility to demonstrate at submission of the application that due diligence has been undertaken in identifying all land interests and applicants should make every reasonable effort to ensure that the Book of Reference (which records and categorises those land interests) is up to date at the time of submission.”

Issuing land referencing questionnaires in the format provided by RiverOak Strategic Partners is one of a number of approaches routinely applied by DCO applicants in seeking to identify all land interests and therefore satisfy the due diligence test set out in the PA2008. In consideration of this test, the land referencing process, from an applicant’s perspective, has an important role in the preparation of an application for a DCO which would seek powers of Compulsory Acquisition and/ or Temporary Possession. From the perspective of a person with an interest in the land, volunteering details about their interest(s) in land to a DCO applicant will help to ensure that their interest(s) are reflected accurately in any application, and ensure that their ability to engage in the examination of that application is not compromised.

Notwithstanding this, questionnaire recipients are not mandated to volunteer information about their interest(s) in land to a DCO applicant, if they do not wish to do so. Importantly choosing not to volunteer land interest information to a DCO applicant would have no implications for a person’s status and ability to take part in the examination of an application for a DCO, or for any future claims by a person for compensation under the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965; the Land Compensation Act 1973; and/ or s152 of the PA2008.

26 April 2017
Save Manston Airport Association - Beau Webber
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
Further to our previous correspondence regarding the proposed Manston Airport DCO, I'd like to bring to your attention a letter published in this week's Kent on Sunday.

The letter is written by Dr Beau Webber, chair of the Save Manston Airport Association, and he appears to be speaking on behalf of the DCO applicant, RiverOak Strategic Partners. He refers to current activity, apparently being carried out by Mouchel on behalf of RSP, where I understand that Mouchel are asking for detailed information on property ownership without explaining clearly why they are requesting the information. I also understand that they are inappropriately assertive in these requests.

The inappropriateness of Mouchel's actions aside, can you please clarify two things :

1. Is Dr Webber correct in his assertion that if people refuse to provide information to Mouchel's doorstep requests that they will not qualify for compensation should the DCO proceed?
2. Can you confirm whether the Save Manston Airport Association have been formally engaged by RiverOak Strategic Partners to act on their behalf?

Further information which is pertinent to item 2 is the distribution by SMAa of roughly 40,000 leaflets in the locality, with these leaflets heavily promoting RiverOak's DCO attempt. Should these communications be captured in RSP's Statement of Community Consultation, as they are directly associated with their DCO?
1. Is Dr Webber correct in his assertion that if people refuse to provide information to Mouchel's doorstep requests that they will not qualify for compensation should the DCO proceed?

By way of background, where a Development Consent Order (DCO) would seek powers of Compulsory Acquisition and/ or Temporary Possession, sections 44, 57 and 59 of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) establish that in seeking to identify all land interests and persons who may be entitled to make a relevant claim an applicant must make diligent inquiry. Paragraph 50 of the Department for Communities and Local Government’s Planning Act 2008: Guidance on the pre-application process explains:

“It is the applicant’s responsibility to demonstrate at submission of the application that due diligence has been undertaken in identifying all land interests and applicants should make every reasonable effort to ensure that the Book of Reference (which records and categorises those land interests) is up to date at the time of submission.”

Issuing land referencing questionnaires in the format provided by RiverOak Strategic Partners is one of a number of approaches routinely applied by DCO applicants in seeking to identify all land interests and therefore satisfy the due diligence test set out in the PA2008. In consideration of this test, the land referencing process, from an applicant’s perspective, has an important role in the preparation of an application for a DCO which would seek powers of Compulsory Acquisition and/ or Temporary Possession. From the perspective of a person with an interest in the land, volunteering details about their interest(s) in land to a DCO applicant will help to ensure that their interest(s) are reflected accurately in any application, and ensure that their ability to engage in the examination of that application is not compromised.

Notwithstanding this, questionnaire recipients are not mandated to volunteer information about their interest(s) in land to a DCO applicant, if they do not wish to do so. Importantly choosing not to volunteer land interest information to a DCO applicant would have no implications for a person’s status and ability to take part in the examination of an application for a DCO, or for any future claims by a person for compensation under the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965; the Land Compensation Act 1973; and/ or s152 of the PA2008.

2. Can you confirm whether the Save Manston Airport Association (SMA) have been formally engaged by RiverOak Strategic Partners (RSP) to act on their behalf?

The Planning Inspectorate has not been informed about any relationship between the DCO applicant, RSP, and the SMA.

3. Should [circa 40,000 leaflets dropped by the SMA in the locality] be captured in RSP's Statement of Community Consultation (SoCC), as they are directly associated with their DCO?

If RSP submits an application for development consent to the Planning Inspectorate, it will be required to demonstrate in the application that its Pre-application consultation with the local community (under s47 of the PA2008) has been carried out in accordance with the SoCC. If any actions by any person or group are relied upon by an applicant to demonstrate compliance with the tests in s47 of the PA2008, the Planning Inspectorate would expect for those actions to have been scheduled in the SoCC or, where they had not been, explained and justified in an appropriate location within the submitted application(ie the Consultation Report). In this context however I would reemphasise that the Planning Inspectorate has not been informed about any relationship between RSP and the SMA.

26 April 2017
Robert Bird
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
Can you tell me if the attached questionnaire is pertinent to the DCO process as RiverOak Strategic Partners are claiming they are acting on your behalf?
By way of background, where a Development Consent Order (DCO) would seek powers of Compulsory Acquisition and/ or Temporary Possession, sections 44, 57 and 59 of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) establish that in seeking to identify all land interests and persons who may be entitled to make a relevant claim an applicant must make diligent inquiry. Paragraph 50 of the Department for Communities and Local Government’s Planning Act 2008: Guidance on the pre-application process explains:

“It is the applicant’s responsibility to demonstrate at submission of the application that due diligence has been undertaken in identifying all land interests and applicants should make every reasonable effort to ensure that the Book of Reference (which records and categorises those land interests) is up to date at the time of submission.”

Issuing land referencing questionnaires in the format provided by RiverOak Strategic Partners is one of a number of approaches routinely applied by DCO applicants in seeking to identify all land interests and therefore satisfy the due diligence test set out in the PA2008.

In issuing the attached questionnaire RiverOak Strategic Partners (RSP) is not acting on behalf of the Planning Inspectorate. RSP is seeking to identify persons with an interest in the lands which would be affected by the DCO in order that it may provide the requisite information, and satisfy the due diligence tests, in any forthcoming application made to the Planning Inspectorate.

26 April 2017
Save Manston Airport Group - Keith Churcher
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached meeting note

26 April 2017
DONG Energy - Stuart Livesey
Hornsea Project Three Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via email
I hope you can assist me with the following question regarding a potential project my company is considering. The project is the design & construction of a combined heat & power (CHP) project that will primarily provide electricity & steam to an existing industrial site who will use this electricity & steam for their current process requirements. The proposed CHP plant will provide the following electricity & steam to the existing industrial site;

• ~50MWe
• ~153MWth

The proposed CHP plant will replace in its entirety a similar existing CHP plant that currently provides electricity & steam to the existing industrial site as the existing CHP plant has been in operation for ~20 years & may not meet emissions limits going forward & which is located within the industrial sites boundary. Finally, the proposed CHP plant will be built on “brownfield” land within the existing industrial sites boundary directly adjacent to the current CHP plant. I would therefore like to know the following;

I understand a threshold between local planning & NSIP consenting is 50MWe however, can you advise if the value of 50MWe is associated with power plant that exports the power to the local electricity network or grid rather than CHP plant where the majority of power generated is used by an industrial user?
The Planning Act 2008 (as amended) (‘the Act’) governs the development consent process for dealing with ‘nationally significant infrastructure projects (‘NSIPs’).

The National Policy Statements (‘NPSs’) set out national policy for NSIPs. There are six NPSs for energy infrastructure which have effect on the recommendations and decisions on applications for energy developments that fall within their scope.

Under Section 14(1)(a) of the Act the construction or extension of a generating station is defined as an NSIP. Section 15 of the Act clarifies that the construction or extension of a generating station is within section 14(1)(a) only if the generating station is or (when constructed or extended) is expected to be, amongst other things, a generating station that is in England or Wales, not an offshore generating station, and its capacity is more than 50 megawatts.

Section 31 makes clear that consent under the Act is required for development that is or forms part of an NSIP. There is no mechanism under the Act to exempt projects from the NSIP process if they meet the relevant thresholds. The Planning Act 2008 uses the term ‘generating station’, which does not distinguish between combined heat and power (‘CHP’) generating stations and other generating stations. Nonetheless, the energy NPSs EN-1 and EN-2 make clear that CHP development does fall under the NSIP regime.

In your email of 21 April you outline “The proposed CHP plant will provide the following electricity & steam to the existing industrial site [50MWe (153MWth)]… if the value of 50MWe is associated with power plant that exports the power to the local electricity network or grid rather than CHP plant where the majority of power generated is used by an industrial user?”

As noted above, the construction/extension of a generating station is an NSIP if, its capacity is more than 50 megawatts. The current practice is to use ‘total installed capacity’ as the PA2008 does not define “capacity”. The Renewable Order 2009 defines ‘total installed capacity’ in relation to a generating station as the maximum capacity at which the station could be operated for a sustained period without causing damage to it (assuming the source of power used by it to generate electricity was available to it without interruption).

As the anticipated generation of the plant is 50MWe and not above the threshold, the development would not fall under the NSIP regime.

We trust you find this information satisfactory, however if you have any further queries please do not hesitate to contact our office.

25 April 2017
Martyn Thompson
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached meeting note

25 April 2017
Tidal Lagoon Power - Alex Herbert
Tidal Lagoon Cardiff
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please find attached a copy of a letter from No Night Flights to Thanet District Council. The letter is No Night Flights’ comment on a document issued by RSP (RiverOak Strategic Partners). The RSP document is apparently RSP’s draft Statement of Community Consultation (dSoCC). We came across it by chance.

The dSoCC is inadequate in a number of ways. The main issue is that it sets out a programme of consultation activities that avoids making sure that residents under the flight path of the proposed new cargo airport would be told that the consultation exercise is happening.

The attached letter demonstrates the significant difference between the area that RSP claims might be affected by a new cargo hub and the area that residents know from past experience is affected by cargo flights going into and out of the old airport.

As PINS has regular meetings with RSP, we would be grateful if you would bring our grave concerns about RSP’s dSoCC to RSP’s attention.
By way of clarification, applicants are required by s47 of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) to consult each host local authority about the content of a draft Statement of Community Consultation (dSoCC) and must, in preparing the final statement, have regard to any responses provided.

For information, in conjunction with this consultation the Planning Inspectorate was also asked to provide comments on the content of the dSoCC. Our response is published on our website, here: [attachment 1]. To clarify, the request for the Planning Inspectorate to provide comments on the dSoCC was wholly discretionary. There are no provisions within the PA2008 which require the Planning Inspectorate to provide feedback on a dSoCC in this way, or for an applicant to have regard to the feedback that the Planning Inspectorate provides.

In publishing your request for advice, and the Planning Inspectorate’s response to it, the concerns set out in your letter Thanet District Council will be brought to the attention of RSP.

21 April 2017
No Night Flights - Ros McIntyre
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
I fully appreciate that, under under s53 of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended) (the PA2008), the Planning Inspectorate will be assessing any application against whether "... (a) the proposed applicant is considering a distinct project of real substance genuinely requiring entry onto the land." That I am not questioning.

Surely the Planning Inspectorate must also be considering the suitability and the credibility of the applicant, as well as whether it can meet the 'project of real substance' test? I would suggest that the Planning Inspectorate should be carefully assessing the suitability and credibility of any applicant, both for an S53 access application and, in this case, any possible later application for a Development Consent Order.

Given the evidence in my email of 13th April, I am suggesting that the Planning Inspectorate must scrutinize and carefully question the suitability and credibility of RiverOak Strategic Partners should you receive from it any applications for S53 access or for a Development Consent Order.
All applications for authorisation to enter land under s53 of the Planning Act 2008 (the PA2008) will be considered and decided against the statutory tests.

Any subsequent application for a Development Consent Order will be considered for acceptance against the statutory tests in s55 of the PA2008. The Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulation 2009 require applicants to submit a Funding Statement, if the proposed Development Consent Order would authorise the Compulsory Acquisition of land, indicating how the Compulsory Acquisition is proposed to be funded. Concurrently, the Department for Communities and Local Governments’ ‘Planning Act 2008: Guidance related to procedures for the compulsory acquisition of land’ states that the Funding Statement should “demonstrate that adequate funding is likely to be available to enable the Compulsory Acquisition within the statutory period following the order being made, and that the resource implications of a possible acquisition resulting from a blight notice have been taken account of.”

If an application for a Development Consent Order is accepted for examination matters of funding may be examined by the appointed Examining Authority.

21 April 2017
James Baldry
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
1. Please can PINS confirm that RiverOak Strategic Partner’s new application [for s53 authorisation] will be treated as an application by an entirely new and separate commercial entity?

2. Please can PINS clarify at what stage in proceedings the credibility or otherwise of the applicant will be assessed, and how PINS assesses whether or not it has an applicant that is in a credible and sound position to consider: “a distinct project of real substance genuinely requiring entry onto the land”?
1. The Planning Inspectorate can confirm that the new application for authorisation under s53 of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) will be decided on the basis of the information provided by the applicant, RiverOak Strategic Partners Ltd, and in the consideration of any comments made to the Planning Inspectorate by the relevant landowner.

2. The Planning Inspectorate’s Advice note 5: Rights of entry explains how decisions are made in respect of applications for authorisation to enter land under s53 of the PA2008. All of the Planning Inspectorate’s advice notes are available to view on its website, here: [attachment 1]

Section 53(1) of the PA2008 permits the Secretary of State to authorise entry for the purpose of surveying and taking levels or to facilitate compliance with the provisions in subsection 53(1A) in connection with an application for an order granting development consent, a proposed application for an order granting development consent, or an order granting development consent that includes provision authorising the compulsory acquisition of that land or of an interest in it or right over it.

If authorisation is sought in relation to a proposed application for an order granting development consent (subsection 1(b)) section 53(2) of the PA2008 states that:

(2) Authorisation may be given by the Secretary of State under subsection (1)(b) in relation to any land only if it appears to the Secretary of State that—
(a) the proposed applicant is considering a distinct project of real substance genuinely requiring entry onto the land

Any application(s) for authorisation to enter land at the former Manston Airport under s53 of the PA2008 will be considered and decided against the statutory tests set out in the legislation in consideration of the Department for Communities and Local Government’s ‘Planning Act 2008: The Infrastructure Planning (Fees) Regulations 2010 - Guidance’ (March 2017) and in accordance with the Planning Inspectorate’s advice notes.

Any subsequent application for a Development Consent Order will be considered for acceptance against the statutory tests in s55 of the PA2008. The Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulation 2009 require applicants to submit a Funding Statement, if the proposed Development Consent Order would authorise the Compulsory Acquisition of land, indicating how the Compulsory Acquisition is proposed to be funded. Concurrently, the Department for Communities and Local Governments’ ‘Planning Act 2008: Guidance related to procedures for the compulsory acquisition of land’ states that the Funding Statement should “demonstrate that adequate funding is likely to be available to enable the Compulsory Acquisition within the statutory period following the order being made, and that the resource implications of a possible acquisition resulting from a blight notice have been taken account of.”

If an application for a Development Consent Order is accepted for examination matters of funding may be examined by the appointed Examining Authority.

21 April 2017
No Night Flights - Phil Rose
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Update meeting on approach to Development Consent Order (DCO), Cumulative Effects Assessment (CEA), and Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)
See attached meeting note and presentation

21 April 2017
Horizon Nuclear Power
Wylfa Newydd Nuclear Power Station
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Please see meeting note attached
Please see meeting note attached

20 April 2017
Vattenfall
Norfolk Boreas
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
See attached meeting note

20 April 2017
Vattenfall - anon.
Thanet Extension Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
1. Would a battery storage project with a capacity of more than 50 MW be classified as an NSIP?

2. If a site already has consent for a 40MW Gas fired electricity peaking plant and either the same or a new developer wanted to develop another project of between 10MW and 40MW on a directly adjacent site, is there a potential that the 2nd application would be classed as a NSIP/DCO project (because the two projects somehow become aggregated)?
1. The Planning Inspectorate (PINS) recognises that battery storage is a new and novel form of energy infrastructure and further consideration and work is ongoing to understand the technology better and the regulatory framework it will operate in.

The Department of Business Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) issued a consultation and call for evidence regarding energy storage on 10 November 2016. The consultation closed on 12 January 2017: [attachment 1]

Paragraph 22 of the consultation document states that, "For the time being BEIS, the Scottish Government and the Welsh Government agree that a storage facility is a form of electricity generating station. This means that a storage facility with a capacity of >50MW in England and Wales will need development consent as required by sections 15 and 31 of the Planning Act 2008 or Scottish Ministers’ consent under section 36 of the Electricity Act. We believe further clarity is needed within the planning framework about how to classify and treat storage projects, given the emerging nature of the market and new technologies."

BEIS are currently reviewing the responses received from the consultation and considering how battery storage fits into the wider energy infrastructure landscape and the policy position will be clarified in due course.

2. Firstly, may I explain that PINS does not have the power to give a legally binding interpretation on whether the potential generating station proposal to which you refer (40MW Gas fired electricity peaking plant by either the same or a new developer of a generating capacity of between 10MW and 40MW on a directly adjacent site) would be classed as a NSIP/DCO project. Only the Courts can ultimately determine the interpretation of legislation, and to date there has been no case law on this point under the PA 2008 regime. It will of course be for the developer who wants to construct the generating station to decide whether or not to apply for development consent taking their own legal advice which they can rely on.
However, may I refer you to the legislation below which should help advise you.
Under section 14(1)(a) of the Planning Act, 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 clarifies that the construction or an extension of a generating station is within section 14(1)(a) only if the generating station is or (when constructed or extended) is expected to be, amongst other things, a generating station that is in England or Wales, not an offshore generating station, and its capacity is more than 50 megawatts.
It may also be helpful to look at the definition of extension as set out in section 235(1) of PA 2008 which states that it has the meaning given by section 36(9) of the Electricity Act 1989. This states that: ' “extension”, in relation to a generating station, includes the use by the person operating the station of any land (wherever situated) for a purpose directly related to the generation of electricity by that station'.
Within the context of the PA 2008, it is an offence under section 160 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.” Whether or not development consent is required does not depend on legal ownership but on whether the capacity of the generating station as constructed or extended would exceed 50 megawatts.
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 44 of PA 2008, once an application has been formally submitted.
Please note that the Inspectorate has a statutory duty under section 51 of PA2008 to record any advice given in relationship to an application or potential application and make it publicly available.

19 April 2017
Stor Power Ltd - Jenka Kaslik
General
Enquiry received via email
We understand that you have received, or are about to receive, a Section 53 application from a company called RiverOak Strategic Partners (RSP) for access to a privately owned site in the UK belonging to Stone Hill Park. It appears RSP is a newly registered company with absolutely no previous experience in airport operations, yet it is proposing to apply for a Development Consent Order (DCO) to build a huge air cargo hub in the South East of England at the former Manston airfield. Further, by its own admission, RSP is not affiliated to a similarly named company, RiverOak Investment Corporation of Stamford, USA, which company previously had discussions with yourselves for such a project. Furthermore, it now appears that 90% of RSP ownership is held by another recently formed company, M.I.O. Investments, registered in Belize. I’m sure I do not need to remind you that:

• Belize is a tax-free, secret and secure Tax Haven –
“Privacy barriers have progressively weakened in traditional tax havens such as Switzerland and Luxembourg, opening the door for countries like Belize to establish their status as the next generation of tax havens.” (1)
“To extend confidentiality for account holders, Belize places no restrictions on currency movements in and out of the country.” ….. “Belize also has no tax treaties with other governments, which have been used to weaken financial privacy protections, particularly in Europe.” (1)

• Belize is a centre for money laundering –
“There are strong indications that laundered proceeds are increasingly related to organized criminal groups involved in the trafficking of illegal narcotics, psychotropic substances, and chemical precursors. The government of Belize continues to encourage offshore financial activities that are vulnerable to money laundering and terrorist financing, including offshore banks, insurance companies, trust service providers, mutual fund companies, and international business companies,” (2)

• Belize attracts drug trafficking –
“But Belize remains a pushover for the powerful drug barons. The country does not have a radar system that can track unauthorized flights. Its military lacks helicopters, let alone other basic hardware. Belizean police don’t even have the ability to intercept cell phone communications.” (3)

• “Belize is vulnerable to money laundering due to the lack of enforcement of its laws and regulations, strong bank secrecy protections, geographic location, and weak investigatory and prosecutorial capacity. The sources of money laundering in Belize are drug trafficking, tax evasion, securities fraud, and conventional structuring schemes.” (4)
Whilst not suggesting that RSP might be involved in money laundering or drug trafficking, nonetheless the Belize connection must raise significant questions about the propriety of these arrangements.

Sources:
(1) Investopedia
(2) 2016 International Narcotics Control Strategy Report (INCSR) published by the US State Department
(3) The Washington Post
(4) United States Department of State Bureau for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs ‘International Narcotics Control Strategy Report: Volume II’

My question is:
Can the Planning Inspectorate consider this a sensible, serious and credible application for an s53 access to privately owned land in the UK, let alone, maybe later, to be considered for a Development Consent Order?
Through functions delegated by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the Planning Inspectorate is the decision-maker in respect of applications for authorisation to access private land under s53 of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended) (the PA2008).

Section 53(1) of the PA2008 permits the Secretary of State to authorise entry for the purpose of surveying and taking levels or to facilitate compliance with the provisions in subsection 53(1A) in connection with an application for an order granting development consent, a proposed application for an order granting development consent, or an order granting development consent that includes provision authorising the compulsory acquisition of that land or of an interest in it or right over it.

If authorisation is sought in relation to a proposed application for an order granting development consent (subsection 1(b)) section 53(2) of the PA2008 states that:

(2) Authorisation may be given by the Secretary of State under subsection (1)(b) in relation to any land only if it appears to the Secretary of State that—
(a) the proposed applicant is considering a distinct project of real substance genuinely requiring entry onto the land

In granting authorisation under s53 of the PA2008 on 16 December 2016 for entry onto land in connection with a proposed application for an order granting development consent for Manston Airport, the Secretary of State found that the proposed applicant was considering a distinct project of real substance genuinely requiring entry onto the land for the purposes of the s53 authorisation.

Any subsequent application(s) for authorisation to enter land at the former Manston Airport will be considered and decided against the same statutory tests as the 2016 application.

Any subsequent application for a development consent order will be considered for acceptance against the statutory tests in s55 of the PA2008.

19 April 2017
James Baldry
Manston Airport
response has attachments
Query regarding s44 notification
May I refer you to the following sections of the PA 2008 that clarify that you need to notify everyone that has an interest in the land.

Under s42(d) of the PA 2008 the Applicant has a duty to consult, ‘Each person who is within one or more categories set out in section 44’.

Under s44 there are 3 Categories of Affected persons that need to be notified. These are;

Category 1- owner, lessee, tenant, occupier
Category 2- have other legal interest in the land
Category 3- No legal interest in the land but may be affected by the construction or use of the works.

With regard to Category 3, SPEN would need to notify anyone that you have identified that would or might be able to make a claim for compensation due to the construction or use of the works. If you haven’t identified anyone then there is no one to notify however, as we have previously discussed, it would be very unusual for no Category 3 persons to be identified and you would need to justify that when submitting your application.

Please also refer back to advice we gave you at our last project meeting in January.

[attachment 1]

18 April 2017
SP Energy Networks - Steven Edwards - anon.
Reinforcement to North Shropshire Electricity Distribution Network
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Dear Sirs,

On your advice notes page: [attachment 1]

Advice note 5 on rights of entry refer to S53 of the Planning Act 2008, setting out in great detail the basis of entry and process. However we note that since this advice was last updated in 2015, the Housing and Planning Act 2016 has come into force and it appears that under S172 (etc) there are new powers of entry which are considerably different to the advice given.

Can you comment whether you intend to update the advice in note 5, or whether you feel the advice is still valid and current (ie that S172 rights of entry do not apply to a national Infrastructure project (applying for an intended DCO).

Thanks

Kind Regards

Fraser

Fraser Paskell
Senior Solicitor
For Churchgate Accountants Limited
18 Langton Place, Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk, IP33 1NE
T: 01284 701271, T (direct): 01284 718555 F: 01284 762760
W: churchgates.co.uk
Dear Mr Paskell,

Thank you for your enquiry regarding the status of Planning Inspectorate’s Advice Note 5 and the relationship between s53 of the Planning Act 2008 and s172 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016. I can confirm that the Planning Inspectorate’s Advice Note 5 has very recently been updated, but not in relation to s172 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016 to which you refer.

In the case of a prospective development consent order (DCO), the policy intention is that the power of entry in s53 of the Planning Act 2008 should be used.

Where an existing specific power of entry has not been limited in scope by Schedule 14 to the Housing and Planning Act 2016, the policy intention is for this existing power to continue to be used in the same way. We note the principle of statutory interpretation that where a general enactment covers a situation for which specific provision is made by another enactment contained in an earlier Act, it is presumed that the situation is intended to continue to be dealt with by the specific provision rather than the later general one.

Therefore, while the Neighbourhood Planning Bill amends the definition of “acquiring authority” in s172 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016 to remove the link to the definition of “compulsory purchase” in the Acquisition of Land Act 1981, in the case of a prospective DCO, the policy intention is that the more specific power in s53 of the Planning Act 2008 should remain in use.

As I am sure you will appreciate, any advice given by the Planning Inspectorate does not constitute legal advice upon which applicants (or others) can rely and we cannot provide a definitive interpretation of law.

Kind regards

David

David Price
EIA and Land Rights Manager
Major Applications and Plans
The Planning Inspectorate
Temple Quay House
Temple Quay
Bristol
BS1 6PN
Direct Line: 0303 444 5055
Helpline: 0303 444 5000
Email:[email protected]
Web: infrastructure.planninginspectorate.gov.uk (National Infrastructure Planning)
Web: www.gov.uk/government/organisations/planning-inspectorate (The Planning Inspectorate)
Twitter: @PINSgov

This communication does not constitute legal advice.
Please view our Information Charter before sending information to the Planning Inspectorate.

12 April 2017
Churchgate Accountants Limited - Fraser Paskell
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see the attached meeting note

07 April 2017
National Grid - Eloise Frank
North Wales Connection
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached meeting note

06 April 2017
Horizon Nuclear Energy - David Palmer
Wylfa Newydd Nuclear Power Station
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see the attached advise on the draft application documents

05 April 2017
Eggborough Power Limited - James Crankshaw
Eggborough CCGT
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Questions Raised by the Parish Council Coordination Group for consideration by the Planning Inspectorate
See attached response

04 April 2017
Parish Council Coordination Group - David Savage
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
The Planning Inspectorate presented to local authorities and other statutory consultees about the Planning Act 2008 process.
See attached note and presentation.

04 April 2017
Port of Tilbury London Ltd - anon.
Tilbury2
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Meeting regarding a potential NSIP project
Please see attached meeting note

03 April 2017
Statera Energy - Andrew Troup
General
Enquiry received via email
Para 5.4 of page 15 of your April 2015 Guidance Note states that the Planning Inspectorate is not responsible for compliance with any Section 53 Authorisations granted by the Secretary of State. As the party that manages the process under which parties apply for S53 Authorisation, please confirm the following:

Who is responsible for compliance?

If there is a breach of any conditions set by the Secretary of State (B4 of your guidance note) what happens to the authorisation if there is a provision in the condition that states the authorisation ceases immediately?

If where should any breaches of the conditions, which party requires to be notified to ensure that the correct action is taken?
If an authorisation is given under s53 of the Planning Act 2008 it may be exercised by the person or persons to whom it gives authority to enter land, for the purposes specified within it, subject to such person or persons complying with any conditions subject to which it is given.

If an owner or occupier of that land considered there to be a failure to comply with any such conditions or that the person or persons purporting to exercise the authority is or are not authorised to do so, then the owner or occupier would need to seek his or her own legal advice as to what action he or she may be able to take in relation to such matters. We are not able to provide you with legal advice in relation to such matters.

30 March 2017
Laurence Maccali
Manston Airport
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached note

30 March 2017
Abergelli Power Ltd - Kirstin Gardner
Abergelli Power
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached meeting ntoe

30 March 2017
Millbrook Power Ltd - Nick Johnson
Millbrook Power
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Would the Planning Inspectorate have recommended to the Secretary of State that s53 Authorisation be granted to RiverOak Investment Corporation LLP (ROIC), if it had been aware that ROIC had no continuing interest in the DCO process?

Would it have been ultra vires for the Secretary of State to have granted the s53 Authorisation if aware that the Applicant had no continuing interest in the scheme?
See attached letter.

27 March 2017
Herbert Smith Freehills - anon.
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Meeting between PINS and NRW to discuss the Wylfa Newydd Generating Station project
See attached meeting note

27 March 2017
Natural Resources Wales (NRW)
Wylfa Newydd Nuclear Power Station
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Meeting to discuss procedural aspects of the Planning Act 2008 process
Please see the attached meeting note

24 March 2017
Stop Rail Central - Mark Redding
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see the attached meeting note

23 March 2017
Four Ashes Ltd - anon.
West Midlands Interchange
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see the attached meeting note

23 March 2017
anon.
Northampton Gateway Rail Freight Interchange
response has attachments
Please see meeting note attached
Please see meeting note attached

22 March 2017
Scottish Power Renewable
East Anglia ONE North Offshore Windfarm
response has attachments
Please see attached meeting note
Please see attached meeting note

22 March 2017
Scottish Power Renewable
East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see the attached meeting note

22 March 2017
London Resort Company Holdings - Chris Potts
The London Resort
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I have recently become aware that an amendment, allowing houses to be included in a DCO application, has been made to the Planning Act 2008 via a section contained in the Housing and Planning Act 2016. (See below)

[attachment 1]

Can you please confirm whether it is still possible to include housing as part of the Manston Airport DCO application, using this amendment to the PA2008, as there has not yet been a formal application for this scheme?

If this is possible, can you please advise whether there will be any requirements for how the housing element fits into the overall project phasing, especially with regards as to whether it can be implemented in advance of the NSIP elements of the overall scheme?
A developer can amend a proposed development at any point during the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) process. The evolution/ refinement of a proposed development is a dynamic process, and the process allows for the design of a proposed development to be responsive through the stages of consultation up to the point of the formal submission of an application. However, where any change(s) would give rise to a materially different proposed development, there are certain statutory provisions which require for the description of a proposed development to be reflected accurately and consistently.

If a developer decided to include in a proposed application any related housing development as defined in s115(4B) of the PA2008, it would be required to reflect that element in its description of the proposed development. The developer would need to demonstrate that it had fulfilled its statutory Pre-application consultation requirements regarding the related housing development.

The Environmental Statement submitted with an application for development consent will report on the likely significant environmental effects arising from a proposed development, and will be informed by the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) undertaken. The scope of a developer's EIA must therefore be sufficient to encompass the breadth of development proposed. In the context of your enquiry, the Planning Inspectorate advises in its Scoping Opinions that they can only reflect the proposals as described by the developer at the point the Scoping Request is made. If the description of a proposed development changes substantially during the EIA process, prior to the submission of an application developers may wish to consider the need to request a new Scoping Opinion.

In respect of phasing, this can only be proposed by a developer within an application for development consent. The sequence for delivery of a proposed development is subject to the examination of an appointed Examining Authority. It is not a matter about which the Planning Inspectorate can provide procedural advice. It is noted that there are no specific provisions regarding the phasing of development either within the PA2008 or in associated guidance.

20 March 2017
Robert Bird
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
Query regarding alternatives
Many of the points in your email are addressed by [advice given in response of 6 February 2017], although I appreciate that you have identified certain specific pieces of information that you would like National Grid to provide. I have notified National Grid of the concerns you raised in your response.

As I explained, Applicants should provide enough information to allow members of the public to participate in their consultation activities, but are not required to provide or produce information purely because other parties have requested it to support their submissions. As previously noted, further policy on the consideration of alternatives can be found in National Policy Statement EN-1, Section 4.4.

I do not know if National Grid hold the information that you have requested, and since we have received no application as yet, I cannot say if that information will be submitted at the examination. However once an application has been made and if it is accepted for examination, it is open to you raise issues regarding this with the Examining Authority.

Before accepting an application, the Planning Act 2008 requires that the Secretary of State must be satisfied that the Applicant’s pre-application consultation has complied with the provisions in the Act and that the application is of a satisfactory standard to be examined. As part of this we will consult local authorities and consider any representations received by those authorities as to whether the applicant has complied with sections 42, 47 and 48 of the Planning Act 2008.

20 March 2017
Power Without Pylons - Graham Barron
General
Enquiry received via email
What are the rules governing applicants in DCO processes in the following specific circumstances;
· Application is at pre-application stage (Scoping Report submitted) and is currently progressing towards full submission of the application.
· The Applicant decides that it no longer wishes to pursue the application itself – this may be either as a result of (i) it no longer believing in, or wishing to fund the progress of, the DCO process itself or (ii) it having received an attractive financial offer from an unrelated party to acquire its interests in the process). It is assumed that the Applicant does not hold/own the land interests to which the DCO process relates, therefore the acquiring party is just taking over the Applicant’s interests in the DCO application process

Apologies but there are a couple of parts to my query;
• Is the application personal to the legal entity that is noted as the Applicant?
• Is the Applicant able to transfer its position or rights as Applicant to another legal entity? If so;
o are there are any provisions that restrict the ability of the Applicant to transfer freely (e.g. are transfers restricted to Group companies only, is PINS consent required, and if so what is the basis for PINS agreeing to grant consent?)
o can the new Applicant step into the shoes of the original Applicant and benefit from documentation that had previously been submitted by, and on behalf of, the original Applicant (e.g. Scoping Report)
o do authorisations granted by PINS to the Original Applicant still apply.
· If the Applicant is not able to transfer its position in the DCO process, is a new application required?
I will deal with each query in turn, however please note this email does not constitute legal advice which you or others can rely on. I would advise you to seek your own legal advice.
• During the pre-application stage of the process, the application is not personal to the legal entity that is noted as the Applicant.
• The Applicant may decide to continue with its proposed application, or not to progress it as it sees fit. It is a matter for the respective Applicant, not for the Inspectorate. However, the Inspectorate should be informed of any change of Applicant.
• The new Applicant may be able to step into the shoes of the original Applicant and benefit from documentation; such as a Scoping Report that had previously been submitted by, and on behalf of, the original Applicant. However, it depends on the stage of the process a proposed application has reached and if the proposed application is the same as the original. Documentation relating to funding etc would need to be Applicant specific.
• Authorisations granted by the Planning Inspectorate on behalf of the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to the original Applicant, would not be transferable to a new Applicant as they are Applicant, not project specific.
• The new Applicant may be able to continue with the original application, this will depend on the circumstances.

16 March 2017
Jamie Macnamara
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
See attached Meeting Note
See attached Meeting Note

15 March 2017
Indigo Power - anon.
TIGRE Project 1 (TP1)
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Update in relation to the North West Coast Connections Project
See attached meeting note

14 March 2017
National Grid
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see the attached meeting note

14 March 2017
Highways England - Hugh Coakley
General
Enquiry received via email
With regards to the s.53 access request, as the applicant was the US RiverOak entity, and 'authorised persons' are defined as the applicant and other person's authorised by the applicant, can you advise whether the permission remains extant now that the US entity no longer appear to have a connection with the DCO application.

If the permission does remain in force, presumably any person wishing to access the site under the permission will need to be formally authorised by the US RiverOak entity rather than the UK RSP Ltd?
The s53 authorisation remains extant subject to the definition of "authorised persons" in Annex 1 of the authorisation.

Any person wishing to access the site under the terms of the authorisation will need to be authorised to do so by RiverOak Investment Corporation.

10 March 2017
Robert Bird
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I note from recent correspondence on your website, and documents published by RiverOak, that the US part of RiverOak is apparently no longer connected to the application for a DCO for the former Manston airport.

However, RiverOak's online presence directs people to the website of their US operation, including a US phone number (See [attachment 1]).

In addition, the PINS webpage for the project also indicates that the applicant is River Investment Corporation LLC although the address links to BDB-Law. The developer website (shown as [attachment 1]) clearly indicates that the developer is the US operation.

There is no longer any reference to either aviation projects, or any of the RiverOak personnel involved in the Manston project, on the US website (though historically there has been content regarding aviation, and bio material on Tony Freudmann, Niall Lawlor and George Yerrall), indicating that the US entity has washed it's hands of the project.

As the US entity is apparently no longer involved in the application I have concerns that as RiverOak approach their formal consultations their online presence is misleading, as it presents a formal business link to an established investment firm, when this appears not to be the case.

I would appreciate it if you could contact the developer and ask them to resolve this issue. I would contact them directly, however they do not respond to email correspondence, and it is no longer clear who should be contacted.

Could you also clarify whether the apparent change in legal entity has any impact on the work carried out on the DCO application so far, or whether the limited progress made to date remain a valid in the overall project.
The Planning Inspectorate has not been notified about any change to the Applicant's name.

In the period before an Applicant formally notifies the Secretary of State of a proposed application (s46 of the Planning Act 2008), any change to an Applicant's name or the legal entity associated with it would not have implications for any Pre-application work predating that change.

In the case of the proposed Manston Airport, the Applicant has undertaken non-statutory consultation under the name RiverOak Investment Corp LLC. An Applicant may choose to report on elements of any non-statutory consultation that it undertook in the Consultation Report submitted with its application, although the PA2008 is not binding in this respect. If the Applicant for Manston Airport chooses to report on its non-statutory consultation in the CR submitted with an application, it would be reasonable to expect any change in name to be explained and for the steps the Applicant took to clarify the change to consultees to be summarised.

08 March 2017
Robert Bird
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
Sorry to bother you again, as a resident of Leiston -cum - Sizewell, you will understand I have a great deal of concern about my local patch.
I have therefore taken a great deal of interest in the Statutory Bodies Responses to the SZC 2nd Consultation, I assume these responses are available to members of the public on request as they are a part of the pre-application process. I have been pleased to received several including Suffolk County Council and Suffolk Coastal District Council.

However are there any circumstances in which a Public Body as a Statutory Consultee may with hold their response to EDFE when it is requested by a member of the public ?
Thank you for your email regarding EDFE’s pre-application consultation for the proposed Sizewell C New Nuclear Power Station.

There is no provision in the 2008 Planning Act (as amended) (PA2008) that states that the Applicant must publish any responses from a statutory body it has consulted with before submitting the application to the Planning Inspectorate (the Inspectorate). The responses will however be summarised and included as part of the Applicant’s consultation report when the application is submitted to the Inspectorate to show how the consultation has informed the application.

If you wish to read the statutory bodies’ responses before the application is submitted to the Inspectorate, I would recommend you contact the Applicant directly to request copies of the responses. If the Applicant is unable to supply you with copies of the responses, the relevant statutory bodies might be able to send you copies of their responses.

Please be aware that should there be any sensitive material contained in the correspondence, the Applicant and/or statutory bodies may be unable to release the information to you.

Please also note we have now set up a project mailbox: [email protected] which I have copied into this response. This will be monitored regularly by the project team should you need any further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact us.

08 March 2017
Joan Girling
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via email
Bircham Dyson Bell, on behalf of the Applicant, invited comments from the Planning Inspectorate about the draft Statement of Community Consultation (dSoCC).
• Re. the document cover and para 3.1 (etc), I note that the name of the Applicant is different to the name on the Planning Inspectorate’s website. Should the details on our website be updated to reflect the dSoCC? Is RiverOak Strategic Partners the same legal entity as RiverOak Investment Corp. LLC? The Applicant will have noted from our website that this point has generated requests for advice from members of the local community. In the interests of transparency, it may be useful to provide a short explanation in the dSoCC explaining the change to the Applicant’s name.
• In para 1.2, and again in para 11.5, it may assist the reader to distinguish the roles of the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (SoSCLG) and the Secretary of State for Transport (SoST) ie the application will be made to the Planning Inspectorate and decided through functions delegated from the SoSCLG, and SoST is the decision maker. This could help to establish the separate functions within government.
• Re. para 2.5 and para 4.4, the statements separating the Development Consent Order consultation from the Civil Aviation Authority licence application/ draft Airports National Policy Statement consultation (and consultation on the airspace change process?) could usefully appear under a separate subheading explaining what the SoCC ‘isn’t’.
• In para 4.1 the Applicant may wish to reiterate that s47 consultation constitutes consultation with the local community.
• In para 4.5, the Applicant may wish to state explicitly that the Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project is ‘EIA development’.
• In the final bullet at para 6.1, the Applicant may wish to reiterate that the ‘first stage’ of consultation was non-statutory.
• Re. para 7.2, in the interest of consistency with the notice under s48 of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008), it would be advisable for the Applicant to make clear whether or not a charge will apply to hard copies of the Preliminary Environmental Information Report, and the amount of any charge.
• Re. the text after the table in para 8.1, how would residents know that these ‘individual presentations’ were taking place?
• Re. para 9.2, what is the exceptional circumstances test? The Applicant may wish to give examples, or consider deleting this caveat.
• In para 11.1, the Applicant may wish to insert ‘legal’ before ‘interest’. The Planning Inspectorate is regularly tasked with explaining to members of the public the distinction between persons with an interest in the proposed development and those with a legal interest in the Order lands.
• Re. para 11.3, what are the consultation principles set out in the dSoCC? Which specific principles would apply to any further consultation?
• Re. Appendix 1, is the Applicant confident that none of the parish/ town councils listed here are statutory consultees?
• Re. Appendix 2, the Applicant may wish to consider whether the map provides sufficient detail to enable members of local community to ascertain whether they should expect to receive notification of the consultation by post.
• As you will be aware from the published advice on our website, one of the key concerns expressed by members of the public about the non-statutory consultation was the perceived handling of consultation responses by non-RiverOak staff. Whilst not technically required by the PA2008, it might be useful for the Applicant to include a sentence about the handling of representations/ The Data Protection Act and to clarify, if applicable, that the statutory consultation events will be organised and managed solely by the Applicant’s appointed persons.

08 March 2017
Bircham Dyson Bell - Alex Hallatt
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
Thank you for your recent reply. However your answer suggests that the proposers letters are a benign request for information and outside of the scope set out in the Planning Act 2008.

Remember that we only sent you the covering letter not the seventeen pages of details and questions.
Those documents revealed extensive research into property and land ownership has already taken place. The tables they included detailed exactly who owns the land, including tenancies or mortgagors – together with details of what neighbours owned.
It would therefore be naïve to think that the letters are just for double checking their data at this pre-application stage; they are part of a slick strategy of applying pressure by suggestion that the project is a done deal – particularly to older or more vulnerable members of the community.
In fact the agency used by the proposer, TerraQuest, hosted a forum in London in February on how to get major infrastructure projects passed the planning inspectorate.
TerraQuest also operate the Planning Portal – possibly running PINS Portal as well?

If you have elderly parents, consider the effect of a seventeen page package arriving full of personal information and unexplained data, highlighted in red as affecting your retirement property - maybe even shaded in pink on the plans to suggest demolition.
That is not the intention of pre-application legislation.

Last week the House of Lords debated community interests in Strategic Planning matters: (Quoting from Hansard) “…. applicants are required to engage and consult local communities and local authorities from the outset, with local authorities having a role in assessing the adequacy of that consultation”.


c.29 Part 5 Chapter 2 of the 2008 Act stipulates:

42 Duty to consult those persons specified and the Local Authority for that same consultation - which was not done.

45 (2) States pre-application consultations requesting answers, to give not less than 28 days - which they did not.

46 (1) Notification to the Commission of the same information on or before commencing pre- consultation under section 42 – which was not?

47 (1) The applicant must prepare a statement detailing how to consult people living in the vicinity, in conjunction with the local authority – which it has not.
We assume that the timetable for this should have been after first consultation with PINS and taxpayer expenditure commences. Given that the pre-application stage is already in progress and that PINS have had a number of meetings and a site visit, at what stage would you expect to a Statement of Community Consultation?

52. Obtaining information about interests in land.
For a compulsory reply to property information it would require the commission to authorise it. That should have been stated - rather than to construct letters which imply it.
Currently there is no legal requirement to provide private information – including the telephone numbers and emails that were requested. A strategy to isolate and pressure individuals.

55 (3) The commission may only accept the application if the applicant has complied with Chapter 2: Pre-application procedure. By which means can the Commission know this if there is no Statement prepared?

We look forward to your response.

We hope the Planning Inspectorate will apply neutrality, fairness and rigid compliance to these proceedings. Do not forget that with a major proposal such as this (where the sole purpose of the project is to make money); the advice of influencing it in the pre-application stage is somewhat moot. This proposal is the evolution of several earlier commercial, industrial and logistics applications thrown out by local government - that have now found the magic key of parking it next to a railway. Clever and well funded developers will exploit every trick to make a project appear to save the planet and employ most of England.
For us it is not a question of objecting to minor aspects; if we don’t prevail over this application our community will cease to be.


You requested our South Staffs District Council contact: David Pattison, Director of Legal and Public Health Protection. [email protected]

We also requested clarification of registering as the group representing local community opposition to the proposal. Can this be entered now - if not when?
The covering letters you have provided to us do not appear to be statutory consultation under either Section (s)42 or s47 of the Act (the latter of which would have to be informed by a Statement of Community Consultation (SoCC)) or a statutory request for information under s52. They appear to be non-statutory requests for information.

How the applicant chooses to conduct their non-statutory, pre-application public engagement activities is not something that we control. The Secretary of State has provided advice on the pre-application process, including consultation, that can be found here. I have also attached the following Advice Notes which explain in detail the planning process for nationally significant infrastructure projects, which may be helpful to you:

Advice Note 8: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public
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
Advice Note 8.4: The Examination

Our full series of Advice Notes can be found here.

You have also correctly identified those sections of the Act that set out statutory pre-application consultation duties, and in addition there is s49, where the applicant has a duty to have regard to statutory responses received. If an application is submitted, the applicant will have to show, among other things, that all of the requirements in Part 2 of the Act have been met (including that a SoCC has been produced and followed) before we can consider accepting it for examination. We will invite the host and neighbouring local authorities to comment on whether or not consultation has been adequate before making that determination, and so you may wish to make your concerns known to them as well.

The best opportunity to influence the form of, or likelihood of an application is at this pre-application stage. I note your view that the applicant may not be engaging in good faith. I encourage you to respond to the applicant’s pre-application consultation, even if you have concerns about whether or not your views will be considered. One of the duties in Part 2 of the Act (s49) requires that the applicant have regard to responses to their statutory pre-application consultation.

If an application is submitted, and if one is accepted for examination, you will have the opportunity to register to participate in that examination and make submissions on whether or not the form of the proposal that is described in the application is acceptable, and whether Development Consent should be granted. The period for registering as an Interested Party to the proposed development will be at least 28 days, and the deadline for responses will be advertised by the developer in their publicity notices, as well as by ourselves on our webpage for this project, where you can also register for updates via email on key events.

07 March 2017
Stop the Gailey Freight Hub - Maurice Cotton
West Midlands Interchange
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I see that Michael CHILD has emailed you usefully re a Riveroak consultative document and its status.

I have emailed their solicitor with my precautionary principle concerns a number of times. No acknowledgement no reply.

I have emailed Thanet District Council numerous times re their failure to comply with Aarhus Convention. No acknowledgement no reply.

I have pursued FOI with Thanet Clinical Commissioning Group (A party I think you added to the consukltation list ?) and found that TDC have never told them about Thor and Sericol remediations IE the body responsible for health care planning has never been told about decades of contamination of water supply and its possible link to Thanet having highest COPD rate in UK. And aberrant high rates of other disease such as polycystic ovary and ectopic pregnancy and cancers. Keeping Thanet Clinical Commissioning Group in the dark is in spite of a former Labour leader of TDC sitting on the group !!

What is the Riveroak email address or postal address to respond to formal consultation ?
The Planning Inspectorate understands that the Applicant is in the process of consulting on the content of its draft Statement of Community Consultation with the s43 local authorities. Once finalised, a final Statement of Community Consultation (SoCC) will be made available for inspection and published in the prescribed manner. The final SoCC must include details about how the local community can respond to this statutory consultation.

Section 47 of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended) sets out in the statutory duties placed on Applicants in respect of the preparation of a SoCC. For more information please see section 5 of our ‘Advice Note 2: The role of local authorities in the development consent process’: [attachment 1]

At the time of writing the means by which the Applicant can be contacted is explained on its website, here: [attachment 2]

03 March 2017
Richard Card
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
To provide an overview of the Planning Act 2008 process to the A47 Alliance Steering Group Meeting
Please see the attached meeting note and presentation.

03 March 2017
Norfolk County Council - Hannah Grimes
General
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Hi with reference to the Manston DCO pre application [attachment 1] a draft consultation document has appeared on the Support Manston Airport website at [attachment 1] I am uncertain whether this website is partly or wholly run and or financed by the applicant.
I can’t find this document the National Infrastructure Planning website or either of the applicant’s previous websites [attachment 3] or [attachment 4]

It appears that the applicant has now changed from an American company RiverOak Investment
Corp., LLC One Atlantic Street, Suite 703 Stamford, CT 06901 U.S.A. to a UK company RiverOak Strategic Partners, 50 Broadway Westminster, London, United Kingdom, SW1H 0BL which doesn’t appear to have a website. Can you kindly confirm that this is correct.

I am assuming that as this draft consultation document has appeared in the public domain that this part of the process of determining the scope of the consultation and that eventually a formal consultation document will appear.

I am concerned that the scope of the proposed formal consultation is too narrow particularly with respect to the area within which residential and business addresses will be sent notification of the consultation by post.

I assumed that this type of notification would be sent to all those addresses under the low flying airport approach and takeoff flight path within the previously identified aircraft noise envelope.
Could you kindly clarify these issues and tell me how or if I can communicate input relating to the scope of the consultation based on having read the draft document.
The first two links that you have provided are both associated with the Planning Inspectorate’s website. Notwithstanding this, the source(s) of funding for any lobby/ campaign group is not a matter about which the Planning Inspectorate can advise. In this respect, the Planning Inspectorate has access to the same information that is available to the public. If you seek details about the funding status of any lobby/ campaign group, I would advise you to contact the group directly.

