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Advice provided between the period between 1 October 2009 and 13 April 2011 has been archived and remains available to view on this spreadsheet.

PreviewProject
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
Please see Attached
Please See Attached

01 August 2019
South Humber Bank Energy Centre - anon.
South Humber Bank Energy Centre
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 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 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 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 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
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
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 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
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 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
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?
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?

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 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
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 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.
Teesside Cluster Carbon Capture and Usage 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
The Planning Inspectorate - anon.
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]shpower.com 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
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]

04 December 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]

04 December 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, 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]

04 December 2018
Andrew Plant
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, 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]

04 December 2018
John Heald
East Anglia ONE North Offshore Windfarm
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 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 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
Enquinor 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 September 2018
Andria Massey
North Wales Connection
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Cotswold District Council and Mendip District Council queried why their councils were being contacted with regards to the proposed A303 Stonehenge application.
For avoidance of doubt, the proposed A303 Stonehenge application by Highways England is to be considered under the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) regime. Under that regime, your council has been identified as a neighbouring ‘A’ authority due to sharing a boundary with the host unitary council – Wiltshire Council. Your council is therefore a relevant local authority eligible to submit an Adequacy of Consultation Representation (AoCR) setting out whether your council feels the Applicant has met its duty to consult under sections 42, 47 and 48 of the PA2008.

For more information how relevant local authorities are identified (specifically Figure 4 on page 5) and their role in the process, please follow the link to view our Advice Note two - The role of local authorities in the development consent process:
[attachment 1]

17 September 2018
Various enquiries - anon.
A303 Stonehenge
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting.
Please see meeting note.

13 September 2018
Heathrow Airport Ltd - anon.
Expansion of Heathrow Airport (Third Runway)
Enquiry received via email
I enclose a copy of a meeting note from a project update meeting between the Planning Inspectorate and Ashfield Land, regarding their ongoing proposal for the Rail Central strategic rail freight interchange in my South Northamptonshire constituency
As you will note:

The Inspectorate advised that it would be helpful to see NR’s response to the Applicant’s statutory consultation (which ended on 23/04/18) and enquired whether NR had commented on the rail network’s capacity to accommodate both SRFI proposals. Whilst the Applicant confirmed that it had not, it was satisfied that its own negotiations with NR were progressing well. The Applicant explained that extensive engagement has taken place with Network Rail through their GRIP process over the last 5 years, involving a designated sponsor supported by a NR project team comprising of in-house and outsourced technical specialists. This engagement with NR has informed the design and rail infrastructure and main line connections and the completed work undertaken at GRIP stage 2 has validated the technical and operational feasibility of the proposals. A Statement of Common Ground is at an advanced stage of drafting in order that this can be included within the DCO application.
The Inspectorate noted that two Examinations running simultaneously was likely to put some strain on NR’s resources. The Inspectorate requested that the Applicant provide the contact details for NR in order for the Inspectorate to have an unbiased discussion with NR about the two schemes. The Inspectorate also noted that the examination of both schemes would involve the same Local Authorities (LAs) and other stakeholders and highlighted that the examination of just one proposal can put a strain on the resources of these persons/organisations.

Can I ask for your comments on the above points, particularly whether you have received the information requested from Ashfield Land, and if PINS is satisfied that the rail network could accommodate both SRFI proposals.
Thank you for your letter received on 29 August 2018 regarding the above proposal and the Planning Inspectorate’s meeting with Ashfield Land Management Limited and Gazeley GLP Northampton (the Developer) on 25 May 2018.
In your letter you asked if the Planning Inspectorate is satisfied that the rail network could accommodate both the Rail Central and Northampton Gateway SRFI proposals. This is a matter which is likely to be raised and considered during the examination stages of the Planning Act 2008 process for each of the proposals.
It will be for the relevant appointed Examining Authorities to examine the applications to which they are (or will be) appointed, and to make their recommendations on the decisions to the Secretary of State for Transport. It is then ultimately for the Secretary of State to decide whether development consent can be granted for each scheme.
As you will be aware, the Northampton Gateway SRFI application was submitted by Roxhill (Junction 15) Limited in May 2018; the Examining Authority has been appointed and the examination will commence following the Preliminary Meeting which is due to take place on 9 October 2018. We are expecting to receive the application for the Rail Central SRFI proposal in mid-September 2018.
I can confirm that the Rail Central Developer provided us with the contact details for the relevant Network Rail sponsor and we held a telecon meeting with Network Rail on 11 September 2018 to discuss the Planning Act 2008 process. The Developer answered our question in relation to Network Rail’s consultation response during the meeting on 25 May 2018, and following the meeting they provided us with the link to South Northamptonshire Council’s Officer Report in response to the Rail Central pre-application consultation, which is available on the Council’s website.
I hope you find this information to be helpful.

