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Advice given between between 1 October 2009 and 14 April 2015 has been archived.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
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
Sizewell C New Nuclear Power Station
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 protected] 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
Sizewell C New Nuclear Power Station
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
Sizewell C New Nuclear Power Station
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
Sizewell C New Nuclear Power Station
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
Sizewell C New Nuclear Power Station
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
Sizewell C New Nuclear Power Station
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.
Sizewell C New Nuclear Power Station
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
Sizewell C New Nuclear Power Station
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
Sizewell C New Nuclear Power Station
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
Sizewell C New Nuclear Power Station
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
Sizewell C New Nuclear Power Station
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
Sizewell C New Nuclear Power Station
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
Sizewell C New Nuclear Power Station
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
Sizewell C New Nuclear Power Station
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
Sizewell C New Nuclear Power Station
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
Sizewell C New Nuclear Power Station
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
Sizewell C New Nuclear Power Station
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 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
Sizewell C New Nuclear Power Station
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 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
Sizewell C New Nuclear Power Station
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
Sizewell C New Nuclear Power Station
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
Sizewell C New Nuclear Power Station
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.
Sizewell C New Nuclear Power Station
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.
Sizewell C 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 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
Sizewell C New Nuclear Power Station
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
Sizewell C New Nuclear Power Station
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
Draft documents feedback meeting
Please see attached.

06 February 2020
EdF Energy - anon.
Sizewell C New Nuclear Power Station
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 (Generating Stations)
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Please see attached.
Please see attached.

27 January 2020
Allington EfW Project
Extension to Allington Energy from Waste Facility
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.
Sizewell C New Nuclear Power Station
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
Sizewell C New Nuclear Power Station
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
Sizewell C New Nuclear Power Station
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 meeting
response has attachments
Please see attached.
please see attached.

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.
Expansion of London Luton Airport
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.
Sizewell C New Nuclear Power Station
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached

03 December 2019
EDF Energy - anon.
Sizewell C New Nuclear Power Station
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 (Generating Stations)
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 email
response has attachments
See attached
See attached

14 November 2019
Ward Farming Limited - India Bacon
Sizewell C New Nuclear Power Station
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
See attached.
See attached.

14 November 2019
Deborah Bragg
Sizewell C New Nuclear Power Station
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
See attached
See attached

14 November 2019
Bill Parker
Sizewell C New Nuclear Power Station
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.
Sizewell C New Nuclear Power Station
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 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 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 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.
Sizewell C New Nuclear Power Station
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.
Sizewell C New Nuclear Power Station
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
Sizewell C New Nuclear Power Station
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
Sizewell C New Nuclear Power Station
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.
Sizewell C New Nuclear Power Station
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
Sizewell C New Nuclear Power Station
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.
Expansion of London Luton Airport
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
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
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.
Extension to Allington Energy from Waste Facility
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
Sizewell C New Nuclear Power Station
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Please see attached
Please see attached

29 August 2019
Ørsted - anon.
Hornsea Project Four Offshore Wind Farm (Generating Stations)
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
See meeting note attached

22 August 2019
Highways England - anon.
A1 Northumberland Morpeth to Felton
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
Project update meeting teleconference.
Please see attached meeting note.

15 August 2019
London Luton Airport Ltd - anon.
Expansion of London Luton Airport
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.
Wheelabrator Harewood Waste-to-Energy Facility
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
Sizewell C New Nuclear Power Station
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
Sizewell C New Nuclear Power Station
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.
Sizewell C New Nuclear Power Station
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.
Sizewell C New Nuclear Power Station
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 (Generating Stations)
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 (Generating Stations)
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.
Please see attached.

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
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 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
Sizewell C New Nuclear Power Station
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.
Sizewell C New Nuclear Power Station
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 (Generating Stations)
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
Sizewell C New Nuclear Power Station
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
Sizewell C New Nuclear Power Station
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
See Attached
See Attached

10 April 2019
Emma Bateman
Sizewell C New Nuclear Power Station
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
Sizewell C New Nuclear Power Station
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
Sizewell C New Nuclear Power Station
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
Wheelabrator Harewood Waste-to-Energy Facility
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
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.
Expansion of London Luton Airport
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
Sizewell C New Nuclear Power Station
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 (Generating Stations)
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
Sizewell C New Nuclear Power Station
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 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’
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
Sizewell C New Nuclear Power Station
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 (Generating Stations)
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 (Generating Stations)
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
Sizewell C New Nuclear Power Station
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
Sizewell C New Nuclear Power Station
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.
Sizewell C New Nuclear Power Station
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.
Sizewell C New Nuclear Power Station
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 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
Sizewell C New Nuclear Power Station
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.
Ferrybridge D Combined Cycle Gas Turbine (CCGT) Power Station Project
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 Sept