The Planning Inspectorate is aware that the Applicant is in the process of consulting with relevant local authorities on the content of its Draft Statement of Community Consultation (dSoCC); as required by s47(2) of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008). The Applicant is not obligated to share its dSoCC with any persons other than the local authorities identified under s43(1) of the PA2008. In the same respect the dSoCC is not a document that an Applicant is required to submit to the Planning Inspectorate for publication on our website.

In respect of the apparent change in the name of the Applicant, to date the Planning Inspectorate has not been notified of any such change.

Sections 47(5), (6) and (7) of the PA2008 explain the duties placed on an Applicant following its consultation on a dSoCC. To paraphrase, Applicants are required to have regard to any consultation responses received under s47(2) and must prepare a final Statement of Community Consultation (SoCC) for inspection/ publication in the prescribed manner. An Applicant’s statutory community consultation must be carried in accordance with the final SoCC.

Note that if/ when an application is submitted, the Planning Inspectorate, on behalf of the Secretary of State, has a statutory duty to invite comments from all s43 authorities about whether an Applicant has complied with its duties under ss42, 47 and 48 of the PA2008. The Planning Inspectorate must then have regard to any ‘Adequacy of Consultation Representations’ received in taking its decision about whether an application can be accepted for examination.

If you have concerns about the scope of the community consultation proposed by the Applicant in its dSoCC, I would advise for you to provide your comments to the local authority(ies) (copying in the Applicant). Note however that the consideration of any such commentary by a s43(1) local authority in forming a view about the content of a dSoCC would be at its own discretion.

02 March 2017
Michael Child
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
RiverOak has recently published a Draft Statement of Community Consultation (dSoCC) in connection with its proposals for the former Manston airport site. The draft SoCC, copy attached, raises some particular concerns about which I would welcome your comments.

Firstly, at Section 1.2, the dSoCC implies that the project is classified as a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project. Yet the advice given by the Planning Inspectorate, 10 February 2017, states that is not the case.

Secondly, the dSoCC, unhelpfully, fails to give any dates for its intended consultations.

Thirdly, at Section 5.1, the dSoCC announces it will be "sending our Consultation Leaflet to all residential and business addresses within a consultation boundary that includes those who either live within one kilometre of the airport, or one kilometre of those who may be significantly affected by noise, .....". Further, the document includes a map, at Appendix 2, showing the relevant area for leaflet distribution.

This seems to imply that RiverOak has predetermined the areas which it believes will be affected by noise from its proposed 24/7 air freight hub. In RiverOak's Scoping Report, not only was it trying to avoid addressing matters to do with air quality*, and subsequently counselled otherwise by the Planning Inspectorate's Scoping Opinion**, but it clearly wishes to ignore the potential noise impact on local communities***.

Should RiverOak's plans come to fruition, there is no doubt that the lives of all those people living and working under the flight path will be seriously affected. For example, the map suggests that only residents of the Nethercourt district will be impacted, whereas in reality most people in Ramsgate will suffer serious noise and air pollution from RiverOak's proposals. Accordingly, by its actions from the Scoping Report and from this dSoCC, RiverOak is attempting to avoid its responsibility to fully consult on these matters with the local communities.

Finally, as there are alternative proposals for the site, and in particular from the current owners, during consultations RiverOak should make it clear that these exist. In this way the public can truly make a determination as to the relative impacts and benefits of the alternative schemes. This point is also well made in the Scoping Opinion****.

* RiverOak Scoping Report (30 June 2016) - Sections 5.1.2 to 5.1.5, 5.6.16 and 5.6.19
** Planning Inspectorate Scoping Opinion (August 2016) - Sections 3.31 to 3.33
*** Scoping Report - Sections 11.5 et al
**** Scoping Opinion - Sections 2.22, 2.56 and Appendix 1 (Page 9 - Alternatives).
By way of clarification, section 47 of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended) (PA2008) places the following duties on applicants in respect of community consultation:

47 Duty to consult local community

(1) The applicant must prepare a statement setting out how the applicant proposes to consult, about the proposed application, people living in the vicinity of the land.
(2) Before preparing the statement, the applicant must consult each local authority that is within section 43(1) about what is to be in the statement.

To that end, the PA2008 does not require for Applicants to consult with any parties other than the local authorities within which a proposed development (‘s43(1) authorities’) about the content of a dSoCC. That does not preclude any other parties from making comments directly to a s43(1) authority about the content of a dSoCC. However, the consideration of any such commentary by a s43(1) in forming a view about the content of a dSoCC would be at its own discretion. If a party were to choose to provide comments to a s43(1) authority in this way, the Planning Inspectorate would advise for those comments to be copied to the Applicant.

Note that upon the submission of an application the Planning Inspectorate, on behalf of the Secretary of State, has a statutory duty to invite comments from all s43 authorities about whether an Applicant has complied with its duties under ss42, 47 and 48 of the PA2008. The Planning Inspectorate must then have regard to any ‘Adequacy of Consultation Representations’ received in taking its decision about whether an application can be accepted for examination.

You have asked for the Planning Inspectorate’s comments in respect of three discreet observations about the dSoCC, and I will respond to those points in order.

1. “[…] at Section 1.2, the dSoCC implies that the project is classified as a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project. Yet the advice given by the Planning Inspectorate, 10 February 2017, states that is not the case.”

The Planning Inspectorate’s advice dated 10 February 2017 explains that the term ‘asset of national significance’ has no status under the PA2008. The term ‘Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project’ (NSIP) is defined by the PA2008, and the corresponding thresholds for airport development are set out in s23. At the Pre-application stage of the process it is for an Applicant to take a judgement-based view about whether the development it is proposing qualifies as an NSIP and would require development consent under the PA2008. On submission of an application, the Planning Inspectorate tests whether the development proposed includes an NSIP. The Planning Inspectorate is not required to apply this test when an Applicant makes a request under s52 or s53 of the PA2008.

2. “[…] the dSoCC, unhelpfully, fails to give any dates for its intended consultations.”

The dates for the consultation events must be included in the final Statement of Community Consultation.

3. “[…] at Section 5.1, the dSoCC announces it will be "sending our Consultation Leaflet to all residential and business addresses within a consultation boundary that includes those who either live within one kilometre of the airport, or one kilometre of those who may be significantly affected by noise, .....". Further, the document includes a map, at Appendix 2, showing the relevant area for leaflet distribution. This seems to imply that RiverOak has predetermined the areas which it believes will be affected by noise from its proposed 24/7 air freight hub. In RiverOak's Scoping Report, not only was it trying to avoid addressing matters to do with air quality*, and subsequently counselled otherwise by the Planning Inspectorate's Scoping Opinion**, but it clearly wishes to ignore the potential noise impact on local communities***. Should RiverOak's plans come to fruition, there is no doubt that the lives of all those people living and working under the flight path will be seriously affected. For example, the map suggests that only residents of the Nethercourt district will be impacted, whereas in reality most people in Ramsgate will suffer serious noise and air pollution from RiverOak's proposals. Accordingly, by its actions from the Scoping Report and from this dSoCC, RiverOak is attempting to avoid its responsibility to fully consult on these matters with the local communities.”

The Planning Inspectorate has considered the Applicant’s Scoping Report, and the responses received from statutory consultees, and provided its Scoping Opinion in August 2016. The extent to which an Applicant’s chosen assessment methodology has informed the scope of any consultation exercise is not a matter about which the Planning Inspectorate can comment at this stage. As set out at the beginning of this email, the extent to which the Applicant has satisfied its Pre-application consultation duties will be tested thoroughly if/ when an Application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, and will draw on any Adequacy of Consultation Representations received. You may wish to forward your comments to the s43(1) authorities, who will also make formal comments on the dSoCC.

If an application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, and it is subsequently decided that that application is of a satisfactory standard to be examined, the appointed Examining Authority will take account of all relevant legislation, guidance and policy in its consideration of the accompanying Environmental Statement.

4. “[…] as there are alternative proposals for the site, and in particular from the current owners, during consultations RiverOak should make it clear that these exist. In this way the public can truly make a determination as to the relative impacts and benefits of the alternative schemes. This point is also well made in the Scoping Opinion****.”

The Planning Inspectorate set out the expectations of the Secretary of State in relation to alternatives at paragraph 2.56 of the Scoping Opinion. The Environmental Statement provided with any application for development consent will be examined as described previously.

02 March 2017
Simon Crow
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Site Visit and round table meeting
Please see attached meeting note

02 March 2017
Scott Taylor
Tees CCPP
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see the attached meeting note.

01 March 2017
Highways England - Anne-Marie Rogers
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
An inception meeting was held in respect of the Tilbury2 project.
See attached meeting note.

28 February 2017
Port of Tilbury London Ltd - anon.
Tilbury2
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see the attached note

24 February 2017
Highways England - Karen Molloy
A38 Derby Junctions
response has attachments
Email 1: With the Developer’s Stage 2 Pre-Application Consultation drawing to a close I have a general question around the status of the current National Policy Statements for Energy, in particular the Policy Statement for Nuclear Power Generation EN6.

I have been informed that the Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy are or are just about to review these statements. Is this correct?

If so what will the situation be if the Policy Statements are revised post consultation but prior to submission of the DCO application? Will there have to be a further consultation phase to accommodate any change in policy between the two versions?

Email 2: Many thanks for your response and time. I will take up your suggestion of contacting BEIS to see if the NPS are being reviewed and will copy the response on for your information.

Your response was fairly comprehensive but unfortunately doesn’t appear to have covered the main and final aspect I posed, that being if the National Policy Statements were to change in terms of requirements during the consultation stage of a project or more critical between the final public consultation and the submission of an DCO application would the Planning Inspector expect or request the applicant to openly re-consult on the basis of any revised policy?

Email 3: I am very gratefully for both of your informative responses which nicely closes this uncertainty I had.

As you suggested I have also enquired of BEIS and they have confirmed that there are no immediate plans to review the policies. I attach their response for your information.

Just so you are aware my original concern arose from some comments made by two officers from a significant non-departmental public body at a meeting with a statutory consultee for the project that I attend.
Response 1: Thank you for your email in relation to the Nuclear National Policy Statement (NPS).

Whilst NPSs provide the framework within which Inspectors make their recommendations to the Secretary of State, the Planning Inspectorate is impartial and is not able to comment on Government policy. I would therefore advise you to contact the Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy as the government department responsible for that policy area: [attachment 1]

All NPSs, or material amendments to NPSs, are subject to public consultation and Parliamentary scrutiny before being designated (i.e. published) and the Secretary of State must have regard to the outcome of public consultation and Parliamentary scrutiny when deciding whether or not to proceed to designate the NPS.

The Secretary of State must also have regard to any matter that the Secretary of State thinks is important and relevant to the Secretary of State’s decision. This could include a draft NPS if one exists and if the relevant NPS has not yet been formally designated.

Response 2:
Thank you for your email and apologies for not getting back to you sooner.

If the Secretary of State (SoS) decides to review the NPS under s6 of the 2008 Planning Act (as amended) (PA2008), the SoS may suspend an examination under s108 until the review process has been completed. The review process does not impact on applications that have yet to be submitted to the Planning Inspectorate nor does it apply to examinations that have already closed.

When deciding whether to grant an applicant a DCO, the SoS has to have regard to the relevant NPS(s). If a new NPS is published after the applicant’s statutory consultation has ended but before the submission has been submitted, it is for the applicant to seek its own legal advice whether further consultation is needed to comply with the revised NPS.

We have recently set up a mailbox for Sizewell C ([email protected]) which is monitored by the team in my absence and is copied into this response for your information.

Should you have any further queries please do not hesitate to contact us.

Response 3: Many thanks for your email and for attaching the response from BEIS, a copy has been placed on our records for information.

22 February 2017
Phil Butler
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via email
Please find attached Friends of the Lake District's consultation response to the recent National Grid consultation on its PEIR for the North West Coast Connections Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project.

I would draw your attention to the significant failures in the consultation. These are due to
A: National Grid’s apparent misinterpretation of the EIA regulations and national planning policy on the setting of the Lake District National park; and

B: on restricting mitigation only to those areas of landscape and visual impact receptors which would suffer “Particularly significant effects” rather than “significant effect” as laid out in the EIA (Infrastructure) Regulations 2009.

C: Not enough ecological information provided to undertake a Habitats Regulations Assessment and the possibility that because there are alternative solutions (e.g. offshore), that the IROPI test would not be met under Article 6.4 of the Habitats Directive 1994.

We are also concerned that the costings for alternative route options which would avoid the issues raised above are not adequately described and evaluated in the consultation. Our concerns align with those of Ofgem whose current consultation on “North West Coast Connections – Consultation on the project’s Initial Needs Case and suitability for tendering” also raises these concerns when it states

However, we consider that the decision between NGET’s favoured use of a tunnel under Morecambe Bay and an alternative approach of using subsea cables around the bay is relatively finely balanced. We have concerns that significant changes in the cost of the tunnel, or additional work identified through the planning process [e.g. having to mitigate for impact on the National Park setting] could indicate in the future that the subsea cable option could be better value for consumers.

I would like to know what role PINS has in raising these issues with National Grid and whether they would prevent an application to PINS from “meeting the required standards to proceed to examination, including whether the developers consultation has been adequate” (PINS Advice note 8.1)
Thank you for your enquiry regarding National Grid’s recent consultation on the proposed North West Coast Connections Project.

Prior to commencing consultation, the Applicant is required to under section 47 of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008); prepare a consultation strategy known as the Statement of Community Consultation (SoCC) and to seek agreement on their strategy with the relevant local authorities (i.e. those authorities whose administrative areas the route alignment would pass through). The Applicant has a duty under Section 49 of the PA2008 to take account of responses to consultation. All applications must be accompanied by a Consultation Report. In this document the Applicant must show that they have complied with the statutory pre-application consultation requirements, and that they have had regard to the responses.

The duty to consult on preliminary environmental information (PEI) derives from Regulation 10 of the Infrastructure Planning Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Regulations 2009 (as amended)(the ‘EIA Regulations’). Regulation 2 of the ‘EIA Regulations’ defines PEI as “information referred to in Part 1 of Schedule 4 which—
(a) has been compiled by the applicant; and
(b) is reasonably required to assess the environmental effects of the development (and of any associated development)”

The Planning Inspectorate’s Advice Note 7 “Preliminary Environmental Information, Screening and Scoping” states that “PEI is not expected to replicate or be a draft of the ES. However, if the applicant considers this to be appropriate (and more cost-effective) it can be presented in this way. A good PEI document is one that enables consultees (both specialist and non-specialist) to understand the likely environmental effects of the proposed development and helps to inform their consultation responses on the proposed development.”

Upon submission of an application the Planning Inspectorate will write to relevant local authorities and ask for their views on whether or not the consultation has been adequate, if you have concerns regarding the adequacy of the consultation process in your area, you may therefore wish to contact the relevant local authorities, highlighting your concerns, so as to inform their adequacy of consultation response. At acceptance, the Planning Inspectorate will consider the Consultation Report, alongside any adequacy of consultation representation made by a local authority and the other application documents, before deciding whether or not to accept the application for examination in line with Section 55 of the PA2008. Appendix 3 of the Planning Inspectorate’s Advice Note 6: “Preparation and submission of application documents” sets out the information considered prior to accepting an application, which includes in section 3.3(a) “where applicable, the environmental statement required under the EIA Regulations and any scoping or screening opinions or directions” therefore the adequacy of any environmental impact assessment is a consideration for acceptance.

Until an Application is submitted to the Secretary of State for consideration, the Planning Inspectorate would not comment on whether an Applicant has met the required standards to proceed to examination, including whether the Applicant’s consultation has been adequate. We would strongly encourage you to continue to engage with the Applicant, feeding any concerns that you may have with either the assessment process or the consultation process to them and with the relevant local authority.

22 February 2017
Friends of the Lake District - Kate Willshaw
General
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Concerns raised about the impact of the proposed railway line and the impact on property prices
Dear Mrs Lightfoot

Thank you for your email raising concerns regarding the pre-application consultation process for the proposed Sizewell C New Nuclear Power Station, a copy has been placed on our records.

As the application has not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate (the Inspectorate), the Inspectorate has no formal powers to intercede on behalf of interested parties. I would therefore encourage you to contact the Applicant directly to make your concerns heard as the applicant has a statutory duty to take your views into account.

However, if you feel that your comments are not being taken into account by the Applicant, I would advise you to write to your local authority and set out why you think the Applicant is failing to conduct its consultation properly. As part of the process for when the Inspectorate assesses whether an application can be accepted for examination, we seek adequacy of consultation responses from the local authority that in turn sends the Inspectorate its comments on whether the applicant has fulfilled its consultation duties.

If the application for development consent is formally accepted by the Inspectorate, you will be able to submit your views in relation to the project which will be considered by the Examining Authority during the examination.

The Inspectorate has published a series of advice notes which explain the examination process, including information on how to get involved; of particular interest are advice notes 8.1 to 8.5. These are available at:

[attachment 1]

We have recently set up a mailbox for Sizewell C ([email protected]) which is monitored by the team in my absence and is copied into this response for your information.

Should you have any further queries please do not hesitate to contact us.

21 February 2017
Pam Lightfoot
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via email
We write regarding above concurrent schemes for two proposed SRFIs,in Milton Northants both of the schemes intend making rail connections on the same section of the Northampton Loop of the West Coast Mainline, this same loop line also serves Daventry Dirft 1,2 and Dirft 3 a recently approved SRFI presently under construction, and Northampton Castle stations passenger and freight services approx. 3 miles north of the PDA also use this limited two line loop section of the WCML.

Given the proximity of both Dirft 3 and Northampton Castle station, we have serious concerns regarding the feasibility, practicality and ability of the Rail network to accommodate either, let alone both, of these proposals, whilst we fully appreciate that this issue is dealt with via Network Rails GRIP PROCESS,(Governance for Railway Investment Projects),we would wish to seek clarification on the following points,

>Does rail connectivity via the GRIP PROCESS have to be firmly established in the” pre application” period

>and if so what level in that process actually has to be established at this pre application stage, Grip 1,2 3…?


Finally we would also question whether either of the applicants have made any approaches to PINS to potentially arrange any joint site viewings or meeting between Network Rail/and yourselves to address this issue, you will be aware that Network Rails initial response to both applicants at the scoping opinion stage was “Given the location of the proposal is predicated on rail connectivity and the primary aim of the proposal(and Government Policy)is modal shift, detailed assessment of the impact(both individual and cumulative)at this early stage is CRUCIAL.
The GRIP process is an internal process used by Network Rail which sets out scheme definition, feasibility, option selection, detailed design and construction in stages. The process is entirely separate to the formal planning stages used by the Planning Inspectorate (PINS) for nationally significant infrastructure projects (NSIPs), and therefore there are no rules that define what stage in the GRIP process a developer needs to have achieved before submitting an application. Ultimately it is for developers to work with Network Rail to develop proposals in line with the GRIP approach.

With the above in mind, the critical consideration for a developer is to seek to provide an Examining Authority (ExA) with sufficient information and detail for them to be able to understand and assess the impacts of a scheme; if an ExA was unable to do this there would be a high risk that they could not recommend that consent be granted for that scheme. GRIP stage 3 relates to option selection, and GRIP stage 4 relates to single option development. If a developer had not reached a conclusion with Network Rail on a single option development (GRIP stage 4) this could present a greater high risk approach, as it could complicate the ExA’s ability to assess the potential impacts of the scheme.

As part our regular meetings with applicants, we ask about on-going engagement with parties such as Network Rail. Notes of these meetings are published on the Planning Inspectorate’s NSIP project webpage (Northampton Gateway Rail Freight Interchange and Rail Central) . Neither of the applicants for the two projects has asked for a joint meeting with Network Rail so far. PINS Environmental Services Team held a site visit to Northampton Gateway in order to inform a recent scoping request. At present there has been no site visit to Rail Central.

21 February 2017
Stop Rail Central - Alan Hargreaves
Rail Central (Strategic Rail Freight Interchange)
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached meeting note

21 February 2017
Eggborough Power Limited - James Crankshaw
Eggborough CCGT
Enquiry received via email
This is a matter of serious concern regarding a Nationally Significant project that you have commenced giving advice on. Ref: TR050005 West Midlands Interchange

I am writing on behalf of the group representing local community opposition to the proposal.
As a group, we will register as interested parties when the application is formally lodged (September?) – or earlier if that is permitted.
The proposers, the Staffordshire County Council, the South Staffordshire District Council, all local Parish Councils, and our two MPs are already aware of our representation.

However, many of the community have, in the last few days, been harassed by some very intrusive recorded delivery envelopes stamped in red “The Content of this Letter may affect your property” and containing a letter headed “IMPORTANT: THIS COMMUNICATION MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY” - giving an ultimatum of 15 days to return an EIGHT page questionaire requesting personal property and mortgage details whilst not giving any adequate explanation of the suspicious mapped areas and schedules also included.

To all of us, this appears arrogant and intrusive; but to our older and more vulnerable neighbours it is very intimidating - even threatening in one instance.
Our understanding is that the proposers (and there is no application due to be lodged until next September) are supposed to agree a Statement of Community Communication (SOCC) with the Planning Inspectorate and/or District Council and to publish that .... before making any contact, never mind intrusive requests.
As the Promoters have stated, if this proposal is a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP) it must follow the process as set out in the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008).

The PA2008 sets out the legislation and regulations that guides a developer on who and how to consult during the Pre-Application stage - the stage at which the West Midlands interchange project is currently in.

The legislation identifies different groups that a developer must consult with being, in headline terms, relevant local authorities, prescribed bodies, people with an interest in the land and the local community. PA2008 then sets out some requirements about how those consultation should take place (for example giving minimum deadlines for responses to be received).

In consulting with the local community, you are right that a developer needs to have published a Statement of Community Consultation (SoCC) before they can commence statutory consultation with local communities. It is our understanding that the Promoter is in the process of preparing that document. This does not mean that a developer is prohibited from engaging with the local community in the absence of a SoCC, just that they would need to have published a SoCC and undertaken the consultation outlined in that document before they could submit an application.

However, the SoCC only relates to consultation with the local community and does not cover how a Promoter establishes who are the relevant people with an interest in the land, and having established who they are, how to consult with them. From the information you attached to your email, this looks like a letter from the Promoter seeking to understand whether people have a (legal) interest in the land. To that end, it is not actually part of a statutory consultation and is therefore not specifically covered by the legislation and regulations.

I would strongly urge you to use the contact details on the letters you have received to discuss the matter directly with the Promoter and request further information or explanation about the process and set out your concerns on how the letters have been received.

You note that the District Council have confirmed that a SoCC should have been in place – do you have the contact details for the Officer that you spoke to, as it would be helpful for us to make contact with them to discuss this matter further.

17 February 2017
Stop the Gailey Freight Hub - Maurice Cotton
West Midlands Interchange
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
s51 advice following a “Request for s51 advice on TLP’s approach to consenting compensatory habitats” from Tidal Lagoon Power
See attached document comprising the Planning Inspectorate’s response, the original request and associated correspondence, which deals with further questions

17 February 2017
Tidal Lagoon Power - Sian John
Tidal Lagoon Cardiff
Enquiry received via meeting
Query regarding the inclusion of St Edmundsbury and Forest Heath District Councils in the Regulation 9 list issued to the Applicant with the Scoping Opinion.
The Planning Inspectorate confirmed that checked the reasoning for the inclusion of Forest Heath and St Edmundsbury District Councils in the Regulation 9 list. On the basis of the shapefile submitted at scoping, our GIS system classes Breckland as a host authority because the cable corridor just goes into the district. Forest Heath and St Edmundsbury District Councils are therefore identified as adjoining authorities which is why they appear on the list. It is up to DONG’s discretion as to whether these authorities are consulted but you may wish to consult on a precautionary basis. If the shapefile received at the point when the application is submitted still shows the cable route going into the Breckland district, Forest Heath and St Edmundsbury District Councils would be contacted to seek their views on the adequacy of consultation carried out by DONG (see section 55(4)(b) of the Planning Act 2008).

16 February 2017
Dong Energy - Stuart Livesey
Hornsea Project Three Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
See Meeting Note attached
See Meeting Note attached

16 February 2017
Riveroak
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached meeting note

15 February 2017
Highways England - James Holmes
A63 Castle Street Improvement-Hull
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project meeting update
Please see attached meeting note

14 February 2017
Dong Energy - Stuart Livesey
Hornsea Project Three Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via email
Following the Planning Inspectorate's recent granting of access for RiverOak to the former airport site at Manston, can you confirm if Manston is an asset of national significance.
The term ‘asset of national significance’ has no formal status or weight under the Planning Act 2008 process. The Planning Act 2008 defines “Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIP)” – if a project is considered to be an NSIP then it must apply under the Planning Act 2008 regime for consent.

Whether or not the proposed Manston Airport development is a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project depends upon whether it meets the definition contained in the Planning Act 2008. Airport development is capable of being an NSIP, depending upon its capacity and other factors, and the Applicant has told us that the scheme they propose will be an NSIP. Since no application has yet been made, we cannot say definitively whether or not this particular proposal is an NSIP.

A request or decision made under s53 of the Planning Act 2008 (which has the effect of allowing RiverOak to access the former airfield site to undertake survey work) does not also determine whether any future application would be an NSIP, this decision can only be made at the time a formal application is submitted.

10 February 2017
Simon Crow
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Comments regarding the proposed Sizewell C Nuclear Power Station
Thank you for your letter in relation to the proposed Sizewell C New Nuclear Power Station.

A copy of your correspondence has been placed on our records, however I would encourage you to contact the developer directly to make your concerns known as this project is at the pre-application stage and no application has yet been received by the Planning Inspectorate, therefore we can only accept your letter for information purposes.

If an application for development consent is formally accepted by the Secretary of State, you will be able to submit your views in relation to the project which will be considered by the Examining Authority during their examination.

The Planning Inspectorate has published a series of advice notes which explain the examination process, including information on how to get involved, of particular interest are advice notes 8.1 to 8.5, these are available at:

[attachment 1]

10 February 2017
Theberton and Eastbridge Action group on Sizewell (TEAGS)
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached meeting note

10 February 2017
Eloise Frank
North Wales Connection
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting.
See attached meeting note.

10 February 2017
Heathrow Airport Ltd - anon.
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting.
See attached meeting note.

This meeting note was originally published (and remains published) on the general register of advice: [attachment 1]

10 February 2017
Heathrow Airport Ltd - anon.
Expansion of Heathrow Airport (Third Runway)
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Update meeting in relation to the Moorside Project in West Cumbria
See attached meeting note

09 February 2017
NuGen
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Meeting to discuss PINS' comments on the applicant's draft HRA report.

07 February 2017
Horizon Nuclear Power
Wylfa Newydd Nuclear Power Station
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Meeting between Pins and Horizon Nuclear Power
See attached meeting note

07 February 2017
Horizon Nuclear Power
Wylfa Newydd Nuclear Power Station
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see the attached note

07 February 2017
Highways England - Helen Apps
A19 / A184 Testos Junction Improvement
Enquiry received via email
I understand that an application for a DCO makes provision for developers to detail other consents etc that are required under legislation other than the 2008 Act. Certain prescribed consents can be consented separately or included in a DCO.

Could you please provide me with a list of the consents that can be included in a DCO?
Thank you for your email. As you correctly say, the DCO regime is intended to minimise the need for parallel consents.

You may wish to refer to Section 33, Part 7 and Schedule 5 of the 2008 Act, and Schedule 2 of the Infrastructure Planning (Interested Parties and Miscellaneous Prescribed Provisions) Regulations 2015, as a starting point.

A fully comprehensive list of consents that could be incorporated into a DCO, however, is a somewhat technical question. It could also encompasses those consents that are not needed or cannot be granted in respect of schemes defined by the Planning Act 2008 as National Significant Infrastructure Projects, and the possible effect of modification or disapplication of statutory provisions in a DCO. I’m afraid it goes beyond procedural matters on which we would normally give advice. You may want to take your own legal advice.

06 February 2017
ATKINS - Shelley Vince
General
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Power Without Pylons is concerned with the southern element of the NWCC connection, from Moorside to Heysham. National Grid (NG) has announced some undergrounding in the Lake District National Park, but still proposes to construct giant 50m pylons just outside the Park, in particular around the Duddon Estuary.

We have some questions for PINS regarding alternatives:
1. At the forthcoming planning enquiry, will objectors be able to raise the question of alternative options?

2. What are your criteria for allowing the discussion of alternatives?

3. Will we be allowed to discuss all possible alternatives, or just those that have already been considered by NG, or just those that have been proposed in a consultation?

4. We have assumed that this discussion will be possible, and have therefore tried to obtain as much information as possible about the different options. However, we have not had sufficient co-operation from NG and other relevant organisations. It would seem to us that, as part of a democratic process, the applicant should be obliged to provide relevant information. We also need to have this information as soon as possible. Do you have the power to ensure that we are given all the relevant information that we have requested?
Please see attached response

06 February 2017
Power Without Pylons - Graham Barron
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Inception meeting
Please see attached meeting note

02 February 2017
EDF Energy - Carly Vince
West Burton C power station
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I had a quick enquiry in respect of nationally significant infrastructure projects which I was hoping you may be able to assist with. I assume that in preparation of a planning application, a screening/scoping opinions must be submitted to the Inspectorates National Infrastructure team, but could you please confirm this? In addition, could you confirm whether this can be done as part of the pre-application process?
Thank you for your email. We have published advice on elements of the EIA process during pre-application including screening and scoping, and to assist applicants in understanding the role of preliminary environmental information, which you may find helpful here. ([attachment 1])

If your query is in connection with a specific scheme, you may want to contact us for more detailed pre-application advice. Details of the service we are able to provide can be found here. ([attachment 2]

01 February 2017
Strutt & Parker LLP - John Cutler
General
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Request for comments on Applicant's draft HRA Screening Report
1 Project Description
1.1 The Planning Inspectorate is aware that the Wales Bill, which is currently at House of Lords Committee stage, includes clause 41 and introduces the ability to include ‘associated development’ for DCO’s in Wales. The extent to which various elements are included in the Applicant’s DCO application will influence the assessment. In particular that which is subject to direct assessment and that which is considered as other plans and projects and therefore part of the in-combination assessment.
1.2 Section 2.1– Paragraph 2 describes the current scope of the HRA as including the power station site and off-site power station facilities. In relation to the points raised above it is essential that there is clarity regarding the development that is included within the DCO and that which is not. In terms of the overall approach to HRA, the ExA will need to clearly assess the effects that are directly attributable to the Project being applied for in the DCO so that they can ensure that the necessary mitigation is appropriately secured.
1.3 Section 2.1 - Paragraph 3 should refer to the need for the separate grid connection which is being promoted by National Grid. It will need to be made clear how the grid connection will be considered in-combination with the Project.
1.4 We acknowledge that this is an initial draft report and detail will be forthcoming. However, Section 2.3 could be improved with the inclusion of a more detailed description of the likely timescales for aspects of the Project (eg the likely duration each aspect will take to construct and the likely duration applicable to the identification of temporary features etc). This could be addressed by a more detailed programme which could be included as part of section 2.4.
1.5 The Applicant should ensure that the Wylfa Newydd Development Area depicted on figures is consistent with the DCO application site depicted on any works plans to be submitted with the DCO (noting that the DCO works plans will need to include those off-site development areas that are part of the DCO).
1.6 Section 2.3.2.5:
• If piling is required to install the prepared sub-base of the MOLF or the cofferdam for the Ro-Ro berth construction, details of these works should be provided.
• The final HRA Screening Report should be clear as to whether dredging and marine disposal forms part of the DCO application. Information relating to the potential disposal site(s) should be considered to the extent that they are likely.
• Frequency and duration of maintenance activities relating to the marine works should be described and considered in the full assessment.
1.7 There is no reference to the decommissioning of the project as part of the description or in terms of how decommissioning will be approached within the assessment. The NPS is clear that effects arising from the decommissioning of the Project need to be assessed.
2 Scoping of European Sites
2.1 Table 4.1 (project screening categories):
• The third row states that “functional habitat loss (e.g. through disturbance or flooding) is not included” in the ‘Land-take’ screening category. The Planning Inspectorate considers that the potential for impacts on functional habitat should be considered within the HRA, or at further justification and evidence of agreement with Natural Resources Wales (NRW) will be expected as to its exclusion.
• The fifth row states that “Effects could result from increased inputs into, or abstraction from, the local water supply associated with the number of construction workers required”. Consideration should also be given to effects resulting from abstraction required during construction and operation.
• The final row considers physical interaction between species and project infrastructure but it is unclear if / how this would consider any potential displacement effects (or whether such aspects would be covered as part of the other screening categories).
3 Zones of Influence
3.1 Table 4.2 details the zone of influence (ZOI) for different screening criteria, habitats/species and hazards. The Planning Inspectorate welcomes that the results of ongoing assessments will be taken into account to help refine the ZOIs. Where this approach is taken, clear cross-referencing should be made to the relevant sections of the technical assessments. It should also be clear, once all of the ongoing works are complete and the ZOIs are fully defined, how the precautionary ZOIs have evolved through the detailed assessment work, particularly if they were initially wider and have been revised upwards or downwards.
3.2 The Planning Inspectorate has the following comments on Table 4.2:
• The use of 50db as a criterion to determine the ZOI of airborne noise and vibration from plant and machinery is noted, as is that the Applicant considers noise above 50dB would not occur further than 600m from the site boundaries. The Planning Inspectorate welcomes that this ZOI will be kept under review and expects that noise modelling would be used to determine where the 50db contours lie. The draft HRA Report confirms stakeholders agree with the ZOI but does not explain whether they agree with the use of 50dB as a threshold; this should be clarified. Variance in species sensitivity to noise should be taken into account and the HRA Report should detail for which receptors the 70dB(A) threshold would be applied and whether this has been agreed with relevant stakeholders. The screening report should also be specific in identifying which organisations agree to the approach (as opposed to ‘relevant stakeholders’). This section of Table 4.2 has not detailed how the ZOI for vibration will be determined; this should be detailed within the final HRA Screening Report.
• Noise disturbance thresholds for most ecological receptors have been set as the same level as for human receptors, as based on guidance from the British Standards Institution (2014). It is not clear which guidance this refers to. The Screening Report should indicate which standard is being relied on.
• In terms of underwater noise and vibration, the HRA Screening Report should indicate what noise level is considered to induce temporary threshold shift or behaviour effects to marine mammals and on what evidence this has been assumed (eg 5km and 83km thresholds are quoted). The same applies in terms of evidence for the noise level at which mortality or potential mortality of fish is predicted to occur (270m is quoted).
• In terms of blasting, and the definition of appropriate ZOI, it would be beneficial to understand more about the possible extent, frequency and duration of any blasting activities. Where this is not known, the assessment should consider a worst case scenario.
• Noise effects from road transport – it will need to be clear the extent of the road network that is included (this section implies it will be all roads within the transport assessment). Is this the project wide transport assessment or just that in support of the DCO elements (the relationship to the TCPA road improvements is not clear here)?
• For land-take, the ZOIs are defined as being within the development footprint or the WDNA footprint but it is not entirely clear what this means. Is this referring to the location of built development or the boundary of the WDNA? The HRA Screening Report should provide a clear definition of the ZOI.
• For marine benthic habitats (Changes in freshwater flow triggers ) the ZOI is based on a distance of 500m, however it is not clear where this distance is being measured from – is it the point at which the freshwater discharge enters the marine environment? The HRA Screening Report should provide a clear definition of the ZOI.
• Pages 28 and 29 refer to NRW’s approach to considering the effects of trade discharges greater than 100m3 on water quality. The HRA Screening Report should provide evidence of this approach ie a link to specific guidance.
• Page 31 refers to the Institute of Air Quality Management (IAQM) guidance (2014) in relation to road traffic emissions; however, it is unclear to what this guidance refers as the Planning Inspectorate understands the 2014 IAQM guidance is ‘Guidance on the assessment of dust from demolition and construction’. The HRA Screening Report should identify specific guidance documents that are referred to and contain a complete reference list.
3.3 There are a couple of references within Table 4.2 to ZOI’s having been agreed with relevant stakeholders during pre-application consultation. It would be useful at the point of submission to understand categorically and clearly where such agreements have and have not been reached in the context of all defined ZOI. Where professional judgement has been applied, justification should be provided in supporting the conclusions reached.
3.4 It is not always clear what the logic is behind the approach described in the HRA Screening Report. For some species, such as marine mammals, the approach appears to rely entirely on defining ZOI to establish which European site features could be affected by the Project while for others, such as lamprey and seabirds, the Screening Report refers to survey results. The HRA Screening Report must clearly explain the reasoning used to determine which features of European sites are likely to be affected by the Project.
3.5 Section 4.5.2 proposes to scope out river lamprey. The explanation in paragraph 2 of Section 4.5.2 is confusing. Is it implying that the river lamprey populations are separate from those of the nearest SAC populations? If this is the position being relied on then the HRA Screening Report should identify the evidence that supports this position.
3.6 Section 4.5.4 states that there is very little scientific research on the exact migration routes of salmon from natal rivers, but then goes on to exclude SACs located to the north of Anglesey for which salmon are a qualifying feature. This is on the grounds that salmon are likely to travel by the most direct route to their natal rivers. However, as there is limited research on this point it is not clear whether the approach outlined in Section 4.5.4 is sufficiently precautionary. The Applicant is strongly advised to agree the approach to identifying European sites where salmon are a qualifying feature with NRW.
3.7 For breeding seabirds, Section 4.6.2 states that the mean maximum foraging range plus one standard deviation will be used to determine connectivity with SPA or Ramsar sites. However, it goes on to state that where the data is not available to estimate the standard deviation or where the areas affected would be excessively large, the mean maximum foraging range will be used. It is not clear from the Screening Report why the mean maximum foraging range plus standard deviation was chosen in the first place; assessments undertaken for offshore wind farm developments have usually opted to use the mean maximum foraging range.
3.8 In section 4.6.2.2, there is an assumption based on the premise that where non-breeding sea bird populations are an SPA qualifying feature, they will be foraging within rather than outwith the SPA. No evidence has been presented to support this statement. The Applicant is strongly advised to agree the approach to identifying European sites with this type of feature with NRW.
3.9 The thresholds and the justification for their use in relation to wildfowl and waders are noted. The Applicant is strongly advised to agree their approach with NRW.
3.10 At section 4.7.4, there is a reference to sites that were included as part of the strategic HRA Site Report for Wylfa (alongside NPS EN-6) that are proposed to be excluded from the project level HRA (although noted that this to be kept under review). The Secretary of State will expect to see particular justification linking back to the ZOI’s as to why this approach is appropriate. In particular, reference is made to the Great Orme Head coastal zone in Section 4.3 of the report, whereas section 4.7.4 implies that the SAC itself will be scoped out.
4 LSE Screening
4.1 At paragraph 3 of section 5.1, reference is made to the definition of likely significant effects as given in the Welsh Assembly Government TAN 5. Reference should also be made here to the definitions and requirements set out in NPS EN-1 and EN-6 in the context of the DCO shadow HRA.
4.2 Note that on Table 5.1, row 5 refers to a potential for a LSE on Corsydd Môn/Anglesey Fens SAC and Corsydd Môn a Llyn/Anglesey and Llyn Fens Ramsar site. However, the SAC screening matrix also identifies a LSE for Cemlyn Bay SAC, Llyn Dinam SAC, and Holy Island Coast SAC. The Applicant should ensure consistency across the appendices and main text.
4.3 Table 5.1 row 6 refers to standard mitigation and management procedures for invasive non-native species. If such measures are to be relied upon to conclude no LSE, details of these measures and how they are secured should be provided within the HRA Screening Report.
4.4 Section 5.1 paragraph 2 notes that the LSE test is “the process of identifying potentially relevant European sites…and the likely impacts of a project upon the designated features of a European site, either alone or in combination with other plans and projects…” Section 1, paragraph 5 notes that as the extent of the ZOI is still being refined “it is not possible at this stage to undertake effective in-combination screening with respect to other plans and projects within the Project ZOI, because the study area for this exercise would be extremely large…”
4.5 We acknowledge the difficulty of undertaking the in-combination assessment before the ZOI have been refined but given the current timescales for this project, it is a matter of some concern that the approach to in-combination assessment has not yet been confirmed. The Screening Report should clearly explain how the in-combination assessment has been approached, particularly in relation to the extent to which the associated development and SPC has been considered.
4.6 Section 5.2.1, paragraph 3 states that the judgement as to whether a significant effect is likely needs to be based “on the best readily available information”. This does not seem to be in line with the relevant case law. Planning Inspectorate Advice Note 10, paragraphs 4.18 to 4.19 provides further detail on this point.
5 General
5.1 Section 3.2 paragraph 10 and section 3.3.1, paragraph 1– please note that the competent authority for the DCO application is the Secretary of State for Energy and Industrial Strategy, not the Planning Inspectorate.
5.2 For each of the screening categories and or categories of habitats and species identified within the report (sections 5.3.2 – 5.3.5), the use of figures and plans identifying the relevant ZOIs and Natura 2000 sites included within the assessment would be beneficial.
5.3 Section 3.3.1 – where agreements have been reached with Natural Resources Wales, Natural England and any non-statutory interest groups, these should be explained and evidence provided where possible. On a presentational matter, we suggest a more intuitive paragraph numbering system is used to enable easy referencing during the examination stage.
6 Matrices
6.1 The Applicant is reminded of the advice on completing matrices in accordance with ‘Planning Inspectorate Advice note ten: Habitat Regulations Assessment relevant to nationally significant infrastructure projects’ (January 2016 version 7) and its accompanying appendices ([attachment 1]

01 February 2017
Royal Haskoning DHV - Matt Simpson
Wylfa Newydd Nuclear Power Station
response has attachments
Project update meeting
See attached meeting note

01 February 2017
Sembcorp Utilities (UK) Limited - Scott Taylor
Tees CCPP
Enquiry received via email
Can you tell us if the above Highways England project has been accepted as a NSIP?

Ii is currently subject to ‘informal’ Public Consultation (18th Jan to 1st March 2017).
HE Scheme Milestones show their planning application being submitted to you in Summer 2018.

The HE consultation documents make no provision for London Paramount Entertainment Resort.
The reason given is, “At this stage there has been no application for planning permission”.
However, London Paramount was accepted onto the NSIP procedure on 9th May 2014.

LPER is dependent on these two junctions.
The notes of PINS 26th March 2015 meeting with Paramount included: -

“The DCO boundary currently includes land along the A2 extending to the Bean Junction, which is under review by the Highways Agency so may not be required by LRCH”.

Highways England tell us that if LPER proceeds, the improvements now proposed to both junctions would change.

On 26th March 2015 Ardent (for LPER) wrote to residents and businesses warning that grant of DCO would give CA powers. We would like LPER to withdraw their letters and leave Highways England (and yourselves) to deal with road improvements.

Can you clarify for us what is likely to happen and help to end the prolonged uncertainty and stress?
I understand that Highways England are currently consulting the public on the A2 Bean to Ebbsfleet scheme. No application has been submitted or accepted yet.

The term “accepted” has a particular meaning in the Planning Act 2008 NSIP process. Only when a DCO application has been submitted and has been checked to make sure it is of a satisfactory standard to be examined is it normally described as “accepted”. Neither the A2 Bean to Ebbsfleet scheme or the London Paramount Entertainment resort would therefore normally be described as “accepted” at this time.

The London Paramount scheme was directed into the Planning Act 2008 regime on 9 May 2014. That means that any future application for the development should use the Planning Act 2008 regime (rather than a normal planning application), because the Secretary of State has decided that the scheme is an NSIP.

The A2 Bean to Ebbsfleet scheme did not have to be directed in the same way. It is already an NSIP because it is expected to meet the size thresholds for highway schemes in the Planning Act itself.

The effect of this is that both Highways England’s scheme and London Paramount are both in the same stage; they are both NSIPs, and the applicants are consulting on them, but neither has submitted a formal application yet. We call this the “Pre-Application” stage.

Because no application has yet been submitted for either scheme, we do not yet know the extent of the powers that the applicants will ask for or the land that will be affected by the applications. If either applicant seeks to compulsorily acquire any land in their application, that request will have to be justified and the justification and need for each and every piece of land will be thoroughly tested in the examination of the application. If these are not robust, the powers will not be granted; even if the application is otherwise successful.

If you have comments on what requests for compulsory acquisition the applications should contain, you should respond to the pre-application consultations being carried out by Highways England and the London Paramount scheme. If and when applications are submitted and accepted, you will have the opportunity to register as an Interested Party. You can then participate in the examinations and comment on any requests for compulsory acquisition that the applications do contain.

Only once the applications have been examined and the comments of Interested Parties have been considered, and only if a compelling case in the public interest is found to exist for each piece of land, will any powers of compulsorily acquisition over that piece of land be granted.

If you have any other questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.

31 January 2017
Bean Residents Association - Linda Collins
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached meeting note

26 January 2017
RiverOak
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting with National Grid concerning the proposed North West Coast Connection project
See attached meeting note

26 January 2017
National Grid
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Please see attached meeting note
Please see attached meeting note

24 January 2017
Vattenfall Wind Power Ltd
Norfolk Boreas
Enquiry received via phone
response has attachments
Can solar farm applications in England and Scotland fall under the remit of the Planning Act 2008.
Section 15 of the Planning Act 2008 as amended (the PA 2008) details the threshold at which a generating station project is defined as a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP). For onshore generating stations proposed within England or Wales, projects with a capacity of over 50MW will be considered as NSIPs. Onshore generating stations proposed within Scotland do not fall under the remit of the PA 2008.

Unfortunately, the term ‘capacity’ is not defined within the PA 2008. Two definitions are provided in relation to renewable energy production and electricity generation licensing within the Renewables Obligation Order 2009 (SI 2009/785), as follows:
‘Total Installed Capacity’ in relation to a generating station, means the maximum capacity at which the station could be operated for a sustained period without causing damage to it (assuming the source of power used by it to generate electricity was available to it without interruption);
‘Declared Net Capacity’ in relation to a generating station, means the maximum capacity at which the station could be operated for a sustained period without causing damage to it (assuming the source of power used by it to generate electricity was available to it without interruption) less the amount of electricity that is consumed by the plant;
In the absence of any statutory definition or applicable case law, we consider that the term ‘capacity’ within section 15 of the PA 2008 refers to the ‘Total Installed Capacity’ as defined above. Please note however that the Planning Inspectorate is not able to provide legal advice on which applicants and others can rely, therefore applicants will need to ensure they have a robust argument to support their understanding of the capacity of their proposals.

The Planning Inspectorate offers a free service for applicants at the pre-application stage of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process. Please see the Prospectus found at the following link for further details: [attachment 1]

The Planning Inspectorate has published a series of advice notes which explain the process, including information on how to get involved. These are available at [attachment 2]

24 January 2017
Pegasus Planning - Peta Donkin
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Meeting with SP Energy Networks
See attached Meeting Note

24 January 2017
SP Energy Networks
Reinforcement to North Shropshire Electricity Distribution Network
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Meeting between Pins and Horizon Nuclear Power
See attached meeting note

23 January 2017
Horizon Nuclear Power
Wylfa Newydd Nuclear Power Station
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see the attached note

20 January 2017
Network Rail Infrastructure Limited - Michaela Payne
Western Rail Link to Heathrow
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
The Planning Inspectorate attended a meeting called by the Secretary of State for Wales. The meeting agenda was concerned with the relationship between a potential third bridge crossing of the Menai Strait (the bridge) and the proposed North Wales Grid Connection project (the connector) which is in turn related to the Wylfa Newydd Nuclear Power Station Project (the power station)
Please see attached meeting note

19 January 2017
Secretary of State for Wales - anon.
North Wales Connection
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
The Planning Inspectorate were invited to give a presentation to the HSPG about the Planning Act 2008 process.
A record of the presentation and advice given is provided in the attached note.

17 January 2017
Heathrow Strategic Planning Group - anon.
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see the attached meeting note

17 January 2017
Dong Energy - Stuart Livesey
Hornsea Project Three Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
The Planning Inspectorate were invited to give a presentation to the HSPG about the Planning Act 2008 process.
See attached meeting note.

This meeting note was originally published (and remains published) on the general register of advice: [attachment 1]

17 January 2017
Heathrow Strategic Planning Group - anon.
Expansion of Heathrow Airport (Third Runway)
Enquiry received via email
The enquirer requested to view the Book of Reference associated with The Daventry International Rail Freight Interchange Alteration Order 2014.
For each project, the Planning Inspectorate now removes the Book of Reference from its website after the Judicial Review period has expired. This is subsequent to internal legal advice.

However, the Explanatory Note on page 42 of The Daventry International Rail Freight Interchange Alteration Order 2014 states:

“A copy of the plans and book of reference referred to in this Order and certified in accordance with article 28 (certification of plans etc) of this Order may be inspected free of charge at the offices of Daventry District Council at Lodge Road Daventry NN11 4FP and Rugby Borough Council Town Hall Evreux Way CV21 2RR.”

I hope that you find this information useful.

16 January 2017
Gowling WLG - Cairo Nickolls
General
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Comments regarding the proposed Northampton Gateway Rail Freight Interchange
Please note that this project is at the pre-application stage and no application has yet been received by the Planning Inspectorate. The developer recently requested a Scoping Opinion from the Secretary of State – the Scoping Opinion contains advice to the developer on how they should undertake the environmental impact assessment for the project, should they wish to take their proposals forward. The list of bodies that the Planning Inspectorate can consult before producing a scoping opinion is largely prescribed by law. This is explained in more detail in our advice note titled ‘EIA Notification and Consultation’ which I have attached to this email.

At this stage therefore the Planning Inspectorate can only accept your email for information purposes. I would encourage you to contact the developer directly to make your concerns known. During the pre-application process the developer will also be required to carry out statutory consultation (under sections 42, 44 and 47 of the Planning Act 2008) before they submit their application to the Planning Inspectorate. This will involve the provision of information about the proposal to various statutory and non-statutory bodies and the wider community, responding to questions, listening to suggestions and taking these into account to influence and inform the application that will ultimately be submitted to the Planning Inspectorate. The Government has published Guidance on the pre-application stage of the process, which can be found at the following link: [attachment 1]

The Planning Inspectorate has published a series of advice notes which explain the process, including information on how to get involved. These are available at [attachment 2] I would draw your attention in particular to advice notes 8.1 to 8.5.

You can receive updates about the project at key milestones by signing-up to email updates on the project page at the following link: [attachment 3] By signing up you will receive notifications such as when the application is formally submitted, if the application is accepted to proceed to examination and when the period to register a relevant representation opens and closes. It is advised that in order to stay up to date with the application you regularly visit the project page.