12 September 2018
The Rt Hon Andrea Leadsom MP
Rail Central (Strategic Rail Freight Interchange)
Enquiry received via email
I enclose a copy of a meeting note from a project update meeting between the Planning Inspectorate and Ashfield Land, regarding their ongoing proposal for the Rail Central strategic rail freight interchange in my South Northamptonshire constituency
As you will note:

The Inspectorate advised that it would be helpful to see NR’s response to the Applicant’s statutory consultation (which ended on 23/04/18) and enquired whether NR had commented on the rail network’s capacity to accommodate both SRFI proposals. Whilst the Applicant confirmed that it had not, it was satisfied that its own negotiations with NR were progressing well. The Applicant explained that extensive engagement has taken place with Network Rail through their GRIP process over the last 5 years, involving a designated sponsor supported by a NR project team comprising of in-house and outsourced technical specialists. This engagement with NR has informed the design and rail infrastructure and main line connections and the completed work undertaken at GRIP stage 2 has validated the technical and operational feasibility of the proposals. A Statement of Common Ground is at an advanced stage of drafting in order that this can be included within the DCO application.
The Inspectorate noted that two Examinations running simultaneously was likely to put some strain on NR’s resources. The Inspectorate requested that the Applicant provide the contact details for NR in order for the Inspectorate to have an unbiased discussion with NR about the two schemes. The Inspectorate also noted that the examination of both schemes would involve the same Local Authorities (LAs) and other stakeholders and highlighted that the examination of just one proposal can put a strain on the resources of these persons/organisations.

Can I ask for your comments on the above points, particularly whether you have received the information requested from Ashfield Land, and if PINS is satisfied that the rail network could accommodate both SRFI proposals.
Thank you for your letter received on 29 August 2018 regarding the above proposal and the Planning Inspectorate’s meeting with Ashfield Land Management Limited and Gazeley GLP Northampton (the Developer) on 25 May 2018.
In your letter you asked if the Planning Inspectorate is satisfied that the rail network could accommodate both the Rail Central and Northampton Gateway SRFI proposals. This is a matter which is likely to be raised and considered during the examination stages of the Planning Act 2008 process for each of the proposals.
It will be for the relevant appointed Examining Authorities to examine the applications to which they are (or will be) appointed, and to make their recommendations on the decisions to the Secretary of State for Transport. It is then ultimately for the Secretary of State to decide whether development consent can be granted for each scheme.
As you will be aware, the Northampton Gateway SRFI application was submitted by Roxhill (Junction 15) Limited in May 2018; the Examining Authority has been appointed and the examination will commence following the Preliminary Meeting which is due to take place on 9 October 2018. We are expecting to receive the application for the Rail Central SRFI proposal in mid-September 2018.
I can confirm that the Rail Central Developer provided us with the contact details for the relevant Network Rail sponsor and we held a telecon meeting with Network Rail on 11 September 2018 to discuss the Planning Act 2008 process. The Developer answered our question in relation to Network Rail’s consultation response during the meeting on 25 May 2018, and following the meeting they provided us with the link to South Northamptonshire Council’s Officer Report in response to the Rail Central pre-application consultation, which is available on the Council’s website.
I hope you find this information to be helpful.