11 January 2017
Various Enquiries
Northampton Gateway Rail Freight Interchange
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Pins Meeting with Developer
See attached meeting notes

10 January 2017
Eggborough Power Limited
Eggborough CCGT
Enquiry received via post
I am writing to complain over the soon to be planning application that National Grid will be submitting to you.
We do not accept pylons between Drigg and Seascale. We do not accept the line being moved west closer to Stubblegreen. We do not accept that part of our village is to be underground cables and that our area, Stubblegreen, is to have pylons moved closer to our homes.
We will not accept this.
Our area has one of the best views in the western area of Cumbria a full 180° view of the Western Lake District fells, pylons in this would destroy the amenity value of our area. Detrimental to tourism both in and out the park.
Nugen the private company behind Moorside is paying nothing towards the National Grid upgrade. It should be paying for undergrounding all the way. In particular the southern route as this effects the National Park.
The Lake District National Park is currently in a bid for World Heritage Status. Pylons will destroy the beauty of the park both looking out and looking into the park in our area in particular.
We urge you to visit our area and do not allow pylons to destroy our area.
Moorside could and should be put in a location where road and grid infrastructure already exists such as Heysham. It will not provide local jobs. Nugen has already stated 4000-6000 workers will need to be brought into Cumbria.
Please protect our area.
We are not able to comment on your views about the project itself as the Planning Inspectorate must remain impartial in order to protect the interests of all parties that may participate in any future examination of an application.

It is for National Grid to design their project and justify it in their application for development consent. Part of this may include providing adequate information about why alternative design solutions were discounted at earlier stages of the project evolution. Like any other private or public organisation or individual they have a right to make an application for development consent. It is at their own risk if they submit an application that is not fully-formed, justified or mitigated properly using the views and information gathered at the pre application stage, and as a result falls short of gaining development consent.

I can assure you that if the application is accepted for examination, the appointed Examining Authority will carefully scrutinise the proposals and test it against the relevant National Policy Statement on electricity transmission infrastructure. In broad terms, the role of the Examining Authority will be to weigh the impact of the proposals against the Government’s policy on new transmission lines. The recommendation made by the Examining Authority to the Secretary of State about the project will be evidence based, taking account of all matters they decide are relevant and important. The Secretary of State (an elected Minister) will make the final decision about whether or not to grant development consent. The examination is held in public and all documents and any oral evidence provided and submitted to the Examining Authority is published during the course of the examination.

Anyone can participate in the examination by registering a relevant representation at the appropriate time. If you would like to be notified about the formal events that take place after the application is submitted then please enter your email address in the Email Updates section of the North West Coast Connections project page of the National Infrastructure Planning website.

09 January 2017
Sadie Clarke
General
response has attachments
Please see attached letter from EDF Energy
Please see attached letter from the Planning Inspectorate

06 January 2017
EDF Energy - Carly Vince
Hinkley Point C New Nuclear Power Station
Enquiry received via phone
response has attachments
Planning permission has been granted for a new battery storage facility in South Oxfordshire with a capacity of more than 50MW - does this mean that battery storage is not regarded as a form of energy generation, as defined in the Planning Act 2008?
There Department of Business Energy and Industrial Strategy issued a consultation and call for evidence regarding energy storage on 10 November 2016. The consultation closes on 12 January 2017: [attachment 1]

Para 22 of the consultation document states, "For the time being BEIS, the Scottish Government and the Welsh Government agree that a storage facility is a form of electricity generating station. This means that a storage facility with a capacity of >50MW in England and Wales will need development consent as required by sections 15 and 31 of the Planning Act 2008 or Scottish Ministers’ consent under section 36 of the Electricity Act. We believe further clarity is needed within the planning framework about how to classify and treat storage projects, given the emerging nature of the market and new technologies."

PINS has advised officials at the Department of Business Energy and Industrial Strategy and the local planning authority that planning permission has been granted for an energy storage facility that may be an NSIP, for which development consent is required under s31 of the Planning Act 2008. Under Part 8 (Enforcement) of the Planning Act 2008 the local planning authority may decide about the expediency of undertaking an investigation and any action that could result.

04 January 2017
Andrew Troupe
General
I have grave concerns about the way in which these consultations have been structured. A national PRIVATE company (National Grid) wishes to put a major infrastructure in place. They hold ‘consultations in areas that might be affected’ but actually tell the surrounding communities what their preferred option is. They then take initial consultations which result in overwhelming support for an offshore option. This private company (NG) then reveals it is to go onshore throughout the Lake District National Park, across the Duddon Estuary in the setting of the National Park and connect via a tunnel across Morecambe bay (protecting the communities of south Lakeland). They then revise their preferred option to ‘mitigate‘, undergrounding in the LDNP, while incredibly still saying they will connect a power line section onshore across the setting of the National Park. This private company then tells us the bottom line is they have already shown great consideration with undergrounding and a tunnel, and the pylons across areas of outstanding natural beauty and SSSI land do not have ‘particularly significant’ effects on the landscape. To summarise, a private company tells citizens of the UK and the people of the Lake District what it will and will not do regarding OUR landscape? Since when have the population in a democracy been told what they must put up with by a private company! We are the communities who live here. In a democracy the people who live in an area should be stipulating what can and cannot be done in areas of outstanding natural beauty.

Most importantly, the private company National Grid is allowed to collate, count and sort the responses that they receive from the public who have responded! There is no public scrutiny from those who have put time and effort into campaigning against these monstrous proposals. How is this democratic? These communities do not trust National Grid with their responses, since their overwhelming desire for an offshore connection when asked for their views was completely ignored in the first consultation and then justified later by saying it was not a viable option anyway!! In the case of a national infrastructure development proposed by a private company, why do we not have safeguards such an INDEPENDENT company or group collecting, collating and reviewing the responses, while at the same time being open to scrutiny. This is absolutely intolerable- it is looking like corrupt behaviour from an overseas dictatorship rather than a democratic open society such as we supposedly call ourselves. At the very least we should have our MP John Woodcock, scrutinizing the responses alongside other interested parties.
I can address your concerns about the pre application consultation process directly, however, the Inspectorate must remain impartial in order to protect the interests of all parties that may participate in a future examination of an application, if and when one is submitted. As such, I am not able to comment on your views about the project itself.

Past and present Governments’ policy on the provision of infrastructure has led to the current situation where energy infrastructure, including power stations and electricity transmission lines, are developed and owned by private companies, and regulated by government through Ofgem and other similar bodies. If you disagree with Government policy in this regard then you should contact your local member of parliament or write directly to the responsible government minister.

Its not unusual for private companies to carry out consultation in many walks of life. In doing so, they are required to act responsibly and in accordance with data protection legislation. The same is true of the consultation undertaken by National Grid in respect of this project. In this context it would not be appropriate for National Grid to share consultation responses sent to them with 3rd parties unless they are a public body that has a formal (legal) role in the application process, such as the Planning Inspectorate or Secretary of State.

The legislation that underpins the pre application process for nationally significant infrastructure projects is contained in the Planning Act 2008 and related regulations. In general terms, these set down a minimum standard that applicants must meet when consulting with local communities, technical bodies and others. When an application is submitted, the Inspectorate has 28 days to check the documentation and to make sure it is of a standard that is capable of being examined within the statutory 6-month timescale. One of the documents we will check is a Consultation Report. In this Report, applicants are required to document what consultation activity took place at the pre application stage and how they had regard to the views put to them. We will also ask for the views of the relevant local authorities about whether or not the consultation undertaken by the applicant was adequate.

The views collected by National Grid are primarily to assist them to develop and refine their proposals before an application is made. The applicant is not required to agree with all the comments or to amend their proposals, however, in the Consultation Report they are required to provide reasons about why they have or have not changed their proposals in response to the comments received. If the Inspectorate considers it necessary, we can ask an applicant to provide us with all the responses received during the pre application stage so that we can cross-check them against the information set out in the Consultation Report.

Ultimately, it is for National Grid to design their project and justify it in their application for development consent. Part of this may include providing adequate information about why alternative design solutions were discounted at earlier stages of the project evolution. Like any other private or public organisation or individual they have a right to make an application for development consent. It is at their own risk if they submit an application that is not fully-formed, justified or mitigated properly using the views and information gathered at the pre application stage, and as a result falls short of gaining development consent.

I can assure you that if the application is accepted for examination, the appointed Examining Authority will carefully scrutinise the proposals and test it against the relevant National Policy Statement on electricity transmission infrastructure. In broad terms, the role of the Examining Authority will be to weigh the impact of the proposals against the Government’s policy on new transmission lines. The recommendation made by the Examining Authority to the Secretary of State about the project will be evidence based, taking account of all matters they decide are relevant and important. The Secretary of State (an elected Minister) will make the final decision about whether or not to grant development consent. The examination is held in public and all documents and any oral evidence provided and submitted to the Examining Authority is published during the course of the examination.

Anyone can participate in the examination by registering a relevant representation at the appropriate time. If you would like to be notified about the formal events that take place after the application is submitted then please enter your email address in the Email Updates section of the North West Coast Connections project page of the National Infrastructure Planning website.

More information about the pre application process and future stages can also be found on our website.

03 January 2017
Edgar Busbridge
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
See attached meeting note

03 January 2017
Vattenfal Wind Power ltd - Helen Jameson
Thanet Extension Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Re National Grid North West coast connections proposals
I have great concern about the way in which these consultations have been structured. A major private company wishes to put a major infrastructure in place. They hold ‘consultations in areas that might be affected’ but do not publicise and inform the rest of the country? Why not? The Lake District is one of the most popular places in the country so it means millions of our own population visit it, these people would surely want to know if one of their favourite places to visit in the UK is to be decimated in this way? Surely it would be good practice to be required to share this information with the country- it is infrastructure of importance after all.
The consultation period was delayed twice in 2016. Yet no such extension period pro rata has been given to those who are being consulted. This means the overall time for responses to be in has been considerably shortened. The last consultation was around 8th December 2016 in Millom, so this community has less than 1 month to read and digest all the technical detail in all the vast number of documents. Is there any community or company that could do that so quickly?
At the initial consultation we had 3 options available. When the offshore connection was overwhelmingly chosen, this option was removed by saying it was not feasible!! How are private large companies like NG able to justify their behaviour in this way, within the ‘consultation’ exercise itself?
The response document is many pages long and highly complex with absurd questions such as Q6 appearing to act in a scare mongering way about the amount of money being spent, with no context of costs for each phase including the power station itself.NG also says anyone can respond but they make no effort to inform all those who visit or all those who might be interested in such developments. Children can respond but where is the child friendly document for all those future adults who will have to live with this decision?
Most importantly, the company NG is allowed to collect, monitor and grade the responses that they receive without scrutiny from the public who have responded. How is this democratic? No one in these communities trusts NG with their objections or their views (their overwhelming desire for offshore connections when first asked for their views were ignored despite this being one of the options available for the initial consultation) so why in this case of a national infrastructure development do we not have an INDEPENDENT company collecting, collating and reviewing the responses and at the same time being open to scrutiny re NG proposals. This is absolutely intolerable- it is equivalent to the Conservative or Labour party having the role of running the election.
Thank you for your email of 17 December regarding the pre application consultation undertaken by National Grid for the North West Coast Connections project.

We are responsible for administering the development consent process and for providing advice to members of the public and others about the process. If and when the application is submitted to us, we will formally request the views of the relevant local authorities about whether or not NG complied with the commitments they set out in their Statement of Community Consultation (SoCC). The SoCC is a document in which NG were required to explain the way in which they intended to consult the local communities affected by the proposals, including the duration of the consultation, the types of activities that were intended to take place and the geographical coverage of the consultation activity. NG were required to consult the relevant local authorities about their consultation methodology before implementing it. As such, if you have strong views about the way in which local communities have been consulted on this project we would advise you to forward these to your local authority who may use them to inform their representation to us about the adequacy of NG’s pre application consultation, at the time the application is submitted.

If and when an application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate by NG we will check all the documents and plans to make sure they are of an acceptable standard and are capable of being formally examined. One of the documents we will check is the Consultation Report which should describe the consultation NG did before they submitted their application and to report on how they had regard to the views put to them by consultees. In checking the veracity of the Consultation Report, the Planning Inspectorate can ask NG to provide some or all of the responses provided to them by consultees. We can use these to check that the identification of issues in the Report is an accurate reflection of the views provided to them.

At the pre application stage, NG is required to publicise their proposals in local and national newspapers under s48 of the Planning Act 2008. The responses to this publicity also need to be included in the Consultation Report.

If you would like more information about the development consent process we have produced useful videos and written material on our website here:

[attachment 1]

20 December 2016
Lucy Gilbert
General
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please find attached Weddicar Parish Council's representation on the NWCC Consultation. While teh council understand that the Planning Inspectorate will not consider comments on the proposed works at this time, we draw your attention to section 2: Adequacy of consultation statement. In this, we raise concerns about the duration of the consultation process given the size of the project. We would appreciate your consideration on these concerns.
Thank you for your email of 16 December regarding the pre application consultation undertaken by National Grid for the North West Coast Connections project. We are responsible for administering the development consent process and for providing advice to members of the public and others about the process.

If and when an application is submitted to us, we will formally request the views of the relevant local authorities about whether or not NG complied with the commitments they set out in their Statement of Community Consultation (SoCC). The SoCC is a document in which NG were required to explain the way in which they intended to consult the local communities affected by the proposals, including the duration of the consultation, the types of activities that were intended to take place and the geographical coverage of the consultation activity.

NG were required to consult the relevant local authorities about their consultation methodology before implementing it. As such, if you have strong views about the way in which local communities have been consulted on this project we would advise you to forward these to your local authority who may use them to inform their representation to us about the adequacy of NG’s pre application consultation, at the time the application is submitted.

If you would like more information about the development consent process we have produced useful videos and written material on our website here:

[attachment 1]

20 December 2016
Weddicar Parish Council - Ralph Mitchell
General
Enquiry received via email
I have seen reference to RiverOak carrying out their statutory consultation in Q1 2017, which is now only a matter of a few weeks away. I understand that they are required by the Planning Act 2008 to produce a Statement of Public Participation, which sets out how this consultation will be carried out. Are you able to confirm whether RiverOak have proposed a SoPP so far? If so, could you please confirm whether the SoPP has been accepted by the Planning Inspectorate, or whether a request for further information has been made by the PI?

If the SoPP has been accepted, could you please provide a copy by return, or alternatively confirm when it will be published on the PI website.
The Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) requires developers to prepare a Statement of Community Consultation (SoCC). The Planning Inspectorate does not have a formal role in the preparation of SoCCs, but it does offer a service to review draft iterations of them. The Planning Inspectorate has not been approached by RiverOak in this regard to date.

Developers are required to consult relevant local authorities about what the SoCC should contain. The SoCC details the consultation the developer intends to undertake with the local community about its proposed development. Developers are required to publish a notice stating where and when the SOCC can be inspected, and must carry out their consultation with the local community as set out in the SoCC.

After the consultation period, developers must have regard to any relevant responses received. As part of the application documents, developers must provide a consultation report demonstrating how they have had regard to responses. The consultation report must:

• Give an account of the statutory consultation, publicity, deadlines set, and community consultation activities undertaken by the developer at the Pre-application stage under s42, s47 and s48 of the PA2008;
• A summary of the relevant responses to the separate strands of consultation; and
• The account taken of responses in developing the application from proposed to final form, as required by s49(2).

If you are not satisfied with a developer’s consultation process you should inform the developer about your concerns as soon as possible and allow time for a response. You may also wish to notify the local authority, as they will later have the opportunity to report on their view of the adequacy of the developer’s Pre-application consultation, measuring what was delivered against the commitments made in the SoCC.

15 December 2016
Robert Bird
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Portishead Branch Line Site Visit
Please see attached note of the Site Visit.

15 December 2016
North Somerset District Council
Portishead Branch Line - MetroWest Phase 1
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project meeting update
See attached meeting note

15 December 2016
Vattenfal Wind Power ltd - Ruari Lean
Norfolk Vanguard
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
See attached meeting note

15 December 2016
Scottish Power Renwables (UK) Ltd - Mandy King
East Anglia ONE North Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached note

15 December 2016
Scottish Power Renwables (UK) Ltd - Mandy King
East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
See attached meeting note

14 December 2016
Sembcorp Utilities (UK) Limited - Scott Taylor
Tees CCPP
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project meeting update
Please see attached meeting note

13 December 2016
Eggborough Power Limited - James Crankshaw
Eggborough CCGT
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The applicant (via their agents) provided a note on the proposed approach to be taken within the EIA to assessing the potential cumulative effects of the CCGT Project with the future decommissioning/demolition of the existing coal-fired power station.

The Planning Inspectorate were asked to review and provide any comments on the proposed approach outlined in the note.
See attachment

12 December 2016
Dalton Warner Davis - Geoff Bullock
Eggborough CCGT
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Can you confirm whether the following statement reflects The Planning Inspectorate's approach.
The Planning Inspectorate has advised that [Rail Central applicant Ashfield Land] should have regard to the emerging Roxhill proposals in terms of [Rail Central's] assessment and technical studies (i.e. for cumulative impact assessments) but that any examinations of two potential DCO applications coming forward will be separate.
Please see below a link to a recent Project Update Meeting between PINS and Rail Central (Ashfield Land) where this matter was discussed. For ease of reference I copy the text most relevant to your query as part of this email.
[attachment 1]

“The Inspectorate noted that there had recently been proposals for a Strategic Rail Freight Interchange in very close proximity to the Rail Central site – The Inspectorate had received a Scoping Request for the proposed Northampton Gateway Scheme on 21 October 2016. The developer noted the proposals and confirmed that they would be including the project as part of their cumulative impact assessment. The Inspectorate considered it would be helpful if both developers could be as clear as possible in any consultation activity about the existence of the other to assist those who wish to provide consultation responses.

The Inspectorate confirmed that it had received queries about how the PA2008 regime would or could deal with a situation of two Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIPs) of the same ‘type’ (i.e. Strategic Rail Freight Interchange) in very close proximity to each other.

Following submission and acceptance of a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP) application made in accordance with the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008), an Examining Authority (ExA) will be appointed to formally examine “the application”. The application seeks approval for the proposed development as identified in the accompanying plans. If made, a Development Consent Order cannot give permission for a wholly alternative site or a wholly different scheme to that which has been identified as the proposed development, or development site, within the DCO application.

The PA2008 does not explicitly provide for a situation whereby an ExA could be appointed to consider more than one application simultaneously (that is to effectively hold a joint examination of multiple applications) although this is not explicitly precluded. Notwithstanding the legality of such an approach, in practical terms the scale and complexity of the issues in examining two separate and independent NSIP applications within a 6 month examination timetable could have implications for achieving legally robust and distinct decisions as implied by PA2008. Furthermore, presumably such an approach would require separate applications to be submitted on very similar timescales and would need the agreement of both applicants.

However, aside from the legislative and logistical issues of an approach to examining two applications together, if a project requires an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) to be submitted as part of the application, the EIA Regulations necessitate that the applicant undertakes an assessment of cumulative effects, and considers alternatives to the proposed development. The assessment of cumulative effects would take into account other reasonably foreseeable schemes including any other relevant NSIPs. Given the scale of the proposed development for an NSIP it is highly likely that an EIA/ES would be required. More information on cumulative effects assessment including a proposed methodology can be found in Planning Inspectorate Advice Note 17. It is therefore safe to assume that the decision maker would be equipped with an assessment of the likely cumulative effects associated with both schemes including if they were both operational. The developer confirmed that they would be undertaking a cumulative assessment which would include the Northampton Gateway Strategic Rail Freight Interchange project.

When making a decision on whether or not to grant consent for an NSIP, the Secretary of State will have regard to any important and relevant matter; as will the Inspector(s) appointed to examine an application and report to the Secretary of State. The impact of a proposal on existing uses and its compatibility with other developments is a matter that could be raised in submissions and could be capable of being relevant and important.”

09 December 2016
Mark Redding
Rail Central (Strategic Rail Freight Interchange)
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached meeting note.

09 December 2016
Roxhill representatives
Northampton Gateway Rail Freight Interchange
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see the attached meeting note.

09 December 2016
Four Ashes Limited - anon.
West Midlands Interchange
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Note of feedback meeting held between the Planning Inspectorate and Highways England.
See attachment.

08 December 2016
Highways England - anon.
M4 Junctions 3 to 12 Smart Motorway
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Update in relation to the North West Coast Connections Project
See attached meeting note

08 December 2016
National Grid - anon.
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached meeting note

06 December 2016
Vattenfal Wind Power ltd - Helen Jameson
Thanet Extension Offshore Wind Farm
response has attachments
Project update meeting
See attached meeting note

01 December 2016
DONG Energy - Stuart Livesey
Hornsea Project Three Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting.
See attached meeting note.

01 December 2016
Heathrow Airport Ltd - anon.
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting.
See attached meeting note.

This meeting note was originally published (and remains published) on the general register of advice: [attachment 1]

01 December 2016
Heathrow Airport Ltd - anon.
Expansion of Heathrow Airport (Third Runway)
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I am a resident of Church Road, XXX XXX, who is currently suffering the access for residents and traffic issues surrounding the Barrey Road junction/A2070 now that the Ashford Business Park new tenants are attracting steady business from both the local and outside area.

To be honest the traffic is becoming so severe that I fear that a fatality is imminent.

I am writing in order to gain some clarification on the responsibility of the lack of proposal to the Barrey Road/A2070 junction when planning the J10a M20 proposal.

For clarification can you kindly confirm:

1. Are there any plans to modify the Barrey Road/A2070 junction within the Junc 10a M20 proposal? (I cannot see any modification on the latest amendment)

2. Was there ever any modification plans in place that have been amended due to a cost cutting exercise? If so who was responsible for this decision and what body did they represent?

3. Can you furnish me with the key names of the person(s) from ABC/KCC who are involved in the key decision making processes?

I fear that residents and local businesses are not being given fair and accurate information and are informed by local Cllr's that HA are responsible for the absence of modification to the Barrey Road/A2070 junction yet I suspect that this may not be the case and that the decision making processes lay with Ashford Borough and Kent County Councils who have made a cost cutting exercise.

Once the residents and local businesses are aware of who is responsible for lack of modification or amendments to remove modifications, we will know who to lobby, rather than having a scattergun approach.
From our records, I have been unable to identify you as an Interested Party for the purposes of this Examination.

The period within which members of the public could register to become an Interested Party expired on 3 October 2016. You may still make representations to the Examination, but they will be accepted (or otherwise) at the discretion of the Examining Authority (the Inspector appointed to examine the application). For assistance understanding the decision-making process under the Planning Act 2008, there is a suite of non-technical advice notes available on our website, here: [attachment 1]

Notwithstanding this, I will respond to the points about which you seek clarification:

1. Are there any plans to modify the Barrey Road/A2070 junction within the Junc 10a M20 proposal? (I cannot see any modification on the latest amendment)

The latest plans setting out the development proposed by Highways England are available on our website, here: [attachment 2] Click the 'Documents' tab and search for 'Works Plans'. You may also consider contacting Highways England directly to discuss the detailed design of the scheme. The relevant team is available at [email protected] or on 03004701297.

2. Was there ever any modification plans in place that have been amended due to a cost cutting exercise? If so who was responsible for this decision and what body did they represent?

The application is made by Highways England (HE), and HE is therefore wholly responsible for the design of the proposed development. Information about the design evolution of the proposed development can be found the application documentation, available to view as per my above response. In this respect, the 'Consultation Report' may be of particular interest to you, so search for this.

3. Can you furnish me with the key names of the person(s) from ABC/KCC who are involved in the key decision making processes?

Under the Planning Act 2008, local authorities have a bespoke role. ABC and KCC were consulted by HE as the scheme was developed at the Pre-application stage of the process, and also made representations to the Planning Inspectorate about the adequacy of HE's Pre-application consultation. In the Examination, local authorities are Interested Parties and may make representations to the Examining Authority about the merits of the application. They do not have a decision-making role. For the avoidance of doubt, the Planning Inspectorate operates under a delegated function from the SoS for Communities and Local Government - it examines applications for development consent. The Inspectorate then makes a recommendation to the relevant SoS (in this case, the SoS for Transport), who takes the final decision.

Based on the information that we have on record, I understand that Mark Davies is the relevant contact at ABC and Katie Stewart at KCC.

29 November 2016
Andrew Whybrow
M20 Junction 10A
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Response made in a personal capacity to the Scoping consultation.
As the project is currently in the Pre-Application stage, we strongly encourage you to raise your concerns with the developer directly if you have not already done so. If an application is made, and Roxhill (Junction 15) have suggested a submission date of Q3/Q4 2017, then you will have a further opportunity to register as an Interested Party and raise your concerns. We encourage all parties to access further information about the process via The Planning Inspectorate website. The Advice Note 8 series should provide advice on how to have your say in the planning process (see here: [attachment 1] ).

25 November 2016
Stephen and Vivian Blyth
Northampton Gateway Rail Freight Interchange
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Response made to the Scoping consultation objecting to the proposed development.
As the project is currently in the Pre-Application stage, we strongly encourage you to raise your concerns with the developer directly if you have not already done so. If an application is made, and Roxhill (Junction 15) have suggested a submission date of Q3/Q4 2017, then you will have a further opportunity to register as an Interested Party and raise your concerns. We encourage all parties to access further information about the process via The Planning Inspectorate website. The Advice Note 8 series should provide advice on how to have your say in the planning process (see here: [attachment 1] ).

25 November 2016
Northants Friends of the Earth - Alan Heath
Northampton Gateway Rail Freight Interchange
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Response made in a personal capacity to the Scoping consultation.
As the project is currently in the Pre-Application stage, we strongly encourage you to raise your concerns with the developer directly if you have not already done so. If an application is made, and Roxhill (Junction 15) have suggested a submission date of Q3/Q4 2017, then you will have a further opportunity to register as an Interested Party and raise your concerns. We encourage all parties to access further information about the process via The Planning Inspectorate website. The Advice Note 8 series should provide advice on how to have your say in the planning process (see here: [attachment 1] ).

25 November 2016
Alistair Inglis
Northampton Gateway Rail Freight Interchange
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Response made in a personal capacity to the Scoping consultation.
Roxhill (Junction 15) Ltd have not yet submitted an application for development consent, and the project is currently in the Pre-Application stage of the development consent process.

As the project is currently in the Pre-Application stage, we strongly encourage you to raise your concerns with the developer directly if you have not already done so. If an application is made, and Roxhill (Junction 15) have suggested a submission date of Q3/Q4 2017, then you will have a further opportunity to register as an Interested Party and raise your concerns. We encourage all parties to access further information about the process via The Planning Inspectorate website. The Advice Note 8 series should provide advice on how to have your say in the planning process (see here: [attachment 1] ).

25 November 2016
Liam Costello
Northampton Gateway Rail Freight Interchange
response has attachments
Response made to the Scoping consultation.
As the project is currently in the Pre-Application stage, we strongly encourage you to raise your concerns with the developer directly if you have not already done so. If an application is made, and Roxhill (Junction 15) have suggested a submission date of Q3/Q4 2017, then you will have a further opportunity to register as an Interested Party and raise your concerns. We encourage all parties to access further information about the process via The Planning Inspectorate website. The Advice Note 8 series should provide advice on how to have your say in the planning process (see here: [attachment 1] ).

25 November 2016
Roade Local History Society - Vivian Blyth
Northampton Gateway Rail Freight Interchange
I represent the Suffolk Local Resilience Forum, as established by Section 4 of the Civil Contingencies Act 2004(Contingency Planning) Regulations 2005, and wish to seek clarification as to the role of this statutory process with regard to duties under Section 88 of the Planning Act 2008 and Section 3 of The Infrastructure Planning (Interested Parties and Miscellaneous Prescribed Provisions) Regulations 2015.

Specifically I wish to understand within the context of Local Resilience Forum’s not being a statutory party for projects within England, Section 3(2) of the Infrastructure Planning (Interested Parties and Miscellaneous Prescribed Provisions) Regulations 2015 refers, which body will discharge the enduring statutory civil contingency assessments around risk assessment and emergency planning? The Suffolk Local Resilience Forum is monitoring the ongoing activity around the Sizewell C New Nuclear Power Station and wishes to understand its liabilities under the Planning Act and associated regulations and any consultation obligations that fall to EDF Energy as the developer.
Thank you for your email of 23rd November regarding the status of a Local Resilience Forum (LRF) in the Development Consent process. I’ve set out below the legal status of LRFs at the Pre application stage and Post submission of an application.

Pre Application

The Infrastructure Planning (Prescribed Forms and procedures) Regulations do not identify a LRF in England as a prescribed (statutory) consultee during the pre-application stage. However, this does not prevent a developer from exercising their discretion to consult a LRF in the same way as a prescribed consultee under s42 of the Planning Act 2008. We can’t compel them to do this though. The pre application consultation stage should include an opportunity for organisations and individuals to engage with the applicant under s47 of the Planning Act 2008, as part of the wider community consultation.

Post Submission

After the application is submitted, there will be an opportunity for any organisation or individual to register a relevant representation in order to become an “Interested Party” – everyone who registers will get an invitation to the Preliminary Meeting and will have the same status, going forward, as the prescribed consultees. There will be publicity about the registration process at the time and you can also get automatic updates about the Sizewell project by entering your email into “Email Updates” field on the Sizewell project page of National infrastructure Planning website. This facility will only provide updates in relation to the DCO process and not about the EDF’s pre-application consultation activities.

Organisations under Reg 3(1) of The Infrastructure Planning (Interested Parties and Miscellaneous Prescribed Provisions) Regulations 2015 are automatically Interested Parties and so do not need to register. They will also automatically be invited to the Preliminary Meeting. Even so, we advise prescribed consultees to register a relevant representation because this allows their early views about the application to inform the Examining Authority’s initial assessment of issues, which is carried out in advance of the Preliminary Meeting.

The schedule of prescribed organisations includes the relevant County, District or Unitary authorities, HSE, relevant Police and Fire Authorities, the Environment Agency and various NHS bodies. I understand that these organisations form the basis of LRF partnership and as such they will individually and collectively be able to promote the issues of interest to the Suffolk LRF in the absence of any Interested Party registration by you. Suffolk LRF could usefully discuss the areas of concern and interest about the Sizewell project and seek a common position with the members about the best way to promote the LRF’s views in the process. I’m afraid I’m not aware of the reasons why LRFs were removed from the list of prescribed consultees by the 2015 Regulations, which were drafted by DCLG. However, I would assume that inclusion or otherwise on the list does not have any bearing on your duties under the Civil Contingencies Act (2004) but you will need to take your own legal advice about that if indeed this is something you are unsure about.

The examination of an application is an inquisitorial process led by a Panel of Examining Inspectors. The onus is on the applicant to prepare a robust application and to make sure they comply with all the necessary legal requirements as they relate to construction and operation of the particular infrastructure. This may involve including specific licences and permits within the Development Consent Order or seeking them separately from the appropriate bodies. In relation to the Sizewell C project, EDF will also need to obtain a Nuclear Site Licence from the Office of Nuclear Regulation. That Licencing process is separate and will deal with matters of Nuclear safety, the transport of nuclear waste and materials and the safety of people. I’m not familiar with the detail of that process or the role of LRFs in it.

24 November 2016
Suffolk Local Resilience Forum - Andy Osman
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via post
response has attachments
Representation in response to the Scoping consultation and request to attend future events.
Advice given by phone:

Roxhill (Junction 15) Ltd have not yet submitted an application for development consent, and the project is currently in the Pre-Application stage of the development consent process.

As the project is currently in the Pre-Application stage, we strongly encourage you to raise your concerns with the developer directly if you have not already done so. If an application is made, and Roxhill (Junction 15) have suggested a submission date of Q3/Q4 2017, then you will have a further opportunity to register as an Interested Party and raise your concerns. We encourage all parties to access further information about the process via The Planning Inspectorate website. The Advice Note 8 series should provide advice on how to have your say in the planning process (see here: [attachment 1]

Hearings will be held as part of the Examination process, and all those registered as Interested Parties will be invited to attend.

24 November 2016
Rod Sellers
Northampton Gateway Rail Freight Interchange
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Northampton Gateway Pre-Application Site Visit
Please see attached note of the Site Visit

24 November 2016
Roxhill representatives
Northampton Gateway Rail Freight Interchange
Enquiry received via post
response has attachments
Response made in a personal capacity to the Scoping consultation, objecting to the proposed development.
See attached.

23 November 2016
Gill Knight
Northampton Gateway Rail Freight Interchange
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
A303 Amesbury to Berwick Down (Stonehenge) Project Update Meeting
Please see attached meeting note.

23 November 2016
Highways England
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Discussion to inform production of Scoping Report
See attached meeting note

16 November 2016
Wheelabrator Technologies Inc - anon.
Wheelabrator Kemsley Generating Station (K3) and Wheelabrator Kemsley North (WKN) Waste to Energy Facility
Enquiry received via email
We write to seek clarification on the definition of “open space and countryside” as referred to under NPSNN [National Policy Statement for National Networks para] 5.162 and would wish to question whether the several hundred acres of open countryside and predominantly good quality agricultural, the land which forms part of above application, would fall under this category. We are unsure whether clarification of policy falls within PINS remit or the [Secretary of State for Transport]. We have therefore also addressed this same question to our local MP The Rt Hon Andrea Leadsom (via Tommy Gilchrist) so they may raise the issue with [the Secretary of State for Transport].
Clarification/ interpretation of Government policy does not fall within the remit of the Planning Inspectorate. I am therefore unable to advise you in this regard. Please contact the Department for Transport (DfT) with your query.

I am also unable to advise you about whether the lands to which you refer would fall under a legally defined category of “open space” and/ or “countryside”. The relevant local authority should be able to help you in this regard.

I can however advise you on the definition of “open space” within the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008), which may partially satisfy your query. Sections 131 and 132 of the PA2008 both state that:

In this section — “common”, “fuel or field garden allotment” and “open space” have the same meanings as in section 19 of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 [ALA1981] (c. 67); […]

Open space is defined at subsection 19(4) of the ALA1981 as follows:

“open space” means any land laid out as a public garden, or used for the purposes of public recreation, or land being a disused burial ground.

The PA2008 does not provide a definition for “countryside” or for “open space and countryside”. Upon investigation, the footnote on page 79 of the National Policy Statement for National Networks (NPSNN) appears to be transposed from the glossary definition for “open space” in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). But the NPPF glossary does not also capture “countryside” as the footnote in the NPSNN appears to. This could form the basis of any future enquiry to DfT.

15 November 2016
Stop Rail Central Ltd - Alan Hargreaves
Rail Central (Strategic Rail Freight Interchange)
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Advice sought on draft application documents for an application to make a non material change to the DCO
Please see attached letter

15 November 2016
Thames Water Utilities Lyd - Steve Wilkinson
Thames Tideway Tunnel
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
A428 Black Cat to Caxton Gibbet - Introduction Meeting
Please see attached meeting note.

15 November 2016
Highways England - anon.
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Meeting regarding a possible NSIP project
Please see the attached meeting note

15 November 2016
Storelectric - Mark Howitt
General
Enquiry received via post
response has attachments
See attached letter
See attached reply

14 November 2016
Sir Roger Gale MP
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Lake Lothing Third Crossing Introduction Meeting
Please see attached meeting note.

10 November 2016
Suffolk County Council
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached meeting note.

09 November 2016
Highways England
A19 / A184 Testos Junction Improvement
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Mr Lowe queried whether the Open Floor Hearing (OFH) scheduled to follow the Preliminary Meeting on 2 December 2016 would allow for representations to be made about the merits of the proposed development. He further queried whether his attendance at the OFH would be essential, and what further opportunities there would be in the course of the Examination to make oral representations on behalf of his clients.
The Open Floor Hearing (OFH) scheduled to be held on the afternoon of 2 December 2016 will deal with matters beyond the procedure for the Examination. The following extract from our ‘Advice note 8.5: Participating in the examination’ deals with OFHs:

“Open floor hearings: These can be requested by anyone who has registered and made a relevant representation or by other interested parties. Requests [for an OFH to be held] must be made by the deadline which is set by the Examining Authority. At the hearing, anyone who is an interested party can give oral evidence based on their relevant or written representation.”

Advice note 8.5 is available to read in full, here: [attachment 1]

By way of clarification, the purpose of OFHs are to allow Interested Parties (IP) to expand upon the representations that they have already made in writing ie at this stage, your Relevant Representation (RR). The Examining Authority will not wish to hear RRs simply repeated orally. A simple agenda will be published ahead of the OFH which will consist of a ‘running order’ for the Examining Authority to hear representations from IPs who have notified us of their wish to speak.

We very much welcome all IPs to make oral representations at OFHs where the content of those representations includes new evidence which could add value to the Examination. IPs also have a statutory right to be heard.

There are likely to be Issue Specific Hearings (ISH) (see Advice note 8.5) which deal with design/ socio-economic matters later in the Examination, but these types of hearing tend to be more technical. The specific issues which will be heard at ISHs will also be led by the Examining Authority through the publication of detailed agenda, and so they are a little less flexible than the OFH set-up.

08 November 2016
The Executors of Marianne Clunies-Ross - David Lowe
M20 Junction 10A
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
A suite of queries relating to s53 (Rights of Entry) of the Planning Act 2008 and timescales
We are processing RiverOak’s application under s53 of the Planning Act 2008 for rights of entry to carry out a range of surveys and site investigations. We consider such application requests in accordance with our Advice Note 5: ‘Section 53 – Rights of Entry’, which you can access at:
[attachment 1]
We do not publish or provide information regarding a s53 authorisation request, until such a request has been determined. It is not considered necessary to release the correspondence at this time, which is a private matter between the parties involved.
Our advice note explains that there is no prescribed statutory timeframe within which the Inspectorate must make a recommendation, or for the Secretary of State to determine the request for authorisation. However, experience to date indicates that s.53 authorisation requests take on average three months to determine, from the date of receipt of the authorisation request(s). This timeframe can only be a guide and depends on the complexity and number of authorisation requests, the sufficiency of the initial information provided by the applicant and any issues raised in responses from the persons with interest. Applicants will need to be aware of this anticipated timeframe and the potential impact it may have on their overall project programme. There is no automatic grant of authorisation following a period of time after which an authorisation request has been made.
Statutory guidance produced by the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) states that the Government wishes to ensure that the use of s.53 powers is proportionate (The Infrastructure Planning (Fees) Regulations 2010 guidance, DCLG, June 2013). Applicants are expected to act reasonably, first seeking to obtain relevant information or permission to access land directly before seeking authorisation under these provisions. The Inspectorate’s Advice Note highlights that the Secretary of State in determining a request is required to consider Article 1 of the First Protocol of the European Convention which gives a right to peaceful enjoyment of property. Any interference with this right should be lawful and proportionate; interference with the right of individuals to peaceful enjoyment of their property can only be in the public interest. The Secretary of State will consider, in relation to each s.53 authorisation request, whether the authorisation of entry onto third party land would be lawful and proportionate.
Some previous s53 authorisations have been the subject of judicial review. The Inspectorate will always ensure that decisions are underpinned by a robust recommendation based on ‘sufficient information’. In this particular case, the Inspectorate has made requests for further information to the Applicant in order to be able to process the application.
With respect to the minutes of the last meeting between RiverOak and the Inspectorate, minutes of meetings are prepared by the Inspectorate and are circulated to Applicant’s for comment prior to publication, the minutes are therefore agreed between the Applicant and the Inspectorate.
The Inspectorate is committed to continual improvement and is currently reviewing its advice regarding the s53 process. The review will take into account recent court judgements and feedback received from relevant stakeholders. If necessary we will update and publish revised advice in the near future.

08 November 2016
Save Manston Airport Association - R Pritchard
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached meeting note

08 November 2016
Eggborough Power Limited - James Crankshaw
Eggborough CCGT
Enquiry received via email
I've seen various comment from those against the opening of the airport that Riveroak would have to pay a huge amount of compensation to those people who live directly under the flight path on the basis of a claim for blight.

Are you able to confirm whether firstly this is true, secondly how much the compensation might be and who determines the amount and lastly whether such payments have been made in the past to those living close to Heathrow and Gatwick.
In regard to claims for compensation, this is a matter dealt with outside of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended) process. Matters of financial compensation do not fall to be considered during the scope of the examination which is limited to the consideration of whether the proposed compulsory acquisition meets the tests set out in the Planning Act 2008. Broadly such claims can be made by persons or organisations whose land or whose rights in land could be affected by the proposed development. Their land or rights may not be subject to compulsory acquisition powers sought in the application or indeed be within the land to which the application relates, but they may have a right to compensation under either part 1 of the Land Compensation Act 1973 or s10 of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 if their land or interest is affected by the development.
The issue of compensation could arise in the event that development consent is granted, and the applicant implements the Development Consent Order. As these matters are governed by the relevant compulsory purchase legislation (see above), the claim and any associated amount of compensation may be something for the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) to consider. However, the adequacy of funding to meet any likely future compensation liabilities arising from the implementation of the DCO, and any mechanisms proposed by the applicant to secure the funding, are issues which would be considered by the Examining Authority as part of the examination.

I am not familiar with the circumstances at Heathrow and Gatwick and so am unable to comment further.

04 November 2016
Adem Mehmet
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached meeting note

02 November 2016
Rail Central - Ashfield Land
Rail Central (Strategic Rail Freight Interchange)
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached note

01 November 2016
Vattenfall Wind Power Ltd - helen Jameson
Thanet Extension Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please see attached letter from Dylan Morgan
Please see attached letter from PINS

24 October 2016
PAWB - People Against Wylfa B - Dylan Morgan
Wylfa Newydd Nuclear Power Station
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Since S160 of the Housing & Planning Act allowed for residential development to be included in NSIPs to an extent, have there been changes to your website content and any guidance around this at all?

I have been trying to establish whether this change took immediate effect or if not, when it might come into effect – are you able to advise please? The commencement regs I can find for the 2016 act don’t seem to include S160, but I’m not sure whether it needs to be included or not in those.
s216 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016 (HPA) deals with commencement. s216(3) HPA applies to the changes to the Planning Act 2008 provided by s160 HPA. The provisions under s160 HPA will not come into force until the Secretary of State appoints regulations (makes the commencement Order). We are expecting for that Order to be made on the next common commencement date - 6 April 2017 – at which point it will be published to our website.

It is reasonable to assume that the publication of associated DCLG guidance will be concurrent with the making of the Order; or shortly afterwards. For your information a Briefing Note and draft Guidance were published in October 2015 and are available to read on .gov, here: [attachment 1]

21 October 2016
Canal and River Trust - Ailith Rutt
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
A2 Bean to Ebbsfleet project update meeting
Please see attached meeting note

19 October 2016
Highways England
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Conference call to discuss the A38 Derby Junctions highway improvement scheme.
Please see attached meeting note.

18 October 2016
Highways England
A38 Derby Junctions
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
It is our understanding that RiverOak are in the pre application phase of a DCO application and need to access the site to perform environmental surveys.

It is our understanding that PINS has received an application from RiverOak, under S53 of the Planning Act 2008 to seek to obtain right of entry, to the Manston Airport site, but that no decision on this is forthcoming from PINS despite the application having been made on the first of July.
We are currently processing RiverOak’s application under s53 of the Planning Act 2008 for rights of entry to carry out a range of surveys and site investigations – no decision has yet been made.
We consider such application requests in accordance with our Advice Note 5: ‘Section 53 – Rights of Entry’, which you can access at:

[attachment 1]

We do not publish or provide information regarding a s53 authorisation request, until such a request has been determined.

18 October 2016
Various Enquiries
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting in respect of cumulative effects.
Please see attached meeting note.

18 October 2016
Highways England
A19 / A184 Testos Junction Improvement
Enquiry received via post
response has attachments
See attachment
see attachment

18 October 2016
Parish Council Coordination Group - D Savage
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Meeting regarding possible battery storage projects
Please see attached meeting note

14 October 2016
Statera Energy Ltd - Andrew Troup
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project introduction – Upper Orwell Crossings
Please see attached meeting note

12 October 2016
Suffolk County Council - anon.
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Portishead Branch Line Project Update Meeting Note
Please see attached meeting note.

11 October 2016
North Somerset District Council
Portishead Branch Line - MetroWest Phase 1
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached meeting note

11 October 2016
Eggborough Power Limited - James Crankshaw
Eggborough CCGT
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
see attached meeting note

07 October 2016
Savills for LRCH - Chris Potts
The London Resort
Enquiry received via email
Confirmation sought about whether the National Grid's attempt to exclude EMFs from the scope of the Environmental Statement has been decided.

Query about the status of HM Government Code of Practice on Consultation (2008) in relation to National Grid's pre application duties.
We can confirm that the scoping opinion in relation to the North wales Connection project by National Grid was published on behalf of the Secretary of State, on 1 June 2016. The Scoping Opinion is available on the relevant project page of the National Infrastructure Planning website. The response, in relation to the request to scope out EMF, is at paragraphs 3.50 -3.51. The Secretary of State did agree to scope this out from the Environmental Statement, “on the basis that evidence is provided demonstrating that the specifications for the overhead line, SECs and underground cable (including tunnel head housing) comply with regulatory thresholds”. The applicant has proposed to include a separate EMF document with the DCO application to satisfy the requirements of the National Policy Statement (EN-5) and this will include evaluations of the EMFs, but it will not be part of the ES.

The Code of Practice on Consultation, published by HM Government in July 2008 sets out some general principles that the Government will follow in consulting on policy formulation. It is most relevant to how the Government consults on National Policy Statements, the legislation relevant to that is in s7 of the Planning Act 2008. This provision gives the Secretary of State a discretionary power to conduct public consultation on new or reviewed national policy statements.

The application of the Code of Practice, in terms of what a developer might do to satisfy its pre application duties in relation to a NSIP, is limited. However, it does set down some high level best practice advice that may be applicable in a general sense, to any consultation. The main focus for measuring the quality and compliance aspects of the developer’s public (community) consultation is the Statement of Community Consultation (SoCC). The legislative requirement that is applicable to how the community consultation should be arranged and conducted by a developer is set down in s47 of the Planning Act 2008.

If you have any views about the pre application consultation carried out by National Grid, in particular whether or not NG meets the standards in its published SoCC, then please forward these on to Gwynedd and Anglesey Councils for them to consider in the context of preparing their adequacy of consultation representation. We will ask them for this as soon as we receive an application and we will have regard to any views the Councils put forward during the acceptance stage of the process.

06 October 2016
Hannah Huws
North Wales Connection
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Cyflwyniad a roddwyd mewn digwyddiad allgymorth cyhoeddus yn Llangefni ar 4 Hydref 2016.

Presentation given at a public outreach event in Llangefni on 4 October 2016.
Cyflwyniad ynghlwm.

Presentation attached.

04 October 2016
anon.
North Wales Connection
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Cyflwyniad a roddwyd mewn digwyddiad allgymorth cyhoeddus yn Llangefni ar 4 Hydref 2016.

Presentation given at a public outreach event in Llangefni on 4 October 2016.
Cyflwyniad ynghlwm.

Presentation attached

04 October 2016
anon.
Wylfa Newydd Nuclear Power Station
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
See attached meeting note

04 October 2016
Vattenfal Wind Power ltd - Helen Jameson
Thanet Extension Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached meeting note

27 September 2016
Stuart Livesey
Hornsea Project Three Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via post
response has attachments
Mr Franklin wrote to the Planning Inspectorate and the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government setting out his concerns in respect of the proposed scheme.
See attached letter.

26 September 2016
Dennis Franklin
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Mr Hayward sent comments to the Planning Inspectorate about the visual impact of the proposed scheme.
At the Acceptance stage of the Planning Act 2008 process, in consideration of how an applicant has carried out its statutory Pre-application consultation duties, the Planning Inspectorate will apply tests in relation to how the applicant has demonstrated in its Consultation Report that it has had regard to consultation responses. Applicants must provide evidence of the steps taken in response to any queries or concerns received, or provide reasoned justification for why no action was taken. It is important therefore for any concerns about an applicant’s consultation to be shared with it at the appropriate time, and in the appropriate manner; as advertised by the applicant in its Statement of Community Consultation.

In January 2016 the Planning Inspectorate issued a scoping opinion in response to a scoping report submitted by Ashfield Land Management Ltd (ALM) in December 2015. The scoping opinion is a formal written opinion about the information to be included in ALM’s Environmental Statement (for submission with any application for development consent). It establishes the environmental aspects that the Planning Inspectorate thinks should be assessed and the methods it thinks are appropriate to do so. The Rail Central scoping opinion is available to read on our website, here:

[attachment 1]

The scoping opinion records the applicant’s intention to consult with the local authority and Natural England about its landscape and visual assessment. A typical approach to considering and finalising associated methodologies would apply the guidance Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (3rd ed), produced by the Landscape Institute and the Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (IEMA). The methodology that Rail Central chooses in carrying out its landscape and visual assessment must be presented in the Environmental Statement submitted with any application for development consent. That methodology will then be subject to any examination of the application (by one or more Examining Inspectors), and interested parties will be able to make representations about it at the appropriate time (see information about the application process, here: [attachment 2].

26 September 2016
Phillip Hayward
Rail Central (Strategic Rail Freight Interchange)
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Mr Marsh sent a suite of concerns about the proposed scheme to the Planning Inspectorate.
See attached letter.

26 September 2016
Tony Marsh
Rail Central (Strategic Rail Freight Interchange)
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Site visit and project update meeting
Please see attached note

22 September 2016
Four Ashes Limited
West Midlands Interchange
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Conference call to discuss the A19 Testos junction project
Please see the attached meeting note

21 September 2016
Highways England
A19 / A184 Testos Junction Improvement
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached meeting note

20 September 2016
North Somerset District Council
Portishead Branch Line - MetroWest Phase 1
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
North West Coast Connection project update
Please see attached meeting note

16 September 2016
National Grid - Richard Gwilliam
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached meeting note

16 September 2016
EggBorough Power Limited - James Crankshaw
Eggborough CCGT
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached Meeting Note

16 September 2016
RiverOak
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
East Midlands Intermodal Park Project Update Meeting Note
Please see attached meeting note

15 September 2016
Goodman
East Midlands Intermodal Park
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update on approach to acquiring land and interests
Please see attached meeting note

12 September 2016
Scottish Power Energy Networks - Steve Edwards
Reinforcement to North Shropshire Electricity Distribution Network
Enquiry received via post
A summary of the questions and points raised by the enquirer as follows:

1. Doubt on the unemployment statistics used by the nuclear industry and others to promote the Wylfa Newydd project on Anglesey.

2. Reference made to Trweryn Dam project, opened in 1965. Points regarding foreign ownership of infrastructure developers and the compulsory purchase of land in Wales by them.

3. The threat to human life and residents' human rights posed by radioactive emissions from nuclear power stations.

4. Questions about the membership of the Horizon consortium, in particular the American Company Bechtel.
The Planning Inspectorate is able to advise on the Development Consent Order process. It isn’t our role to determine Government policy towards nuclear energy or other types of infrastructure. Government policy is set down in National Policy Statements, which are prepared by the relevant Government department and are designated following scrutiny by Parliament (Westminster). In that context, it is also the Government’s policy that the energy generating industry is open to private investors, including foreign owned companies. As such, if you have particular concerns or objections to the Government’s policy towards nuclear energy then you should raise these with your MP.

Any examination of the Wylfa Newydd application, that takes place as part of the Development Consent Process, will not deal with nuclear safety, security, protection of people and the transport of nuclear material. These are matters that are dealt with through separate processes related to environmental permits issued by Natural Resources Wales (NRW) and the Nuclear Site Licensing process that is the responsibility of the Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR). In due course there will be separate public consultation processes related to these applications in respect of Wylfa Newydd. The Development Consent process will focus on the other construction and operational impacts of the generating station on the local communities and the environment.

09 September 2016
E Jones
Wylfa Newydd Nuclear Power Station
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
National Grid submitted draft documents to the Planning Inspectorate for comment.
Please see attached section 51 advice.

07 September 2016
National Grid - Eloise Frank
North Wales Connection
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
A63 Project Update Meeting
Please see attached meeting notes

07 September 2016
Highways England
A63 Castle Street Improvement-Hull
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Presentations about the DCO process were given to members of the public, Anglesey and Gwynedd Council members and Community Council members on 6th and 7th of September 2016.
Please see attached presentations.

06 September 2016
Public Outreach Events - anon.
Wylfa Newydd Nuclear Power Station
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Presentations about the DCO process were given to members of the public, Anglesey and Gwynedd Council members and Community Council members on 6th and 7th of September 2016.
See attached presentations

06 September 2016
Public Outreach Events - anon.
North Wales Connection
Enquiry received via phone
Transport for London queried the process for issuing a second notice under s56 of the Planning Act 2008.
On the basis of the evidence shared by Transport for London (TfL) with the Planning Inspectorate, our opinion is that if TfL chose not to notify the new company under s56 before it provided certificates under ss58 and 59 of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008), then an offence would be committed and the Planning Inspectorate would need to consider the appropriate action to be taken.

To avoid the risk of creating such an offence, TfL should serve s56 notice on the new company before any certificates are submitted to the Planning Inspectorate. The new s56 notice should provide a minimum period of 28 days within which the new company may make a relevant representation (RR) to the Planning Inspectorate. It should also make clear to the new company that the RR period as previously notified has closed, and that within the bespoke 28 day period any RR from the new company should be sent to the Silvertown Tunnel project mailbox at the Planning Inspectorate: [email protected]

Having served notice on the new company under s56, TfL could then, as soon as practicable if desired, provide s58 and s59 certificates to the Planning Inspectorate which would not contain a statement that TfL knew to be false or misleading, and had not been recklessly issued.

In respect of the implications of the above for the process, the Planning Inspectorate will be unable to publish the RRs received in the period publicised in the original s56 notice until such time as:

1. The new company makes a RR to the Planning Inspectorate in the manner described above; or
2. The 28 day (minimum) period provided to the new company expires and a RR has not been received from it.

However, neither eventuality will prevent the appointed Examining Authority (ExA) from issuing its invitation to the Preliminary Meeting under Rule 6 of the Infrastructure Planning (Examination Procedure) Rules 2010.

In summary, it is unlikely that the circumstances described above would delay the anticipated programme; at least in terms of the timing of the Preliminary Meeting and the structure of the draft Examination Timetable as it stands (subject to any representations received about it). What the circumstances do affect is the publication of the RRs and therefore the ability for TfL to begin preparing its responses to them within its desired timeframe.

01 September 2016
Transport for London - anon.
Silvertown Tunnel
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Meeting Note 1 September
see meeting note

01 September 2016
IAMP LLP - Fraser Maxwell
International Advanced Manufacturing Park TWO (IAMP TWO)
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Request for comments on the draft SoCC
Thank you for your time this afternoon. As promised, please see attached our comments on your draft SoCC from a procedural point of view, set out as a table against specific requirements / guidance.

We’ve focused on checking against the requirements of the Planning Act and secondary legislation and highlighting areas of guidance you may wish to consider in discussion with the relevant local authorities. As I know you’re already aware, do ensure you demonstrate in your subsequent consultation report, how you meet the requirements of sections 47 and 49 the Planning Act by having regard to representations made on the draft SoCC and the consultations themselves.

31 August 2016
Dong Energy - Stuart Livesey
Hornsea Project Three Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
See attached meeting note

31 August 2016
Dong Energy - Stuart Livesey
Hornsea Project Three Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
We have comments, observations and complaints about the recent non-statutory consultation events held by RiverOak.
In a previous response to some individuals, the Planning Inspectorate explained that a note of the meeting held with RiverOak on 19 July 2016 was being prepared and would published to our website in due course.

The note of that meeting has now been published and is available to view, here: [attachment 1]

In the light of concern expressed by some members of the public in relation to the handling of personal data during recent non-statutory consultation events, the Inspectorate advises that in all cases it is the developer’s responsibility to ensure that the requirements of the Data Protection Act 1998 are satisfied.

Any concerns in respect of data handling could be brought to the attention of the Information Commissioners Office ([attachment 2].

30 August 2016
Various
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting with National Grid
Please see attached note

18 August 2016
National Grid - Jacqui Fenn
North Wales Connection
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Dear Sir/Madam,

I am enquiring who would determine an onshore wind project located in Wales with a capacity of 50 MW. Would this be an NSIP project and determined by Planning Inspectorate, as all literature suggests that an NSIP is only applicable for a project above 50 MW. Developments of National Significance are noted as project between 10 and 50 MW, therefore where does a 50 MW project sit?

Your feedback on this would be greatly appreciated as I am currently writing our internal procedures for consenting projects.
Hi Ffion

Thank you for your email of 10 August 2016.

The Infrastructure Planning (Onshore Wind Generating Stations) Order 2016, made on 4 March 2016, has removed onshore wind energy generating stations from the Planning Act 2008 NSIP consenting regime (see Regulation 3):

[attachment 1]

The Onshore Wind Generating Stations (Exemption) (England and Wales) Order 2016, then made a direction under s36(4) of the Electricity Act 1989 to provide that the requirement for consent under the Electricity Act 1989 does not apply to onshore wind generating stations:

[attachment 2]

The Orders above have moved the consenting process to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 for onshore wind farm projects. Therefore a proposed onshore wind project with a capacity of more than 50 megawatts in England and Wales would no longer be determined under the Planning Act 2008 NSIP regime.

The Developments of National Significance (specified Criteria and Prescribed Secondary Consents) (Wales) (Amendment) Regulation 2016, makes changes to the threshold for Developments of National Significance (DNS) energy generating stations in Wales, to capture those onshore wind generating stations which have an installed generating capacity of above 50MW into the DNS regime (see Regulation 3):

[attachment 3]

As such, and in answer to your query, an onshore wind generating station which “is expected to have (when constructed) an installed generating capacity of 10 megawatts or above”, would be identified as a DNS project under the Developments of National Significance (specified Criteria and Prescribed Secondary Consents) (Wales) Regulations 2016 (subject to the savings provisions).

Developers are advised to seek their own legal advice on such matters, however I hope the information above is helpful. If you would like further information on the DNS process please follow this link: [attachment 4]

Regards

Steffan

17 August 2016
Natural Power - Ffion Edwards
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project inception meeting.
Please see attached meeting note.

17 August 2016
Vattenfal Wind Power Ltd - Helen Jameson
Thanet Extension Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Pre-application advice in respect of statutory consultation duties (community consultation)
Please see attached

12 August 2016
RiverOak
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Section 51 advice issued to Highways England following the Secretary of State's decision to accept the application for examination.
See attached letter.

11 August 2016
Highways England
M20 Junction 10A
Enquiry received via email
Advice on submitting an authorisation request for access to land under section 53 of the Planning Act
• A separate plan should be provided for each authorisation request which identifies the title number in question and also identifies which part(s) of the registered land access is requested for (see guidance in our advice note in this regard)
• Copies of Land Registry titles should be submitted for registered land and evidence of a land registry search should be submitted for unregistered land.
• Where access to buildings is to be requested, the authorisation request should identify which buildings this would be for and why. PINS also advises it is made clear to the relevant landowners/occupiers/tenants in advance of the authorisation request being made that access to buildings will be requested and for which buildings and why. Care should be taken in drafting conditions which would allow any access to buildings.
• The authorisation request should set out whether each of the tenants/occupiers/lessees have been consulted in addition to the landowner(s). If they have not been consulted, the authorisation request should justify why not. The Planning Inspectorate expects the applicant to send a copy of the authorisation request that is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate to each of these.
• Any evidence you can provide from statutory bodies confirming the need for surveys on these areas of land should be provided in support of your application.
• The application should identify, as far as possible, the locations of any intrusive survey works, in particular any boreholes that may remain in place for an extended period of time.
• Authorisations are usually granted for 12 months (however will cease upon submission of a DCO application); if you wish for the authorisation to be longer than this then this should be justified within your application.

11 August 2016
Turley's - Matthew Sheppard
Rail Central (Strategic Rail Freight Interchange)
Enquiry received via email
The Scoping Opinion contains reference to night flights. Please could you advise whether the inclusion of night flying in the scoping report to the Inspectorate was already there, or was it specifically added at the request of the Government/Planning Inspectorate.
RiverOak’s Scoping Report paragraph 11.6.10 states that the “airport will be operational during the day and may be operational to some extent at night”. Therefore RiverOak have included in their Scoping Opinion the potential to undertake some night flights and are therefore proposing to assess the impact of those flights. The assessment of noise effects would then include significance criteria relating to night time noise effects.

At pre-application stage the Planning Inspectorate will advise applicant’s on the technical scope of their documentation, including their Environmental Impact Assessment but have no ability to dictate actual aircraft operations such as night flights. We would advise an applicant to assess a worst case scenario (e.g. night time flights), to ensure that the worst potential effects that could be experienced by receptors (such as residents) are presented with the application documents. This is to allow the Examining Authority to come to a balanced view on the merits of the scheme when making a recommendation to the Secretary of State as to whether to consent a proposed development.

We are not aware of any other discussions that RiverOak may be having with the Government regarding night flights, however Mr Freudmann could be referring to RiverOak’s ongoing discussions with the Civil Aviation Authority regarding the aerodrome licence, which would include agreement of the operating parameters of the airport.

10 August 2016
Simon Crow
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
Are there any obligations on applicants to notify The Planning Inspectorate of non-statutory consultation. How would the Planning Inspectorate ensure that consultation is conducted properly. How does non-statutory consultation relate to the production of a Statement of Community Consultation. RiverOak intends to set out how they will have considered the responses to both consultations in their Consultation Report, how does this relate to the pre-application consultation duties.
In respect of your query regarding notification, when a developer wishes to undertake consultation with specific groups (these being set out in legislation as local authorities, landowners and those with an interest in the land and statutory bodies), they notify the Planning Inspectorate on or before commencing this consultation. In respect of consultation with local communities, there is no formal requirement for a developer to notify the Planning Inspectorate in the same way as noted above, however, there is a section of the PA2008 that sets out the statutory steps that a developer must take before they can commence this type of consultation. In summary, the legislation requires a developer to prepare and publish a Statement of Community Consultation (SoCC).

The relevant local authorities must be consulted by the developer on the content of the SoCC. The role of the local authority at this stage is to provide expertise about the make-up of its area, including whether people in the area might have particular needs or requirements, whether the authority has identified any groups as difficult to reach and what techniques might be appropriate to overcome barriers to communication. The local authority may also provide advice on the appropriateness of the developer’s suggested consultation techniques and methods. The local authority’s aim in such discussions should be to ensure that the people affected by the development can take part in a thorough, accessible and effective consultation exercise about the proposed project.

The final SoCC will highlight how the developer proposes to consult with the local community and will provide information to the public on how to make a representation and when. The developer has a statutory duty to publicise a statement about where the SoCC will be made available and will provide details of how to respond to their consultation.

After this consultation period, the developer must have regard to any relevant responses. As part of the application documents the developer must provide a consultation report demonstrating how they have had regard to responses.
The consultation report must:
a. Give an account of the statutory consultation, publicity, deadlines set, and community consultation activities undertaken by the developer at the Pre-Application stage under s42, s47 and s48
b. A summary of the relevant responses to the separate strands of consultation; and
c. The account taken of responses in developing the application from proposed to final form, as required by s49(2).
Should an application be submitted, the Planning Inspectorate on behalf of the Secretary of State has a 28 day period to decide whether or not to accept the application. During this 28 day period, the Planning Inspectorate will examine all of the documents provided, including the consultation report. The Planning Inspectorate has the ability under Regulation 5 (5) of the APFP to request all consultation responses from the developer if seen as necessary.

During the 28 day period, the PA2008 allows relevant local authorities to make representations to the Secretary of State about the adequacy of consultation, to which he or she must have regard but which will not be the sole consideration for determining whether an application should be accepted for examination. Where local authorities are not content with the consultation approach undertaken by the developer, their views should be set out in any “adequacy of consultation” representation they make. This will inform the decision on whether to accept the application. If at any stage of the consultation you have concerns with the way the developer has conducted its consultation then it is recommended that you write to the local authority raising your concerns.

After inspection of the consultation report, the Planning Inspectorate will decide whether the consultation conducted is adequate. If the Secretary of State determines that the consultation is inadequate, he or she can recommend that the developer carries out further consultation activity before the application can be accepted. If the application is accepted, one or more Inspectors will be appointed as an Examining Authority to conduct an examination, which cannot take more than 6 months. Once the examination is completed the examining authority will make a recommendation report to the Secretary of State. It is the responsibility of the Secretary of State (in this case, the Secretary of State for Transport) to make a decision on the application.

We understand that RiverOak are proposing to undertake a non-statutory consultation over the summer. This activity will not therefore have to be conducted in accordance with the requirements of the Planning Act 2008 – the legislation that governs this type of airport-related development. RiverOak will however need to undertake a stage of statutory consultation before an application can be formally submitted. In preparation for that, RiverOak will have to produce a draft Statement of Community Consultation that sets out how they will undertake the consultation activity.

In stating that ‘they will set out how they will have considered the responses to both consultations in a ‘consultation report’’, RiverOak have used discretion in including the non-statutory consultation as part of this exercise. They are not required to do this, however having decided to undertake this course of action it does not mean that the consultation itself would have to retrospectively comply with the Pre-Application consultation duties.

RiverOak can decide to include information gathered from their non-statutory consultation events in their Consultation Report and submit this as an application document. However, the tests that will be applied to the application on submission, in respect of the pre-application duties to consult with the local community, will be applied to the information submitted from the statutory consultation events.

At the acceptance stage, the Inspectorate will be concerned to check that the applicant has fulfilled their duties under s47, s49 and s50 in particular. These section of the Planning Act 2008 relate to the production of a Statement of Community Consultation, undertaking of the activities outlined in the SoCC, having regard to responses made during the statutory consultation and having regard to relevant guidance. The Inspectorate will seek an Adequacy of Consultation representation from the relevant authorities on the particular points and The Inspectorate have been made aware of concerns raised on the non-statutory consultation. To that end your comments on these matters have been noted and will be kept for future reference.

10 August 2016
Peter Binding
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
We have received two letters from you – your ref EN010056 addressed to a Nicholas Ridley care of our firms address and whilst you have cited a reference for our firm , this does not look like our normal reference and we cannot trace having been involved in this matter. Please could you confirm where you obtained our details in order to assist us in checking whether this matter is actually one of ours.
The Applicant for the proposed East Anglia THREE Offshore Wind Farm has included Nicholas Ridley, care of your firms address, within Part 1 of their Book of Reference. This means that they have been identified as having a Category 1 interest under section 57 of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008). Category 1 interest is defined within the PA2008 as follows: ‘A person is within category 1 if the applicant, after making diligent inquiry knows that the person is an owner, lessee, tenant (whatever the tenancy period) or occupier of the land (s57(1))’. This is in relation to land required for the construction of the project. The Planning Inspectorate must contact the relevant Affected Persons (of which Mr Ridley would be one) related to the proposed development to advise them of key events and procedural decisions made during the period of examination to provide an opportunity for comments to be made by those persons. The reference number that would have been included in the correspondence sent to you has been generated from our mailing list. The reference we have on our system relating to Mr Ridley is EATH-AFP085 and relates to land at the north west of Cornerways, Brock Lane, Martlesham, in the District of Suffolk Coastal. This can be viewed on Land Plan 13 of 24. This should provide you with the information that you need to ascertain the impact on your client of the project.

10 August 2016
Birketts LLP - Nicola Doole
East Anglia THREE Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Advice sought about making an application to make changes to the DCO
see attached meeting note

10 August 2016
Thames Water Utilities Ltd - Claire Beedle
Thames Tideway Tunnel
Enquiry received via email
We have comments, observations and complaints about the recent non-statutory consultation events held by RiverOak
The purpose of this response is to provide further information to you about the pre-application consultation process; explain the mechanisms by which you can make observations about RiverOak’s consultation exercises; and outline the tests that will be applied to any formal application in respect of the adequacy of statutory consultation.

In the first instance I would strongly emphasise that any comments, observations or complaints regarding any element of RiverOak’s proposals should be made directly to the developer. I understand that RiverOak have stated their intention to consider the responses to consultations in a Consultation Report that will form part of any application for a Development Consent Oder. Making the developer aware of these concerns at this point will give them the opportunity to consider the comments made before any statutory consultation starts.

Before RiverOak can submit an application they will have to undertake a round of statutory consultation. The Planning Act 2008 and associated guidance places specific duties on developers to carry out consultation to a satisfactory standard. In the case of consultation with local communities, a Statement of Community Consultation (or SoCC) must be prepared by the developer that sets out how they intend to consult with local communities. The developer must consult with relevant authorities about the content of the SoCC – in this case RiverOak must consult Thanet District Council and Kent County Council. The role of those authorities can be to provide expertise about the make-up of its area, including whether people in the area might have particular needs or requirements, whether the authority has identified any groups as difficult to reach and what techniques might be appropriate to overcome barriers to communication. Those authorities may also provide advice on the appropriateness of the developer’s suggested consultation techniques and methods. The authorities’ aim in such discussions should be to ensure that the people affected by the development can take part in a thorough, accessible and effective consultation exercise about the proposed project. To that end you may wish to make Thanet District Council or Kent County Council aware of your comments.

If an application is formally submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, we are required to test whether or not the developer has carried out its statutory community consultation in accordance with the Statement of Community Consultation, and also whether or not the developer has had regard to any consultation responses received from the relevant authorities in respect of the SoCC. The developer will also be required to demonstrate how it has had regard to any relevant responses made to the consultation from the community. At this point, each relevant authority (Thanet District Council and Kent County Council) will be invited to make a representation expressing its opinion about whether the developer has complied with its pre-application consultation duties under s42, s47 and s48 of the PA2008 (an ‘adequacy of consultation representation’).

In conclusion, your comments on RiverOak’s non-statutory consultation have been noted by the Planning Inspectorate and will kept on record for future reference. However, you should continue to provide any observations about the scheme and the consultation process directly to the developer, and where appropriate and specifically related to the consultation process, to your local authority.

RiverOak’s contact details: [email protected] or 07717802935
Thanet District Council’s contact details: [email protected] including “RiverOak” in the subject line to avoid confusion with other airport related proposals/applications etc.

09 August 2016
Various
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
Support for the proposed scheme after attending the non-statutory consultation event/s held by RiverOak
As RiverOak’s proposals are still in the Pre-Application stage of the process, The Planning Inspectorate does not have a formal role in receiving representations on the scheme at this time. Until an application is formally made to us, RiverOak are your first point of contact for any comments you have on the proposal.

If an application is formally submitted to the Planning Inspectorate and it is accepted to progress to Examination, then there will be a formal stage where you will be invited to submit your representations. Further information about the process and making a representation can be found on our website. In particular the Advice Note 8 series should help give you advice on how to have your say in the planning process.

08 August 2016
Various
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
The Council's adequacy of consultation included commentary about the Applicant's duties under s49 of the Planning Act 2008.
By means of clarification, the request sent by the Planning Inspectorate to local authorities sought responses in respect only of the applicant’s duties under sections 42, 47 and 48 of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008). The PA2008 defines an adequacy of consultation representation as follows:

“adequacy of consultation representation” means a representation about whether the applicant complied, in relation to that proposed application, with the applicant’s duties under sections 42, 47 and 48.”

The test under s49 of the PA2008 is applied by the Planning Inspectorate during its consideration of the application for acceptance.

If the application is accepted to proceed to be examined by the Planning Inspectorate, the applicant will be required to serve notice to you in respect of that decision. The notice will include details about how and when interested parties will be able to make relevant representations about design detail and the merits of the scheme. I would advise for the Council to resubmit its comments in respect of the lead local flood authority, highways authority recommendations and public rights of way at this stage. In the meantime I would encourage the Council to contact the developer directly in order to share any concerns.

05 August 2016
Kent County Council
M20 Junction 10A
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
In your correspondence you pose a series of questions in respect of the proposals to reopen the railway line between Bristol and Portishead. More specifically you ask why a Development Consent Order (DCO) is required to reopen the railway line, why the reopening of a suburban line in the Bristol area is deemed to be "Nationally Significant" and why the proposals are not simply a matter for the local authority/ies.
You also ask how the specific requirements of the Planning Act 2008 apply to the specifics of this scheme and refer to the consistency in approach to this scheme and other Network Rail schemes.
The Planning Act 2008 created a regime to examine and determine applications for Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIP). Section 14 of that Act lists the types of development that may be considered to be NSIPs and the list includes the construction or alteration of a railway. Section 25 of that Act then goes on to state the specific set of criteria that define the “construction or alteration of a railway” under this Act; it includes for example reference to including a stretch of track that is a continuous length of more than 2km. Section 31 of the Planning Act states that development consent (or a DCO) is required for development that is of forms part of a NSIP. It would be a criminal offence to construct a scheme without a DCO that should be categorised as an NSIP under the Planning Act 2008.

Therefore, irrespective of landownership, funding or perceived scale or significance of a scheme, if a proposal satisfies the provisions of the Act and in particular s25, then it is an NSIP and therefore requires a DCO. The local authorities have informed us that they believe the proposal contains elements that are defined under the Planning Act and therefore the proposals would need to be determined under this regime.

There is information about the Planning Act process on our website. As a process it does cover a number of different types of development including airport-related development, energy generating infrastructure and railways. To that extent it could be considered a “one-size-fits-all” process. However, there is flexibility in the system particularly in respect of the Pre-Application stage; the MetroWest Portishead proposals are currently in the Pre-Application stage.

You raise questions about the appropriateness of the consenting regime i.e. the need for development consent to be granted through the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) process. It is for developers to demonstrate to the Planning Inspectorate why any proposed development constitutes a nationally significant infrastructure project (NSIP), and to which development within the categories in ss14-30 of the PA2008 a scheme relates.

Until such time as an application is formally submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, a decision cannot be made about whether a proposed scheme includes development which includes an NSIP and for which development consent is required. At this stage of the process it is not for the Planning Inspectorate to take a view which might fetter the judgement of the Secretary of State at a later stage.

In the context of your detailed analysis, I acknowledge that the above advice might be of limited use to you. However, I would stress that at this stage of the process the Planning Inspectorate only has access to information that the developer has provided to us. Our understanding and interpretation of the scheme is based therefore on the same documentation that is available to you and the view of the developer.

So to attempt to seek resolution to the queries that you pose, might I in the first instance direct you to the Applicant’s ‘Scoping Report’, available on our website here: [attachment 1]

This document at section 1.2 provides the Applicant’s interpretation of the need for development consent. In particular requisite works within the Avon Gorge Woodlands Special Area of Conservation are described at paragraph 1.2.14. Within this area Network Rail’s permitted development powers are restricted.

Beyond this advice and the information signposted within it, to seek any further clarification in respect of your query I would strongly advise you to contact the developer directly. For your convenience I include their contact details below.

Direct dial: 0117 9036868
Email: [email protected]

05 August 2016
Mr Chillistone
Portishead Branch Line - MetroWest Phase 1
Enquiry received via email
What information do DfT (The Planning Inspectorate) hold on RiverOak and what due diligence do DfT (The Planning Inspectorate) undertake on applicants at the Pre-Application stage?
The Inspectorate do not hold any undisclosed information about this company or its financial dealings. There is no legal requirement for an applicant to share such information with The Inspectorate at the Pre-Application stage. However, where an application involves any compulsory acquisition of land, which RiverOak would do as part of their proposals for Manston Airport, the applicant would need to submit a Funding Statement with the application documents.

A Funding Statement should provide as much information as possible about the resource implications of both acquiring the land and implementing the project for which the land is required. Applicants should be able to demonstrate that adequate funding is likely to be available to enable them to carry out the compulsory acquisition within a statutory period following a Development Consent Order being made, and that the resource implications of a possible acquisition resulting from a blight notice has also been taken into account. Unless an Examining Authority is satisfied that funding will be available both for the carrying out of the project within the statutory period and for the payment of compensation claims the compelling case in the public interest test required by section 122(3) of the Planning Act will not be met and the compulsory acquisition powers cannot be granted.

Where we have received hard copy letters in respect of this project they have come from RiverOak’s legal advisors or consultant team. It is not unusual on projects like this for the bulk of the correspondence to be undertaken by advisors or consultants on behalf of the applicant.

In terms of payment of fees, there is no due diligence that the Planning Inspectorate is required to undertake. It is the payment and clearing of a fee in respect of a named case that triggers the required actions to be undertaken by The Inspectorate, for example on submission of the application and the application fee, the Planning Inspectorate has 28 days to determine whether an application will be accepted to progress to the next stage.

05 August 2016
Michael Child
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
The Council's adequacy of consultation representation included commentary about the merits of the proposed scheme.
By means of clarification, the request sent by the Planning Inspectorate to local authorities sought responses in respect only of the applicant’s duties under sections 42, 47 and 48 of the Planning Act 2008 (re. the adequacy of the applicant’s pre-application consultation).

Your letter comprises commentary about the merits of the scheme in the context of impacts on the Council’s interests. Please note that at this stage of the process we are unable to take any such commentary into account.

If the application is accepted to proceed to be examined by the Planning Inspectorate, the applicant will be required to serve notice to you in respect of that decision. The notice will include details about how and when interested parties will be able to make relevant representations about the merits of the scheme. I would advise for the Council to resubmit its comments about traffic impacts on the road network at this stage. The Council may also wish to contact the developer directly for associated discussion.

04 August 2016
Shepway District Council
M20 Junction 10A
Enquiry received via email
Is an NSIP DCO Application transferable between companies prior to submission or would a new request for an NSIP Application, even though it is on the same site, have to be submitted?
The statutory consultation duties on the applicant at the pre application stage are transferable – we are concerned that they are undertaken by a person or organisation that proposes to make a viable NSIP application.

If there was any change to the “the applicant” during the pre-application stage the issue of project viability would be pertinent. The Secretary of State will want to make sure that the project can be implemented if it is granted development consent and that adequate funding is likely to be available, particularly where compulsory acquisition of land is needed.

In procedural terms, we would check this before formally accepting the application for examination – one of the checks is to the funding statement that is a required application document. If it was clear that the funding for the project was not adequately demonstrated then we would not accept it for examination. We would be asking questions about project viability before submission and providing advice to the new or existing applicant, potentially based on their draft DCO application documents if things had got that far.

Where a project has been directed by the Secretary of State to be a Business and Commercial NSIP, as a result of the scale and nature of the proposal, there may be other factors to consider.

04 August 2016
Bramwell Associates - Dan Bramwell
The London Resort
Enquiry received via email
Objections to the proposed scheme
As RiverOak’s proposals are still in the Pre-Application stage of the process, The Planning Inspectorate does not have a formal role in receiving representations on the scheme at this time. Until an application is formally made to us, RiverOak are your first point of contact for any comments you have on the proposal and I strongly encourage you to forward your concerns directly to them if you have not done so already.

Should an application be submitted, The Planning Inspectorate on behalf of the Secretary of State has a 28 day period to decide whether or not to accept the application. If the application is accepted, one or more Inspectors will be appointed as an Examining Authority to conduct an Examination, which cannot take more than 6 months, and report to the Secretary of State. It is the responsible Secretary of State (in this case, the Secretary of State for Transport) who will make a decision on the application.

If an application is formally accepted to progress to Examination, then there will be a formal stage where you will be invited to submit your representations. Further information about the process and making a representation can be found on our website. In particular the Advice Note 8 series should help give you advice on how to have your say in the planning process.

04 August 2016
Various
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via phone
response has attachments
Why have we received a notification regarding the Keuper Gas Storage Project?
Further to our telephone conversation this afternoon please note that you have received this notification regarding the Keuper Gas Storage Project because your organisation is a so called Category 3 person under the 2008 Planning Act (as amended) (PA2008).

This means that Legal and General Property have a land interest that is impacted by the project and you might therefore be entitled to make a claim under s57(4) of the PA2008 if the Secretary of State grants the developer a Development Consent Order.

As a Category 3 person the Planning Inspectorate has a legal obligation to notify Legal and General about any procedural decision relating to the examination of the project, such as notifying you about hearings, changes to the time table, and requests for information. However, it does not mean that Legal and General, as a category 3 person, have to respond to any correspondence from the Examining Inspector unless they think it is in their interest.

The plot of land that relates to Legal and general is Plot no. 52 which can be viewed here:

[attachment 1]

More details about the plot can be found in the Book of Reference on pages 168 and 179:

[attachment 2]

Further information on how the Development Consent Order process works can be found in our Advice Note 8.5 Participating in the Examination:

[attachment 3]

I have looked at our past correspondence with you and I understand that your Asset Manager at Legal and General Asset Manager for this plot of land is Alex Waterworth.

I hope you find this helpful. If you have any further queries or wish to make a submission with regard to the proposal please submit via the project mailbox at [email protected]

03 August 2016
Legal and General Assurance
Keuper Gas Storage Project
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Meeting with NRW to discuss the Wylfa Newydd Generating Station
See attached meeting note

03 August 2016
NRW
Wylfa Newydd Nuclear Power Station
Enquiry received via email
How can members of Save Manston Airport (SMA) effectively make their views heard to The Planning Inspectorate at the Pre-Application stage of the process.
As you are aware, The Planning Inspectorate does not have a formal role in receiving representations on the scheme at this stage of the process. We continue to encourage yourself, Save Manston Airport and its members to contact RiverOak directly during the Pre-Application stage of the process. The amount of correspondence in terms of numbers received from specific parties has no bearing on how we approach our Pre-Application Advice. If SMA would like to raise specific points to The Planning Inspectorate during the Pre-Application stage, we would encourage SMA to ask their members to raise their specific points through a SMA representative/s who could act as a single point of contact with PINS.

The Planning Inspectorate encourages all parties to access further information about the process and making a representation through The Planning Inspectorate website. Advice Note 8 series should help give yourself, and SMA advice on how to have your say in the planning process.

29 July 2016
Dr J Webber on behalf of Save Manston Airport
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
A38 Project Update Meeting
Please see attached meeting note

26 July 2016
Highways England
A38 Derby Junctions
Enquiry received via email
Objecting to the use of King Edward Memorial Park during the construction of the Thames Tideway Tunnel
Thank you for your email of 22 July regarding the use of King Edward Memorial Park during the construction of the Thames Tideway Tunnel project by Thames Water.

The decision to grant Thames Water development consent for the Thames Tideway Tunnel project was made by the Secretaries of State on 12 September 2014. In making the decision the Secretaries of State recognised that the temporary use of the Park during construction would be a serious loss to the surrounding communities and that there was a shortage of open space in this part of London. To reduce the impact of that loss the Secretaries of State decided to place a restriction on construction activity in the Park so that no work can take place on Saturday mornings, when the Park is used most by local people.

While this period of respite will no doubt be welcomed by the community, we acknowledge that the overall construction period will result in a temporary period of disruption for regular users of the Park. However, the Secretary of State also recognised that after construction the additional public open space created as a result will be a positive benefit for the local community.

If you would like to know more about the detailed construction timetable please contact the developer, Thames Water; their Tunnel project team will be able to provide you with further information.

25 July 2016
Herra Mindful Smile
Thames Tideway Tunnel
Enquiry received via email
National Grid provided their draft section 48 publicity notice and draft consultation report structure to the Planning Inspectorate for comment.
The following advice was provided.

Draft Consultation Report Structure:

It would be helpful if you could provide a summary table of all consultation and engagement undertaken (within part 5). For example, using similar headings to those used for the Richborough Connection project: Stage, When, What, Who.

There are some grammatical errors however we have not drawn attention to these as we are aware this is an early draft of the contents page/structure.

Should section 11 and 12 fall under section 10?

It is not clear where the s48 publicity will be explained and reviewed.

In regard to Appendices Part 10, are you proposing to include all responses received within the consultation report?

Are you intending on providing a list of those persons consulted during the non-statutory rounds of consultation?


Draft section 48 publicity notice:

The numbering requires review.

It would be helpful if National Grid could explain or provide an overview of the documents being consulted on (in addition to the PEI), see regulation 4(3)(e) of the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009 as amended.

Please state the cost (for receipt of copies of the consultation documents), as required by Regulations 4(3)(g) of the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009 as amended.

Could the language be clearer here regarding ‘Any response or representation in respect of the proposed Application’?

25 July 2016
National Grid - Richard Gwilliam
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Meeting with National Grid to discuss progress on the proposed North West Coast Connection project
see attached meeting note

22 July 2016
National Grid - Richard Gwilliam
General
Enquiry received via email
Can I begin the process of applying for a Development Consent Order for the development of a Geological Disposal Facility for Higher Activity Radioactive Wastes from The UK's Civil Nuclear industry and The Ministry of Defence while no National Policy Statement is in place?
Thank you for your email of the 17th July regarding whether or not you are able to apply for a Development Consent Order for a Geological Disposal Facility (GDF).

As you state, the Infrastructure Planning (Radioactive Waste Geological Disposal Facilities) Order 2015 came into force on March 27th 2015. The Order includes provisions relating to the facility itself and test boreholes.

Applicants are able to make applications for NSIPs where there is no relevant NPS in place under s105 of the Planning Act 2008. In such cases the examining authority must make their decision on what they consider to be important and relevant matters, having regard to the list of material considerations in the Infrastructure Planning (Decisions) Regulations 2010

Any applicant would need to carefully consider whether the examining authority would have the necessary information to be able to make a decision about whether or not to recommend that the Secretary of State make the DCO for GDF before committing to making an application for a NSIP of this nature. The Nuclear Site Licence and any Environmental Permit would need to be applied for separately, however, the examining authority would need to be satisfied that there was no serious impediment to the relevant organisations granting such licences and consents.

The NPS would normally set out the matters that the examining authority and SoS should have regard to in their examining and decision-making roles. It is therefore advisable that, for a NSIP of this nature, any potential applicants should wait until the NPS has been designated rather than making any speculative applications.

20 July 2016
DJ Lee
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Inception meeting
Please see attached meeting note

20 July 2016
EggBorough Power Limited - James Crankshaw
Eggborough CCGT
Enquiry received via email
I am afraid your 14 page letter and schedules is complete “gobbledegook” to me however I would like to know if any compensation is being paid to residents who’s property will be down valued by the proposed work. I live on Tye Lane which already has a lot of electricity pylons. I live at xxx xxxxx The addition of two new sets of pylons will reduce the value of my property significantly albeit that they are down the hill from my property. Post the new pylons the whole area between my property and Bramford will look like some giant electricity substation. And the views towards the enormous carbuncle which the substation will become will remove any views we have from the rear of the property. My property is already down valued by an existing pylon but it will be further affected by the new development. |I realise I cannot stop the development but wanted to know if I just have to accept the loss in value for my home.
Thank you for your email of 15 July 2016. The applicant for the proposed East Anglia Three Offshore Wind Farm has included you within Part 2 of their Book of Reference. This means that you have been identified as having a Category 3 interest under section 57 of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008). Category 3 interest is defined within the PA2008 as follows: “A person is within category 3 if the applicant thinks that, if the order sought by the application were to be made and fully implemented, the person would or might be entitled: (a) as a result of making the order; (b) as a result of the order having been implemented; or (c) as a result of the use of the land once the order has been implemented; to make a relevant claim” Relevant claims in this context are not planning matters and cannot be considered by the Planning Inspectorate as part of the examination process. Any claims brought against the applicant in respect of depreciated land values and/or injurious affection would be decided in the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) in conjunction with the National Compensation Code. We advise you to make contact with the applicant directly for further information on the procedure for applying for compensation should development consent and associated compulsory acquisition powers be granted. The applicant’s contact details are as follows: Keith Morrison [email protected] 0141 614 0400 For further information on compulsory acquisition powers under the PA2008, I have attached the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG)’s Guidance related to procedures for the compulsory acquisition of land. If you have any queries relating to the examination of the proposed East Anglia Three Offshore Wind Farm, please do not hesitate to contact us.

19 July 2016
Andrew Swallow
East Anglia THREE Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Meeting to update on project progress and to discuss proposed applications to make changes to the DCO
see attached meeting note

19 July 2016
EDF Energy - Tim Norwood
Hinkley Point C New Nuclear Power Station
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Manston Airport Project Update Meeting
Please see attached Meeting Note

19 July 2016
RiverOak
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Meeting
Please see attached meeting note

15 July 2016
RPS for Wheelabrator Technologies Inc - Chris LeCointe
Wheelabrator Kemsley Generating Station (K3) and Wheelabrator Kemsley North (WKN) Waste to Energy Facility
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Discussed latest progress on the project
please see attached

13 July 2016
Horizon Nuclear Power - anon.
Wylfa Newydd Nuclear Power Station
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached meeting note

13 July 2016
Vattenfall - Ruari Lean
Norfolk Vanguard
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
A47 Project Update Meeting
Please see attached meeting note

13 July 2016
Highways England
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached meeting note

08 July 2016
Network Rail
Western Rail Link to Heathrow
Enquiry received via meeting
Advice on the applicants Non-Material Change request consutee list
Thank you for providing your draft list of consultees for the proposed non-material change requests. We have the following advice to give regarding the amended consultee lists for Hirwaun and Progress Power. The advice is without prejudice to any decision the secretary of state may make and I hope you find it helpful.

Progress Power

On the basis of their previous involvement in the examination, we consider that you might wish to provide additional justification to the Secretary of State (SoS) on why you do not propose to consult the following consultees:

Andrew P Colchester
Arqiva Telecommunications Asset Development Company Limited
David Ellis
Eleanor Havers (Agent to the Talbots)
Eleco plc
Gordon Ellis Talbot
Harry Charles Moore
Hayley Talbot
HSBC Bank plc
John Cole Farms Limited
Mr McGowen
Quiet Sports Fishery Management
St. Edmundsbury and Ipswich Diocesan Board of Finance
Steve Jacobs
Tracy Lorraine Jacobs
UK Power Networks Limited.

For similar reasons, you may also wish to retain the following consultees:

Brome & Oakley Parish Council
Common Concern
South Norfolk Council

There were also a number of people who registered as Interested Parties expressly for the examination and you may wish to consider consulting them directly as part of this.

Hirwaun

On the basis of their previous involvement in the examination, we consider that you might wish to provide additional justification to the Secretary of State (SoS) on why you do not propose to consult the following consultees:

Ashtenne (AIF) Limited
Ashtenne Industrial Fund Nominee No. 1 Limited
British Gas Trading Limited
Canal and River Trust
Carol Ann Jenkins
CCF Limited
Cefn Strain Gauges Limited
Celtic Energy Limited
Ceridwyn Short
Deepan Rasiklal Khiroya
Eftec Limited
Eunice Davies
Forward Sound Limited
Ifan Geraint Jenkins
International Greetings UK Limited
J.D Burford Limited
James Snowdon
Mark Newman
Nabeel Yunis Soroya
Naveed Amir Soroya
Paul Jonathan Lloyd
Phillip Sedgemore
Sandeep Rasiklal Khiroya
Skipton Building Society
South Wales Electricity Limited
Swan Mill (Holdings) Limited
Tallyspace Limited
Tip Top Toilets Limited
Walter Energy Inc
Walters Plant Hire Limited
Welsh Tyre Recycling Services Limited
Wendy Joseph
West & Wales Utilities Limited

The Inspectorate would recommend the applicant to retain on its consultee list the following consutlees as they partook in the examination process:

Neath Port Talbot
Network Rail
Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd
Royal Mail
South Wales Police and Crime Commissioner

We note you have excluded some S.56(2)(d) consultees in the table below. According to our records these s.56 (2) (d) persons were not included in the application book of reference revision 3. It might therefore be prudent to clarify to the SoS how these parties have been identified and why their rights are not being infringed by the changes applied for.


Lloyds Bank plc
LR (Cardiff) Limited
Metech Recycling (UK) Limited
National Westminster Bank plc
Nationwide Building Society
Nigel Morrison
Peter Burford
Richard Gordon Oliver
Rodd Properties Limited
Rowe Estates (UK) Limited
Simon Jeremy Bryant
Susan Purnell
Taylors Crisps Limited
The Authentic Curry Company Limited
The Royal Bank of Scotland plc
Union Pension Trustees Limited
Wilfred Vaughan Jones
Wolseley UK Limited
Wolseley Utilities Limited
WTB Properties Limited


A minor final point - you may also wish might want to review the entry saying Occupier(s) as it is currently unclear which plots this relates to.

07 July 2016
Chris McKerrow
Progress Power Station
Enquiry received via meeting
Advice on the applicants Non-Material Change request consutee list
Thank you for providing your draft list of consultees for the proposed non-material change requests. We have the following advice to give regarding the amended consultee lists for Hirwaun and Progress Power. The advice is without prejudice to any decision the secretary of state may make and I hope you find it helpful.

Progress Power

On the basis of their previous involvement in the examination, we consider that you might wish to provide additional justification to the Secretary of State (SoS) on why you do not propose to consult the following consultees:

Andrew P Colchester
Arqiva Telecommunications Asset Development Company Limited
David Ellis
Eleanor Havers (Agent to the Talbots)
Eleco plc
Gordon Ellis Talbot
Harry Charles Moore
Hayley Talbot
HSBC Bank plc
John Cole Farms Limited
Mr McGowen
Quiet Sports Fishery Management
St. Edmundsbury and Ipswich Diocesan Board of Finance
Steve Jacobs
Tracy Lorraine Jacobs
UK Power Networks Limited.

For similar reasons, you may also wish to retain the following consultees:

Brome & Oakley Parish Council
Common Concern
South Norfolk Council

There were also a number of people who registered as Interested Parties expressly for the examination and you may wish to consider consulting them directly as part of this.

Hirwaun

On the basis of their previous involvement in the examination, we consider that you might wish to provide additional justification to the Secretary of State (SoS) on why you do not propose to consult the following consultees:

Ashtenne (AIF) Limited
Ashtenne Industrial Fund Nominee No. 1 Limited
British Gas Trading Limited
Canal and River Trust
Carol Ann Jenkins
CCF Limited
Cefn Strain Gauges Limited
Celtic Energy Limited
Ceridwyn Short
Deepan Rasiklal Khiroya
Eftec Limited
Eunice Davies
Forward Sound Limited
Ifan Geraint Jenkins
International Greetings UK Limited
J.D Burford Limited
James Snowdon
Mark Newman
Nabeel Yunis Soroya
Naveed Amir Soroya
Paul Jonathan Lloyd
Phillip Sedgemore
Sandeep Rasiklal Khiroya
Skipton Building Society
South Wales Electricity Limited
Swan Mill (Holdings) Limited
Tallyspace Limited
Tip Top Toilets Limited
Walter Energy Inc
Walters Plant Hire Limited
Welsh Tyre Recycling Services Limited
Wendy Joseph
West & Wales Utilities Limited

The Inspectorate would recommend the applicant to retain on its consultee list the following consutlees as they partook in the examination process:

Neath Port Talbot
Network Rail
Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd
Royal Mail
South Wales Police and Crime Commissioner

We note you have excluded some S.56(2)(d) consultees in the table below. According to our records these s.56 (2) (d) persons were not included in the application book of reference revision 3. It might therefore be prudent to clarify to the SoS how these parties have been identified and why their rights are not being infringed by the changes applied for.


Lloyds Bank plc
LR (Cardiff) Limited
Metech Recycling (UK) Limited
National Westminster Bank plc
Nationwide Building Society
Nigel Morrison
Peter Burford
Richard Gordon Oliver
Rodd Properties Limited
Rowe Estates (UK) Limited
Simon Jeremy Bryant
Susan Purnell
Taylors Crisps Limited
The Authentic Curry Company Limited
The Royal Bank of Scotland plc
Union Pension Trustees Limited
Wilfred Vaughan Jones
Wolseley UK Limited
Wolseley Utilities Limited
WTB Properties Limited


A minor final point - you may also wish might want to review the entry saying Occupier(s) as it is currently unclear which plots this relates to.

07 July 2016
Chris McKerrow
Hirwaun Power Station
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
See attached meeting note

06 July 2016
Mandy King
East Anglia ONE North Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
See attached meeting note

06 July 2016
Mandy King
East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Meeting between Pins and Highways England on 6 July 2016
Please see attached meeting note

06 July 2016
Highways England - anon.
A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon Improvement Scheme
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
IAMP Project Update Meeting 6 July 2016
Please see attached meeting note

06 July 2016
IAMP LLP - Matt Verlander
International Advanced Manufacturing Park TWO (IAMP TWO)
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I am looking for a timeline chart that shows the NSIP process stages, and the length of anticipated time to complete each one.

I recall a thirty-odd page document setting out the details of the process for applicants. Where would I find this please?
Thank you for your email.

Advice Note 8.1 has a timeline chart that shows the NSIP process stages:
[attachment 1]

The Planning Inspectorate offers a free pre-application service for developers, the pre-application prospectus is now available on our website. This document sets out the Planning Inspectorate’s service for applicants at the pre-application stage of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process:
[attachment 2]


Planning Act 2008: guidance on the pre-application process sets out the requirements and procedures for the pre-application process and consultation for major infrastructure projects: [attachment 3]

Further guidance documents produced by DCLG which may be helpful can be found under the following link:
[attachment 4]

The Planning Inspectorate has produced a suite of Advice notes which cover a range of process matters. These can be found under the following link:
[attachment 5]

If the information provided is not what you were looking for, please do not hesitate to contact us.

05 July 2016
Pegasus Group - Peta Donkin
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Meeting regarding applying for a Non-Material Change
Please see attached meeting note

30 June 2016
Chris McKerrow
Progress Power Station
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Meeting regarding applying for a Non-Material Change
Please see attached meeting note

30 June 2016
Chris McKerrow
Hirwaun Power Station
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Feedback meeting on the EIA Scoping approach
Please see attached meeting note

27 June 2016
Four Ashes Ltd
West Midlands Interchange
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
We have received a notification of the above application by Keuper Gas Storage Ltd.

I have looked at the web site via the suggested links, but I have been unable to find the location this refers to.

Could you please advise this information and I will then be able to contact the relevant person within GlaxoSmithKline.

I think we may be getting these notifications as we had property in Middlewich, Cheshire. If my assumption is correct – we no longer have these premises.
You have received this notification regarding the Keuper Gas Storage Project because your organisation is a so called Category 3 person under the 2008 Planning Act (as amended) (PA2008). This means that Glaxo Operations UK Ltd (Glaxo) have a land interest that is impacted by the project and you might therefore be entitled to make a claim under s57(4) of the PA2008 if the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change grants the developer a Development Consent Order.

As a Category 3 person the Planning Inspectorate has a legal obligation to notify Glaxo about any procedural decision relating to the examination of the project, such as notifying you about hearings, changes to the time table, and requests for information. However, it does not mean that Glaxo, as a category 3 person, have to respond to any correspondence from the Examining Inspector unless Glaxo think it is in their interest.

The plot of land that relates to Glaxo is Plot no. 52 which can be viewed here:

[attachment 1]

More details about the plot can be found in the Book of Reference on pages 168 and 179:

[attachment 2] 3 KGSP Book of Reference Rev 2.pdf

Further information on how the Development Consent Order process works can be found in our Advice Note 8.5 Participating in the Examination:
[attachment 3]

23 June 2016
Glaxo Operations UK Ltd
Keuper Gas Storage Project
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Good morning,

I was hoping you could help me with a query concerning the statutory bodies listed in Schedule 1 of Infrastructure Planning Regulations 2009 ([attachment 1]). These are referenced in the Planning Inspectorate's advice note 7 [attachment 2] as being the statutory bodies which the Secretary of State would consult in developing a scoping opinion.

However, it seems some of these organisations are no longer in existence in the forms mentioned on this list (for example, the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment having been merged into the Design Council, and the regional planning regime having been largely dismantled). Could you please confirm whether there is an updated list - or for example which bodies would be consulted on scoping requests related to transport infrastructure?

Many thanks
Dear Emma

Thank you for your email.

The Planning Inspectorates approach taken to identifying consultation bodies to be consulted on the scope of the Environmental Statement (ES) under Regulation 8 of the EIA Regulations is set out in Advice Note three: EIA consultation and notification which is available on the planning portal website. This advice note also identifies non-prescribed consultees where the Secretary of State will exercise judgement and may on a discretionary basis consult.

A number of bodies referred to in the original Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure Regulations) 2009 (as amended) have been subject to amendments including name changes. The Annexe to Advice Note three sets out the Planning Inspectorate’s interpretation of the prescribed consultation bodies which fall within the table in Schedule 1 of the APFP Regulations.

I trust this information is of assistance but if you have any further questions please do not hesitate to contact us.