12 September 2018
The Rt Hon Andrea Leadsom MP
Northampton Gateway Rail Freight Interchange
In a planning meeting with the Developer on the 25th May the Inspectorate stated the following:
'The Inspectorate noted that two Examinations running simultaneously was likely to put some strain on NR’s resources. The Inspectorate requested that the Applicant provide the contact details for NR in order for the Inspectorate to have an unbiased discussion with NR about the two schemes. The Inspectorate also noted that the examination of both schemes would involve the same Local Authorities (LAs) and other stakeholders and highlighted that the examination of just one proposal can put a strain on the resources of these persons/organisations.'
In July I formally asked whether or not this had been done but had no reply. On the 28th August I followed up on the phone to be told that this conversation had not taken place (and would most likely not). Would it be possible to publish this query on the web site and then provide the reason as to why it has not when it was specifically requested by yourselves.
This is not a side issue, it is absolutely critical for the whole of the area and local community so I am disappointed that nothing further has happened. I am beginning to wonder at what stage this absolutely critical issue will be addressed. Nobody seems willing to adopt a pro-active approach.
As you may now be aware, the Rail Central Strategic Rail Freight Interchange (SRFI) application is due to be submitted in mid-September 2018. As a result, the level of overlap of the examination stages for both projects (if the Rail Central application is accepted for examination) will be less than initially anticipated, however we note that an overlap towards the latter part of the Northampton Gateway SRFI examination and the start of the Rail Central SRFI examination is still likely.
Whilst it is ultimately for the relevant appointed Examining Authority to determine how to examine each application, there are opportunities for you to have your say on the examination process at the Preliminary Meetings for each project. In addition, as the Northampton Gateway SRFI examination timetable will be finalised by the point at which the Rail Central SRFI draft examination timetable will be produced, efforts will be made to avoid deadline and hearing date clashes where possible.
We held a telecon meeting with Network Rail today to discuss the Planning Act 2008 process, a meeting note will be published on our website in due course.
In regard to the information we publish on our website, The Planning Inspectorate is required to publish advice it provides under section 51 of the Planning Act 2008 which relates to:
- applying for an order granting development consent; or
- making representations about an application, or a proposed application, for such an order.
I hope you find the above information to be helpful.

11 September 2018
Mark Redding
Rail Central (Strategic Rail Freight Interchange)
Enquiry received via email
In a planning meeting with the Developer on the 25th May the Inspectorate stated the following: 'The Inspectorate noted that two Examinations running simultaneously was likely to put some strain on NR’s resources. The Inspectorate requested that the Applicant provide the contact details for NR in order for the Inspectorate to have an unbiased discussion with NR about the two schemes. The Inspectorate also noted that the examination of both schemes would involve the same Local Authorities (LAs) and other stakeholders and highlighted that the examination of just one proposal can put a strain on the resources of these persons/organisations.'
In July I formally asked whether or not this had been done but had no reply. On the 28th August I followed up on the phone to be told that this conversation had not taken place (and would most likely not). Would it be possible to publish this query on the web site and then provide the reason as to why it has not when it was specifically requested by yourselves.
This is not a side issue, it is absolutely critical for the whole of the area and local community so I am disappointed that nothing further has happened. I am beginning to wonder at what stage this absolutely critical issue will be addressed. Nobody seems willing to adopt a pro-active approach.
As you may now be aware, the Rail Central Strategic Rail Freight Interchange (SRFI) application is due to be submitted in mid-September 2018. As a result, the level of overlap of the examination stages for both projects (if the Rail Central application is accepted for examination) will be less than initially anticipated, however we note that an overlap towards the latter part of the Northampton Gateway SRFI examination and the start of the Rail Central SRFI examination is still likely.
Whilst it is ultimately for the relevant appointed Examining Authority to determine how to examine each application, there are opportunities for you to have your say on the examination process at the Preliminary Meetings for each project. In addition, as the Northampton Gateway SRFI examination timetable will be finalised by the point at which the Rail Central SRFI draft examination timetable will be produced, efforts will be made to avoid deadline and hearing date clashes where possible.
We held a telecon meeting with Network Rail today to discuss the Planning Act 2008 process, a meeting note will be published on our website in due course.
In regard to the information we publish on our website, The Planning Inspectorate is required to publish advice it provides under section 51 of the Planning Act 2008 which relates to:
- applying for an order granting development consent; or
- making representations about an application, or a proposed application, for such an order.
I hope you find the above information to be helpful.