21 June 2016
Emma Dougan
General
response has attachments
With regard to the issue of the timing of the Moorside and NWCC applications, I do wonder if both applications are submitted at the same time, whether there would be the possibility that Step 2 of the Aarhus Convention’s model on public participation in decision making may not be adequately met. This states:
“Reasonable time frames means allowing sufficient time for informing the public and for the public to prepare and participate effectively in the decision making” (see page 20 of this document [attachment 1] )

If the public and organisations such as ourselves are unable to participate effectively because of overlapping of written submission deadlines and hearing preparations for the two applications, then this would give rise to concerns that the consultation process was unfair because of time pressure and resource capacity. Preparation and involvement in one NSIP is a complex and time consuming process. Involvement in two at the same time, which are intimately linked to each other will be almost impossible for members of the public and small organisations such as ourselves who do not have the benefit of funding for resources via Planning Performance Agreements that the LPAs and statutory agencies have.
In regard to whether there would be any breach of the Convention, I believe this would ultimately be a matter for the Aarhus Convention committee, therefore I would not be able to provide any comment on this.

We have previously asked the developers to consider the potential resource implications of submitting their proposals at a similar time, and I would advise you to raise your concerns directly with NuGen and National Grid.

The Planning Inspectorate must comply with the statutory deadlines in the Planning Act 2008 when accepting and examining an application, however when setting the timetable we will do our best to avoid overlap/clashes of dates where possible. The pre-application consultation stage is a fundamental part of the overall process and we would encourage Friends of the Lake District to engage fully in this process by commenting on the proposals prior to submission, we are aware that NuGen is currently undertaking its statutory consultation now, ahead of the National Grid statutory pre-application consultation phase.

If you have any further queries please do not hesitate to contact me.

21 June 2016
Friends of the Lake District - Kate Willshaw
General
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
With regard to the issue of the timing of the Moorside and NWCC applications, I do wonder if both applications are submitted at the same time, whether there would be the possibility that Step 2 of the Aarhus Convention’s model on public participation in decision making may not be adequately met. This states:
“Reasonable time frames means allowing sufficient time for informing the public and for the public to prepare and participate effectively in the decision making” (see page 20 of this document [attachment 1] )

If the public and organisations such as ourselves are unable to participate effectively because of overlapping of written submission deadlines and hearing preparations for the two applications, then this would give rise to concerns that the consultation process was unfair because of time pressure and resource capacity. Preparation and involvement in one NSIP is a complex and time consuming process. Involvement in two at the same time, which are intimately linked to each other will be almost impossible for members of the public and small organisations such as ourselves who do not have the benefit of funding for resources via Planning Performance Agreements that the LPAs and statutory agencies have.

I would be grateful for PINS view on this.
In regard to whether there would be any breach of the Convention, I believe this would ultimately be a matter for the Aarhus Convention committee, therefore I would not be able to provide any comment on this.

We have previously asked the developers to consider the potential resource implications of submitting their proposals at a similar time, and I would advise you to raise your concerns directly with NuGen and National Grid.

The Planning Inspectorate must comply with the statutory deadlines in the Planning Act 2008 when accepting and examining an application, however when setting the timetable we will do our best to avoid overlap/clashes of dates where possible. The pre-application consultation stage is a fundamental part of the overall process and we would encourage Friends of the Lake District to engage fully in this process by commenting on the proposals prior to submission, we are aware that NuGen is currently undertaking its statutory consultation now, ahead of the National Grid statutory pre-application consultation phase.
If you have any further queries please do not hesitate to contact me

21 June 2016
Friends of the Lake District - Kate Willshaw
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
A47 Project Update (Teleconference)
Please see attached meeting note

21 June 2016
Highways England
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Project update meeting (please see attached)

15 June 2016
Transport for London - Transport for London (TfL)
Silvertown Tunnel
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
A2 Bean to Ebbsfleet project update meeting
Please see attached

15 June 2016
Highways England
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached meeting note

14 June 2016
Tidal Lagoon Cardiff - Alex Blake
Tidal Lagoon Cardiff
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Northampton Gateway - Project Introduction Meeting
Please see attached meeting note

10 June 2016
Roxhill representatives
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Introduction Meeting
Please see attached Meeting Note

10 June 2016
Roxhill representatives
Northampton Gateway Rail Freight Interchange
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting with National Grid
Please see attached note

09 June 2016
National Grid - Jacqui Fenn
North Wales Connection
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Support for the proposed scheme
As RiverOak’s proposals are still in the Pre-Application stage, The Planning Inspectorate do not have a formal role in receiving representations on the scheme at this time. Until an application is formally made to us, RiverOak are your first point of contact for any comments you have on the proposal.

If an application is formally submitted to the Planning Inspectorate and it is accepted to progress to Examination, then there will be a formal stage where you will be invited to submit your representations. More information about this process can be found on our website: [attachment 1]

In particular the Advice Note 8 series should help give you advice on how to have your say in the planning process.

03 June 2016
Various
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
Persons noted that they had not received an acknowledgement in respect of comments submitted via the applicant's website.
The Planning Inspectorate met with RiverOak earlier this week on Wednesday 1 June 2016. As part of that meeting The Planning Inspectorate reported receiving correspondence in which it was noted that RiverOak had not responded to submissions made via their website. There is no statutory requirement for a developer to respond directly to individual correspondence, but RiverOak are aware of the frustrations this has created.

The activity that RiverOak are proposing to undertake over the summer period will be a non-statutory consultation. This activity will not therefore have to be conducted in accordance with the requirements of the Planning Act 2008 – the legislation that governs this type of airport-related development. RiverOak will however need to undertake a stage of statutory consultation before an application can be formally submitted. In preparation for that, RiverOak will have to produce a draft Statement of Community Consultation that sets out how they will undertake the consultation activity. They are required to consult with Thanet District Council and Kent County Council on the content of that document. If you feel that RiverOak are not sufficiently considering your views on this specific matter, you may wish to inform the relevant authorities about your specific concerns in respect of the way in which consultation is planned to be carried out.

Once any statutory consultation has been completed, the Planning Act 2008 requires that RiverOak will need to demonstrate that they have had regard to any representations received during that stage of consultation activity. Upon submission of an application, RiverOak would need to produce a Consultation Report to explain how they had regard to the relevant representations received, whether any changes were made to the proposals and, if no changes were made, provide an explanation as to why.

03 June 2016
Various
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
Is the question of whether there is a genuine aspiration to reopen and run an airport at this site appropriate in the pre-application stage?
Questions in respect of whether any applicant has a genuine aspiration to deliver a project are rightly raised during the Pre-Application phase. However, ultimately the decision to submit an application is with the developer; matters such as whether the scheme can be delivered, including the funding for the delivery of the project, would become matters that an Examining Authority may wish to consider during an Examination stage.

03 June 2016
Mr Binding
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
Concern to ensure that there will be consultations, drop in sessions and meetings held in the towns most affected.
You are right to have directed your correspondence to RiverOak at an early stage. As you note, the activity that RiverOak are proposing to undertake over the summer period will be a non-statutory consultation. This activity will not therefore have to be conducted in accordance with the requirements of the Planning Act 2008 – the legislation that governs this type of airport-related development. RiverOak will however need to undertake a stage of statutory consultation before an application can be formally submitted. In preparation for that, RiverOak will have to produce a draft Statement of Community Consultation that sets out how they will undertake the consultation activity. They are required to consult with Thanet District Council and Kent County Council on the content of that document. If you feel that RiverOak are not sufficiently considering your views on this specific matter, you may wish to inform the relevant authorities of your comments in respect of the way in which consultation is planned to be carried out.

The Planning Inspectorate met with RiverOak earlier this week on Wednesday 1 June 2016. As part of that meeting The Planning Inspectorate reported receiving correspondence in which it was noted that RiverOak had not responded to submissions made via their website. There is no statutory requirement for a developer to respond directly to individual correspondence, but RiverOak are aware of the frustrations this has created.

Once any statutory consultation has been completed, the Planning Act 2008 requires that RiverOak will need to demonstrate that they have had regard to any representations received during that stage of consultation activity. Upon submission of an application, RiverOak would need to produce a Consultation Report to explain how they had regard to the relevant representations received, whether any changes were made to the proposals and, if no changes were made, provide an explanation as to why.

01 June 2016
Various
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The Planning Inspectorate provided advice to NuGen regarding the pre-application consultation.
Please see attached the Planning Inspectorates advice and NuGens response.

01 June 2016
NuGen - Gideon Amos
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Inception meeting between Thanet District Council, RiverOak and The Planning Inspectorate
Please see attached meeting note

01 June 2016
Thanet District Council and RiverOak
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Meeting held with National Trust on 31 May 2016.
See attached meeting note

31 May 2016
National Trust
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached meeting note

31 May 2016
Four Ashes Ltd
West Midlands Interchange
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached meeting note

26 May 2016
Heathrow Airport Ltd
General
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I would like to raise a concern with you regarding the proposed timings for both the Moorside and the NWCC Examinations in 2017-2018. We are aware that NuGen is keen for both Examinations to run concurrently from March or April next year. This is going to put an inordinate amount of pressure on consultees who will be trying to deal with two of the largest infrastructure projects in the UK being examined at the same time. It is also likely to hinder proper public engagement in both of the examinations.

At Friends of the Lake District I am dealing with both of the consultation/Examination processes. If I am asked to provide relevant representations/written representations for both NWCC and Moorside at the same time, I will not be able to give either of them the attention that they need because I will be trying to deal with both. There is also the scenario that hearings may occur at the same time or close together meaning that my capacity for gathering evidence for those hearings or even appearing at them would be compromised.

I am also concerned that running the two Examinations at the same time will reduce the ability of the public to engage adequately in the process, and may also confuse members of the public about which NSIP is being dealt with.

There needs to be proper time separation of the two Examinations to enable stakeholders, consultees and the public to engage adequately. It needs to be a fair process and putting the burden of Examining two very large infrastructure projects at the same time on the people and organisations of Cumbria is very unfair.

I would be happy to discuss my concerns about the consultation timetables with you further.
We spoke at the Moorside Technical Group Meeting on 12th May and you asked to what extent the NuGen application and examination will review any potential effects resulting from the National Grid electric line connection, mainly regarding landscape and visual impacts.

Schedule 4 Part 1 of the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2009 (as amended) states the following information should be included in Environmental Statements:

‘A description of the likely significant effects of the development on the environment, which should cover the direct effects and any indirect, secondary, cumulative, short, medium and long-term, permanent and temporary, positive and negative effects of the development, resulting from:
(a) the existence of the development;
(b) the use of natural resources;
(c) the emission of pollutants, the creation of nuisances and the elimination of waste,
and the description by the applicant of the forecasting methods used to assess the effects on the environment’.

Developers are therefore required to describe the likely cumulative effects of the development within their applications. Therefore when commenting on the NuGen proposal during this current stage of pre-application consultation you may wish to view the preliminary environmental information report (for example section 3.4 of Technical Folder 1); and during the examination stage, the environmental statement, to comment on any potential cumulative impacts. The Planning Inspectorate has also published an advice note for developers proposing Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects which provides guidance on the assessment of cumulative effects which is available here: [attachment 1]. It should be noted that this is only advice and it is not mandatory for any developer to follow it.

If the Moorside proposal was accepted for examination, the Examining Authority would also have to take the provisions of National Policy Statements into account, with regard to the cumulative landscape and visual effects from Moorside proposal and the North West Coast Connection.

Thank you for your email dated 17 May 2016, explaining your concerns regarding NuGen and National Grid’s intentions to submit their applications to the Planning Inspectorate at a similar time. We are aware of this and we have previously spoken to both developers and have asked them to consider the resourcing implications this may have on some parties. The Planning Inspectorate will allocate separate Examining Authorities for these projects if they are accepted for examination, and whilst we will aim to hold similar hearings for each project on different days, it is highly likely that the written submission deadlines will overlap if both projects are submitted around the same time. We will do our utmost to ensure that our correspondence is clear in highlighting to which project it relates.

26 May 2016
Friends of the Lake District - Kate Willshaw
General
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I would like to raise a concern with you regarding the proposed timings for both the Moorside and the NWCC Examinations in 2017-2018. We are aware that NuGen is keen for both Examinations to run concurrently from March or April next year. This is going to put an inordinate amount of pressure on consultees who will be trying to deal with two of the largest infrastructure projects in the UK being examined at the same time. It is also likely to hinder proper public engagement in both of the examinations.

At Friends of the Lake District I am dealing with both of the consultation/Examination processes. If I am asked to provide relevant representations/written representations for both NWCC and Moorside at the same time, I will not be able to give either of them the attention that they need because I will be trying to deal with both. There is also the scenario that hearings may occur at the same time or close together meaning that my capacity for gathering evidence for those hearings or even appearing at them would be compromised.

I am also concerned that running the two Examinations at the same time will reduce the ability of the public to engage adequately in the process, and may also confuse members of the public about which NSIP is being dealt with.

There needs to be proper time separation of the two Examinations to enable stakeholders, consultees and the public to engage adequately. It needs to be a fair process and putting the burden of Examining two very large infrastructure projects at the same time on the people and organisations of Cumbria is very unfair.
We spoke at the Moorside Technical Group Meeting on 12th May and you asked to what extent the NuGen application and examination will review any potential effects resulting from the National Grid electric line connection, mainly regarding landscape and visual impacts.

Schedule 4 Part 1 of the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2009 (as amended) states the following information should be included in Environmental Statements:

‘A description of the likely significant effects of the development on the environment, which should cover the direct effects and any indirect, secondary, cumulative, short, medium and long-term, permanent and temporary, positive and negative effects of the development, resulting from:
(a) the existence of the development;
(b) the use of natural resources;
(c) the emission of pollutants, the creation of nuisances and the elimination of waste,
and the description by the applicant of the forecasting methods used to assess the effects on the environment’.

Developers are therefore required to describe the likely cumulative effects of the development within their applications. Therefore when commenting on the NuGen proposal during this current stage of pre-application consultation you may wish to view the preliminary environmental information report (for example section 3.4 of Technical Folder 1); and during the examination stage, the environmental statement, to comment on any potential cumulative impacts. The Planning Inspectorate has also published an advice note for developers proposing Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects which provides guidance on the assessment of cumulative effects which is available here: [attachment 1]. It should be noted that this is only advice and it is not mandatory for any developer to follow it.

If the Moorside proposal was accepted for examination, the Examining Authority would also have to take the provisions of National Policy Statements into account, with regard to the cumulative landscape and visual effects from Moorside proposal and the North West Coast Connection.

Thank you for your email dated 17 May 2016, explaining your concerns regarding NuGen and National Grid’s intentions to submit their applications to the Planning Inspectorate at a similar time. We are aware of this and we have previously spoken to both developers and have asked them to consider the resourcing implications this may have on some parties. The Planning Inspectorate will allocate separate Examining Authorities for these projects if they are accepted for examination, and whilst we will aim to hold similar hearings for each project on different days, it is highly likely that the written submission deadlines will overlap if both projects are submitted around the same time. We will do our utmost to ensure that our correspondence is clear in highlighting to which project it relates.

26 May 2016
Friends of the Lake District - Kate Willshaw
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting.
See attached meeting note.

This meeting note was originally published (and remains published) on the general register of advice: [attachment 1]

26 May 2016
Heathrow Airport Ltd - anon.
Expansion of Heathrow Airport (Third Runway)
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Liaison meeting between the Planning Inspectorate and the Environment Agency

25 May 2016
Environment Agency
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
East Midlands Intermodal Park project update meeting
Please see attached meeting note

25 May 2016
Goodman
East Midlands Intermodal Park
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Meeting between the Planning Inspectorate and SP Energy Networks to discuss the proposed Reinforcement to North Shropshire Electricity Distribution Network.
Meeting note attached

24 May 2016
SP Energy Networks - Steven Edwards
Reinforcement to North Shropshire Electricity Distribution Network
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
See attached meeting note

19 May 2016
Mandy King
East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
See attached meeting note

19 May 2016
Mandy King
East Anglia ONE North Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
M20 Junction 10a draft documents feedback and logistics of submission
Please see the attached meeting note

19 May 2016
Highways England - Salvatore Zappala
M20 Junction 10A
Evidence Plan meeting
Please see attached note

19 May 2016
Tidal Lagoon Power
Tidal Lagoon Cardiff
Enquiry received via email
Concern that they have submitted a response to RiverOaks' website and RiverOak have not responded
The Planning Inspectorate met with RiverOak earlier this week on Wednesday 1 June 2016. As part of that meeting The Planning Inspectorate reported receiving correspondence in which it was noted that RiverOak had not responded to submissions made via their website. There is no statutory requirement for a developer to respond directly to individual correspondence, but RiverOak are aware of the frustrations this has created.

The activity that RiverOak are proposing to undertake over the summer period will be a non-statutory consultation. This activity will not therefore have to be conducted in accordance with the requirements of the Planning Act 2008 – the legislation that governs this type of airport-related development. RiverOak will however need to undertake a stage of statutory consultation before an application can be formally submitted. In preparation for that, RiverOak will have to produce a draft Statement of Community Consultation that sets out how they will undertake the consultation activity. They are required to consult with Thanet District Council and Kent County Council on the content of that document. If you feel that RiverOak are not sufficiently considering your views on this specific matter, you may wish to inform the relevant authorities about your specific concerns in respect of the way in which consultation is planned to be carried out.

Once any statutory consultation has been completed, the Planning Act 2008 requires that RiverOak will need to demonstrate that they have had regard to any representations received during that stage of consultation activity. Upon submission of an application, RiverOak would need to produce a Consultation Report to explain how they had regard to the relevant representations received, whether any changes were made to the proposals and, if no changes were made, provide an explanation as to why.

17 May 2016
Various
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Inception meeting
Please see attached meeting note

17 May 2016
Scott Taylor
Tees CCPP
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Update meeting between the Applicant and the Planning Inspectorate
See meeting note

16 May 2016
Dong Energy - Tracey Siddle
Hornsea Project Three Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Assessment of Strategic Rail Freight Interchanges
Thank you for your correspondence dated 5 May 2016; its contents have been read and noted.

The Planning Inspectorate does not produce the type of guidance you refer to in respect of Strategic Rail Freight Interchanges (SFRI). The Department for Transport are responsible for preparing the National Network National Policy Statement which would be the key policy document in respect of those SFRI that meet the requirements of the Planning Act 2008. You may wish to contact them in respect of the key points in your letter.

In your letter you also refer to a specific scheme, being Rail Central. This is currently at the Pre-Application stage and the Inspectorate are aware that a scoping request was submitted in December 2015 and that the current consultation exercise (which includes the developer’s Preliminary Environmental Information Report) runs from 28 April 2016 to 30 September 2016. You may wish to share the contents of your letter with the developer of the Rail Central scheme during this statutory consultation activity.

You also mention specific cases that have not been determined through the Planning Act route, however legislation related to the Planning Act governs who is considered to be the Consultation Bodies for the purposes of compiling a Scoping Opinion – more information on this is set out in our Advice Note 3:
[attachment 1]

There is a useful annexe to that Advice Note that sets out the current approach in respect of Transport for London and when they would be identified as a consultation body for the production of a Scoping Opinion:
[attachment 2]

The legislation in respect of the Planning Act is ‘owned’ by Department for Communities and Local Government.

12 May 2016
Dr Andrew Gough
Rail Central (Strategic Rail Freight Interchange)
Enquiry received via email
Can you please advise whether the applicant has determined whether the scale of the proposed development will require the imposition of a public safety zone at the eastern end of the runway. If the CAA have advised that a PSZ will be required, can you please advise the extent of the PSZ.
Thank you for your query below in respect of discussions on Manston Airport between the developer and the Planning Inspectorate. This matter has not been raised in any conversations to date with RiverOak. The Planning Inspectorate has not had direct contact with the CAA regarding this case at this point.

I would strongly encourage you to correspond directly with the developer and they have provided us with the following contact details for such correspondence: [email protected] or 07881500557.

12 May 2016
Robert Bird
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Has the Planning Inspectorate agreed that RiverOak?s plans for Manston constitute a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP)?

What is the Planning Inspectorate?s role and engagement with RiverOak on their proposals to date and going forward?

How to participate in the process?
You query whether the Planning Inspectorate has agreed that RiverOak?s plans for Manston constitute a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP). Whether or not the proposal is an NSIP depends upon whether or not it meets the definition contained in the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008). Airport development is capable of being an NSIP, depending upon its capacity and other factors, and RiverOak has told us that the scheme they propose will be an NSIP. Since no application has yet been made, we cannot say definitively whether or not this particular proposal is an NSIP.

You also query the Planning Inspectorate?s role and engagement with RiverOak on their proposals to date and going forward. The Planning Inspectorate has a duty under s51 of the PA2008 to publish any advice it gives about applying for an order granting development consent or making representations about an application or proposed application for such an order. This duty reflects the importance of the pre-application stage and the role of the Planning Inspectorate within it. The s51 advice provided by the Planning Inspectorate on this case can be accessed via the following link to the project page on the National Infrastructure Planning webpage: [attachment 1]

The Planning Inspectorate also provides a pre-application service for NSIP Applicants. This advice is free to use and is designed to help applicants in planning and carrying out their pre-application duties. The pre-application phase is a vital part of the NSIP regime. As a front-loaded process it is important that applicants can access helpful and timely advice about what they are required to do and when.
Turning to your points relating to consultation, the NSIP process as set out in the PA2008, is heavily front-loaded and requires that applicants undertake statutory pre-application consultation with local communities and others. Manston Airport is currently at the pre-application stage of the PA2008 process and therefore will be required to undertake consultation with the local community before any formal submission. Details of how to participate in the pre-application stage will be advertised locally however we are not aware that RiverOak have started their statutory pre-application consultation activity yet.

Until an application is formally made to us, RiverOak is your first point of contact for any comments you have on the proposal. Responding to the developer?s pre-application consultation is the best time to influence a project.

If an application is received and accepted for examination by the Planning Inspectorate, the applicant will be required to explain how it has taken account of comments received during their consultation. I would therefore again strongly encourage you to ensure that RiverOak are aware of your concerns. During examination, members of the public will have the opportunity to participate in that examination. Again, the opportunity to participate will be advertised in the local press at that time.

Further information on the role of the Planning Inspectorate during pre-application can be found on the National Infrastructure Planning webpage: [attachment 2]

This website also contains information on the Planning Act Process and how to be involved (see particularly Advice Note 8) [attachment 3]

For additional information, the link below takes you directly to the Pre-Application Service Prospectus for Applicants:

[attachment 4]

11 May 2016
P. Binding
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
1) How is Manston Airport a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP)?

2) What is the process and how do I get involved?

3) Where can I find further information on the process?
1) Whether or not the proposed Manston Airport is an NSIP depends upon whether it meets the definition contained in the Planning Act 2008. Airport development is capable of being an NSIP, depending upon its capacity and other factors, and the Applicant has told us that the scheme they propose will be an NSIP. Since no application has yet been made, we cannot say definitively whether or not this particular proposal is an NSIP.

2) The NSIP process, which is set out in the Planning Act 2008, is heavily front-loaded and requires that developers undertake statutory pre-application consultation with members of the public and others. Until an application is formally made to us, the project developer (RiverOak) is your first point of contact for any comments you have on the proposal.

The proposed Manston Airport is at the pre-application stage. Therefore, responding to the developer?s pre-application consultation is the best time to influence a project; whether you agree with it, disagree with it or believe it could be improved. It is strongly encouraged that you ensure that the developer is aware of your comments.

Should an application then be made to the Planning Inspectorate, the developer will be required to explain how it has taken account of the comments received during their consultation.

Should an application be submitted, the Planning Inspectorate on behalf of the Secretary of State has a 28 day period to decide whether or not to accept the application. If the application is accepted, one or more Inspectors will be appointed as an Examining Authority to conduct an examination, which cannot take more than 6 months, and report to the Secretary of State. It is the responsible Secretary of State (in this case, the Secretary of State for Transport) who will make a decision on the application.

If an examination is to take place, individuals will have the opportunity to participate in it; by first registering as Interested Parties. This will be explained via newspaper advertisements and other publicity at the time.

3) Further advice on the process can be found on the National Infrastructure Planning website: [attachment 1]

It is also recommended to read 'Advice Note eight series: How to get involved in the planning process' which can be accessed via the following link: [attachment 2]

11 May 2016
Various
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
The Planning Inspectorate provided a presentation to the North West Coast Connection project local authorities.
Please see attached presentation.

11 May 2016
Local Authorities
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting with National Grid
Please see attached note

10 May 2016
National Grid - Jacqui Fenn National Grid
North Wales Connection
Enquiry received via email
The email is on behalf of Denbighshire County Council in connection with the Development Consent Order application for the Gas Fired Power Station on the Wrexham Industrial Estate.

We appreciate being informed of the project and for the invitation to participate in the public examination of the proposals.

We have considered the basis of the proposals and I can confirm that Denbighshire do not propose to engage in the Examination of the scheme, so do not propose to register as an interested party. It would be appreciated therefore if you could remove us from your contact list to save future circulation of email and hard copy material.
Thank you for your email below.
I understand that you do not wish to receive any further correspondence regarding the Wrexham project.
Please note that Denbighshire Council is identified as a statutory party in regards to this project. The Planning Inspectorate, acting on behalf of the Secretary of State, is under a duty to inform all statutory parties about any procedural decisions with regard to that project. Procedural decisions which must be send to you as a statutory party include:
? Rule 6 letter ? an invitation to the Preliminary Meeting, draft timetable, appointment of Examining Authority;
? Rule 8 letter - final examination timetable;
? Rule 8(3) letter - changes to examination timetable (Rule 8(3) letter); and
? Section 99 letter ? close of examination letter.
Please note however, that it is for you to decide whether you wish to respond to above letters or participate in the examination.
In the Rule 8 letter, the Examining Authority will ask all statutory parties whether they wish to become an interested party for the examination of the project. If you do not inform us that you wish to become an interested party within the deadline specified in the Rule 8 letter, you will not receive any more examination correspondence with exception to those listed above.
I hope that is helpful and apologies for any inconvenience.

09 May 2016
Denbighshire Council - Ian Weaver
Wrexham Energy Centre
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Meeting between the Planning Inspectorate and Horizon Nuclear Power to discuss the proposed Wylfa Newydd Nuclear Power Station.
Meeting note attached.

05 May 2016
Horizon Nucelar Power - Trystan Mabbitt
Wylfa Newydd Nuclear Power Station
Enquiry received via phone
response has attachments
why have you contacted us regarding the Keuper Gas Storage project examination?
You have received this letter regarding the Keuper Gas Storage Project because your organisation is a so called Category 3 person under the 2008 Planning Act (as amended) (PA2008). This means that DHL have a land interest that is impacted by the project and you might therefore be entitled to make a claim under s57(4) of PA2008 if the Secretary of State grants the developer a Development Consent Order.

As a Category 3 person the Planning Inspectorate has a legal obligation to notify DHL about any procedural decision relating to the examination of the project, such as notifying you about hearings, changes to the time table, and requests for information. However it does not mean that DHL as a category 3 person have to respond to any correspondence from the Examining Inspector unless DHL think it is in your interest.

The plot of land that relates to DHL is Plot no. 52 which can be viewed here:

[attachment 1]. Post-Submission/Application Documents/Plans/2.2.2 KGSP Plan_611 B1.pdf

More details about the plot can be found in the Book of Reference on pages 192 and 201:

[attachment 1]. Post-Submission/Application Documents/Compulsory Purchase Information/4.3 KGSP Book of Reference.pdf

Further information on how the Development Consent Order process works can be found in our Advice Note 8.5 Participating in the Examination:

[attachment 3]

If you have any queries do not hesitate to contact us via the Keuper Gas Storage mailbox: [email protected]

28 April 2016
DHL Freight and Contract Logistics (UK) Limited
Keuper Gas Storage Project
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Evidence Plan Steering Group Meeting
See attached meeting note

26 April 2016
Scottish Power Renewables - Mandy King
East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Evidence Plan Steering Group Meeting
See attached meeting note

26 April 2016
Scottish Power Renewables - Mandy King
East Anglia ONE North Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Manston Airport project update meeting

22 April 2016
RiverOak
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
Will the Planning Inspectorate look favourably on applying precautionary principle to the risk and environmental impact assessments in the prospective Riveroak application process?

Would Planning Inspectorate require epidemiology study as part of public interest in risk and environmental impact assessment?
Any Environmental Statement (ES) submitted with an application for a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project must be prepared as required by the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2009 (as amended). If we are asked for an opinion on the scope of the ES by the Applicant, we will consult technical consultees and expert bodies. Further information on this can be found in advice note three and advice note seven.

As you know, the Planning Inspectorate has not received an application for the above scheme. We will not accept an application unless we are satisfied that the Applicant has undertaken pre-application consultation and has had regard to responses that they have received. It is strongly advised that you write to the Applicant for your representation to be considered while they are still forming the scheme, since this is the most effective way to influence the form of the proposed scheme and highlight the potential impacts that should be assessed. This front-loaded emphasis of consultation is designed to ensure a more transparent and efficient examination process.

If an application is received and accepted, one or more Inspectors will be appointed as an Examining Authority to conduct an examination, which cannot take more than 6 months, and report to the Secretary of State. It is the responsible Secretary of State (in this case, the Secretary of State for Transport) who will make a decision on the application in accordance with any adopted National Policy Statements which may exist at that time, and having any regard to any relevant and important matter. If the application is accepted for examination, you will have an opportunity to make submissions on that application at that time.

22 April 2016
R. Card
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Inception meeting
See attached meeting note

21 April 2016
Wyre Power Ltd - Arran Cameron
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Introduction
Project Introduction

20 April 2016
Heathrow Hub
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
A47 Project update
Please see attached meeting note

20 April 2016
Highways England
General
Enquiry received via email
A query that?s been raised in respect of a category 3 ?person with interest in land? under s.44 PA 2008 who has indicated that they do not wish to receive consultation material from us.

The approach that we?re proposing is to write to them informing them that this decision could affect their statutory rights and that they may wish to reconsider. Assuming that they confirm again that they do not wish to receive communications from us are we able to rely on this initial exchange of letters to show compliance with the Act or should we send them consultation material during our s.42 consultation regardless of their wishes so that we can ensure that the requirements of s.42 are met?
The Planning Inspectorate provided the following advice:

Is it clear from the person?s response as to why they do not wish to receive the consultation, for example are they aware of what category 3 means and are they stating that they do not wish to be consulted, or that they believe they are not a category 3 person?

We would advise that you respond to the person to state that you will respect their wishes, but to also explain why they have been identified as a category 3 person, what this means, and that they may be included in the book of reference in the submitted application and that it may be in their best interest to be consulted. You should also explain the importance of engaging in the pre-application process. Horizon could then ask the person to confirm if they do not wish to receive the consultation information. Also it would be important to clarify if just one person has been identified at that address, or is it a group of people/family, if so you would need to seek evidence that each person does not wish to be consulted.

The request from the category 3 person won?t affect their statutory rights going forward, because they could still be included in the book of reference, and even if they were not included in the book of reference they may still be able to make a relevant claim. Horizon would want to consider again, following submission of the application and if the application is accepted for examination, whether to send them notification under section 56 of the Planning Act 2008.

Horizon should keep a log of all incoming and outgoing correspondence regarding this matter and include it (and explain it) within the consultation report.

19 April 2016
Trystan Mabbitt Horizon Nuclear Power
Wylfa Newydd Nuclear Power Station
Enquiry received via email
A category 3 “person with interest in land” under s.44 PA 2008 has indicated that they do not wish to receive consultation material from us.

The approach that we’re proposing is to write to them informing them that this decision could affect their statutory rights and that they may wish to reconsider. Assuming that they confirm again that they do not wish to receive communications from us are we able to rely on this initial exchange of letters to show compliance with the Act or should we send them consultation material during our s.42 consultation regardless of their wishes so that we can ensure that the requirements of s.42 are met?
Is it clear from the person’s response as to why they do not wish to receive the consultation, for example are they aware of what category 3 means and are they stating that they do not wish to be consulted, or that they believe they are not a category 3 person?

We would advise that you respond to the person to state that you will respect their wishes, but to also explain why they have been identified as a category 3 person, what this means, and that they may be included in the book of reference in the submitted application and that it may be in their best interest to be consulted. You should also explain the importance of engaging in the pre-application process. Horizon could then ask the person to confirm if they do not wish to receive the consultation information. Also it would be important to clarify if just one person has been identified at that address, or is it a group of people/family, if so you would need to seek evidence that each person does not wish to be consulted.

The request from the category 3 person won’t affect their statutory rights going forward, because they could still be included in the book of reference, and even if they were not included in the book of reference they may still be able to make a relevant claim. Horizon would want to consider again, following submission of the application and if the application is accepted for examination, whether to send them notification under section 56 of the Planning Act 2008.

Horizon should keep a log of all incoming and outgoing correspondence regarding this matter and include it (and explain it) within the consultation report.

19 April 2016
Horizon Nuclear Power - Trystan Mabbitt
Wylfa Newydd Nuclear Power Station
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting with National Grid
Please see attached note

14 April 2016
National Grid - Jacqui Fenn National Grid
North Wales Connection
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Joint meeting to discuss the Moorside Nuclear Power Station Proposal and the North West Coast Connection Project proposal.
Please see attached meeting note.

14 April 2016
NuGen and National Grid - anon.
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Joint meeting to discuss the Moorside Nuclear Power Station proposal and the North West Coast Connection project proposal.
Please see attached advice

14 April 2016
National Grid and NuGen - anon.
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
M20 Junction 10a project update meeting (teleconference)
Please see attached meeting note

13 April 2016
Highways England
M20 Junction 10A
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Inception meeting
Please see attached meeting note

13 April 2016
Vattenfall - Ruari Lean
Norfolk Vanguard
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Inception meeting
Please see attached note

12 April 2016
Mandy King
East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Inception meeting
Please see attached note

12 April 2016
Mandy King
East Anglia ONE North Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
Advice sought concerning a potential application for a large scale solar generating station: is the generating station threshold regarding 'capacity' considered to be the DC or AC figure.
The following advice was provided:
It is accepted that there is no definition of ‘capacity’ in either the PA 2008 or the Electricity Act 1989 (EA 1989), and therefore we are unable to provide a definitive answer to your question. However, we have provided the Planning Inspectorate’s section 51 advice, and we hope this information is of use to you.

We consider that the term ‘capacity’ relates to the sum of the ‘total installed capacity’ of a generating station and therefore refers to the ‘gross’ electricity generated in DC by solar farms, prior to being converted to AC. Our considerations and reasoning have been provided below.

It appears from the Parliamentary debate around the PA 2008 that the 50MW threshold was set at 50 (rather than a different figure) in order to correspond to the threshold for generating station consent under s36 EA 1989, which implies that the two thresholds should be considered in the same way. This is based on parliamentary discussion relating to the PA 2008, see Hansard, 16 Oct 2008: Column 827, comment by Lord Boyd of Duncansby: ‘the Infrastructure Planning Commission will deal only with generating stations producing above 50 megawatts, the same threshold as in the Electricity Act’.

In a previous Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP) application under the PA 2008, the capacity threshold has been assessed as being the ‘gross output’, which we would therefore interpret for solar as the DC capacity. See, for example, paragraph 58 of the decision letter for the Progress Power Station, as follows: ‘The Secretary of State notes that discussion took place around the definition of “output” and whether this should be the gross output of the generating plant or the net output exported from the site after allowing for transformer and other losses. The ExA noted that it was important that the definition of output used is consistent with Directive 2009/31/EC and the CCR Regulations. The ExA argued that the purpose the Directive and CCR Regulations is to control emissions and that the scale of emissions is therefore determined by the gross output. The Secretary of State notes that the EA also considered that gross output should be used and therefore agrees with the ExA’s conclusion that a gross output definition would be consistent with the legislation’. This does not take into account transformer or other losses, which would seem likely to include any reduction of output lost in inversion from DC to AC for solar farms, for example. We also consider the gross output to be the same as total installed capacity, as this represents the sum of the output of the generating plant (in this case, solar panels).

The following statutory instruments also appear to be relevant:

Regulation 4 of The Developments of National Significance (Specified Criteria and Prescribed Secondary Consents) (Wales) Regulations 2016 (2016 No. 53 (W. 23)), which applies when determining whether a generating station will fall within the Welsh Developments of National Significance regime. This states that ‘“installed generating capacity” (“gallu cynhyrchu gosodedig”) means the maximum capacity of electricity generation (in megawatts) at which that generating station could be operated for a sustained period without damage being caused to it (assuming the source of energy used to generate electricity is available without interruption)’.

The definition of ‘total installed capacity’, within the Renewables Obligation Order 2015/1947 is very similar to the DNS definition of installed generating capacity: ‘ “total installed capacity”, in relation to a generating station or to generating capacity of any description, means the maximum capacity at which that generating station or generating capacity could be operated for a sustained period without causing damage to it (assuming the source of power used by it to generate electricity was available to it without interruption)’.

Whilst it is accepted that the above definitions are focussed on different statutory regimes, and so not conclusive, we consider them to be persuasive support for interpreting ‘capacity’ under section 15 of the PA 2008 as meaning the ‘total installed capacity’, or gross output of the generating plant. In the case of solar farms, we therefore consider this refers to the DC capacity. It is particularly noteworthy that the Welsh DNS definition is intended to apply to generating stations from 10 to 50MW, with those onshore generating stations above 50MW still being dealt with as NSIPs. This strongly suggests that this is how the PA 2008 capacity should be interpreted, in order to be consistent.

In your letter you queried which body is the enforcing authority for NSIPs, we consider the enforcing authority to be the local planning authority.

08 April 2016
Simmons & Simmons
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
A38 Project Update Meeting

07 April 2016
Highways England
A38 Derby Junctions
Enquiry received via email
National Grid sent their early draft Statement of Community Consultation (SoCC) to the Planning Inspectorate for comment.
The Planning Inspectorate provided the following advice:

In accordance with S47(6)(za) of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008), it would be beneficial to explicitly state where the SoCC will be made available for viewing.

The SoCC doesn?t clearly explain the project until Page 4 of the document. The explanation provided on Page 4 is not entirely clear either as it does not elaborate on the type of proposal e.g. that it is a 400kV line, nor does it mention the potential height or length of the proposed scheme. The scale of the substation works and sealing end compounds have not been stated either. It would be beneficial to include this information, so as not to leave any ambiguity to those persons reading the document.

Para 2.5 refers to ourselves as the ?National Infrastructure Directorate?, we are now the ?Major Applications and Plans Directorate? therefore we suggest amending the wording to simply state ?the Planning Inspectorate?.

On Page 5 you refer to ?some part of our work associated with Wylfa?are known as associated development.? Is the associated development only regarding the Wylfa works, or do the associated development works also extend to connect the other generating stations?

On Page 6, in the second sentence you could insert ?draft? or alternative wording into the following sentence to make it clear that consultees still have the ability to influence the scheme: ?when a final proposal is ready for comment??

Within the ?Assessing environmental effects? box on Page 7 it would be beneficial to provide information on where the PEIR it can be found.

On Page 9, titled ?Who we?ll consult? ? it would be beneficial to state which bodies/persons will receive letters/letter-drops and which persons will be consulted via newspaper adverts or posters etc? We note that it says under ?landowners and residents in close proximity? that it ?could include, for example direct contact?, however this is not clear. Are you also able to provide further information under hard to reach groups?

Page 10 refers to information on ?When and how we?ll consult,? despite the suggestion of tailoring the information depending on where you live, all information should also be made available to those who wish to see it and this should be made clear. For instance a landowner in the south may still wish to make comments on a proposal in the north. A landowner may also want access to more detailed information than the Overview Report. How can people request the technical information? On this page you also state that you intend on consulting for eight weeks in autumn 2016. This may exclude visitors to the area during holiday periods who could be interested in getting involved in the consultation process, how will such visitors be provided with an opportunity to comment?

We appreciate that this is an early version of the draft SoCC, however, from Page 11 onwards will there be information on the start and end dates for consultation, dates of meetings and exhibitions and any other information such as the location of the information points and reference locations, as other projects have done so in their SoCCs? Are you consulting with the local authorities about the dates and venues?

There are low broadband speeds within this area and as a result it may be more difficult to access the documentation for the proposal online. It is good that you have included the proposal of providing a USB stick with the documents on to mitigate this issue.

06 April 2016
Jacqui Fenn National Grid
North Wales Connection
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Logistics of submission

05 April 2016
Transport for London
Silvertown Tunnel
Enquiry received via email
Ms Collins wrote on behalf of Bean RA to ask:
1. If the limits of the proposed development consent order included 100ha of Green Belt south of the A2;
2. If notes of meetings of the Ebbsfleet and Bean Junction Engagement Group were available;
3. If the actions from the meeting on 10th November 2015 with the applicant had been taken forward; and
4. If the anticipated date of submission on the PINS website was correct, given media reports of a 2017 submission date.
PINS advised:
1. That we do not know whether the area south of the A2 is currently proposed to be included in the application, and this question is best directed to the promotor;
2. That we are not participants in the Ebbsfleet and Bean Junction Engagement Group, and so this question is best directed to the promotor;
3. That we have not seen an outline programme of the high-level meetings held with consultees, and that the meeting held on 31 March 2016 is the only meeting which we have attended since the meeting on 10th November 2015 in connection with the project;
4. That the anticipated submission date on the website will be updated if the promotor provides a revised submission date.
We invited Ms Collins to contact us in connection with any other questions about the Development Consent process; but since the promotor is still forming the detail of their proposal, we advised that it is best to send them any comments or questions about the proposed resort.

01 April 2016
Bean Residents Assocation - Linda Collins
The London Resort
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Email from the developer requesting to withdraw the project.

01 April 2016
David Hinchliffe
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Meeting regarding (Non-Material) Change request.
Please see attached meeting note.

01 April 2016
DONG Energy
Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm (Zone 4) - Project One
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Material provided in support of the Manston Airport proposals.
As no formal application has been made to The Planning Inspectorate by the developer, the Manston Airport scheme is at its 'Pre-Application' stage. The application is expected to be submitted to the Planning Inspectorate Q4 2016.
I note from your email that you have already contacted the developer, and at this stage of the Planning Act 2008 process I would strongly encourage you, the Save Manston Airport Group and it’s members, to continue to correspond directly with them. Taking part by commenting at this stage does not prejudice your ability to make comments to The Planning Inspectorate on the scheme later in the process. However, until the application is submitted, your first point of contact should be the developer. In response to your observation, The Planning Inspectorate and developer have scheduled a project update meeting on the 22 April 2016. It is likely that during this meeting, the level of support or opposition to the scheme will be discussed. The information from the meeting will be made available on the following website:

[attachment 1]
Should the application be formally submitted, the Planning Inspectorate on behalf of the Secretary of State has a 28 day period to determine whether to accept the application to progress to Examination. If the application progresses to Examination, the process then asks people to register as an ‘Interested Party’ with the Planning Inspectorate by sending us a 'Relevant Representation' about the proposal. This Representation will be considered by the appointed Examining Authority during the Examination period.
For further advice on making a representation, The Planning Inspectorate has published a series of advice notes to help people take part in the Planning Act 2008 process. In this instance, I recommend the 'advice note eight series: How to get involved in the planning process' which can be accessed via the following link:

[attachment 2]
We note in some of the material you appended to your email it states that “Now listed on the National Planning Inspectorate web site, at the pre-application stage, the fact that this is at a National Planning level means that the DCO trumps any local CPO process.” We have discussed a similar question and provided the following response that might be helpful to you and your members:
Question 1 - In thinking about the interaction or relationship between different regimes (particularly the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) and the Town and Country Planning Act (TCPA)), what would happen to a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP) application if Thanet District Council progressed with finding a suitable indemnity partner to pursue a Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO) of the airfield site?
A Development Consent Order can include powers of Compulsory Acquisition in much the same way as a Compulsory Purchase Order can. In both cases, this is a considerable power which has an effect on the rights of other people. It is necessary to demonstrate a compelling case in the public interest to acquire interests and rights compulsorily. The justification for including such powers in a Development Consent Order under the PA2008 is normally that the proposed scheme has a compelling public benefit which could not be delivered without those powers.
It is very rare that there are competing proposals to compulsorily acquire land, but if this were to occur the likelihood and desirably of the alternative uses for the land, and their relative public benefits, are likely to be put forward in submissions and would be carefully taken into account by the relevant Secretary of State before deciding whether or not to grant powers of Compulsory Purchase or Acquisition.

01 April 2016
Save Manston Airport SMA
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Update on London Paramount Resort project with London Resort Company Holdings and relevant authorities

31 March 2016
London Resort Company Holdings (LRCH)
The London Resort
Enquiry received via email
We are a neighbouring authority to this scheme. We have not yet registered as an interested party. I note from the letter that in the first round of written questions there are three questions identified for our authority.

Can you advise if are we required to register as an interested party in order to respond to the questions raised in the Examining Inspector?s rule 8 letter?

If we do register as an interested party do we have to produce a local impact assessment as well as answering the questions raised?

Also can you please clarify whether, as a neighbouring authority, we are required to speak at the hearings, given that we will, I assume, be required to respond in writing to the questions raised?
The questions directed to you in the Examining Inspector?s rule 8 letter is a request for further information regarding the project. You are not obliged to respond to the questions, however it will aid the Examining Inspector in making his recommendation to the secretary of state for Energy and Climate change if you would be able to respond to his queries.

You can respond to the Examining Inspector?s questions without registering as an interested party. However if you respond without being an interested party, the Examining Inspector does not have to have regards to your submissions when writing his report to the secretary of state.

As a registered interested party, the Examining Inspector will have regards to your submissions and it will also allow you to comment on other interested parties submissions, request open floor hearings and partake any open floor or issue specific hearing during the examination if you so wish.

By registering as an interested, it will be easier for you to influence the parts of the project that are relevant to your constituents.

To become an interested party, we only require you to write to us either by post or email to confirm that Cheshire East wishes to become an interested party by Deadline 1 (13 April 2016).
In regards of the local impact report, your council is a so called ?A? authority under s56A of the 2008 Planning Act and is therefore invited to submit a local impact report under s60(2)(a) of the 2008 Planning Act. This means that your council borders either Cheshire West and Chester Council or Halton Borough Council. Under the 2008 Planning Act you are not obliged to submit a local impact report. However if you do submit one, the secretary of state must have regards to it under s104(2)(b) of the 2008 Planning act when she makes her decision. More information about local impact reports can be found in Advice note one: Local impact reports

As for having to speak at any of the hearings listed in the timetable included in the rule 8 letter, it is again for the council to make this decision whether to attend or not. The Examining Inspector will, prior to any hearing, issue an agenda which will aid your council when deciding whether to attend the hearing or not.

30 March 2016
Cheshire East Council - Emma Williams
Keuper Gas Storage Project
Enquiry received via email
Email received from Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council in response to the ?Rule 8? letter, giving details of procedural decisions following the Preliminary Meeting and the timetable for examination of the application:

?This is not our area?
The reason we have sent this letter to you is because under the 2008 planning act your council is a statutory consultee for this project. The Planning inspectorate is therefore obliged to issue this letter to you.

If the council does not wish to engage with the process, you do not have to do anything further and your council will lose its status as an statutory party after deadline 1 (13 April 2016).

I would also like to add that the Inspectorate are obliged to notify your council if there is any changes to the timetable, when the examination closes and when the Secretary of State for Energy and climate Change has issued her decision regarding the application.

Please see advice note two: The role of local authorities in the development consent process which explains your role in the process.

29 March 2016
Wirral MBC - Sara Millington
Keuper Gas Storage Project
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Introduction to the proposals for West Midlands Interchange SRFI
Please see attached meeting note.

29 March 2016
Four Ashes Ltd
West Midlands Interchange
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Lower Thames Crossing Project Introduction Meeting
Please see attached meeting note.

25 March 2016
Highways England
General
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I’m aware that generating station projects above 50MW in England require consent under the 2008 Planning Act, and PINS manages the application process on behalf of the Secretary of State. In Wales there has been a recent change, so that proposals above 10MW (but under 250MW) will be handled by PINS, on behalf of Welsh Ministers, and on behalf of the SoS above 350MW.

My question to you is whether the capacity threshold is thermal or electrical capacity, as I believe this can be quite different. The proposal in question is a set of diesel generators.

If we assume a 10MW project in Wales will be dealt with by PINS, are we able to request pre-application advice on the project from PINS, or would be seek this from the LPA?
Thank you for your email enquiry regarding your proposal for a generating station in Wales.

With regard to your first query asking whether the capacity threshold for generating stations is defined as thermal or electrical capacity.

Our understanding is that "capacity" has the same meaning as in the Electricity Act 1989 - namely electricity generating capacity. I understand that this would be the same interpretation with regard to the revised legislation.

Secondly, you ask whether you are able to request pre-application advice on the project from PINS, or would be seek this from the LPA.

As you are aware from the 1 March 2016, planning applications for Developments of National Significance (DNS) will be made to Welsh Ministers; Planning Inspectorate (PINS) Wales will administer the applications. I can confirm that PINS Wales does offer pre-application advice and have prepared a set of Guidance notes which can be found here;

[attachment 1]


Applicants who wish to submit a request for Pre-Application Advice, submit formal notification of intention to submit a DNS application or submit an application should contact the PINS Wales at the following email address [email protected] or telephone 029 2082 3308.

24 March 2016
Stratus Environmental Limited - Toby Coke
General
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Correspondence received after elapse of 6 month examination period.
See attached.

21 March 2016
Craig Broadfoot for Thames Water
M4 Junctions 3 to 12 Smart Motorway
Enquiry received via email
I write to seek clarification with regards the NSIP thresholds with regards energy projects.

From the Planning Act 2008 (as amended) and NPS EN-1 it reads that the 50MW threshold relates solely to the potential electricity output of a scheme. Could you confirm (or advise otherwise) if this is the case where a generating station may provide both electricity and heat output, i.e. that the 50MW threshold relates solely to the electricity output of the project and not the combined MW output of both the electricity and heat output? Assuming this is correct, then the heat output would be viewed as ancillary and not included within the 50MW threshold for determining an NSIP.
As per section 15 (2) of the Planning Act 2008 ("The Act") a generating station would be considered a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP) if the following criteria is met;
(a) it is in England or Wales,
(b) it is not an offshore generating station, and
(c ) its capacity is more than 50 megawatts.
Our understanding is that "capacity" has the same meaning as in the Electricity Act 1989 - namely electricity generating capacity. If you would like to provide us with any project specifics we would be happy to advise further.

21 March 2016
Pegasus Group - Amanda Stobbs
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
See attached Meeting Note
See attached Meeting Note

21 March 2016
Indigo Power/NIRAS - anon.
TIGRE Project 1 (TP1)
Enquiry received via post
response has attachments
Correspondence received after elapse of 6 month examination period.
See attached.

19 March 2016
Mark Prisk MP
M4 Junctions 3 to 12 Smart Motorway
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting and Draft Documents Feedback for Silvertown Tunnel

18 March 2016
Transport for London (TfL)
Silvertown Tunnel
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
A meeting to provide the Inspectorate with an introduction to the A303 Amesbury to Berwick Down scheme, being taken forward by Highways England in accordance with commitments made within the Road Investment Strategy

10 March 2016
Highways England
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project feedback meeting with National Grid
Please see attached meeting note

10 March 2016
National Grid - anon.
Hinkley Point C Connection
Enquiry received via email
Have Network Rail and Bromsgrove District Council complied with the terms of the original Consent Order and if not, what options are open to Alvechurch Parish Council?
The Planning Inspectorate is unable to provide legal advice, should you believe that there has been any breach of a Development Consent Order (DCO), you would need to take your own legal advice on this matter.

For your information, part 8 of the Planning Act 2008 contains provisions relating to the enforcement of DCOs. In accordance with s.161(1) a person commits an offence if they carry out or cause to be carried out development breach of a DCO; or if they fail to comply with the terms of a DCO. Other provisions in part 8 of the Act give the relevant local planning authority a range of powers to investigate any suspected offences.

The requirement to which you refer requires the submission of a schedule of works required at the Alvechurch station car park for a facility of 50 cars prior to commencement. Any works subsequently undertaken must be carried out in accordance with this. The Planning Inspectorate is unable to comment on whether the schedule of works has been submitted or approved by the relevant planning authority, or whether, if approved, the scheme has been / is being complied with. The relevant planning authority is Bromsgrove District Council and they should be able to provide further assistance in relation to this.

09 March 2016
Andy Humphries
Redditch Branch Enhancement Scheme
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
In response to the Planning Inspectorate's advice provided on 29 February 2016, Power Without Pylons sent the following enquiry:

It implies to me that, in relation to this project, it would therefore be at the discretion of National Grid as to whether to include a potential sub-sea element as part of the proposed NSIP.
Would you be able to confirm that?

If so, would it be possible, at this stage in the project, to remove the southern route entirely from the NSIP application if National Grid decided to opt for the HVDC sub-sea option for that part of the project?
The Planning Inspectorate provided the following advice:

We are aware that following earlier rounds of consultation, National Grid is no longer progressing the ?offshore south? HVDC route option for this scheme. Please follow this link which provides further information on the proposed route and information on why certain options, including ?offshore south?, were not taken forward: [attachment 1]

We strongly advise you to contact National Grid with any comments you may have on this proposal, to enable them to consider your points prior to submission of an application to the Planning Inspectorate.

To answer your query, developers would need to consider a number of matters when deciding whether or not to include HVDC within their NSIP application for an overhead electric line. For example, there is the legal context as to whether HVDC offshore cables can be described as integral to or associated with the overhead line NSIP, also developers must be careful not to ?salami slice? their proposals into smaller separate applications where it could appear that an Environmental Impact Assessment would not be required, or that each part of the proposal had a reduced impact on the environment compared with the scheme in its entirety. However please note that it is the Secretary of State?s decision, following the examination of the application and recommendation made by the Examining Authority at the Planning Inspectorate, as to what can be consented as part of the project.

To date we have not dealt with a submitted overhead electric line NSIP application which had both overhead onshore and HVDC offshore lines. We have however dealt with: applications for overhead lines which included a section of undergrounding (onshore); an underground electric line and offshore HVAC connection which was Directed to be considered an NSIP under section 35 of the Planning Act 2008; and also offshore generating stations which include HVDC connections to land.

08 March 2016
Graham Barron Power Without Pylons
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Inception meeting
Please see attached meeting note

08 March 2016
Dong Energy - Tracey Siddle
Hornsea Project Three Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Please see attached meeting note.

07 March 2016
Environment Agency
General
Enquiry received via email
Submission of email sent Cc'd to the Royal Mail
Following receipt of your email, as we have been copied into this as a ?cc? recipient it is assumed this has not be submitted as part of the examination and will therefore not be forwarded to the ExA. If this is not the case, please re send it directly to our mailbox as a matter of urgency and a copy will be sent to the ExA to be considered as part of the examination.

I appreciate your response has been sent in reply to Royal Mail?s original email however where possible I would also request you avoid copying in the Planning Inspectorate in the event a discussion between parties being likely to take place as this is an open and transparent process meaning any material submitted for the examination would need to be forwarded to the ExA and accepted to be part of the examination.

04 March 2016
National Grid Gas PLC - Yohanna Weber
River Humber Gas Pipeline Replacement Project
Enquiry received via phone
Phonecall - summary below
Mr Kipling (on behalf of the Environment Agency) raised an issue via email that he had received four separate notifications for the same Rule 17 letter. The wrong advice was given in response by PINS, that he had received these notifications because he is listed as an Interested Party, a Statutory Party and an Affected Person, as well as being signed up to receive email alerts (see s51 advice 1 March 2016). A call was made to Mr Kipling today explaining that only Interested Parties should have been informed about the Rule 17 letter, and that he had been listed twice in our list of Interested/Statutory Parties contacts in error. An apology was given to Mr Kipling for advising him incorrectly, and he was advised that steps would be taken to ensure that this would not happen again.
Mr Kipling also raised the issue that other individuals within the Environment Agency had received these notifications, and that this was not necessary as he should be the sole point of contact for the Environment Agency for this project, and also that it may be helpful if notifications were issued once submissions were published, as responses to these documents were sometimes required within a short deadline. Mr Kipling was advised that these issues would also be looked into.

04 March 2016
Environment Agency - Sam Kipling
River Humber Gas Pipeline Replacement Project
Enquiry received via email
Pre-Examination correspondence received from Keuper Gas Storage Limited
Thank you for your emails dated 23rd of February and 2nd of March 2016 where you have copied us into your correspondence with Holford Gas Storage Limited and Network Rail which contains your comments on their relevant representations. As these submissions were submitted before the examination started and are not addressed to the Examining Inspector, they will not be accepted into the examination and will therefore be returned to you.

Any submission you intend to submit to the Examining Inspector should either be sent by post FAO Tracey Williams or via email to the Keuper Gas Storage Project mail box. Any submission that is sent before the Preliminary Meeting or not relating to an examination timetable deadline will have to be formally accepted by the Examining Inspector, who has the right to refuse to accept the submission. This also includes any late submissions.

In regards with your comments on Holford?s and Network Rail?s relevant representations, these and other comments on relevant representations that you may wish to submit should be sent to the Planning Inspectorate by Deadline 2 (29 April 2016) of the examination timetable, as stated in Annex C of the Rule 6 letter. Further information on how to respond to requests from the Examining Inspector and how to comment on other Interested Parties submissions will be given at the Preliminary meeting.

I would also request, you avoid copying in other parties to emails addressed to the Planning Inspectorate in the event a discussion between parties being likely to take place as the examination under the Planning Act 2008 as this is an open and transparent process meaning any material submitted for the examination would need to be forwarded to the ExA and accepted to be part of the examination.

May I also draw your attention to our letter dated 11 February 2016 (Regulation 6 Fees Single Examining Inspector). According to the Infrastructure Planning (Fees Regulations) 2010 (as amended) ? Regulation 6, the Pre-Examination Fee must be paid to the Planning Inspectorate before the date of the Preliminary Meeting. If no such payment has been received before the Preliminary Meeting, The Planning Inspectorate will not proceed with the application and the Preliminary Meeting will be postponed until the regulation 6 fee has been received.

04 March 2016
Keuper Gas Storage Limited
Keuper Gas Storage Project
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
See Meeting Note attached
See Meeting Note attached

04 March 2016
EnergyMyWay (UK) Ltd - anon.
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
A meeting was held between Eversheds LLP and The Planning Inspectorate to provide feedback on the examination experience.
Note of meeting attached.

03 March 2016
Eversheds LLP
East Midlands Gateway Rail Freight Interchange
Enquiry received via email
Would you please confirm whether we need to attend the preliminary meeting. Is our client?s objection a specific one that requires attention at the preliminary meeting?
Dear Mr Rimmer,
The Preliminary Meeting focuses solely on the procedure for examining the application. Matters to be discussed will cover topics such as:

? The key issues to be examined
An initial list of the principal issues for the examination, which have been identified at this stage by the Examining Authority based on the information provided in the application and the relevant representations submitted to the Planning Inspectorate about the application.

? Whether any hearings are required and if so, what types
Issues that may be discussed are if it will be necessary to hold any issue specific hearings as part of the examination. The Examining Authority will only hold an issue specific hearing if they consider that it is necessary to ensure adequate testing of a particular issue or that an interested party has a fair chance to put forward its case.

There will also be an opportunity for anyone who is an interested party to request an open floor hearing. An open floor hearing must be held if one is requested by an interested party.

It will provide interested parties with an opportunity to make oral representations, based on their initial relevant representation or subsequent more detailed written representation about the application, subject to the Examining Authority?s running of the hearing.

Anyone affected by a compulsory acquisition proposal (to compulsorily purchase land or interests in land) has the right to request that a hearing is held on that matter.

? The draft timetable for the examination.
The proposed agenda for the preliminary meeting is set out in the ?rule 6? letter dated 22 February 2016. This letter also includes a draft timetable for the examination.

The Preliminary Meeting is not the place to discuss the details or merits of the proposal or provide evidence on the application. There will be opportunities to make representations on these matters during the examination itself.

The relevant representation you made on behalf of your client when you registered her as an interested party is already part of the evidence the Examining Authority will consider in their examination. The examination will rely heavily on the written evidence that the applicant and other interested parties have submitted.

There is no need to attend the Preliminary Meeting in order to have the opportunity to make further representations during the examination. Whether or not you attend this meeting, you will later have the same rights to provide further written representations and evidence regarding the application and to attend any hearings. However if you on behalf of you client wish to propose changes to the timetable it is advisable that you attend the Preliminary Meeting on your clients behalf.

There will be both a meeting note and an audio recording of the Preliminary Meeting that will be made available on the Planning Inspectorate?s website following the meeting.

Please see our advice notes for further information:
Advice note 8.4: Influencing how an application will be examined ? the Preliminary Meeting
Advice note 8.5: Participating in the examination

There is a statutory duty, under section 51 of the Planning Act 2008 as amended by the Localism Act 2011, to record the advice that is given in relation to an application or a potential application and to make this publicly available. Therefore, I will publish this advice on the planning Inspectorate?s website.

02 March 2016
Rostons Ltd - Tony Rimmer
Keuper Gas Storage Project
Enquiry received via email
We are considering the Scoping report which at the moment reflects the DCO (Wylfa to Pentir) and also refers to other work which is required for the project (Pentir Traws). Can you just confirm how you will deal with this in terms of consulting on the scoping ? will you consult just with community councils ? Wylfa to Pentir or will you consult with all community Councils ? Wylfa to Traws.
In Wales we would interpret relevant community councils as those being the host community council and the adjacent councils; in PINS we use GIS to undertake this task therefore it is of high spatial accuracy. If you state the Pentir Traws works are not part of the NSIP within the scoping report, but that you are providing the information for context and in order for readers to understand the potential for cumulative effects, then the community councils within which the Pentir Traws works are located would not be identified as ?host? community councils (and adjacent community councils would not be identified). If you are stating the Pentir Traws work is part of the NSIP then this would result in the identification of additional community councils host and adjacent community councils. Therefore the answer to your query is dependent upon how you describe the project within the scoping report.

As you are aware, we require a GIS shapefile of the project at least 10 working days in advance of scoping in order for us to identify prescribed consultees. The description of the project and any applicable plans within the scoping report must therefore match exactly the shapefile which you provide us.

01 March 2016
National Grid - Jacqui Fenn
North Wales Connection
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Query 1: I wondered whether it would be possible to receive an email notification when the latest deadline?s submissions are published? At this stage in the examination, the gaps between the deadlines are very short. It therefore makes it very important that we have access to the documents as soon as they?re available. Rather than having to check every day, it would be of great help if an email could sent simply flagging that they?ve been published. Might that be possible?

Query 2: That?s helpful. I suppose I was confused because I have previously received a number of notifications about the project, so had assumed that I would get all notifications. Should it not be the case that all registered parties receive all the notifications as a matter of course?

Query 3: The one that?s caused me problems recently was the lack of a notification that the deadline 7 documents had been published. It was important because comments on the documents was requested only a week later, making it important to gain access promptly. Was there a notification? If so, I wonder why I didn?t get it.

Query 4: Sorry to be a pain, but I?ve just received three separate email notifications about the same rule 17 letter. A different reference is given in the body of each of the emails. See attached.
Any chance you could correct your system such that I get a notification, but just the one?
Query 1: You are able to receive updates if you sign up to the ?Email updates? on the right hand side of the project page below (you can do this for every National Infrastructure project):

[attachment 1]

For info, documents received for deadline 8 will be published today

Query 2: We do have you down as an interested party on River Humber. Therefore, you should have received all notifications sent so far regarding procedural decisions and notifications from the Examining Authority. Your IP reference is: 10031562

The updates field on the project website is slightly different, in that anyone can input their email address to receive an automatic email when the banner in the project page is updated- for example when deadline documents have been published.

Query 3 and 4: Notification that documents have been published isn?t something which we are obliged to do statutorily, although we did provide a banner update at deadline 7, so anyone who signed up to web updates would have received the update. This is what your original query was about.

The notifications that we send to interested parties are slightly different. We are statutorily obliged to notify all registered interested parties of procedural decisions and notifications from the ExA, in accordance with Rules 9 and 21 of the Infrastructure Planning: Examination Rules 2010: 9. As soon as practicable after making any procedural decision, the Examining authority must notify all interested parties of the decision. 21: Relevant representations, written representations or documents must be made available by the Commission to all interested parties and to anyone who requests an opportunity to inspect and take copies of them but this does not include notifying of the publication of all documents on our website; it is the responsibility of all parties with an interest in the examination to monitor the website for progress in the examination, using the Examination Timetable for reference of deadline dates. As stated in the Rule 8 letter issued 17 September 2015: All persons are able to visit the relevant project page on our website to stay informed of the progress of the examination of the application.

In reference to the separate issue you raised regarding receiving notification of the Rule 17 letter 26 February three times, this is because for this particular NSIP project you are registered as an Interested Party (for which your reference number is 10031562), a Statutory Party (reference number RHGP-SP011) and as an Affected Person (reference number RHGP-AFP007); when issuing Rule 17 letters we are required to notify all organisations/persons who come under these categories. You can request to cease being registered as an Interested Party to this application by submitting a request in writing to the Examining Authority, but you would still receive two copies of future correspondence as statutory parties and affected persons can not cease to be registered.
The fourth email notification you received was due to you registering to receive project updates via email. These emails will notify you whenever there is any update to the specific project website.

01 March 2016
Environment Agency - Sam Kipling
River Humber Gas Pipeline Replacement Project
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Please see attached meeting note and follow up correspondence
Please see attached meeting note and follow up correspondence

01 March 2016
Mark Reynolds
International Advanced Manufacturing Park TWO (IAMP TWO)
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Reference Royal Mail?s representations as submitted on 12 October 2016 as below and attached, are you able to advise what the applicant has done to address our client?s concerns? In particular, as requested by our client has National Grid made a commitment to fully consult with all major road users, including Royal Mail, in advance of construction works taking place? I am conscious that the Examination is scheduled to close on 9 March 2016.

I have copied National Grid?s case team so that they can respond direct.

Many thanks.
The examination of an application begins on the last day of the Preliminary Meeting and in normal circumstances has to be completed within 6 months. The Examining Authority (ExA) examines the key issues arising from an application for development consent. They consider written representations submitted by the applicant and other participants, and will generally ask questions in order to clarify points raised and to obtain further information. In some circumstances hearings may be held at which the applicant and other interested parties may speak. During this particular examination, three hearings have also taken place.

The examination is first and foremost a written process, based upon the relevant and written representations of interested parties and the written responses to questions asked by the ExA. As written evidence is such an important part of the examination, it is essential that you make any points you wish to make in writing, before the deadlines set by the ExA.

In relation to your request as to what the applicant has done to address your clients concerns, I see that the written representation on behalf of Royal Mail was submitted at Deadline 2 of the examination. The applicant along with any other party was given an opportunity to submit comments on written representations at Deadline 3. These were subsequently made available to all parties including the applicants who submitted their comments on written representations dated 2 November 2015, a copy can be accessed here: [attachment 1] There is a response to Royal Mail on page 27, which is listed at number 7. We do not appear to have received any further representations from Royal Mail however all representations submitted to the examination can be accessed on the examination library: [attachment 2]

The examination is as you say, due to close on or before Wednesday 9 March 2016 and therefore if Royal Mail consider the applicant?s response at Deadline 3 does not address Royal Mail?s concerns, or if you wish to submit any further representation I would encourage you to do so as a matter of urgency.

Please note anything received after the close of examination will not be forwarded to the ExA however a copy will be held in the office and will be forwarded to the Secretary of State alongside the ExA?s recommendation report at the time of submission.

I would also request, you avoid copying in other parties to emails addressed to the Planning Inspectorate in the event a discussion between parties being likely to take place as this is an open and transparent process meaning any material submitted for the examination would need to be forwarded to the ExA and accepted to be part of the examination.

If you have any queries, please do not hesitate to contact me.

29 February 2016
Royal Mail - Dan Parry-Jones
River Humber Gas Pipeline Replacement Project
Enquiry received via email
Mr Davies wrote to request advice on the following matter:

When a company/organisation submits an application to request a decision from the Secretary of State under a DCO for a proposed qualifying project (land and buildings etc), at what point does the activity prescribed in the DCO application take precedence over any other planning application that the relevant local authority have pending in respect of the same land and buildings?
We advised that it is difficult to give definitive advice in general terms, since much depends upon the circumstances of each case.

In general, there is nothing to prevent two incompatible consents being in place for the same land; it is not necessary to own or control land in order to apply for planning permission for it. Therefore, a planning permission would not necessarily prevent the DCO from being made and a DCO would not necessarily prevent planning permission being granted. Which (if either) of the two consents were actually implemented would be a decision for whomever controlled the land.

However, the situation is slightly more complex when one of the two incompatible consents is a DCO because of the powers that can be included in them; including the power of compulsory acquisition of land, which would effectively give the DCO applicant control of the land from the point at which the order was made.

The Secretary of State would have to be persuaded of a compelling case in the public interest to grant such powers, and competing proposals for the same land are capable of being relevant to that consideration. In principle, the local authority could also ask the Secretary of State to give compulsory acquisition powers of land to them, in support of a scheme that has planning permission rather than the DCO; in which case the Secretary of State would weigh the two applications.

29 February 2016
Roy Davies
General
Enquiry received via email
This is an enquiry on behalf of the Power Without Pylons campaign group (PWP).
As you will be aware, this project is due to be submitted to the Planning Inspectorate next year, 2017.

National Grid (NG) needs to provide a new 400kV grid connection for the proposed Moorside power station, to connect it to the grid at Heysham, near Lancaster. All the options involve a double 400kV circuit heading north from Moorside, and a double 400kV circuit heading south.

Northern section - this is proposed as a conventional AC OHL line.

Southern section :
At the 2nd stage consultation in 2014 they consulted on 3 options for the southern section:
1.Onshore South
2.Onshore South, with Morecambe Bay tunnel.
3.Offshore South ? this would be an HVDC sub-sea cable connection. It would run as a (trenched) sub-sea cable connection all the way from the Moorside power station to Heysham.

PWP contacted the Office of Nuclear Regulation. In reply they stated:
?subsea transmission would not be a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project? (NSIP).

Can you confirm that a HVDC sub-sea southern route from the proposed Moorside power station would not be treated as an NSIP?
The Planning Inspectorate provided the following advice:

The Planning Act 2008 details the thresholds at which certain projects are considered to be Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIPs). In regard to electric lines, this is explained in section 16 of the Planning Act 2008.

Section 16 explains that above ground electric lines in England and Wales, of 132kV and above, and 2km or over in length (amongst other criteria) are considered to be NSIPs. However, where an above ground electric line NSIP proposal also includes some undergrounding or HVDC, some developers may describe these to be integral to, or associated with, the overhead line and therefore they might still be included in the NSIP application.

If the proposal was solely for an underground or HVDC line (without a generating station or an above ground electric line included in the application), it would not be considered a NSIP, however applicants have the option to apply for a section 35 Direction where the Secretary of State can direct that the proposal is treated as a NSIP.

29 February 2016
Graham Barron Power Without Pylons
General
Enquiry received via email
The applicant has agreed to certain wording in respect to the clearance under watercourses to be included in the Construction Method Statement. The version of the CMS submitted for deadline 6 did not include the agreed wording. This error has been flagged up to the applicant who has stated that it will be corrected.

If a revised CMS is submitted for deadline 7 will it be published online and will there be an opportunity for comment should the agreed wording be absent?
Dear Mr Carrott,

Any deadline documents received for deadline 7 will be available to view on the project webpage as soon as practicable after the close of the deadline. The Examining Authority has just issued a Rule 17 in which they have added an additional deadline on Monday 29 February 2016. This deadline is for any comments on documents received at Deadline 6 and 7.

24 February 2016
Witham Fourth District Internal - Andy Carrott
Triton Knoll Electrical System
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see the attached meeting note.

23 February 2016
RiverOak - Tony Freudmann
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update
Project update meeting

23 February 2016
Ashfield Land - Rail Central
Rail Central (Strategic Rail Freight Interchange)
Enquiry received via post
response has attachments
Mr Harris wrote to reiterate concern in respect of the proposed scheme, and to query why The Myrke had not been included as part of the itinerary for a second site inspection held in the company of interested parties.
See attached letter.

22 February 2016
J A Harris
M4 Junctions 3 to 12 Smart Motorway
Enquiry received via phone
response has attachments
Queries raised by members of the public were brought to The Planning Inspectorate?s attention by Thanet District Council.
Our advice in response to these queries is attached.

17 February 2016
Thanet District Council - Iain Livingstone
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via phone
response has attachments
Ms Ebsworth called the Planning Inspectorate seeking information on the Brechfa Forest Connection project and compulsory acquisition of land.
Response provided by the Planning Inspectorate via email to Ms Ebsworth below:

"Dear Ms Ebsworth

Further to our telephone conversation in relation to the Brechfa Connection project and compulsory acquisition of land, I have tried to set out some further information for you below.

A Book of Reference; which provides details of the landowners and/or occupiers, which this Applicant has identified as having interests in land affected by the project can be accessed at the following link:

[attachment 1]

This documents contains details of your land interests.

For information, the relevant plot in the Book of Reference is:

Page 100: Plot A197 ? 2183 square metres or thereabouts of land known as Tynewydd, Nantycaws, Carmarthen, SA32 8EX

Information on the ?Interest/Right to be Acquired or Power Exercised? (described as ?classes?) which the Applicant is seeking can be viewed on page 1 of the Book of Reference.

You can also view the relevant plot on page 16 of the Land Plan provided by the Applicant at the following link:

[attachment 2]

Should you want any further information regarding the above, I suggest you contact the Applicant directly. You can contact Western Power Distribution on:

Tel: 0800 019 3518
E-mail: [email protected]
Post: FREEPOST B FOREST CONNECTION

If you wish to submit a representation to the Planning Inspectorate?s Examination of this application, please feel free to do so at your earliest convenience. May I take this opportunity to remind you that the Examination of the application must end on or before 6 April 2016; once the deadline for Examination has passed the Examining Authority will no longer be able to accept representations from interested parties.

I hope this information is of assistance, should you have any further questions please do get in touch."

15 February 2016
Ms Ebsworth
Brechfa Forest Connection
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
M20 Junction 10a project update meeting
Please see attached meeting note

12 February 2016
Highways England
M20 Junction 10A
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting with National Grid
Please see attached note.

11 February 2016
Jacqui Fenn
North Wales Connection
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting

02 February 2016
North Somerset District Council
Portishead Branch Line - MetroWest Phase 1
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Are you aware of cases where the issue of Special Category Land and more specifically replacement/exchange land has arisen.
We have examples of where a project has proposed compulsory acquisition of common land or open space ? most notably Thames Tideway Tunnel ? however, those applications were determined before the Planning Act 2008 was amended so the procedure was different: [attachment 1]

We are aware that a current project, North London Heat and Power (currently in Pre-Examination stage, due to move into Examination on 24th February 2016) is requesting to acquire open space land but are seeking an exemption from Special Parliamentary Powers. More information is included in their Statement of Reasons, Section 10: [attachment 2]

29 January 2016
Highways England - Monica Corso-Griffiths
A38 Derby Junctions
Enquiry received via email
As far as I am aware there has been no activity with regard to this proposal, nor a response to the scoping opinion of 7th August 2015.
Is there a period beyond which the material is ‘out of date’ or a time limit for the applicant to respond to the points raised?
There is no time limit within which the applicant has to address any points raised in the scoping opinion, and the applicant is able to request a further scoping opinion if it wishes to. However, it is a matter of judgment for the applicant, in consultation with the relevant statutory bodies, including the relevant local authorities, as to whether additional work is need to inform the Environmental Impact Assessment and application as a whole.

As follow up to the scoping opinion, we encourage all applicants to maintain discussions with statutory bodies and the local community throughout the pre-application process so that any application contains information that is helpful for the examination (if the application is accepted for examination). The applicant is also required to formally consult with statutory bodies and the local community and this normally happens after the scoping stage, with timings subject to the applicant’s discretion.

The applicant has not yet undertaken statutory consultation on the project to date, and at that stage, there will be the opportunity for you and others to identify information that you consider is needed to understand the application in full. The examination stage also allows for any interested person to make a representation and for the Inspector(s) to request further information as well.

29 January 2016
Phil Gilchrist
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
The Planning Inspectorate and National Grid held a telecon to discuss the North West Coast Connections project
Please see attached note.

29 January 2016
National Grid - anon.
General
Enquiry received via post
response has attachments
Letter received from Carmarthen and District Angling Club on 15 January 2016 attached.
Response from the Planning Inspectorate on 28 January 2016 attached.

28 January 2016
E Davies
Brechfa Forest Connection
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting.

26 January 2016
Highways England
A38 Derby Junctions
Enquiry received via email
The Applicant queried whether the correct interested parties are referenced in question OM2-04 of the ExA's Second Round of Questions.
In response to your query, the Planning Inspectorate can confirm that the reference to the interested parties within OM2-04 is correct.

25 January 2016
Amec Foster Wheeler - David Kenyon
Brechfa Forest Connection
Enquiry received via post
response has attachments
Objection to National Grid's application and concern about the consultation process.
Currently the Planning Inspectorate is assessing National Grid?s application against the tests set out in Section 55 of the Planning Act 2008. We will determine, on behalf of the Secretary of State, whether the application can be accepted by 11 February 2016. At this stage we are not considering the planning merits of the proposals, only whether the legal tests for acceptance have been met.

You mention the consultation process, which is relevant to our present deliberations. If you have concerns that the consultation process did not meet the standard required then please share these with your local planning authority. We have invited all local planning authorities to provide representations on the adequacy of consultation to us by 29 January 2016.

If the application is accepted for examination, you will be welcome to make representations about the substantive points that you raise in your letter. The examination process is set out on our website, at:

[attachment 1]

Your letter will be retained on file and made available to the acceptance decision maker.

25 January 2016
Sir Roger Gale MP
Richborough Connection Project
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The LIR (Local Impact Report) deals with topics relevant to the impact of the proposed development on their area.

We are a neighbouring authority and this scheme is located well away from our geographical boundary and has no significant impacts on our area that need to be highlighted.

My understanding that this is not a statutory requirement for a neighbouring authority. If this is not correct and there are any implications for the council then please let me know.
A Local authority is under no obligation to submit a Local Impact Report (LIR) as part of the examination of any Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP). It is for the local authority to decide whether or not to submit an LIR in consideration of the complexity and issues posed by the NSIP proposal. Section 60 of the Planning Act 2008 sets out the local authorities that the Secretary of State must give notice to, inviting them to submit a local impact report.

LIRs give details of the likely impact of the proposed development on any part of the authority?s area and their relative importance; and as such, LIRs differ from other representations a local authority is likely to make. I refer you to paragraphs 52 to 57 of the Department for Communities and Local Government?s (DCLG) statutory guidance on the examination of applications for development consent: [attachment 1] , specifically the following:


53. The report may differ from other representations made by the local authority,
as it is intended to allow local authorities to represent the broader views of
their community. Consequently, a local authority which has been invited to
submit such a report may decide to cover a broad range of local interests
and impacts, including economic and social ones. The impacts should be
presented in terms of their positive, neutral and negative effects.

54. The report is distinct from any representation a local authority may make on
the merits of an application or any subsequent approvals that should be
delegated to the local authority for determination (for example, on detailed
design).

Local authorities are strongly encouraged to produce LIRs as the Examining Authority and the Secretary of State must have specific regard to LIRs when making their recommendation and decision.

22 January 2016
Ashford Borough Council
Richborough Connection Project
Enquiry received via email
Dear Meaford Case team.

BNP Paribas Real Estate acts for Royal Mail (IP number 10031419) and submitted a relevant representation on 19 June 2015.

We note that responses to the ExA?s draft DCO at Deadline 7 has been removed from the timetable as well as comments on responses to the ExA?s draft DCO at Deadline 8 and that the Examination will end on 20 February 2016.

Please can you advise if there are any remaining opportunities for our client to submit further written representation, if required.

Many thanks
Dear Mr Parry-Jones

Thank you for your email.

As you mention below, the Examining Authority (ExA) issued a letter on 7 January 2016 amending the remaining timetable for this examination. In this letter, the ExA advised he was not be issuing a draft DCO and therefore there was no longer a need for the deadlines seeking responses to this along with any other comments on the responses.

Whilst the ultimate deadline for the close of examination is 20 February 2016, the letter of 7 January 2016 also informed parties that the ExA may decide to close the examination early and if he does you will be notified in accordance with section 99 of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended by the localism act).

The examination to date, has had seven deadlines including ones where Royal mail along with other interested parties were invited to submit representations and make comments on any other representations (as set out in the timetable). Aside from the relevant representation submitted by Royal Mail and general email correspondence with the Meaford Case Team, we have not received any other representation. If Royal Mail intend to submit a further representation or comments into the examination, I would encourage you to submit these as soon as possible. It will then be at the discretion of the ExA to decide whether to accept these into the examination.

Please note the ExA will not be able to take into account any submissions received after the close of examination however they will be sent to the Secretary of State at the same time as the ExA?s recommendation report.

I hope this answers your query, however if you have any further questions please do not hesitate to contact me.

Kind Regards

Kay Sully
Case Manager

18 January 2016
Royal Mail - Dan Parry-Jones
Meaford Energy Centre
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting with National Grid
Please see attached note

14 January 2016
Jacqui Fenn
North Wales Connection
Enquiry received via email
Apologies in advance but we have a query in relation to question OM2 -05.

The question posed is;

Does the Marine licence application submitted to and accepted by NRW on 11 November 2015 (CML1551) have any implications on ?Inshore Marine Plans?

I have consulted our Marine Licence team and they advise me that they are not familiar with this term ? Inshore Marine Plans.

We currently have 4 Shoreline Management Plans (SMPs) around Wales that we need to take account of, depending on the nature of the works.
Marine planning in Wales is still under development by WG but we believe there are some Marine plans signed off in England, so perhaps that?s where the confusion has arisen.

Would you be able to clarify please?
The Planning Inspectorate can confirm that the reference in question, OM2-05, in the Examining Authority?s second round of written questions to the ?Inshore Marine Plans? is in error and should state ?Shoreline Management Plans (SMPs)?.

14 January 2016
Natural Resources Wales - David Watkins
Brechfa Forest Connection
Enquiry received via email
Horizon Nuclear Power provided their draft Statement of Community Consultation (SoCC) for the Planning Inspectorate's comment and asked for the Planning Inspectorate's view on the timing of consultation.
The Planning Inspectorate provided the following advice:

You have asked for the Planning Inspectorate?s view on undertaking statutory consultation during the summer holiday months of July and August. As many people take holiday during these months, there is a chance that the consultees (both members of the public and those representing statutory bodies) may have less time to allocate to compiling a meaningful response, and they may feel disadvantaged as a result. Therefore we would strongly advise that you extend your summer consultation period to before and/or after the holiday months. We also recognise that holding consultation during the holiday season may enable tourists to comment on a proposal, which is beneficial.

We would also advise you to liaise with the Isle of Anglesey County Council (IACC) on the timing of the consultation as they will have local information which will assist you. We note that you are not intending to list the consultation dates and meeting/exhibition dates within your SoCC, we would therefore advise that you liaise with IACC (and Gwynedd
and Conwy where relevant) on the proposed dates and locations.

Comments on the draft SoCC dated December 2015:

Page 2

- Paragraph 3 ? whilst the current wording is helpful, you could also refer to the wording of the legislation under s47 of the PA 2008 which refers to consultation with those ?people living in the vicinity of the land?.

- paragraph 5 ? the Local Impact Report is submitted after the application is submitted (during the examination).

- Paragraph 6 ? under s47(6)(za) there is a duty on the applicant to make the statement available for inspection by the public in a way that is reasonably convenient for people living in the vicinity of the land. If hard copy consultation documents are being provided at certain locations, you would be advised to also include a hard copy of the SoCC.

Page 3

- Paragraph 3 - ?is? should be removed in the last line: The Planning Inspectorate must consider, and the Secretary of State must determine, our application for a development consent order is in accordance with the following National Policy Statements.


Page 4

- Paragraph 1 ? we would suggest you remove reference to the ?National Infrastructure Planning Unit?, therefore you may wish to re-word this. We are within the Major Applications and Plans Directorate, however I would suggest reference to the specific Directorate is not used as it may be confusing.

- To whom and how will the preliminary environmental information be provided? It could be helpful to include this information.


Page 5

- Paragraph 1 - the term Associated Development has been used to refer to development which falls outside of the PA 2008 regime earlier in the document. However we also note use of the terms ?associated buildings? and ?associated plants? in this paragraph, this may be confusing to readers as to whether you are referring to works integral
to the power station or ?Associated Development?.

- Paragraph 3 - last sentence, although we are keen to discuss this with you, we advise that ?The Planning Inspectorate? is removed and ?key stakeholders? remains.


Page 7

- This is more of a general comment, we have heard that consultees don?t always understand the terms ?formal? and ?informal? consultation, and they sometimes assume that ?informal? can be a waste of their time. Therefore you may want to consider other terms, an example is ?statutory, non-statutory and engagement?.

- Paragraph 2 last sentence, what is meant by ?local media?, the wording at the end of the fifth paragraph appears to be clearer.

- You may also wish to refer to the s48 publicity in the third paragraph.


Page 9

- Under the heading of ?Stakeholders, groups and organisations?, the use of the terms ?their membership? may be confusing.


Page 10

- ?Other Major Consultation? the final sentence isn?t complete.

14 January 2016
Andrew Mahon Horizon Nuclear Power
Wylfa Newydd Nuclear Power Station
Enquiry received via email
The Planning Act 2008 provides that development consent is required for an onshore generating station if it has a capacity in excess of 50MW. Is development consent required if the generating station has a total installed capacity in excess of 50 MWp (DC) but in fact only has the technical capacity to export less than 50 MWAC to the grid?’
In the absence of any statutory definition or applicable case law, we consider that the term ‘capacity’ within section 15 of the PA 2008 refers to the ‘Total Installed Capacity’ which is defined in the Renewables Obligation Order 2009 (SI 2009/785). The Renewable Order 2009 (SO 2009/785) refers to both the Total Installed Capacity and Declared Net Capacity as follows:

“total installed capacity” in relation to a generating station, means the maximum capacity at which the station could be operated for a sustained period without causing damage to it (assuming the source of power used by it to generate electricity was available to it without interruption);

“declared net capacity”, in relation to a generating station, means the maximum capacity at which the station could be operated for a sustained period without causing damage to it (assuming the source of power used by it to generate electricity was available to it without interruption) less the amount of electricity that is consumed by the plant;

We advise that our understanding is that the ‘Total Installed Capacity’ is the figure that should be used in deciding as to whether a generating station proposals are Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects requiring development consent.

07 January 2016
Norton Rose Fulbright LLP - Victoria Watson
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project inception meeting
Please see attached meeting note

05 January 2016
RiverOak
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Emails sent as deadline submissions raising concerns about aspects of the work of the Planning Inspectorate.
In relation to your representations which were submitted to the Brechfa Connection project on 16 December 2015 for deadline 3 in the examination. Your representations will be provided to the Examining Authority for his consideration in respect of the examination and, along with other representations, will be made publically available on our website.

I note in your representation that you raise concerns about aspects of the work of the Planning Inspectorate. Should you separately wish to make a complaint then information on how to do so, and the process that the Planning Inspectorate follows in handling complaints, can be found via the following website link:
[attachment 1].

04 January 2016
J P and Mrs L Hewer
Brechfa Forest Connection
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Mr Kinane wrote to the Planning Inspectorate reiterating concerns in respect of the impact of the scheme on his property, and expressing dissatisfaction with a decision made by the Examining Authority at the issue specific hearing held on 18 Novmeber 2015 in respect of how that hearing should be conducted.
See attached response from Dr Pauleen Lane - Group Manager, National Infrastructure.

23 December 2015
Blue Kinane
M4 Junctions 3 to 12 Smart Motorway
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Should any (battery storage) facility be consented at a local level, up to 50MW capacity, then subsequently be extended to a capacity up to 100MW, how would this be dealt with from a consenting perspective? Understanding that we are unlikely to be classified as a generating station, and assuming we were to propose a development of greater than 50MW throughput, I understand a development consent order would be required? In this instance, I assume the necessity/otherwise for an EIA would be agreed with PINS, followed by consenting process of ca. 18 months? I believe an overhead line is subject to EIA, and one equal to or above 2km length, with capacity of equal to or above 132kV is also classified as NSIP. However do these rules apply to undergrounding.
We consider that the battery storage facility you have described does not qualify as a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP) under the Planning Act 2008 (PA 2008); and therefore it will not require a development consent order under the PA 2008 to be constructed, operated and extended. However, you will understand that there is no case law yet in this area, so this interpretation has not been tested by the courts and the Planning Inspectorate is not able to provide you with legal advice on which you can rely.

Only above ground electric lines are listed as NSIPs within the PA 2008. Please refer to section 16 of the PA 2008 (as amended) for the threshold at which such a project is considered to be a NSIP. The Planning Inspectorate have accepted underground line projects for examination only when it has formed part of an above ground scheme, or when directed to do so by the Secretary of State using section 35 of PA 2008.

For interest, the PA 2008 consenting process is explained on our website at [attachment 1], with the timescales included in the diagram at the foot of the page.

We are not able to advise you on other planning regimes outside of the PA 2008 and therefore we recommend that you discuss this with the relevant local planning authority.

20/10/16 - Please note that the provisional view set out in this advice that the battery storage project in question would not qualify as a NSIP is currently under review.

22 December 2015
AES - Robin Duncan
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Meeting held on 17 December 2015 between the Planning Inspectorate and Horizon Nuclear Power to provide a project update and to discuss some key issues relating to the consenting strategy and the DCO application.
Meeting note attached.

17 December 2015
Horizon Nuclear Power - Andrew Mahon
Wylfa Newydd Nuclear Power Station
Enquiry received via email
The Applicant emailed the Planning Inspectorate setting out, in their opinion that a minimum of two days should be allocated in January 2016 for the compulsory acquisition hearing and suggesting that the DCO hearing could be accommodated on Wednesday 20 January 2016 as the venue is only available in the afternoon.
The Planning Inspectorate noted these views and in organising the hearing with the ExA, the ExA carefully considered the timing and order of the hearings in January 2016 and the dates and timing of these are set out in the Rule 8(3) and Rule 13 procedural decision letter which was published on the Triton Knoll Electrical System website on 11 December 2015. In response to the Applicant, the Planning Inspectorate noted that the 20, 21 and 22 January have been made available for the compulsory acquisition hearings should additional time be required.

16 December 2015
Applicant - Kim Gauld-Clark
Triton Knoll Electrical System
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Meeting to update the Planning Inspectorate on the submission of the Richborough Connection project
Please see attached meeting note

16 December 2015
National Grid - anon.
Richborough Connection Project
Enquiry received via email
Mr Bramwell wrote on behalf of the Peninsula Management Group to introduce the group and ask the following questions:

1. Is the Applicant supposed to have engaged with all local landowners prior to submission of the DCO to demonstrate it has control of the land or can this happen when the DCO is being considered or granted?

2. If the Applicant fails to engage with local landowners/businesses and is relying on the CPO process to acquire the land, is this a material matter for consideration within the DCO process?
PINS provided advice as follows:

1. The applicant is expected (indeed, required) to have consulted everyone whom, following diligent inquiry, they have identified as having an interest in the land over which they are seeking CA powers. The Planning Act sets out a definition of who these people/interests will likely be at section 44. So in respect of your question, this is not necessarily all local landowners, since the interests of landowners neighbouring the proposed site may not be affected by the proposed CA powers. Applicants are required to demonstrate that they have carried out this consultation, and have had regard to any responses received (section 49 of the Planning Act); but they are not required to demonstrate that negotiations have been successful or that they already have control of the land prior to submission. It is not necessary for the applicant to have control of the land in order to be granted consent; this is why it is possible to apply for CA powers.

2. The examination of any application will include an examination of any CA powers that are sought in that application, and will consider all matters that the Inspector or Inspectors acting as the Examining Authority consider to be relevant and important. Once an application is accepted for examination, parties identified as having an interest in land proposed to be subject to CA will be invited to participate in the examination of the application, and will be given a full opportunity to put their case to the Examining Authority. Their views will be carefully considered when a report is made to the Secretary of State; and that report will not recommend the grant of CA powers unless there is shown to be a compelling case in the public interest for them.

10 December 2015
Peninsula Management Group - Dan Bramwell
The London Resort
Enquiry received via email
Lincolnshire County Council (LCC) asked the Planning Inspectorate for advice on 3 December 2015 on how they could submit a response for Deadline 4, setting out their position with respect to a joint statement with the Applicant on the Sandhills Act 1932 that was requested to be submitted for Deadline 3. LCC had noted that the Applicant had commented on this statement in their submission for Deadline 3 on page 29 of "The Applicant?s Response to Deadline 3" (REP3-035)? but had not attached the statement.
With respect to the Applicant?s response at Deadline 3 to which Lincolnshire County Council (LCC) refer, LCC will have seen the Applicant?s views set out on page 29 and that their intention is to submit a Joint Statement with Lincolnshire County Council at Deadline 4. It is for LCC to decide whether they wish to comment on the Applicant?s response and the wording on page 29. We are unable to advise LCC on this.

If LCC decide to submit their views to us in writing with respect to compulsory acquisition of public open space and the Sandhills Act 1932 and the proposed Joint Statement, we advise that they do so by Deadline 4 which is 5 January 2016, so that the Examining Authority can take account of this.

We would reiterate that at the hearing the Examining Authority stated a preference for a joint statement. Furthermore section 94(8) of the Planning Act 2008 provides legislation for the Examining Authority to not to take into account representations which they deem vexatious or frivolous.

10 December 2015
Lincolnshire County Council - Mandy Wood
Triton Knoll Electrical System
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I am a third year geography student studying at Kingston university London. I am currently researching for my dissertation and I intend to answer this question-What are the social and cultural implications of wind farms and how influential are small communities on decision made about renewable energy? It would be beneficial to my research if you could be give me any information on the planning processes that take place specifically in regards to renewable energy and wind farms. I have chosen the Alltwalis wind farm as a case study and so any extra information about that process would be greatly appreciated. If you need any more information from me then feel free to ask.
Thank you for your email. Certain developments, including some renewable energy projects and wind farm proposals, are defined as nationally significant infrastructure projects (NSIPs) through the Planning Act 2008 (PA 2008) legislation. The process by which NSIPs can gain consents differs from that of Town and Country Planning Act (TCPA) applications. I understand that the Alltwalis wind farm was a TCPA application and, as I deal primarily with NSIPs casework, unfortunately I can’t provide any extra information on that particular application. However, I can help explain how individuals or communities are involved in the decision making process on other types of wind farm applications i.e. those made under the PA2008 process.

The PA2008 process involves the examination of NSIPs falling into the following categories; transport, energy, waste, water and waste water. Section 14 of the PA2008 further defines NSIPs; this section might be of interest for you in general terms concerning which types/scales of development fall into the NSIP category. Sections 15 to 21 of the PA2008 act relate to energy and in particular Section 15 of the PA 2008 act defines ‘Generating Stations’. This is the section of the PA2008 act into which wind farms might fall and therefore s15 of the PA 2008 act defines whether a particular generating station development would be considered an NSIP project.

The PA2008 process follows clear statutory deadlines and adheres to the stages of; pre-application, acceptance, pre-examination, examination, decision and post-decision. There are statutory requirements set out for each stage of the process but those of most relevance to your question will be in respect of the requirement for an applicant to engage in Pre-Application consultation and the ability of people to register as Interested Parties to an Examination in order to put their views/opinions/objections to the Examining Authority – the latter is the body that is responsible for making a recommendation to the Secretary of State (SoS). The decision for any NSIP application will be taken by the SoS.

The PA2008 process for NSIPs allows all communities and interested persons/parties to engage with the evolution and examination of a project. During the pre-application stage, it is a statutory requirement for a developer to consult with the local community and a further statutory requirement for the developer to take account of responses received to that consultation (sections 47 and 49 of PA2008). At this pre-application stage individuals have the opportunity to tell the developer their views of the project, whether they support it, think it could be improved, or oppose it – and why. Once an application is formally submitted and has progressed through an Acceptance stage, there will be an Examination. At this point, it is possible for individuals to provide representations through written representations and attending hearings to the Examining Authority. In this way, communities can have their say directly to the Examining Authority who will write the recommendation report to the SoS. Throughout the examination process relevant issues will be considered and examined, these issues may include, as noted in your question, the social and cultural implications of a particular project.

The Planning Inspectorate provides information regarding each stage of the whole process including how individuals/parties can become involved through a series of advice notes which can be viewed on the National Infrastructure Planning pages of the website; [attachment 1] Advice note 8: ‘How to get involved in the planning process’, might be of particular interest to you in terms of the part of your question which asks; ‘how influential are small communities on decision made about renewable energy?’ Details of each specific NSIP project where an application has been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, as well as all the relevant documents for projects can be viewed at: [attachment 2]

If you have any more specific questions from this brief overview please do contact me and I will try to be of more help.

10 December 2015
Sophie Bowden
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project up-date meeting - please see attached meeting note.

09 December 2015
Network Rail
Western Rail Link to Heathrow
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
A2 Bean & Ebbsfleet Junction Improvements project inception meeting

08 December 2015
Highways England
General
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
National Grid submitted their draft No Significant Effects Report for the Richborough connection project
Please see attached section 51 advice.

03 December 2015
Ken Guest
Richborough Connection Project
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting with NuGen
Please see attached meeting note.

27 November 2015
NuGen - Gideon Amos
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting with National Grid
Please see attached note.

26 November 2015
National Grid - Jacqui Fenn
North Wales Connection
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Goxhill Parish Council - Humber Pipeline

Thank you for you recent email requesting Parish Council comments, particulary with regard to the traffic flow around the parish. The Parish Council do not meet until next Thursday (3rd December) and I cannot forward any comments until they have met at a full council meeting. I have forwarded your email to the councillors so that they may come prepared to the meeting, and will be able to email their decision on Friday 5th December.

I hope this is acceptable to the planning inspectorate.
Thank you for your email. The inspectorate has not emailed you directly therefore I believe that the information that you are speaking about may have been conveyed to you from the North Lincolnshire Council representatives following a recent issue specific hearing. The council representatives where asked to encourage the Goxhill parish councillors to send in representations regarding the potential bypass.

If you wish to listen to the hearing the audio is available on our website:

[attachment 1]

I must draw your attention to the examination timetable and deadlines which can be found here:
[attachment 2]

The next deadline is Friday 27 November and that is the date that the examining authority would like the information to be provided. If you are unable to meet this deadline the examining authority may use his discretion to accept a late submission, but this cannot be guaranteed. I also wish to advise your that the next deadline for submission is 22 December.

I hope this information is useful. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any further queries.

26 November 2015
Goxhill Parish Council - Chris Tooby
River Humber Gas Pipeline Replacement Project
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
The Planning Inspectorate hosted a pre-application project update meeting with Gatwick Airport Ltd
A note of the meeting is attached

26 November 2015
Gatwick Airport Ltd - Alison Addy
General
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
We are investigating development of an energy storage facility including the installation of up to 50MW lithium-ion battery capacity, with potential for future expansion.

The proposed development does not generate electricity, but rather imports/exports power from the electricity network, and provides a short-term storage medium, with interconnection at voltages ranging between 33 – 275kV.
As you state, the storage facilities do not generate electricity, and they do not appear to qualify as a generating station as defined by the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) (s235). Further, even if the facilities could be considered as a generating station, the stated ‘up to 50MW capacity’ would fall below the ‘more than 50MW’ requirement of the PA2008. Therefore this project as described does not qualify as a generating station under s15 of the PA2008.

You mention cabling of up to 275kV. This does exceed the PA2008 threshold of 132kV in s16(3)(a), but it seems unlikely that the connection would be greater than 2km beyond AES’ premises as required to qualify. If any above ground grid connection of 132kV or greater nominal voltage did exceed 2km beyond the premises, then this would qualify as an NSIP in its own right under s16 of the PA2008.

While the project as described does not appear to be an NSIP, you may request a direction from the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (SoS) for it to be treated as such. The Secretary of State may direct under s35 than any project in the field of energy, transport, water etc be treated as development for which a development consent order is required. If, having assessed consenting routes, AES consider that the scheme would be better dealt with as an NSIP, AES could make a qualifying request to the SoS explaining their reasoning. The SoS will determine this in line with ss35ZA-35A of PA2008.

You can find out more about the NSIP regime on our website at [attachment 1], and detailed advice about creating an NSIP application is at [attachment 2].

If you would like to explore the NSIP consenting route further, then please let me know. However, it appears that AES’ proposals do not qualify as an NSIP currently.

20/10/16 - Please note that the provisional view set out in this advice that the battery storage project in question would not qualify as a NSIP is currently under review.