11 September 2018
Mark Redding
Northampton Gateway Rail Freight Interchange
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached

11 September 2018
Network Rail - anon.
Northampton Gateway Rail Freight Interchange
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting Note
Please see attached

11 September 2018
Highways England - anon.
A63 Castle Street Improvement-Hull
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Planning Act 2008 process meeting with Network Rail
Please see attached

11 September 2018
Network Rail - anon.
Rail Central (Strategic Rail Freight Interchange)
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Please see attached Meeting Note
Please see attached Meeting Note

11 September 2018
VPI Immingham B Ltd - anon.
VPI Immingham OCGT
Enquiry received via email
I am writing with regard to the North Wales Connection project to express my deepest concern about the actual, potential and perceived negative impacts a second high voltage overhead power line will have on Anglesey. Constructing a second line from Wylfa to Pentir in addition to the existing one will create a ‘no go’ corridor dissecting this beautiful island, not to mention concerns about the adverse effects due to exposure to electro-magnetic pollution. In his scoping opinion the Secretary of State identifies issues that are of deep concern to the island population and also visitors who come to enjoy the natural beauty of Anglesey. They come to escape the industrial environments of Manchester, Liverpool and Warrington not to be confronted by unsightly overhead power cables and monster pylons. The negative visual impact will inevitably threaten the status of Anglesey as a popular tourist destination.

The precise route of the electricity transmission line and location of individual pylons have not been determined and it is therefore of critical importance to fully take into account the island’s opposition to an overhead line. If National Grid ignore the voice of the people directly affected by this project, history will repeat itself again, as so many times before. Over the past three hundred years or so, Wales has made a substantial contribution to the economy of the UK, be it through the extraction of mineral resources (e.g. slate, copper, coal) or the provision of water, and as a consequence has been left with a legacy of industrial pollution and extinction of culture. A second line of monster pylons would be another example. The electricity transported will benefit England, but Anglesey will have to bear the cost. This is grossly unfair and raises the question of equity across the four nations of the UK. For example, an approximately 33km long underground high voltage cable has been installed across the Wirral peninsula. Why can this not be a viable option for Anglesey? This island is unique in terms of its stunning coastline and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty and we therefore have a moral duty to protect this precious asset against increasing industrialisation, not just for now, but for generations to come. Higher costs for the consumer must not be cited as a reason to go for the cheapest option, as many are willing to pay slightly more for their electricity if that means that jewels like Anglesey can be spared a second line of monster pylons.

The Scoping Report raises further issues. For example, in the section ‘Undergrounding cables’ 2.61 Para 2.4.14) it states that the ‘Preferred Route Corridor Report’ concluded that cables would be installed underground through the Anglesey AONB and across the Menai Strait, and yet, there is no further reference within the report to undergrounding within the Anglesey AONB and how users of the Anglesey Coastal Path might be affected. In Appendix 14.2 it is proposed that effects on house prices are scoped out for all components and all stages of the proposed development, as the existing line forms part of the existing baseline and should therefore be considered in that context. I fail to understand the logic of this argument, as two power lines, one even bigger than the first, obviously will have more than twice the negative visual impact.

Another issue relates to the National Grid’s lack of engagement with relevant stakeholders, in particular the Isle of Anglesey County Council and the island population. The role of the tourism sector must be fully recognised as well as the well-being of key natural and historic environment resources. They are crucial to maintain the area's status as a visitor destination. In this respect it is worrying that there is no reference made to: the AONB setting between Wylfa and Rhosgoch, the Mynydd Mechell Special Landscape Area (SLA) within the scoping corridor and the direct impact through the route alignment, Parciau SLA or the AONB setting, Maltraeth Marsh and the surrounding SLA, Southern Anglesey Estateland SLA, important woodlands, topography and the setting of Snowdonia National Park.