25 November 2015
AES - Robin Duncan
General
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The Planning Inspectorate's feedback on draft documents submitted by Highways England in July 2015.
Please see the attached document.

24 November 2015
Highways England - Helen Apps
A19 / A184 Testos Junction Improvement
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Pre-application project update meeting. Please see attached meeting note.

24 November 2015
Transport for London
Silvertown Tunnel
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Meeting with Tidal Lagoon Cardiff
Please see attached meeting note

24 November 2015
Tidal Lagoon Cardiff
Tidal Lagoon Cardiff
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting - please see attached meeting note

19 November 2015
Highways England
M20 Junction 10A
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Telecon between the Planning Inspectorate, Dover District Council, Kent County Council, Thanet District Council and Canterbury City Council and subsequent email to confirm the section 51 advice provided.
The following advice was provided:

The PA 2008 Process:
Here is a link to PINS Advice note 2 on the role of local authorities, on page 2 is a diagram which you may find helpful, listing the points at which local authorities are engaged in the process: [attachment 1] The note also summarises each of the representations to be submitted by the local authorities and the types of hearings to expect.

The examination is primarily a written process, therefore please ensure that all comments you wish to make are done so early, in written submissions and not withheld until the hearings. The hearings will then provide an opportunity for the ExA to ask any questions on your submissions.

The role of local authorities and delegations:
You may find the wording below (section 104(2)(b)) to be helpful, as well as section 12 and paragraph 3.2 of Advice Note 2. Paragraph 3.2 states: ?A local authority and the local community are consultees in their own right. Whilst local authorities should have regard to what the community is saying, it is not intended that they necessarily adopt all of those views put to them. In this context, local authorities in particular must conduct themselves in line with the National Policy Statements and the relevant guidance?.

PA 2008 decision making:
As discussed, Local Impact Reports have a unique status in the process, as they are documents which the Examining authority and the Secretary of State must have regard to. Section 104 of the PA 2008 states that:

104 Decisions in cases where national policy statement has effect
(1) This section applies in relation to an application for an order granting development consent if a national policy statement has effect in relation to development of the description to which the application relates .
(2) In deciding the application the Secretary of State must have regard to?
(a) any national policy statement which has effect in relation to development of the description to which the application relates (a ?relevant national policy statement?),
(aa) the appropriate marine policy documents (if any), determined in accordance with section 59 of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009,
(b) any local impact report (within the meaning given by section 60(3) ) submitted to the Secretary of State before the deadline specified in a notice under section 60(2),
(c) any matters prescribed in relation to development of the description to which the application relates, and
(d) any other matters which the Secretary of State thinks are both important and relevant to the Secretary of State's decision.
(3) The Secretary of State must decide the application in accordance with any relevant national policy statement, except to the extent that one or more of subsections (4) to (8) applies.

I thought it would also be helpful to provide a link to 2 National Policy Statements:
EN-1: [attachment 2]
EN-5: [attachment 3]

Local Impact Reports (LIR):
Within LIRs, local authorities detail the likely impacts of the proposal on the area. The impacts should be explained, for example as positive, neutral or negative, with reasons for this decision. However LIRs are not expected to include a concluding position on the scheme as a whole within this document. The Local Authority?s view as to whether or not a proposal should be granted development consent can be included in the separate ?written representation?.

Here is a link to an extract from a Hinkley Point C Connection project LIR from the joint authorities: [attachment 4]
This example splits the issues into ?project wide? and ?local issues?, this can be a helpful approach where the impacts differ across the authority areas.
A further heading was also used to explain the impact when considering the proposed mitigation.

Written representations:
Page 14 of Advice Note 2.

Page 18 and 19 of DCLG Guidance for the examination of applications for development consent: [attachment 5]

Statement of Common Ground:
As discussed, it is also helpful if the statement includes issues on which you have not reached agreement.

If, prior to submission of the SOCG when it is still in draft form, you feel you are unable to come to a decision on whether or not an issue is agreed, you may wish to keep such issues included in the draft SOCG as ?undecided? or ?awaiting further information?; with the intention to confirm the issue as agreed or not within the SOCG which is submitted to the examination, once you have had the opportunity to review the application.

Hearings:
There are 3 types of hearing in this process:
- Compulsory Acquisition hearing ? must be held if requested by an affected person
- Open floor hearing - must be held if requested by an interested party
- Issue specific hearing ? the topics of which are determined by the ExA, for example on the draft DCO, landscape and visual impacts etc.

Page 14 and 15 of Advice Note 2 explains these hearings in greater detail.

Changes to a scheme following submission:
Following submission, a proposal cannot be changed to such an extent that it would constitute different project, this would require a new application. However there are instances where certain changes can be proposed and accepted into the examination, please refer to Advice Note 16: [attachment 6].

Providing comments at this point in the pre-application stage:
If you are in receipt of new information from National Grid at this stage and you wish to make a comment, you would be advised to initially check with National Grid that this is the latest and most up to date information, and inform them that you wish to make pre-application comments.

There is no cut of point during pre-application at which an interested party should stop making comments on an application to an applicant, however it should be noted that at late stages, the opportunities to make changes to the scheme may be limited. However, making applicants aware of potential issues should be encouraged and all parties should continue negotiations after statutory consultation.

19 November 2015
Local Authorities
Richborough Connection Project
Enquiry received via email
Submissions to the Examinning Authority 16 - 18 November 2015, copying PINS into correspondence between BJP and the applicant.
Further to correspondence that you continue to copy the Planning Inspectorate into in relation to compulsory acquisition (CA) matters, I have taken the decision to issue formal advice to ensure that you are clear on the CA process under the Planning Act 2008 (PA 2008) and the role of the Examining Authority. This advice, along with any other advice given during the examination by the Planning Inspectorate, will be published inline with s51 of PA 2008 on the project webpage.

Drawing upon the letter that you sent to the Planning Inspectorate by email on 16 November 2015, which the Examining Authority has accepted as a submission into the examination and published, it was felt that some clarification may be of use.

Please note that some of the terminology used in your correspondence is not appropriate in relation to an application for an order granting development consent under the PA 2008. In this regard we have assumed that:

1. Your reference to the ?CPO process? is intended to be to the examination of the applicant?s request for compulsory acquisition to be authorised by inclusion of it in a Development Consent Order (as the PA2008 does not allow for a Compulsory Purchase Order to be made);
2. Your reference to ?the Inspector? is intended to refer to the Examining authority;
3. Your reference to the ?Acquiring Authority? is intended to refer to the applicant; and
4. Your reference to the ?Public Enquiry? is intended to refer to any Compulsory Acquisition Hearing(s) to be held as part of the Examining authority?s examination of the application for an order granting development consent.

Please be advised that:

(a) contrary to the second paragraph of your letter, all parties present at the Preliminary Meeting held on 6 October 2015 were invited to speak;
(b) under Rule 10 of the Infrastructure Planning (Examination Procedure) Rules 2010, the Examining authority may disregard any written representations, responses to questions or further information received after the date, or the expiry of the period, specified for their receipt;
(c) under section 94 of the PA2008, the Examining authority may refuse to allow representations to be made at a hearing if they are considered to relate to compensation for compulsory acquisition;
(d) under section 106 of the PA2008, in deciding an application for an order granting development consent, the Secretary of State may disregard representations if they are considered to relate to compensation for compulsory acquisition;
(e) it would not be appropriate for the Examining authority to advise you or your clients as to exactly when or under what precise circumstances or conditions you or your clients should enter into negotiations with the applicant or on the precise terms of any such ongoing negotiations. Those would be matters on which your clients ought to seek their own independent legal and other professional advice if required;
(f) the following guidance has been published: Planning Act 2008 - Guidance related to procedures for the compulsory acquisition of land (DCLG, September 2013); and Awards of costs: examinations of applications for development consent orders ? Guidance (DCLG, July 2013);
(g) the Examining authority is not in a position to confirm the qualifications or experience of individuals employed by the applicant. You should direct any such queries to the applicant if you require such information; and
(h) the Examining authority has not decided to postpone the Compulsory Acquisition Hearing(s) arranged to be held on 2 and 3 December 2015.

Furthermore, please be advised that copying in the Planning Inspectorate to correspondence does not automatically enter it into the examination nor does it ensure that information is before the Examining authority. If you wish representations to be brought to the attention to the Examining authority then we request that you clearly state this in correspondence. As such, the emails that the Planning Inspectorate were copied into over the past few days have not as yet been sent to the Examining authority as they include no clear indication in that regard. Should you wish the Examining authority to consider these emails as submissions into the examination then please do contact me. As discussed previously, there is an examination timetable which sets out when representations are to be made. This ensures that information for all parties in the examination are able to work to deadlines, knowing when documentation will be available for comment and when comments should be made. This ensures a fair and open process. Any representation received after a deadline will, if so requested by the party submitting it, be sent to the ExA for him to consider whether or not to have regard to it. The information above sets out matters that should and should not be before the Examining authority.

I hope that this advice clarifies matters and enables full and appropriate engagement in the examination process.

18 November 2015
BJP Land Agents - Iwan Jones
Brechfa Forest Connection
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update with EDF Energy, Suffolk County Council and Suffolk Coastal District Council
please see attached meeting note

13 November 2015
EDF Energy - Tim Norwood
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
A site visit took place on the proposed site of the London Parmount scheme followed by a meeting at the offices of Gravesham Borough Council, attended by several parties.
An agreed note of that meeting is attached.

10 November 2015
Chris Potts
The London Resort
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Telecon between National Grid and the Planning Inspectorate to discuss the proposed Richborough Connection Project
Please see the meeting note below

09 November 2015
National Grid
Richborough Connection Project
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Certain highway improvements which may form part of the project could be classed as NSIP in their own right and this may require screening of the highway improvements in accordance with Section 22(5)(c) of the Planning Act 2008 to establish whether they will give rise to any likely significant effects. Have PINS had any previous experience of screening highway improvements under this section and what is the process for this.
The Planning Inspectorate do not provide legal advice on which applicants and others can rely. Nor do the Planning Inspectorate provide a ?screening? process to determine whether a project is a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP); it is for a developer to seek their own legal advice on whether their proposal/part of a proposal would be considered an NSIP.

In respect of the term ?screening?, a developer may request a Screening Opinion from the Secretary State (SoS) under the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2009 to determine whether a project is ?EIA development? for the purposes of the Regulations. ?EIA development? is defined as either Schedule 1 development (which can include some road schemes) or Schedule 2 development which likely to have significant effects on the environment by virtue of factors such as its nature, size or location. The SoS must adopt a screening opinion within 21 days of receipt of the request, but would require sufficient detail about the proposal. Such a Screening Opinion would not be produced for the purposes of s22(5)(c) PA2008.

In the case of the A19 Coast Road junction improvement, I understand that a Screening Opinion was requested by the Highways Agency, the information for which can be found on our website.
[attachment 1];stage=1&filter=Environmental+Impact+Assessment
However, my understanding was also that the ?junction improvements? were considered to be an NSIP by virtue of s22(3) i.e. an alteration under the PA2008.

06 November 2015
Ashfield Land
Rail Central (Strategic Rail Freight Interchange)
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
To PINs
Please would you tell me if there are any changes to the Planning Regime that was set up to consider Sizewell C Nuclear Power station.
I also request an update on the Planning Act 2008 as altered and amended following the consultation in 2013 as I cannot find the current document on your website.

As I understand it the Statement of Community Consultation (SoCC) has been agreed using the new 3 stage Consultation. Is this correct?
Stage 1has been completed, we now await Stage 2. when that has been undertaken and completed there will be a lapse of time before EDF submit their Stage 3 Consultation which we are now lead to believe will also be the DCO application. Does this mean that PINS will start to access the DCO before the Stage 3 is considered by Statutory Bodies and other interested parties?

I would also like to know how the Infrastructure Commission headed up by Lord Adonis fits into the Planning Regime if at all.
Further to your email below I am responding as follows;

Previously Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIPs) were dealt with by the Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC). Under the Localism Act 2011, the IPC was abolished on 1 April 2012. Its functions transferred to the Planning Inspectorate on that date and are now delivered by its Major Applications and Plans Directorate.

As you are aware, the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) has been amended namely by the Localism Act 2011 and the Growth and Infrastructure Act 2013. The version on our website is the original document (as enacted) and does not take account of these amendments. If you wish to view a more up to date version, please view the PA2008 which can be accessed at: [attachment 1] however please be aware that there may still be amendments outstanding.

It is for the developer to decide how many rounds of consultation they wish to carry out. However, the consultation must be carried out in accordance with the relevant sections of PA2008. It may be of use to you to view the advice provided to the developer and others via the S51 advice tab found on the project page of our website. A record of all the meetings that the Planning Inspectorate has had with the developer are recorded and available to view below:

[attachment 2]

You may wish to visit the developer's website for further information regarding their consultation or contact them direct on the details below:

Freephone Community Helpline: 0800 197 6102
Email: [email protected]

For information regarding the Infrastructure Commission please visit the website below:

[attachment 3]

I hope the above is helpful however please do not hesitate to contact me further.

06 November 2015
Joan Girling
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Feedback meeting between Navitus Bay Development Limited and the Planning Inspectorate following the Secretary of State?s decisions on the Navitus Bay Wind Park project.
See attached note of the meeting.

06 November 2015
Navitus Bay Development Limited - Stuart Grant
Navitus Bay Wind Park
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
See attached meeting note and presentation slides

05 November 2015
Mark Reynolds
International Advanced Manufacturing Park TWO (IAMP TWO)
Enquiry received via meeting
Query in respect of how the Freedom of Information Act might apply to information held by PINS.
The Planning Inspectorate can be subject to requests for information under the Freedom of Information Act and the Environmental Information Regulations and each request must be determined on its merits. We would therefore suggest that you do not provide The Planning Inspectorate with information that you would not wish to be in the public domain.

04 November 2015
Ashfield Land
Rail Central (Strategic Rail Freight Interchange)
Enquiry received via email
Could you please elaborate a little on the format of the meetings on the 16,17 and 18 November as I am unfamiliar with the revised Inquiry process for major infrastructure. I assume that any oral submissions will be time limited? Will they be subject to questioning and response by H England or just to questions of clarification by the Inspector? I also assume that H England will be asked formally to respond to all written submissions currently on the website. Is this the case and if so by what date?
Open Floor Hearings (OFH) generally have no specific agenda and allow Interested Parties to speak for a limited time regarding topics and issues based on previous written submissions. As the examination is inquisitorial, as opposed to adversarial, the Examining Authority (ExA) will only ask further questions if it believes this is necessary for clarification on a particular subject matter.

Issue Specific Hearings (ISH) are structured by an agenda, issued by the ExA, with the main parties seated in a horse shoe configuration and the audience seated behind. Roaving microphones will be provided for any audience members that wish to speak. Written summaries of oral representations given at any of the hearings held on 16, 17 and 18 November 2015 can be submitted for Deadline IV - 26 November 2015.

Any party may comment on Deadline II's written submissions for Deadline III - 5 November 2015.

29 October 2015
Dave Green
M4 Junctions 3 to 12 Smart Motorway
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Liaison meeting between the Planning Inspectorate and the Environment Agency
Please see meeting note attached.

29 October 2015
Environment Agency
General
Enquiry received via phone
Enquiry as to why Sports England was not consulted by the Secretary of State on the applicant?s scoping report.
Thank you for your phone call earlier enquiring as to why Sports England was not consulted by the Secretary of State on the applicant?s scoping report. I just wanted to follow up in writing and to let you know that I will upload a summary of our discussion onto our advice register on our website under section 51 of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended).

I can confirm that, as discussed on the phone, the bodies consulted by the Secretary of State for scoping of a NSIP under the Planning Act 2008 are those prescribed in Schedule 1 of the Infrastructure Planning (Applicant?s: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009. Sports England does not appear on this list and therefore were not consulted by the Secretary of State during the scoping process for the Hydrodec Oil Re-refinery project.

With the exception of scoping, the pre-application process and consultation is undertaken entirely by the developer. We strongly encourage all applicant?s to consult widely during the pre-application stage and therefore welcome your intention to encourage the applicant to consult with Sports England.

23 October 2015
Warren Marshall of Peel Ports
Hydrodec Oil Re-Refinery Eastham
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Meeting to discuss the finalising of the HRA Evidence Plan prior to submission of the Development Consent Order (DCO) application
See attached note of the meeting

21 October 2015
East Anglia Offshore Wind Ltd - Keith Morrison
East Anglia THREE Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Discussion and feedback in relation to the Tidal Lagoon Swansea Bay examination

20 October 2015
Alex Herbert
Tidal Lagoon Swansea Bay
Enquiry received via phone
response has attachments
Section 51 advice issued to London Borough of Hounslow regarding their Local Impact Report submitted for deadline II - 8 October 2015.
It has come to the Inspectorate?s attention that the Local Impact Report (LIR) submitted for Deadline II - 8 October 2015 was missing correspondence from Friends of the Earth that should've been submitted alongside it.

I requested for the missing correspondece to be provided in order for an updated version of LIR to replace the previous version which ommitted the correspondence.

On receipt, the updated version of London Borough of Hounslow's LIR will be published to our website, making clear that it supersedes the version originally submitted for Deadline II.

For the avoidance of doubt, the missing correspondence has now been receieved and has been appended to the LIR, available on our website here: [attachment 1]

20 October 2015
London Borough of Hounslow - Matthew Rees
M4 Junctions 3 to 12 Smart Motorway
Enquiry received via phone
response has attachments
Regarding the proposed planning application from St Mowden, what material and consideration has been made in relation to the trees which are proposed as part of the screening mitigation for Meaford Energy Centre.

Also, whether Meaford Residents Association should maintain their representation regarding the devaluation of house prices and whether this is a material consideration as part of the PA2008 process as they are not in the Book of Reference? also queried this in relation to the applicant?s comments on relevant representations.
Dear Mr Kuhn

Further to our telephone discussion regarding your submission of 17 September 2015 concerning two matters, I have looked at the submissions you refer to and provide the following advice:

Planning application by St Mowden Plc as referred to in your Deadline 2 submission

Stafford Borough Council and Staffordshire County Council refer to this as part of the planning history at section 4.1, page 5 of its joint Local Impact Report (LIR): [attachment 1]

Further details regarding the application are also referred to as being at Appendix 1 of their LIR which is split across three documents and available for viewing at:

[attachment 2];stage=4&filter=LIR+and+SoCG

Should you have any comments to make on the above (in addition to your submission at Deadline 2) please ensure you submit them by 21 October (Deadline 3) as the Examining Authority will be looking at all relevant material as submitted and therefore for any considerations of material by the Examining Authority (ExA), it is important this is submitted into the examination

Devaluation of property prices

Whilst I cannot comment on the accuracy of the applicant?s comments in their responses to your relevant representation, the quote from the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) is correct and the PPG is relevant planning policy which the Secretary of State can take into account when deciding the application. The PPG can be accessed here: [attachment 3]

All material submitted into the examination will be considered by the ExA with the exception of representations that are vexatious of frivolous; relate to the merits of policy in a national policy statement; relate to compensation for compulsory acquisition of land or an interest in or right over land (s.106 Planning Act 2008). The ExA will consider all the information submitted at Deadline 2, including the applicant?s response, and can ask for further information from any party if he considers it necessary to do so to examine the application. As mentioned above, the next stage in the examination timetable is Deadline 3 (Thursday 22 October) which includes requests by the ExA for any responses to comments made at Deadline 2 so if you wish to make comments, please ensure these are submitted in accordance with the timetable.

Depreciation in property value could, in some circumstances, give rise to a result of a relevant claim (as defined in s.57(6) Planning Act 2008) but compensation for any depreciation in property values arising from a relevant claim is not a matter to be considered by the ExA or Secretary of State with the exception of the need for the Secretary of State to be satisfied that the applicant is likely to have funds available to pay all successful compensation claims and to that extent the ExA must consider the likely amount of compensation during examination.

A relevant claim means a claim under s.10 Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 (compensation for taking or injurious affection of land); or part 1 of the Land Compensation Act 1973 (compensation for depreciation of land value by physical factors caused by the use of public works); or a claim under s.152(3) Planning Act 2008.

Identification in the Book of Reference (BoR) does not determine your ability to make a relevant claim. The BoR should identify all persons that the applicant thinks would or might be entitled, as a result of the implementing of the order/the order having been implemented/use of the land once the order has been implemented, to make a relevant claim. These persons should be included within Part 2 of the BoR as category 3 persons.

As you have not been identified in the BoR you do not have the status of an affected person in the examination, however, if you consider that you should be in the BoR as a category 3 person you can make a request to the ExA to become an interested party in accordance with s.102A Planning Act 2008. However, as you have submitted a relevant representation on behalf of the Meaford Road Residents Association, the Association itself is already an Interested party and able to fully participate in the examination so you may not consider it necessary to become an interested party in an individual capacity.

I hope the above is helpful however please note, this response is sent without prejudice and cannot be considered as legal advice on which you or the residents association can rely on.

If you have any further queries on this or any other matter, please do not hesitate to contact us.

19 October 2015
Edmund Kuhn
Meaford Energy Centre
Enquiry received via email
Many thanks for your email of 1 October 2015, I note that the issue specific hearing on environmental matters is on Wednesday 11 November 2015. Reference my email of 29 September 2015 I assume that this hearing will address Traffic and Transport impact?

I also note that our client Royal Mail?s relevant representation (IP reg is 10031419) is included in the list of relevant representations on the webpage. Will this representation be considered at the hearing on 11 November 2015?
Thank you for your email of 12 October 2015, regarding the likelihood of Traffic and Transport impact being discussed at the issue specific hearing on Wednesday 11 November 2015. The agenda for the rescheduled hearings, (now due to occur on Wednesday 11 and Thursday 12 November), have yet to be published, although will appear on the Planning Inspectorate?s website around seven days in advance.

The 11 November hearing on environmental matters will touch on traffic and transport, which was one of the principal issues identified early on in this process. However, this topic may also be covered at the Draft Development Consent Order (DCO) issue specific hearing, in relation to any requirements which engage traffic and transport matters.

All relevant representations submitted to the examination will of course be taken into consideration by the Examining Authority (ExA). However, in light of the Applicant?s Deadline 2 response to Royal Mail?s relevant representation, should Royal Mail have any comment to make on that response or associated information in support of their original relevant representation, they are advised to do so for Deadline 3. This is because the agenda for the pending hearings can only be based on information before the ExA at that time. Royal Mail may also wish to further be represented at either hearing on the 11 /12 November, in which case please advise the Planning Inspectorate by Tuesday 27 October and confirm the main details of any topic to be raised should an oral representation to the ExA be intended.

I hope this is helpful, but should you have any further queries please do not hesitate to contact us.

15 October 2015
Royal Mail - Daniel Parry-Jones
Meaford Energy Centre
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update and feedback on draft documents meeting
See attached note of the meeting

15 October 2015
East Anglia Offshore Wind Ltd - Keith Morrison
East Anglia THREE Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Please see attached Meeting Note.

14 October 2015
Ashfield Land
Rail Central (Strategic Rail Freight Interchange)
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Request for review of draft application documents (Statement of Reasons and Funding Statement).
See attached.

12 October 2015
Arup - Katie Kerr
North London Heat and Power Project
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
As Buckinghamshire County Council have requested to speak at the open floor hearing in November, I was wondering if you could give an indication of the date(s)? I note that the examination timetable says that it will be take place in the week commencing 16 November, but I wanted to check to see whether you had a more specific date now that you know you will be holding an open floor hearing.

I have an additional query regarding the Statement of Common Ground. We are currently waiting to receive our final draft from HE so we can have it signed off by our Cabinet Member for Transportation. Can you confirm whether BCC should be sending the final version to the Examining Authority or whether Highways England should?
Firstly, the Planning Inspectorate is required to give no less than 21 days? notice to all interested parties of any hearing before they are held. Therefore, we will issue a procedural decision formally notifying you of the date, time and location of the hearings scheduled for the week commencing 16 November 2015 once the arrangements have been finalised. You will see on the Examination timetable
([attachment 1]) that a date of no later than 26 October 2015 have been set for this notification.

Statements of Common Ground (SoCGs) should be submitted by the applicant to the specified deadline in the Examination timetable ([attachment 1]). Where it has not been possible for relevant parties to reach agreement about the content of a particular SoCG, this should be made explicit in the document itself; inevitably informing the areas of outstanding disagreement. As stated in Annex E to the Rule 8 letter, where local authorities are involved the ExA has agreed to accept draft or ?officer level? SoCGs to the deadline of 8 October. However it would be expected for those SoCGs to be finalised as soon as practicable in the following days/weeks.

07 October 2015
Buckinghamshire County Council - Sally Sharp
M4 Junctions 3 to 12 Smart Motorway
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Telecon to discuss the Planning Inspectorate?s s51 advice on the draft documents.
Please see meeting note below.

05 October 2015
National Grid
Richborough Connection Project
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
See advice regarding combined heat and power requirements attached
See advice attached

05 October 2015
Arup - Katie Kerr
North London Heat and Power Project
Enquiry received via email
Notification under s46 of the Planning Act 2008 to the Planning Inspectorate of consultation to be undertaken under s42 including a copy of the s48 notice.
On receipt of your s46 notice including the s48 notice we note the statement in the latter that: ?Electronic or hard copies of the consultation documents can be ordered from TfL using the contact details set out at the end of this notice. TfL will provide copies of the consultation documents free of charge on reasonable request.?
We would note that, should someone request a copy of the consultation documents, and TfL consider the request to be unreasonable and impose a charge, then this may lead to a potential technical breach under Regulation 4(3)(g) of the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and procedure) Regulations 2009. We do however note that it is not your intention to ever charge for copies of the consultation materials. In the unlikely event that someone did make an unreasonable request, TfL would supply a reasonable number of copies free of charge and therefore comply with the s48 notice. TfL will make this clear in the Consultation Report.

05 October 2015
Transport for London (TfL) - Neil Chester
Silvertown Tunnel
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Enquiry regarding National Park Authority is not the planning authority for the Meaford Energy Centre project and whether they are intended receipient for the procedural letters.
Thank you for your email. The Peak District National Park Authority is a statutory consultee on the Meaford Energy Centre application.

You may be aware however, that the Planning Inspectorate acts on behalf of the Secretary of State in examining applications for nationally significant infrastructure projects (NSIPs). As a part of the process, the Planning Inspectorate is under a duty to identify prescribed (statutory) consultees and inform them of any procedural decisions. Procedural decisions which the Planning Inspectorate must therefore send to you as a statutory party include:

? Rule 6 letter ? an invitation to the Preliminary Meeting, draft timetable, appointment of Examining Authority;
? Rule 8 letter - final examination timetable,
? Rule 8(3) letter - changes to examination timetable (Rule 8(3) letter)
? Section 99 letter ? close of examination letter

Please note however, that is for you to decide whether you wish to respond to this correspondence or participate in the examination. For more information about the project, please visit the project website using below link:

[attachment 1]

I hope this information is helpful, but please contact us should you have any more questions.

Kind Regards

02 October 2015
Peak District National Park Authority
Meaford Energy Centre
Enquiry received via phone
A request for clarity about points raised in the Planning Inspectorate advice on the draft HRA No Significant Effects Report.
The HRA report should be a standalone document and should provide a clear evidence trail to support the conclusions. It is not possible to comment on the adequacy of the information in the ES (to which the draft matrices in the Report refer) as the Inspectorate does not have sight of this. The referencing system in the draft matrices appears to be adequate but this did not preclude the ExA from asking questions in this regard.

02 October 2015
Nichola White on behalf of Arup
North London Heat and Power Project
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Update on project progress to date
Please see attached meeting note.

01 October 2015
North Somerset Council - Colin Medus
Portishead Branch Line - MetroWest Phase 1
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Enquiry regarding attending the hearings on 10th and 11th November 2015 for research purposes on the NSIP process.
Please note a revision to the examination timetable has today been issued. The email below implies you were attending the hearings on 10 and 11 November (which were originally the hearings on environmental matters and the DCO hearing). These are still taking place however due to the submissions received at deadline 2, the length has been reduced to half days rather than full ones and have been set as follows:

Wednesday 11 November 2015 - Issue Specific Hearing on Environmental matters - 1:00pm (seating available from 12:30pm)
Yarnfield Park Training & Conference Centre
Yarnfield Lane Yarnfields
Staffordshire
ST15 0NL

Thursday 12 November 2015 - Issue Specific Hearing on the Draft Development Consent Order - 9.00am (seating available from 8.30am)
Yarnfield Park Training & Conference Centre
Yarnfield Lane Yarnfields Staffordshire
ST15 0NL

Thursday 12 November 2015 - Compulsory Acquisition Hearing - 2:00pm (seating available from 1:30pm)
Yarnfield Park Training & Conference Centre
Yarnfield Lane Yarnfields
Staffordshire
ST15 0NL

A copy of the notification and revised examination timetable can be accessed at the following link: [attachment 1]

If you have any further queries, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Kind regards

01 October 2015
Dr Lucy Natarajan
Meaford Energy Centre
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
On behalf of my client Royal Mail (IP reg is 10031419) I submitted a relevant representation on 19 June 2015 flagging our clients concerns about traffic impact during the construction phase. I am not aware that the applicant has made a response to our client?s relevant representation, please can you confirm.

Please can you also advise whether there will be an issue specific hearing on traffic and transportation matters and if so when. It is not evident from the Examination timetable whether there will be one.
Thank you for your email in relation to the Meaford Energy Centre examination.

I can confirm submissions for Deadline 2 (28 September) have been published and are available for viewing at: [attachment 1];stage=4&filter=Deadline+2+-+28-09-2015.
Pages 35-36 of the applicant?s comments on relevant representations contains a summary of its response to Royal Mail?s relevant representations which can be found at the following link: [attachment 2]. Should Royal Mail wish to make any comments on this, you must ensure you do so by Deadline 3 (22 October 2015) as per the examination timetable.

In response to your point regarding the traffic and transportation issues, these will be discussed at the hearing regarding environmental matters which was originally scheduled for Tuesday 10 November however you should have today received notification by the Examining Authority of an amendment to the examination timetable meaning the hearing into this will now be taking place on Wednesday 11 November (seating available from 12:30, hearing starts at 1:00pm). It should also be noted as part of the DCO hearing, any requirements around traffic and transportation may also be discussed/updated etc and this will be held on Thursday 12 November (seating available from 08:30, hearing starts at 9:00am). Please do however monitor our website (or sign up to the updates) as agendas for these hearings will be published on or around Wednesday 4 November and will provide you with a better idea of what will be discussed, and when.

Please also note, any party wishing to attend the hearing(s) should notify us in writing and indicate whether they wish to speak or not which will then help with the organisation of the hearing. Formal notification of this has also been issued today along with the amendment to the timetable which can be accessed here: [attachment 3]

If you have any further queries, please do not hesitate to contact us.

01 October 2015
Daniel Parry-Jones
Meaford Energy Centre
Enquiry received via post
response has attachments
Mr Massingham sent a letter requesting for all definitive maps of England and Wales to be made available on the Planning Inspectorate's website.
See attached letter.

01 October 2015
Anthony Massingham
M4 Junctions 3 to 12 Smart Motorway
Enquiry received via email
I enclose a document with objections to any disturbance that may occur during the proposed Lake End Road bridge works and M4 widening. I have also sent a copy of the document in the post, together with a plan of the area, which for some reason I am unable to scan.

The information we have received so far is not concrete and as there has been no official communication in this regard, we, as a group, wish to voice our objections should there be any work near our respective houses.

I would also like to ask that several members of our group would like to attend the accompanied site inspection between 10 and 12 November 2015. I am sorry that I don?t have a definite number, but it will be at least four people.
I note that you have formed a group as a mechanism to make representations to the examination. This reflects the appeal made by the Examining Authority at the Preliminary Meeting and will assist Mrs Burden greatly in her consideration of the evidence.

However, it is important for me to establish at this stage the status of the group. As you will hopefully understand, only representations made by interested parties will automatically be read by the Examining Authority. I would therefore recommend that you elect a lead member of your group, and request for you to provide me with that member?s interested party reference number (provided in the Inspectorate?s most recent correspondences dated 7 August 2015 and 11 September 2015).

On receipt of this reference, I will be able to process your submission as a written representation made to Deadline II in the examination timetable.

As regards your request for members of the group to attend the accompanied site inspection, I would refer you to related content in Annex E to the Inspectorate?s letter of 7 August 2015. For your convenience, I repeat that content here:

?Accompanied site inspection

The draft timetable allocates three days on which I propose to carry out visits to the route of the application proposal and the surrounding area accompanied by interested parties. The interested parties attending the site inspection will include representatives of the applicant and of the relevant local authorities, together with other interested parties (or their representatives). It will be necessary to limit the numbers of persons who accompany me along the route of the scheme for logistical and safety reasons, but it should be possible for arrangements to be made for interested parties (or their representatives) to join the inspection at specified locations within the itinerary. [bold added]

The applicant is requested to prepare a preliminary itinerary for the site inspections which includes the locations at which the most significant effects of the proposed scheme would occur; to be tabled at the Preliminary Meeting. The itinerary should include those locations where the most significant impacts in terms of changes in noise and vibration, air quality, visual intrusion, water quality, traffic and land-take would fall on the six groups of receptors identified in Chapter 16 of the ES.

There will then be an opportunity for all interested parties, including the relevant local authorities and other statutory consultees, to consider the draft itinerary and put forward their suggestions as to any other locations which should be included in the site inspection.?

In light of this, can you please respond to confirm that the group would be happy for the site inspection to meet the group in the vicinity of the Lake End Road bridge on a given day at an approximated time? I will then forward this request to the Examining Authority for consideration ahead of the final itinerary being published on 26 October 2015.

01 October 2015
Patricia Springbett
M4 Junctions 3 to 12 Smart Motorway
Enquiry received via post
response has attachments
National Grid submitted draft application documents to the Planning Inspectorate for comment.
The Planning Inspectorate gave s.51 advice on 1st October 2015, please see letter below.

01 October 2015
National Grid
Richborough Connection Project
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
See attached meeting note
See attached meeting note

01 October 2015
North London Waste Authority NLWA
North London Heat and Power Project
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Up-date Meeting

30 September 2015
Monica Corso Griffiths
A38 Derby Junctions
Enquiry received via phone
response has attachments
Request for clarification on NSIP thresholds for Hazardous Waste Facilities
Advice provided to Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council in respect of Hazardous Waste Facility thresholds in the Planning Act 2008 and a recent decision for a Hazardous Waste facility under the Town and Country Planning Act

30 September 2015
Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
A meeting was held between London Paramout (London Resort Company Holdings) and the Planning Inspectorate in Temple Quay House.
An agreed note of that meeting is attached.

29 September 2015
Chris Potts
The London Resort
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting in relation to the third round of draft application documents
Please see the attached meeting note

25 September 2015
Keuper Gas Storage Limited - Paul Zyda
Keuper Gas Storage Project
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Comments on the third set of draft application documents
Please see the attached letter

24 September 2015
Keuper Gas Storage Limited - Paul Zyda
Keuper Gas Storage Project
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
A local resident; Mr Nielsen, has advised that the DCO application drawings are not available to view at Uxbridge Library as advertised in your Rule 8 and other letters. Mr Nielsen visited the library yesterday and was told the information/display had been removed and it was not known where the documents were stored.

This raises concerns about whether adequate information is available for local residents to assess this application submission.

Please can you investigate why the material is not available to view at the Library as you have advertised.
The Planning Inspectorate is required to set up deposit locations in close vicinity of the application site for members of the public to view the documents related to the examination. For the M4 Junctions 3 to 12 Smart Motorway examination, five deposit locations have been set up along the route of the scheme. Details of these locations are set out at Annex A of the Examining Authority?s Rule 8 letter ([attachment 1]. Post-Submission/Procedural Decisions/Rule 8 letter.pdf) dated 11 September 2015. Access to the application and examination documentation is provided electronically through pre-arranged free access to the Planning Inspectorate?s website.

Regarding the withdrawal of hard copies of the application from Uxbridge Library, the applicant had previously used this library as a deposit location. It was however stated in Highways England?s s56 notice (notifying persons of accepted application) that the hard copy documents would only be available until 10 July 2015. They have since been removed.

If Mr Nielsen wishes to view a hard copy of the application he should contact the applicant directly. I have already provided him with contact details for Highways England.

23 September 2015
London Borough of Hillingdon - Mandip Malhotra
M4 Junctions 3 to 12 Smart Motorway
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update teleconference.
See attached note of the meeting.

23 September 2015
East Anglia Offshore Wind Ltd - Keith Morrison
East Anglia THREE Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
We need to register an interest in the above project as it very seriously threatens the running of our Children?s Centre.
The M4 Junctions 3 to 12 Smart Motorway application progressed into the examination period on 3 September 2015. A registration period, for members of the public to register to become ?interested parties? (IPs) for the purposes of the examination, was held prior to this during ?pre-examination?. This period was open from 29 May to 3 July 2015 and was advertised by both the applicant - Highways England (formally Highways Agency) - and the Planning Inspectorate on the M4 Junctions 3 to 12 project page ([attachment 1] East/M4-Junctions-3-to-12-Smart-Motorway/). Unfortunately, if you did not register to become an IP at this time there isn?t scope to register retrospectively.

However, as the examination is largely a written process, you may wish to submit in writing why you feel the proposed application will affect the running of the Children?s centre. The Examining Authority (ExA) can use its discretion to accept representations as part of its examination from non-IPs as ?additional submissions? as long as they are received before the close of examination. Please note that there is no guarantee that submissions from non-IPs will be accepted.

I recommend regularly checking the M4 project page (above), especially the examination timetable, for updates during the examination. Please note that all hearings are open for the public to attend however it?s discretionary as to whether non-IPs can speak; it would be helpful if you notified us in advance if you wish to attend any hearings in order for them to be appropriately resourced. You may also find the following advice note helpful: Advice note 8.5: Participating in the examination ([attachment 2].

22 September 2015
Carl Nielsen
M4 Junctions 3 to 12 Smart Motorway
Enquiry received via post
response has attachments
Mr Massingham sent several further correspondences relating to both the merits of the application and procedural matters. Amongst a number of other issues raised in Mr Massingham's letters, the opinion was expressed that the Examining Authority should be assisted by an expert assessor in relaton to noise impacts.
See attached letter.

22 September 2015
Anthony Massingham
M4 Junctions 3 to 12 Smart Motorway
Enquiry received via email
See letter from Mr Dale of 9 September published in the 'Documents' tab on the River Humber project page of the website.
I write further to my email to you of 17 September 2015. In responding you may also wish to have regard to the following areas where further clarity would assist the ExA:

? Your letter refers to Mr Shepherdson whereas the Book of Reference refers to a Mr Shepardson. Confirmation of which spelling is correct would be helpful.
? Your letter refers to Tetney Fields whereas the Book of Reference refers to Totney Fields. Confirmation of which spelling is correct would be helpful.
? You list Mr M Golland and Mr B Leach in your letter as being affected persons, however they do not appear in the Book of Reference. Confirmation of which plots are related to these parties and the provision of evidence of their interest in that land would be helpful.
? If Mr B Tull, Mr J Harrison and Mr and Mrs Wathen wish to be request to become Interested Parties (IP), the s102A form on our website will need to be completed. If these individuals complete the form on their own behalf, then they will also need to provide written confirmation that you are to act on their behalf. If however you complete the form on their behalf, their written confirmation will not be necessary.
? Mr P Stancer is an IP and has made a Relevant Representation, and Ms C Mills has completed the s102A form and made her own s102A request. The ExA will therefore require confirmation from these individuals that they have requested you to act on their behalf.

This information will assist the ExA in considering any requests that are made to become Interested Parties under s102A of the PA2008. Although there is no deadline for submitting the above information, early submission will ensure that the ExA can consider any requests fully and make a decision quickly.

22 September 2015
DDM Agriculture - Tony Dale
River Humber Gas Pipeline Replacement Project
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Scottish Power submitted a draft HRA Report for PINS review.
See attached advice given.

22 September 2015
Scottish Power - Keith Morrison
East Anglia THREE Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Scottish Power submitted a draft of chapters 5 and 6 of the Environmental Statement for PINS review.
See attached advice given.

22 September 2015
Scottish Power - Keith Morrison
East Anglia THREE Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via phone
response has attachments
Further advice regarding s.43 consultees
Please see attached advice

22 September 2015
Katie Kerr
North London Heat and Power Project
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Request for review of application documents (No Significant Effects Report and draft Consultation Report) for the North London Heat and Power Project
See attached

22 September 2015
Arup - Katie Kerr
North London Heat and Power Project
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Meeting with Snowdonia Pumped Hydro Ltd to discuss progress of project and give feedback on draft application documents.
See attached meeting note.

22 September 2015
Snowdonia Pumped Hydro Ltd - Ben Lewis
Glyn Rhonwy Pumped Storage
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Request to schedule and speak at an Open Floor Hearing receieved from an non-interested party.
Unfortunately only ?Interested Parties? (IPs), who have registered to participate in the examination, can formally request for an Open Floor Hearing (OFH) to be held and have the opportunity to give oral representations. The registration period to register to become an IP elapsed on 3 July 2015.

However, there is scope your representation (below) to be included in the examination. The Examining Authority (ExA) has discretion to accept submissions from non-IPs as ?additional submissions?. I will contact you soon to confirm whether the ExA wishes to accept your submission as an additional submission.

If an Open Floor hearing is scheduled, you are welcome to attend and if time permits, the ExA may ask if any non-IPs wish to give oral representations. I recommend regularly checking the project page on our website: [attachment 1] for notification of any hearings.

I also recommend viewing the following advice note: Advice note 8.5: Participating in the examination.

18 September 2015
Enrico Petrucco
M4 Junctions 3 to 12 Smart Motorway
Enquiry received via email
How long will the website be available to inspect documents , plans etc

Given that this project ( if approved ) will have a construction period of at least 4-5 years am I right in assuming that it will be accessible for a significant length of time or will we have to look elsewhere to see the approved plans etc
Apologies for the delay in our reply. I can confirm that the application and examination documents will remain available on our website. However, if the project is consented the certified plans will be held by the Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC).

17 September 2015
North Somerset Council - Graham Quick
Hinkley Point C Connection
Enquiry received via email
Query regarding requests to become IPs under s102A of the PA2008.
The Inspectorate confirmed that:

Those who wish to be treated as Interested Parties due to their proximity to the scheme, but are not having land compulsorily acquired, should complete the s102A form on our website. The form is located in the ?Overview? tab ? users will need to expand the grey box to see the link to the form.

With regards to those who are to have land compulsorily acquired, those who are not in the Book of Reference nor have made a Relevant Representation will also need to complete the s102A form on our website.

Once the examining authority has considered any requests that are made, you (on behalf of your clients) will be contacted bythe Inspectorate to inform you about whether or not your clients have been accepted as an interested party.

17 September 2015
DDM Agriculture - Tony Dale
River Humber Gas Pipeline Replacement Project
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
A meeting held between both SP Manweb and National Grid to discuss whether there was any impact as a result of the conjoined inquiry into 5 onshore wind farms and one electric line in Mid Wales.

11 September 2015
SP Manweb
SP Mid Wales (Electricity) Connections Project (SP Manweb)
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
National Grid provided an overview of the project explaining how the proposal had developed over time and what actions needed to be taken to proceed.
Please see attached meeting note

11 September 2015
National Grid
North Wales Connection
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
A meeting held between both National Grid and SP Manweb to discuss whether there was any impact as a result of the conjoined inquiry into 5 onshore wind farms and one electric line in Mid Wales.

11 September 2015
National Grid
Mid Wales Electricity Connection (N Grid)
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Meeting between DONG Energy and PINS to discuss a possible non- material change application to the consented Hornsea Offshore Windfarm - Project One.
Meeting Note attached.

11 September 2015
DONG Energy - Marc Brown
Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm (Zone 4) - Project Two
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Meeting with DONG Energy concerning a potential change application.
See attached note of the meeting

11 September 2015
DONG Energy - Marc Brown
Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm (Zone 4) - Project One
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Note of the Consenting Forum meeting held on 11 September 2015

11 September 2015
Consenting Forum
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Meeting held for the purpose of a potential new DCO coming forward, North Shropshire Reinforcement.
Please see attached meeting note

11 September 2015
SP Manweb
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
See attached meeting note
See attached meeting note

04 September 2015
North London Waste Authority NLWA
North London Heat and Power Project
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Scottish Power submitted a draft Development Consent Order for the Planning Inspectorate's review.
See attached

01 September 2015
Scottish Power - Keith Morrison
East Anglia THREE Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via email
Request to delay Written Representation deadline in response to delayed submission of Option B.
The Examining Authority has requested, by 1 September 2015, written representations on the North Wales Wind Farms Connection proposal as submitted to the Planning Inspectorate. This is Deadline 1 of our published examination timetable.

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

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

28 August 2015
Various Interested Parties
North Wales Wind Farms Connection
Enquiry received via email
Email received informing the Planning Inspectorate of change of name.
The Planning Inspectorate advised that the statutory 6 month examination had closed on 12 July 2015, and that the Examining Authority was unable to take into account any submissions received after that date. It was confirmed however that Nabarro's correspondence would be forwarded to the Secretary of State for Transport alongside the recommendation report, enabling the change of name to be applied, where appropriate, in taking his final decision about whether or not development consent should be granted.

27 August 2015
Nabarro LLP for Lafarge Tarmac - Rebecca Roffe
East Midlands Gateway Rail Freight Interchange
Enquiry received via post
response has attachments
Mr Massingham sent several correspondences relating to both the merits of the application and procedural matters. Amongst a number of other issues raised in Mr Massingham's letters, the opinion was expressed that the application should be examined by a panel of Examining Inspectors.
See attached letter.

27 August 2015
Anthony Massingham
M4 Junctions 3 to 12 Smart Motorway
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting and introduction to draft documents
Meeting with National Grid on 27th August 2015, please see the meeting note attached

27 August 2015
National Grid
Richborough Connection Project
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Request for review of draft application documents:
1. Environmental Statement Chapter 4 ? Proposed Development;
2. Works Plan;
3. Land Plan;
4. Book of Reference;
5. Consultation Report;
6. Development Consent Order;
7. Explanatory Memorandum to the Order.
Please see attached note.

27 August 2015
Wrexham Energy Centre - Jon Gateley
Wrexham Energy Centre
Enquiry received via phone
response has attachments
Update regarding the concerns of the Environment Agency regarding the applicant?s proposed noise assessment methodology.
Please see attached.

25 August 2015
Environment Agency
North London Heat and Power Project
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
COMPLAINT - National Grid plc re RWE Electrical Infrastructure ENO20019

You are aware of the proposed Viking Link from Denmark to Bicker Fen.

Local residents are alarmed that N.G. is just pushing ahead with the proposed project when there has been not a single word of consultation.

You are to consider the Viking Link project alongside the RWE Triton Knoll (ENO20019) electricity infrastructure application starting 3/9/15, because of cumulative effect, environmental destruction etc., when it is totally unnecessary with the links and capacity available near Grimsby on the coast.

How can P.I. consider any aspect of the Viking Link without prior consultation by N.G. with residents across Lincolnshire, various councils etc etc?

I await your reply. Various councils, residents, and other representatives are requesting postponement of the P.I. enquiry until full consultation has taken place.

Letters and e-mails from residents, councils, our M.P. and M.E.P. have all been ignored by N.G., or they say they have no information. This is clearly totally unacceptable, as it is obvious that N.G. has all its plans in place for the Viking Link. N.G. should not be able to ride roughshod over residents who will be badly affected by the scheme, as has happened in the past in Bicker Parish.
Dear Mr and Mrs Bowler,

Following my conversation with Mr Bowler this morning I said I would follow up outlining what we discussed in an email.

As you are aware, the Triton Knoll Electrical System (TKES) application has been submitted by Triton Knoll Offshore Wind Farm Limited to the Planning Inspectorate to be determined under the Planning Act 2008 following a Direction under S35 of the Planning Act 2008 from the Secretary of State, determining this as a Nationally Significant Infrastructure project.

The Planning Inspectorate is aware of the Viking Link project, proposed by National Grid Interconnector Holdings Limited and its development partner Energinet.dk, given the number of TKES relevant representations we have received that discuss it. However, at present, there is limited information on this project as it still appears to be at an early planning stage.

It is not possible for the Planning Inspectorate to prohibit one developer from submitting an application for development consent because there is potentially another development happening close by in the future. However, the Examining Authority for the TKES project has identified ?cumulative effects, including the relationship to the Viking Link Interconnector? in their Initial Assessment of Principal Issues identified in the Rule 6 letter recently sent out to interested parties.

The Rule 6 letter can be found here: [attachment 1]

The inclusion of the consideration of the cumulative impact of the TKES application with the Viking Link project as a principal issue in the TKES examination may be discussed at the preliminary meeting on 3 September 2015 as identified in the agenda provided in the Rule 6 letter under ?Examining Authority?s Initial Assessment of Principal Issues ? see Annex C?.

It is my understanding that Mr Bowler will not be able to attend the meeting due to ill health, however following the meeting an audio recording will be available on our website here: [attachment 2] we will endeavour to have this uploaded to our website by Monday 7 September 2015.

I would like to re-iterate that the Viking Link project has not been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate to be determined under the Planning Act 2008. However the Examining Authority will consider the potential cumulative impact of this scheme on the TKES project based on the information available to them when assessing the application for development consent for the Triton Knoll Electrical System.

18 August 2015
Helen Bowler
Triton Knoll Electrical System
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Any procedure associated with sending PEIR to statutory environmental bodies
Please see Advice Note 7, as up-dated in March 2015 [attachment 1]. In terms of procedure, there is nothing prescribed on this particular point (i.e. providing PEIR to statutory bodies). Other applicants who have chosen to share PEIR with statutory consultees have included that document within the ?bundle? (or CD etc) of documents that they send at s42 (Planning Act 2008). There is also no formal notification in respect of just providing the PEIR. In terms of undertaking consultation with statutory parties under s42, you would need to notify the Planning Inspectorate on or before commencing that consultation and would need to provide us with the same information that would be sent to the prescribed parties (s46 Planning Act 2008).

14 August 2015
Matt MacDonald - Clare Postlethwaite
M20 Junction 10A
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Request for advice relating to persons listed in both Parts 1 and 3 of the Book of Reference and whether to present the type of compulsory acquisition powers being sought in Part 1 of the Book of Reference.
See attached advice.

14 August 2015
Katie Kerr
North London Heat and Power Project
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Any procedure associated with sending PEIR to statutory environmental bodies
Please see Advice Note 7, as up-dated in March 2015 [attachment 1]. In terms of procedure, there is nothing prescribed on this particular point (i.e. providing PEIR to statutory bodies). Other applicants who have chosen to share PEIR with statutory consultees have included that document within the ‘bundle’ (or CD etc) of documents that they send at s42 (Planning Act 2008). There is also no formal notification in respect of just providing the PEIR. In terms of undertaking consultation with statutory parties under s42, you would need to notify the Planning Inspectorate on or before commencing that consultation and would need to provide us with the same information that would be sent to the prescribed parties (s46 Planning Act 2008).

14 August 2015
Mott MacDonald - Clare Postlethwaite
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
A meeting to discuss Gatwick’s current position following the Airports Commission recommendation and activity since last meeting, and planned activity going forward.
A note of this meeting can be downloaded below.

14 August 2015
Gatwick Airport Limited - Alison Addy
General
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
am instructed on behalf of York Potash Limited in relation to its application for a DCO in relation to harbour facilities which is currently under Examination.

We have been asked, in the Ex Auth first questions, a question relating to Crown Consent. In that respect we are interested in the contents of paragraph 6.9 of the Secretary of State’s decision letter on Dogger Bank A&B. In that paragraph reference is made to the Secretary of State seeking explicit consent from the Crown Estate Commissioners and a letter of 23 June 2015. We cannot find any copy of that letter on the PINS website. It is clearly a document which should be available and I would be grateful if you could either steer me to where it is on the website or provide a copy.
I have taken a look at paragraph 6.9 of the Secretary of state’s decision letter. The letter dated the 23 June to which it refers is a letter between the secretary of state and the crown commissioners and as such was not submitted to a deadline as part of the examination and therefore was not published on our website. However I have obtained a copy and I attach it now for your information

14 August 2015
Eversheds - Morag Thomas
General
Enquiry received via email
Could you confirm whether we need to have funding in place, the promise of funding written or just a funding plan to enable us to apply for a Development Consent Order.
What is the compensation mechanism for statutory nuisance and could PINs offer any advice on how this could/should be recorded?
On your question about the funding statement, I hope the following points are useful guidance:
This statement should provide as much information as possible about the resource implications of both acquiring the land and implementing the project for which the land is required.
The timing of the availability of funding is also likely to be a relevant factor. Regulation 3(2) of the Infrastructure Planning (Miscellaneous Prescribed Provisions) Regulations 2010 (MPP Regs) allows for 5 years within which any notice to treat must be served, though the decision maker does have discretion to make a different provision in the Order.
Promoters should be able to demonstrate that adequate funding is likely to be available to enable the promoter to carry out the Compulsory Acquisition (CA) within the statutory period following the Order being made, and that the resource implications of a possible acquisition resulting from a blight notice has also been taken into account.
Unless the Examining Authority is satisfied that funding will be available both for the carrying out of the project within the statutory period and for the payment of compensation claims, the compelling case in the public interest test required by section 122(3) will not be met and the CA powers cannot be granted.
With regards to your second question, s152 of the PA2008 states that compensation is payable by a developer who has carried out works authorised by a DCO which give rise to damage /harm to another person?s land (i.e. the statutory nuisance). Compensation is claimed in the same way as compensation for compulsory acquisition ? i.e. seek to negotiate with developer and if it that fails, the dispute can be referred to the Upper Tribunal.

13 August 2015
Stuart Langer
Bere Alston to Tavistock Railway Reinstatement and Associated Trails
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting with National Grid regarding the North West Coast Connection Project
Please see attached note.

12 August 2015
National Grid
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
See attached meeting note
See attached meeting note

06 August 2015
North London Waste Authority NLWA
North London Heat and Power Project
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Evidence Plan meeting
See attached note of the meeting

03 August 2015
East Anglia Offshore Wind Ltd - Keith Morrison
East Anglia THREE Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Initial meeting with the developers of the proposed Anaerobic Digestion Plant project.
Please see attached meeting note.

29 July 2015
BlueSkyBio (BSB)
General
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Request for review of application documents (Development Consent Order, Explanatory Memorandum, Statement of Reasons, Book of Reference, and Land Works Plans) for the North London Heat and Power Project
See attached.

28 July 2015
Katie Kerr
North London Heat and Power Project
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Section 51 advice issued to the DLA Piper UK LLP regarding the Engineering Design Report (Hazard Log and Hazard Log Report)
It has come to the Inspectorate?s attention that the url provided at page 25 of Annex E to the Engineering Design Report (Hazard Log and Hazard Log Report) requires the reader to enter a username and password in order to access the associated documentation. For the avoidance of doubt, Annex E is available on our website, here: [attachment 1]

I write to request for DLA Piper to provide an updated version of Annex E which, at page 25, replaces the link ?http://www.hasupplychain.dft.gov.uk? with a link or links which make accessible the following documents:

? Guidance For Work Instructions 001-004 ? Appendices Project Safety Risk Management, IAN139/11; and
? Managed Motorway Hazard Log Process Document.

On receipt, the updated version of Annex E will be published to our website, making clear that it supersedes the annex submitted with the application.

DLA Piper are requested to provide the updated document to the Inspectorate as soon as possible, and in good advance of the Preliminary Meeting. DLA Piper is also requested to check the rest of the application documentation for any similar problems in respect of document accessibility, and to bring these to the Inspectorate?s attention as a matter of priority.

24 July 2015
DLA Piper UK LLP - Michael Fry
M4 Junctions 3 to 12 Smart Motorway
Enquiry received via email
Request to discuss requirements of Examining Authority's Procedural Decision.
The Examining Authority has issued a clear procedural decision requesting information. If the applicant feels that it is unable or unreasonable to provide this information then it should explain why in their submission. Over the course of the examination it may be possible to persuade the ExA that such information is unnecessary, or the ExA may consider that they are unable to recommend consent without it. I don?t feel that I would be able to provide any further assistance other than to reiterate the ExA?s original request.

The matters sourced from the s55 checklist largely relate to consultation. I note that the applicant has now notified in accordance with s56 of PA2008, so any uncertainty over the completeness of consultation is now subject to the procedures set out in s58. The Planning Inspectorate will invite parties to the Preliminary Meeting in accordance with legislation and our published advice notes.

23 July 2015
Osborne Clarke - Lara Flynn
Brechfa Forest Connection
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
A meeting to discuss the progress of the East Anglia THREE offshore wind farm.
See meeting note attached

22 July 2015
Keith Morrison
East Anglia THREE Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Meeting with Sunderland City Council, South Tyneside Council and Arup to discuss progress and forward programme for the International Advanced Manufacturing Park (IAMP).
Please see attachment.

21 July 2015
Sunderland City Council - Mark Reynolds
International Advanced Manufacturing Park TWO (IAMP TWO)
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
An update on the progress of the London Paramount project to date was held with LRCH and local councils.
A note of that meeting is attached.

17 July 2015
London Resort Company Holdings - Chris Potts
The London Resort
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Update project meeting in relation to the second round of draft application documents.
Please see the attached meeting note.

15 July 2015
Keuper Gas Storage Project - Paul Zyda
Keuper Gas Storage Project
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Comments on the second set of draft application documents.
Please see the attached letter

13 July 2015
Keuper Gas Storage Limited - Paul Zyda
Keuper Gas Storage Project
Enquiry received via email
Queries regarding the scope for late Relevant Representations and the formal appointment of the Examining Authority.
As the deadline for submitting relevant representations for the above project has now elapsed, any submissions received during the ?pre-examination? stage will need to be accepted as ?additional submissions? in order to be included in the examination of the application. The Examining Authority (ExA) can use it?s discretion to accept submissions during this stage only once it has been formally appointed. There is currently no scope to accept any submissions late as the ExA is yet to be appointed.

If you wish to submit a representation, the case team will hold it until the ExA has been appointed and contact you with regard to whether it has been accepted as an additional submission. As Network Rail have been identified as a statutory party, you will receive the ?rule 4 and 6? letter which will notify you of the appointed Examining Authority (ExA), invite you to attend the Preliminary Meeting and set out the ExA?s initial assessment of principle issues it wishes to examine. This procedural decision will be issued on or before 12 August 2015.

10 July 2015
Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd - Natalie Fernandes
M4 Junctions 3 to 12 Smart Motorway
Enquiry received via post
response has attachments
Section 51 advice issued to Aaron & Partners LLP
Please see attached correspondence

09 July 2015
Aaron & Partners LLP - David Harries
Mynydd y Gwynt Wind Farm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Request for review of application documents (HRA Screening) for the Notrth London Heat and Power Project
See attached.

09 July 2015
Katie Kerr
North London Heat and Power Project
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Request for review of application documents (Consultation Report and Consents Schedule) for the North London Heat and Power Project
See attached.

09 July 2015
Katie Kerr
North London Heat and Power Project
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Queries regarding overhead lines and their diversions.
If an application is accepted for examination, an Examining Authority is appointed (either a single person or a panel) and they examine the application and make a recommendation to the relevant Secretary of State, in the case of electric lines this is the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC). The Secretary of State then makes the decision as to whether a DCO is made.

The National Infrastructure Planning website can be accessed on the following link:
[attachment 1] , please note that the address will shortly change to: [attachment 2]

Section 16 of the PA 2008 details the threshold at which an electric line is considered to be an NSIP, please note that a number of amendments have been made to this section and the version on the Legislation website is not up to date. In summary an electric line proposal is considered to be an NSIP if it is an installation of an electric line above ground in England or/and Wales, if the nominal voltage is expected to be 132kV or above and the length of the line is 2km or more.

Section 16 of the PA 2008 also details instances where a DCO under the PA 2008 is not required:

If:
all of (ab)( i) to (iv) apply:
(3)(ab)(i) the line will replace an existing line,
(ii) the nominal voltage of the line is expected to be greater than the nominal voltage of the existing line (but see subsection (3A) of section 16),
(iii) the height above the surface of the ground of any support for the line will not exceed the height of the highest existing support or support which is being replaced by more than 10 per cent, and
(iv) where the line is to be installed in a different position from the existing line, the distance between any new support and the existing line will not exceed 60 metres and the existing line will be removed within twelve months from the date on which the installation of the line which replaces it is complete,

or

(b) to the extent that (when installed) the line will be within premises in the occupation or control of the person responsible for its installation,

or

(c) if section 37(1) of the Electricity Act 1989 (consent required for overhead lines) does not apply to it by virtue of the Overhead Lines (Exemption) (England and Wales) Regulations 2009 (S.I. 2009/640), as amended by the Overhead Lines (Exempt Installations) (Consequential Provisions) Order 2010.

(3A) Paragraph (ab)(ii) of subsection (3) (condition that nominal voltage of line expected to be greater than nominal voltage of existing line) does not apply if any part of the line (when installed) will be within a European site or an SSSI.

Please also refer to section 16(4) of the PA 2008 for further useful information on the interpretation of some of the above terms.

I would advise you to also consider section 37 of the Electricity Act 1989 (for proposals which are not considered to be NSIPs), DECC has produced the following guidance dated July 2014: [attachment 3] paragraph 2.2 states:

The current position is that an application for a new overhead line that is:
(a) an electric line of less than 132kV nominal capacity;
(b) an electric line of any voltage that is less than 2 kilometres in length; or
(c) an electric line replacing an existing line that meets certain tests, unless it is exempted;
is submitted to the Secretary of State under section 37 of the Electricity Act 1989 and an application is made to DECC. The “certain tests” in category (c) above define whether a replacement electric line where the nominal capacity is being uprated will require consent under the Electricity Act 1989 or the Planning Act 2008.

09 July 2015
Mr Heer Peter Brett Associates
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Meeting held on 6 July 2015 between the Planning Inspectorate and Horizon Nuclear Power to provide a project update and to discuss some key issues relating to the consenting strategy and the DCO application.
Meeting note attached.

06 July 2015
Horizon Nuclear Power - Andrew Mahon
Wylfa Newydd Nuclear Power Station
Enquiry received via phone
response has attachments
Anna von Borzyszkowska at the Environment Agency had recently met with the applicant and was concerned of their proposal to not follow the latest revision to the standard for assessing noise impacts. Apparently the applicant was relying on recent case law to support this but Anna wasn?t aware of what this was ? and so asked if PINS knew anything.
PINS stated that the applicant was probably best placed to advise on this and to seek clarity from them but provided the attached correspondence based on information provided by the Knowledge and Information team.

29 June 2015
Environment Agency
North London Heat and Power Project
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Further to the Relevant Representations submitted on behalf of Royal Mail at IP registration and our client?s further request made by email on 20 May 2015 , please can you advise:

1. the date of the Traffic and Transport Issue Specific Hearing (this is not shown on the Examination Timetable page), and

2. when Royal Mail might expect to receive a response from the applicant / Examining Authority to its representations.
In response to item one of your email

? Notification of Hearings and Accompanied Site Inspection dated 3 June 2015 provided notification of the dates, times and locations of the hearings.

[attachment 1]

I note you have missed the deadline to register your intention to attend and speak at the hearings. However, If you do wish to attend/speak, please provide the details requested in the notification letter as soon as possible by reply to this email noting any special requirements as detailed in the notification letter above.

? The issue specific hearing on Environmental Matters scheduled to start at 10.00am on Wednesday 1 July 2015 has identified transport as a matter of discussion. Please see the agenda for this issue specific hearing, where transport is identified under item 5 of the agenda.

[attachment 2],%20Goole/Agenda%20for%20the%20Issue%20Specific%20Hearing.pdf

Agendas for all scheduled hearings were published on the White Rose Carbon Capture Storage project page on 22 June 2015.

If you have any further queries relating to these hearings please do get in touch.

In response to item two of your email

? You may wish to read through the Applicant?s response to written representations (deadline I) and other examination documents on the project website as all representations received so far have been published.

25 June 2015
BNP Paribas - Daniel Parry-Jones
White Rose Carbon Capture and Storage Project
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Meeting to discuss proposed non-material amendments to the Brechfa Forest West Wind Farm Order 2013
Please see attached meeting note

24 June 2015
RWE Innogy UK Limited
Brechfa Forest West Wind Farm
Enquiry received via phone
Advice issued at acceptance
The applicant was reminded, in the context of the apparent omission of some parties during statutory consultation, that all parties must be correctly notified of the accepted application in accordance with s56 of the Planning Act 2008, with attention drawn to the offences set out in s58.

Particular emphasis was given to the notification of all persons with an interest in land, hosting and neighbouring community councils in line with the Planning Inspectorate's Advice Note 3, and utility operators with national licenses.

24 June 2015
Andrew Hubbold
Brechfa Forest Connection
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Presentation provided to National Grid, Thanet District Council, Kent County Council, Canterbury City Council and Dover District Council at Discovery Park, Sandwich regarding the PA 2008 and the Richborough Connection Project.
Please see presentation file attached.

24 June 2015
National Grid, Local Authorities
Richborough Connection Project
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Meeting with Highways England to discuss progress and forward programme for the A19/A184 Testos Junction Improvement Scheme.
Please see the attached meeting note.

23 June 2015
Highways England - Helen Apps
A19 / A184 Testos Junction Improvement
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
A large section of the local community, and a further raft of local farmers, including local MP's and candidates would like to ensure our public opposition to this grid connection and overall scheme is taken into account fully during the grid connection final appraisal. Would would like our ability to veto plans instigated in line with the immediate changes that have been made to the planning policy to allow local communities a say.

Could you please tell us the best way to feed into this process at this stage?

The decision on this grid connection now appears to fall outside the governments cut-off for schemes to have approval and acceptance, can you please confirm this?
Thank you for your email, which I believe references recent government statements about changes to infrastructure consenting.

These changes have not yet been legislated for, so are not currently in effect. The Planning Inspectorate will continue to operate the processes of the Planning Act 2008 and adhere to designated National Policy Statements until these are formally changed. I note that you have included your local MP and the Secretary of State in your email; I trust that they will be able to provide you with more information.

The existing Planning Act 2008 process provides for public involvement in the examination of Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects. You may be familiar with this process following the examination of the Brechfa Forest West wind farm itself. Advice on how to get involved in the process is published on our website at [attachment 1]; advice note 8 is especially relevant. The Planning Inspectorate is currently considering whether the application made by Western Power Distribution is suitable for examination; the deadline for making this acceptance decision is Friday 26 June 2015. If the application is accepted for examination then you will be able to make relevant representations shortly.

I believe that your final point relates to the funding of renewable energy schemes. Unless and until a live application is withdrawn by its promoter the Planning Inspectorate is under a duty to examine it.

23 June 2015
Davies
Brechfa Forest Connection
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see Attached

23 June 2015
Highways England - anon.
M54 to M6 Link Road
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Request for review of draft application documents for the North London Heat and Power Project, namely:

- Need Assessment
- Alternative Assessment Report.
Please see attached advice.

19 June 2015
North London Waste Authority - Katie Kerr
North London Heat and Power Project
Enquiry received via email
Seek clarification on whether a red line boundary needs to be continuous or whether it can contain discrete red line bounded areas?
A red line boundary does not need to be continuous and can have discrete red line boundaries for a/some particular elements. For highways schemes, please note the relevant section of the PA 2008 ? s22(9)(a) and (b) state that non-adjoining land does not form part of the area of development which would justify the NSIP threshold in s22(4).

18 June 2015
Mott MacDonald - Clare Postlethwaite
M20 Junction 10A
Enquiry received via email
On submission of your draft documents you asked for advice on the revisions you have made to your ?red line? boundary
You notified the Planning Inspectorate that you have revised the red line boundary for the proposal from a single continuous boundary that might be described as ?the application site? to a ?red line? boundary of discrete parcels of development that are not joined.

May I advise that there appear to be no reasons contained in the Planning Act 2008 (as amended) (PA2008) and associated procedural requirements to prevent you taking this approach. For example, the PA 2008, as amended, does not explicitly refer to a concept of an ?application site boundary?.

However, to ensure that an application is properly made, specific procedural requirements must nonetheless be met. For example the land plan must identify the land required for, or affected by the proposed development; and where applicable, any land over which it is proposed to exercise powers of compulsory acquisition or any right to use land; any land in relation to which it is proposed to extinguish easements, servitudes and other private rights; and where the land includes special category land and replacement land, that special category and replacement land.

The works plan must show the proposed location of the development and works; the proposed location or (for a linear scheme) the proposed route and alignment of the development and works; and the limits within which the development and works may be carried out and any limits of deviation provided for in the draft order.

The DCO should accurately identify the extent of the land over which powers can be exercised and development carried out. The ?Order limits? and ?Order land? must therefore cross refer to plans which correctly identify the appropriate land.

To ensure that all those with an interest in the land to which the application relates are consulted and are fully aware of the development Pre application consultation procedures and post acceptance notification requirements use the concept of ?application land?. However, there is again no necessity to ?identify? or ?show? this land in order to meet procedural requirements when putting together a valid application.

We are continuing to review your draft documents and may provide further advice on the above in due course.

For reference, relevant sections from the Planning Act 2008, as amended are S37, s41, s57 and the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Amendment Regulations 2014

Hope you find this advice helpful, however may I remind you that this email should not be constituted as legal advice which you should rely on.

18 June 2015
Keuper Gas Storage Limited - Paul Zyda
Keuper Gas Storage Project
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Advice given regarding submitting comments on the Relevant Representation form.
Thank you for your email regarding the Meaford Energy Centre. Unfortunately we cannot accept your comments via email, you must first register as an interested party.

In order to register as an interested party, you must submit a relevant representation which should include a summary of what you agree and/or disagree with in the application, what you consider the main issues to be, and their impact (you can simply insert the contents of your email if you wish). You can do this using our online registration form, which will be available from our Meaford Energy Centre project page at the following link:
[attachment 1]

Please be aware that the deadline for making a relevant representation is 11.59pm 21 June 2015.

You can find further information on becoming an interested party and submitting a relevant representation within our advice note at the following link:
[attachment 2]

17 June 2015
Sacha Rossi - NATS LTD
Meaford Energy Centre
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Initial meeting to discuss the A5036 Port of Liverpool scheme as a potential nationally significant infrastructure project application.
Please see attachment.

16 June 2015
Highways England - Carl Stockton
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Outreach event at EcoPark, Edmonton.
Please see attached meeting note and presentations given.

10 June 2015
Ursula Taylor
North London Heat and Power Project
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Questions from the applicant in respect os S53 process:

1. We have considered the guidance and would just like to clarify that we are OK to use S53 for these sorts of surveys.

2. We are aware that there is a £1000 fee for each request to PINS to use S53. We wondered whether as it is a single plot and owner that we are dealing with whether you would be content with a single application in due course. Likewise whilst there are two different survey types required (hydrogeological/trial trenching) whether you would be accepting of both of these under the same S53 application.

3. We believe currently the timeframes for the process give around a 3 month determination period and we wondered as this is a single owner whether there would be any prospect of the process being completed more quickly. We are obviously keen to try and get the surveys done and agreement reached on the results with the EA and the council in advance of the examination so obviously the timescales for this are very tight.
Section 53 of the Planning Act gives powers to enter land to carry out surveys and take levels and/or in order to facilitate compliance with statutory provisions implementing the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive or Habitats Directive. This ?includes power to search and bore for the purpose of ascertaining the nature of the subsoil or the presence of minerals or other matter in it?. Therefore, you will need to be confident that the need for your surveys falls within these definitions. You will need to ensure you provide a robust justification for the surveys that you are requesting with your authorisation request with due consideration to the requirements of Section 53, and ensure that the need for intrusive surveys is reflected in the conditions that you propose.

The Secretary of State has previously granted authorisation for a range of surveys, including intrusive boreholes; see the Yorkshire CCS project as an example.

As discussed on the phone, it is your understanding that all of the area for which you are seeking access is a single registered title. As we treat each land parcel representing a registered title or area of unregistered land as a single s.53 authorisation request, the fee would therefore be £1000.

If the plot does comprise more than one registered title and/or areas of unregistered land, we will use our discretion to determine whether or not it is a single or multiple request. Having viewed the plan you have provided; if there was to be more than one areas of registered/unregistered land within this green area, we would likely consider it to be a single request given that each would be sufficiently neighbouring to each other. We could confirm this upon viewing the registered titles for register land/areas of search for unregistered land.

We would accept both surveys within the same section 53 application; the fee is related to the number of parcels of land and not the number of surveys.

As discussed, there is not statutory timescale for determination of a section 53 authorisation request and it is highly dependent upon whether we identify the need for any further information either from the request itself or as a result of responses we receive from the landowner. We are unable to guarantee a timeframe for the determination period but will endeavour to process the authorisation request promptly. To reduce the potential for further information requests, please ensure that you have included all of the information set out in the April 2015 version of the advice note [attachment 1]

06 June 2015
National Grid - Carl Simms
River Humber Gas Pipeline Replacement Project
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting for the M20 Junction 10A scheme.
Please see attachment.

04 June 2015
Highways England - Valerie Stephens
M20 Junction 10A
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Enquiry from South Wales Police relating to the Rule 17 letter issued 15 May 2015
See attached

04 June 2015
South Wales Police
Internal Power Generation Enhancement for Port Talbot Steelworks
Enquiry received via phone
response has attachments
Teleconference giving an update on progress of project
Please see attached meeting note

04 June 2015
Keuper Gas Storage Ltd
Keuper Gas Storage Project
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Note of inception meeting. See attached.

27 May 2015
North Somerset Council - James Willcock
Portishead Branch Line - MetroWest Phase 1
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Telecon between the Planning Inspectorate and Local Authorities regarding the Richborough Connection Project.
Please see meeting note attached.

27 May 2015
Dover, Canterbury and Thanet Local Authorities
Richborough Connection Project
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see the attached meeting note

27 May 2015
Ursula Taylor
North London Heat and Power Project
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Early pre application advice sought by the developer of air pollution control residue management technology.
Please see attached meeting note

27 May 2015
Tetronics - Peter Hallam
General
Enquiry received via email
Response to the points raised within the Planning Inspectorate's s51 advice dated 18 May 2015.
We note that the draft DCO includes the power to remove existing lines and that you consider any new diversion by the laying of new lines is permitted development. We advise you to explain how you are categorising such works as permitted development, including how these have been considered in terms of potential cumulative effects in the EIA. In addition, as discussed at our meeting on 4 March 2015 please can you confirm if all of the works included within the draft DCO (for example the removal of existing lines) have been subject to pre-application consultation.

Regarding works (i) to (xiii) in works numbers 1, 2, and 3 we again draw your attention to Advice Note 15 paragraph 20.1 and advise you to thoroughly explain your approach within the EM, for example we would expect justification be provided as to why certain effects are considered ?insignificant?.

Please be aware of section 150 of the Planning Act 2008 where the inclusion of certain consents within a DCO requires the authorisation of the consenting body.

Currently there is no contents section at the start of the draft DCO.

Please can you explain in your EM what works are to be undertaken regarding ?re-siting of apparatus?.

Regarding Work Number 2 undergrounding, the wording does not refer to horizontal directional drilling but requirement 6 does. Is there a reason for this? You may also wish to include horizontal directional drilling in ?interpretation?.

Article 31 -is there a reason for the square brackets?

26 May 2015
Lara Flynn Osborne Clarke
Brechfa Forest Connection
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I have received an email notification from you and been on RWE?s website which talks about a S56 consultation which will run between June 12 and July 13. RWE?s press release states that ?it is through this process that it will be possible to register with the Planning Inspectorate as an interested party?. I would be grateful if you could answer the following queries:-

1)Am I registered already with the Planning Inspectorate as an interested party or do I need to register between June 12 and July 13? If so, how?
2)Where is RWE?s most up to date planning application that I can comment on it? Will this be the subject of the S56 consultation? If so, how have the proposals changed since RWE?s consultation in October and November 2014?
Thank you for your enquiry.
You are not registered as an Interested Party with the Planning Inspectorate, therefore if you wish to take part in the examination of the application I advise you register with us.
Formal registration to become an Interested Party in the examination of this application opens on 12 June 2015 and the Relevant Representation form will be made available from that date on the National Infrastructure pages of the Planning Portal website and can be accessed by following the link below. You can also request a paper copy of the Relevant Representation form from us should you prefer to complete a hard copy of it.
[attachment 1]
The website contains the developer?s application documents as well as a link to their website so that you can compare their earlier proposal. If you have questions about the evolution of specific documents I suggest that you contact the developer directly at this email address:
Triton Knoll Offshore Wind Farm Limited
Or tel. 01793474244
You may also find the Planning Inspectorate?s Advice Note 8.3 useful, ?How to register and become an interested party in an application?, which can be accessed by following this link:
[attachment 2]
If you have any further queries, please do not hesitate to contact us.

26 May 2015
NFU East Midlands Region - Paul Tame
Triton Knoll Electrical System
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
A meeting with Gatwick Airport Ltd to discuss the planning process for NSIPs.
A note of this meeting can be downloaded below.

25 May 2015
Gatwick Airport Limited - Alison Addy
General
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Advice provided under s51 of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended) to the applicant following the decision to accept the application for examination on 21 May 2015.
See attached.

21 May 2015
Triton Knoll Offshore Wind Farm - Kim Gauld-Clark
Triton Knoll Electrical System
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Request for advice on proposed re-submission of EIA Regulation 6(1)(b) notification.
Please see email response attached.

20 May 2015
Ben Olney
General
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Request to update EIA Regulation 9 list to include proposed associated.
Please see attached for response to request.

20 May 2015
Ben Olney
General
Enquiry received via post
response has attachments
Please see attached.
Please see attached.

18 May 2015
Lynda Stanley
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via email
Request for advice on; the revised draft Development Consent Order and Explanatory Memorandum regarding the consolidation of two compulsory acquisition articiles into one article, and articles relating to the temporary use of land.
We have reviewed the previous s51 advice and cannot see that we suggested merging the two compulsory acquisition articles, although we did query whether paragraphs (7) and (8) of the ?compulsory acquisition of rights? article were necessary. We assume that in merging the articles, any internal cross references elsewhere in the dDCO has been double checked and updated as necessary?

In regard to articles 29 and 30 (regarding temporary use of land), they are likely to be the subject of close examination in relation to this proposal. There would be detailed examination of notice periods, possession periods, restoration periods and the maintenance period. The explanatory memorandum should thoroughly explain the scope of these powers. Does the statement of reasons justify the power of temporary possession (for up to one year for carrying out the development) as being less intrusive/more proportionate than acquiring the land by compulsory acquisition?

Due to the tight timeframe provided to us we have not been able to undertake a detailed review of the draft DCO and Explanatory Memorandum, here are just a couple of points we noticed whilst skimming through the authorised development:

The first sentence of work numbers 1, 2 and 3 is slightly confusing to read.

Paragraph 2.19 of the Explanatory Memorandum (regarding the diversion of existing apparatus) appears to contradict (xi) within work numbers 1, 2 and 3.

Please can you confirm if the diversion and undergrounding of 10x 11kV lines is included within the dDCO and if so, has the developer undertaken consultation in relation to this?

Page 22 of the Explanatory Memorandum under ?Schedule 1? refers to ?Associated Development?.

Is the developer intending on submitting the response from Welsh Government regarding the undergrounding of the 132kV line with the application?

In regard to (i) to (xiii) in works numbers 1, 2 and 3, can the developer include reference that all such works are within the scope of the EIA (if they are). See Advice Note 15 paragraph 20.1. Also, are these works justified within the Explanatory Memorandum?

18 May 2015
Lara Flynn Osborne Clarke
Brechfa Forest Connection
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
A teleconference to discuss the applicant?s approach to Habitat Regulations Assessment (HRA) transboundary consultation
See meeting note attached

15 May 2015
Horizon Nuclear Power
Wylfa Newydd Nuclear Power Station
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Site visit and project update meeting
Please see attachment

15 May 2015
Network Rail - Liz Wood-Griffiths
Western Rail Link to Heathrow
Enquiry received via phone
response has attachments
Advice given regarding registering Relevant Representation and becoming an IP.
Further to our telephone conversation please find below the web link to Meaford Energy Centre?s project page on the planning portal: [attachment 1].

You will see on the main page there is information on how to register your representation and become an interested party. I have also included a link to our advice note 8.3, which is also part of a series of advice notes on how you can get involved in the process of examination: [attachment 2]

If you have any queries regarding this or any other matter, please do not hesitate to contact us. You will see I have also cc:d into this email the project mailbox ([email protected]), please ensure you copy any correspondence to the project mailbox as if I am not available one of the case team will be able to deal with your query in my absence.

15 May 2015
Kuhn Edmund
Meaford Energy Centre
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Meeting with Snowdonia Pumped Hydro Ltd to discuss progress of project and give feedback on draft application documents.

15 May 2015
Snowdonia Pumped Hydro Ltd - Ben Lewis
Glyn Rhonwy Pumped Storage
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
see attached presentation slides
see attached presentation slides

14 May 2015
Nugen - Ben Olney
General
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Email asking for more information.
You will find more information about this project on our website, including how you can get involved in our process by registering as an interested party. As a ?D? Local Authority you are automatically registered as an Interested Party in the process. However, it would be useful if you could submit a relevant representation (by registering as an interested party on our website) as it will assist the Examining Authority, when appointed, to form their initial assessment of principal issues.

You will also find some useful advice notes on our website which are located under the ?Legislation and advice? tab at the top of the web page (the advice note 8 series specifically). Initially it may be useful to look at Advice Note 1 and Advice Note 8.3 attached.

14 May 2015
Cheshire East Council - anon.
Meaford Energy Centre
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I’m hoping you can provide me with some advice regarding a Screening Opinion that the LPA have received, which has subsequently resulted in a planning application (please note that we have not issued the Screening Opinion yet as we are still considering whether EIA is required). I’ve attached the documentation that we received with both.

The Screening Opinion states that the proposed development comprises the installation of a number of gas fired spark ignition engines, resulting in a totalled installed capacity of approximately 95MW thermal input. I was therefore of the opinion that this may be an NSIP project as it is energy generation onshore over 50MW.

However, the planning statement submitted with the application refers to 37 gas fired spark ignition engines each with up to 1MW export electrical output, however the site area remains the same and the site layout appears the same as the Screening Opinion. Given this statement, it would appear that the proposal does not meet the relevant criteria for an NSIP Project.

We are unclear as to the difference between the thermal input and the export electrical output, and therefore whether this proposal would constitute a NSIP project or not?

Your advice would be appreciated before we progress with consideration of the application if it is not one for us.
As per section 15 (2) of the Planning Act 2008 ("The Act") a generating station would be considered a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP) if the following criteria is met;

(a) it is in England or Wales,
(b) it is not an offshore generating station, and
(c ) its capacity is more than 50 megawatts.

On the basis of the information you provided, having regard to and applying that information to the Planning Act 2008, it is considered that the proposal for 37 gas fired spark ignition engines (which will have the capacity to generate 37MWe) falls below the threshold in Section 15 of the 2008 Act. Our understanding is that "capacity" has the same meaning as in the Electricity Act 1989 - namely electricity generating capacity.

However, the applicant’s Planning Statement states that the unit export electrical output is approximately 1MWe. The applicant should note that it is an offence under Section 160 of the 2008 Act to carry out development for which a DCO is required.

However the Planning Inspectorate does not have power to give a legally binding determination as to the need for development consent and we strongly advise applicants to seek their own legal advice on which they can rely.

This communication is without prejudice to determination of any offence in relation to s160 of the Planning Act 2008 (development without development consent). The planning authority will also need to satisfy itself that it has powers under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to determine the application.

14 May 2015
City & County of Swansea - Andrew Ferguson
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting/site visit.

13 May 2015
Meeting Note NuGen
General
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Advice given following acceptance decision
Attached

12 May 2015
National Grid Gas Plc- Nick Dexter
River Humber Gas Pipeline Replacement Project
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Following the acceptance of the DCO application, please can you advise what the next steps are.

I understand the council have the opportunity to submit a Local Impact Report, what are the time frames/deadlines for submission of this information?

Are there any further documents being released for Officers to review and comment on as part of the DCO?
The M4 Junctions 3 -12 Smart Motorway application is now at the ?pre-examination? stage of the process following its acceptance by the Planning Inspectorate (the Inspectorate) on 27 April 2015.

The applicant ? the Highways Agency (now Highways England) - is statutorily required to serve notice under s56 of Planning Act 2008 that the application has been accepted and will proceed to examination. This notice will also include information advising when and how parties can register to become an ?Interested Party? and participate in the examination. The applicant has not yet served this notice and there is no statutory timeframe within which it must do so. You may wish to contact them directly to enquire when the registration period is scheduled to open.

The next correspondence you will receive from the Inspectorate regarding this application will be your invitation to the preliminary meeting (PM). Amongst other important information, this correspondence will give notice of the appointment of the Examining Authority (ExA) and provide the ExA?s initial assessment of principle issues (IAPI). A draft of the examination timetable will also be provided, upon which you make representations at the PM. The aim of the PM is primarily to discuss how the application should be examined. There will be no scope to discuss the merits of the proposed development. Following the close of the PM the examination will begin and the ExA will, within a week or so, issue its letter setting out the finalised timetable for examination. The deadline for receipt of Local Impact Reports will be set out in this timetable and is usually within six weeks of the PM.

Although London Borough of Hillingdon has been identified as a host authority and therefore is a statutory consultee under s102(1)(c) of PA2008, we would still encourage the Council to make a ?relevant representation? in the advertised period. This representation should provide an outline of any issues that the Council may have regarding the scheme and will usefully inform the ExA?s production of its IAPI.

Please find attached Advice notes one and two for further information regarding the role of local authorities and the production of Local Impact Reports. The Inspectorate has also produced a short video which explains the role of local authorities in the process. It is available here:

[attachment 1];feature=player_embedded

11 May 2015
Mandip Malhotra
M4 Junctions 3 to 12 Smart Motorway
Enquiry received via email
Section 51 advice giving feedback on the draft Consultation Report.
Below are some observations on the A19 Testos Junction Draft Consultation Report dated February 2015.

? Given the timing of likely submission, it is assumed that the ?branding? of the document will change to Highways England and as such it might be useful to include a brief overview of the change from Highways Agency to Highways England.

? Page 2 Compliance Table ? could the table include a ?Location? column or similar for quick cross-referencing. S46 - could this refer to the
? Letter sent to PINS dated 10 October included in Appendix G, as ?Submission to Minister? could suggest a different document.

? Para 2.1.2 ? CLG Guidance on Pre-Application has now been updated (March 2015) and as such it is advisable to review the contents and approach of the Consultation Report in light of that up-dated guidance.

? Para 2.3.16 states that Appendix A Location Plan shows ?existing road arrangements? but the scale at which the Plan is reproduced means that this is not easily apparent, and that it includes ?the above key features? but only some are identified.

? Para 3.1.7 ? it is unclear whether a final Stage 1 Scheme Appraisal report was produced as only a draft version is referred to although para 3.1.10 does appear to suggest a final Stage 1 SAR. Furthermore, there is no indication as to whether that appraisal concluded on one of the two feasible options.
? Para 3.1.11 ? is unclear which of the preferred options was ?consulted? upon and how that option relates to the currently proposed scheme.

? Presentation of ?options? in 2009 public consultation ? PINS have previously made comments on this through email and meetings.
? Para 3.2.32 ? statement that this approach was approved by DfT Legal Service Teams, is there evidence of this in writing?

? Para 6.2.1 and Appendix I ? are the two lists identical (Appendix I and PINS? Reg 9(1)(a) list) and if not, is an explanation given as to why there might be differences (e.g. Civil Aviation Authority and Northumbria Water)?
? Para 6.4.5 ? statement that to comply with Data Protection principles a list of those consulted under s44 will not be included in the Consultation Report; we would like to understand more about this principle as we believe this has not been universally applied.

? Para 6.5.1 and Appendix J ? para 6.5.1 says Appendix J contains copies of feedback that were received and the responses issued in return; it is unclear what ?responses? means e.g. responses from consultees or the Applicant, and if it is the latter then no responses are included. The connection between the text for s42 consultation, Appendix J and Table 1 is not clear about why some responses have been included in Table 1 and others only included in Appendix J (e.g. British Horse Society and Church Commissioners) and under which section of the PA2008 they have been consulted.

? Page 2 Compliance Table Preparation of SoCC ? indicates a meeting took place as evidence of compliance but this is not mentioned in the text in Section 7.

? Section 7 ? with reference to PINS Advice Note 14, it would be helpful to provide a summary of the rationale behind the SoCC methodology. It would also be helpful to include copies of correspondence with Local Authorities about the draft SoCC, demonstrating the 28 day for responses and recording any responses made. The commentary on this evidence is included within the text, but the evidence is not included.
? Para 7.4 ? refers to a consultation leaflet and questionnaire but copies of these have not been included. A sketch map for distribution area is included but no summary of why this was considered a suitable area.
? Para 7.7.2 ? the commentary at this part of the report is stating how the consultation satisfied the SoCC. The report states that following discussion with NISSAN representatives it was decided to host a second exhibition at the manufacturing plant but this was already noted in SoCC?
? Section 7 ? does not contain any reference as to whether the offer of meetings outlined in the SoCC was taken up?
? Para 7.5.4 ? on a technical point, PA2008 doesn?t require material for s47 to be available for a specified/minimum amount of time. It is the provisions of s45 (in respect of s42 consultees) and s48 and the APFP Reg 4 that sets out a deadline for receipt of responses on the material rather than the availability of material.

? Appendix N ? contains the S48 notice but no copies of the relevant newspaper notices.

? Para 7.10.20 ? provides no explanation as to why 10 questionnaires ?required? a response and the others did not. The implications of the cases identified with italics is not clearly set out.
? Could Appendix P be separated out into questionnaire comments and Applicant?s response to certain comments. Can it be confirmed that the Tables of comments are complete. Is there an explanation as to why a task similar to Table 5 has not been carried out in respect of all comments?

? Section 7.14 ? if no further consultation is planned, is the Applicant satisfied that the modifications outlined in section 7.14 do not trigger the need for more proportionate/directed consultation and has it triggered the need to review the land interests?

08 May 2015
Highways Agency - Gary Frost
A19 / A184 Testos Junction Improvement
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Note of the meeting held in Bristol on 8 May 2015.

08 May 2015
Consenting Forum
General
Enquiry received via email
Advice given to the statutory consultee on the procedural matters, their involvement in the process and response to their suggestion.
Thank you for your email and suggestion made to forward the letter to the South Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Service.

You may be aware that as a part of the process, the Planning Inspectorate is under a duty to identify prescribed (statutory) consultees and inform them of any procedural decisions. Both, North and South Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Services have therefore been identified as the statutory parties for the above project. The letter has also been also sent to the South Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Service.

Please note that unless you notify us that North Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Service wishes to become an interested party for the project on or by 20 May 2015 in order to participate in the examination, you will not receive any further correspondence from us except:

? Rule 8(3) letter - changes to examination timetable (Rule 8(3) letter)
? Section 99 letter ? close of examination letter

07 May 2015
North Yorkshire Fire & Rescue Service
Thorpe Marsh Gas Pipeline
Enquiry received via email
Dear Mr Johannson,

Thank you for your email.

Is it correct that these provisions only apply to an existing generating station in one legal ownership? Therefore if a different entity were to construct a generating station on the same site in a different legal ownership with an independent grid connection that this would not be defined as an extension.

Your further advice would be appreciated.

Best regards

Donna Clarke
Dear Ms Clarke

Thank you for your email dated 21 April 2015 requesting further clarification regarding whether extending the capacity of a generating station would make it an National Significant Infrastructure Project (‘NSIP’) under the 2008 Planning Act (as amended)(‘PA2008’).

The Planning Inspectorate (‘the Inspectorate’) cannot comment on whether the generating station to which you refer (“on the same site” and with “an independent grid connection”) can be constructed within the terms of the existing planning permission by “a different entity”. However, within the context of the PA 2008, it is an offence under section 160 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.” Whether or not development consent is required does not depend on legal ownership but on whether the capacity of the generating station as constructed or extended would exceed 50 megawatts.

The definition of extension is set out in section 235(1) of PA2008 which states that it has the meaning given by section 36(9) of the Electricity Act 1989. This states that: ' “extension”, in relation to a generating station, includes the use by the person operating the station of any land (wherever situated) for a purpose directly related to the generation of electricity by that station'.

It will of course be for the developer who wants to construct the generating station to decide whether or not to apply for development consent taking legal advice (and advice from the local planning authority) and having regard to the terms of the existing planning permission.

Please note that the Planning Inspectorate does not have the power to give a legally binding interpretation on such matters. Only the Courts can ultimately determine the interpretation of legislation, and to date there has been no case law on this point under the PA 2008 regime.

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 44 of PA 2008, once an application has been formally submitted.

However, if you need any further advice regarding this project it might be beneficial for you to arrange a meeting with the Inspectorate so the project can be discussed in detail. Please note that the Inspectorate has a statutory duty under section 51 of PA2008 to record any advice given in relationship to an application or potential application and make it publicly available.

07 May 2015
Donna Clarke
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached meeting note

06 May 2015
Karl Craddick
Wrexham Energy Centre
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Advice given to the statutory consultee on the procedural matters and their involvement in the process.
Thank you for your email informing us that the project is not in the parish area.

You may be aware however, that the Planning Inspectorate acts on behalf of the Secretary of State in examining applications for nationally significant infrastructure projects (NSIPs). As a part of the process, the Planning Inspectorate is under a duty to identify prescribed (statutory) consultees and inform them of any procedural decisions. Your Parish Council has been identified as one of the statutory parties for the above project. Procedural decisions which the Planning Inspectorate must therefore send to you as a statutory party include:

? Rule 6 letter ? an invitation to the Preliminary Meeting, draft timetable, appointment of Examining Authority;
? Rule 8 letter - final examination timetable,
? Rule 8(3) letter - changes to examination timetable (Rule 8(3) letter)
? Section 99 letter ? close of examination letter

Please note however, that is for you to decide whether you wish to respond to this correspondence or participate in the examination.

In the Rule 8 letter, the Examining Authority asks statutory parties whether they wish to become an interested party for the examination of the project. If you do not inform us that you wish to become an interested party within the deadline specified in the Rule 8 letter, you will not receive any more examination correspondence with exception to those listed above.

For more information about the project itself please visit the project website using below link:

[attachment 1]

Please also use below link below to access the Planning Inspectorate?s Advice Notes on various topics related to the process.

[attachment 2]

I hope this information is helpful, but please contact us directly should you have any more questions.

05 May 2015
Newland Parish Council
Thorpe Marsh Gas Pipeline
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Update on the Nocton Fen Wind Farm project.
See attached meeting note

01 May 2015
Vattenfall Wind Power Ltd & Burges Salmon
General
Enquiry received via email
Will Scandinavian countries be formerly consulted on the proposals for new nuclear reactors with particular reference to the Moorside propsal by NuGEN, next to Sellafield?
When the Secretary of State, using the precautionary principle, is of the view that the development is likely to have significant effects on the environment of another European Economic Area State (EEA State), the Secretary of State will notify those states. This can only be undertaken when sufficient information is available.

If any of those EEA states indicate that they wish to participate in the procedure, the Planning Inspectorate must, on behalf of the Secretary of State, send a copy of the application and environmental statement to those EEA states. The EEA states will be given an opportunity, before development consent is granted, to seek the opinion of the public and relevant authorities.

At present the Secretary of State has not received sufficient information to determine whether or not other EEA States would be likely to have significant effects on their environment.

For further information refer to our Advice Note 12.

30 April 2015
Simon Burdis
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
A third meeting was held at the Planning Inspectorate's offices in Bristol for the developer, National Grid, to update the Planning Inspectorate on the proposal and discuss pre-application matters with respect to the TEN-E Regulation in particular.

A note of this meeting is attached.
A third meeting was held at the Planning Inspectorate's offices in Bristol for the developer, National Grid, to update the Planning Inspectorate on the proposal and discuss pre-application matters with respect to the TEN-E Regulation in particular.

A note of this meeting is attached.

28 April 2015
National Grid - Emer McDonnell
Richborough Connection Project
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Section 51 advice given following the decision to accept the application to proceed to examination on 27 April 2015.
Please see attachment.

27 April 2015
DLA Piper - Howard Bassford
M4 Junctions 3 to 12 Smart Motorway
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Advice given following acceptance.
See attached.

24 April 2015
Meaford Energy Limited - Karl Cradick
Meaford Energy Centre
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Applicant request for comments on the proposed methodology for assessing the potential environmental impacts of the proposed development.
Please see attached correspondence.

24 April 2015
North London Waste Authority
North London Heat and Power Project
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
An update meeting in relation to Abergelli Power and Millbrook Power Projects.
Please see the attached note.

23 April 2015
Abergelli Power Limited - Dermot Scanlon
Abergelli Power
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
An update meeting in relation to Millbrook Power and Abergelli Power Projects.
Please see the attached note

23 April 2015
Millbrook Power Limited - Chris McKerrow
Millbrook Power
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Correspondence received during the acceptance period.
Letter attached

23 April 2015
Pylon The Pressure - Dyfrig Hughes
North Wales Wind Farms Connection
Enquiry received via phone
response has attachments
Correspondence received during the acceptance period.
Letter attached

23 April 2015
Iwan Jones
North Wales Wind Farms Connection
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Correspondence received during the acceptance period.
Letter attached

23 April 2015
Joanne Morris
North Wales Wind Farms Connection
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
A project update meeting to discuss East Anglia ONE, THREE and FOUR wind farms.
See meeting note attached.

22 April 2015
Keith Morrison
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
A project update meeting to discuss East Anglia ONE, THREE and FOUR wind farms.
See meeting note attached.

22 April 2015
Keith Morrison
East Anglia ONE Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
A project update meeting to discuss East Anglia ONE, THREE and FOUR wind farms.
See meeting note attached.

22 April 2015
Keith Morrison
East Anglia THREE Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Dear Planning Inspectorate,

Please could you advise as follows.

An energy generation project has been granted planning consent by a local planning authority as it is under 50MW.

The developer now wishes to extend the project which would take it over the 50MW threshold by an additional 5 to 10MW. Would this additional generation require an application for development consent to the Planning Inspectorate?

Best regards

Donna Clarke
Dear Ms Clarke

Thank you for your letter dated 15 April 2015 enquiring whether extending a generating station to above 50 megawatts would require a development consent under the 2008 Planning Act (as amended)(‘PA2008’).

Under section 14(1)(a) the construction or extension of a generating station is defined as a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (‘NSIP’). Section 15 of PA2008 clarifies that the construction or an extension of a generating station is within section 14(1)(a) only if the generating station is or (when constructed or extended) is expected to be, amongst other things, a generating station that is in England or Wales, not an offshore generating station, and its capacity is more than 50 megawatts.

Section 31 makes clear that consent under the Act is required for development that is or forms part of an NSIP. There is no mechanism under the Act to exempt projects from the NSIP process if they meet the relevant thresholds. Therefore a generating station that falls within s14 and s15 of the Act could not proceed by another process such as the Electricity Act 1989 consenting regime.

In the scenario described in your letter, increasing the capacity of the generating station to above 50 Megawatts would make it an NSIP and would require an application for development consent under section 14(1)(a) of PA2008.

The Planning Inspectorate has also published a series of advice notes that are intended to inform developers, consultees, the public and others about a range of process matters in relation to PA2008 which may be of assistance to you. These advice notes can be access by following this link: [attachment 1]

21 April 2015
Donna Clarke
General
Enquiry received via meeting
An inception meeting was held to discuss Tidal Lagoon Newport (TLN). During this meeting a query was raised by the applicant in respect of Tidal Lagoon Cardiff (TLC) regarding Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) and Water Framework Directive (WFD) Assessment.
The Inspectorate advised the applicant that s51 advice was being provided in relation to the HRA for TLC (and to a lesser extent WFD assessment processes) and would be available on the website. The possible need to make an IROPI case was discussed. The Inspectorate advised that, if this were the case, it would be necessary to pass the ?no alternatives? test in order to proceed to this stage, and therefore TLN should ensure clear, comprehensive information is presented on the alternatives considered for the development.

17 April 2015
Tidal Lagoon Cardiff - Michael Baker
Tidal Lagoon Cardiff
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Inception meeting for Tidal Lagoon Newport.
See meeting note attached.

17 April 2015
Michael Baker
General
Enquiry received via post
response has attachments
Advice given on HRA, WFD and Evidence Plan information submitted with Scoping Report
Please see attached

17 April 2015
Tidal Lagoon Cardiff - Tessa Blazey
Tidal Lagoon Cardiff
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see the attached meeting note.

16 April 2015
Ursula Tayor
North London Heat and Power Project