Undergrounding high voltage power lines has become the default position in other European Countries, as for example in Germany’s federal state of Bavaria where the people’s concerns have been taken seriously. When will National Grid listen to the people’s voice in Anglesey?
Thank you for your email of 6 September 2018.

The North Wales Connection application was submitted to the Planning Inspectorate (the Inspectorate) on 7 September 2018. A decision whether the application should be accepted for Examination will be made by no later than Friday 5 October 2018.

As part of the acceptance process, the Inspectorate will request the relevant local authorities’ views on adequacy of the consultation. The local authorities should also take into account any comments made by stakeholders to them when they submit their comments on whether the developer has fulfilled its consultation duties. Comments relating to the adequacy of consultation will be taken into account when the Acceptance Inspector decides whether to accept the application for Examination.

Please note that this response relates solely to the comments you have made in relation to the applicant’s consultation; the remainder of your e-mail relates to the merits of the proposed development, which cannot be considered at this stage. Should the application be accepted by the Inspectorate for Examination, the applicant has a duty to notify the local community on how to register as an Interested Party. Comments relating to the merits of the application can be made at that stage.

The process under the Planning Act 2008 (PA 2008) has been designed to allow members of the public and statutory stakeholders to participate in the Examination of all DCO applications so that anyone interested in the proposed developments, their potential impacts and any relevant matters can be fully engaged in the Examination process.

10 September 2018
Dr Marion Jones
North Wales Connection
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached

10 September 2018
Orsted et al - anon.
Hornsea Project Four Offshore Wind Farm (Generating Stations)
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Meeting Update
Please see attached

10 September 2018
Wheelabrator Technologies Inc (WTI) - anon.
Wheelabrator Kemsley Generating Station (K3) and Wheelabrator Kemsley North (WKN) Waste to Energy Facility
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I am writing to ask if it is possible for members of the GREAT campaign and myself to maybe meet with you. I understand you are available to meet with the developers but am unsure if the same offer is extended to residents and stakeholders.
Thank you for your email on behalf of the GREAT campaign group.

Further to our telephone conversation, may I advise you that there is a great deal of information available to members of the public on our website, which includes advice about the nationally significant infrastructure planning process (NSIP) and how they can get involved during the examination stage.

At this stage the Planning Inspectorate can only advise the public on process related queries, and the public should be directing any project related queries to the developer during this current pre-application stage. I would therefore encourage you and the members of the GREAT campaign group to continue to contact the developer directly with regard to concerns you have. The developer has a statutory duty to have regard to all consultation responses received and this should be demonstrated in the Consultation Report they submit as part of their Development Consent Order (DCO) application.

If you have concerns about the way in which the developer is carrying out the pre-application consultation, I would advise you to write to your local authority and set out why you think the developer is failing to conduct its consultation properly. Once the application is submitted the Inspectorate will request the relevant local authorities’ view on the adequacy of the consultation. Your comments should be taken into account when the local authority sends in its comments on whether the developer has fulfilled its consultation duties. The local authority’s comments will be taken into account when the Acceptance Inspector makes their decision whether to accept the application for Examination.

Should the DCO application be accepted by the Inspectorate for examination, the applicant has a duty to notify the local community when providing information on how to register as an Interested Party for the purpose of the process. The process under the Planning Act 2008 (PA 2008) has been designed to allow members of the public and statutory stakeholders to participate in the examination of all DCO applications so that anyone interested in the proposed developments, their potential impacts and any relevant matters can be fully engaged in the examination process.

During the examination, the Examining Authority has a duty to take into account all matters assessed by the applicant in the Environmental Statement and may ask additional questions as required.

The Planning Inspectorate has produced several Advice Notes to help provide an overview of the Planning Act 2008 process and the opportunities to get involved.

They are available at the following link:
[attachment 1]

Of particular relevance is Advice Note 8 ‘Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others’.

At the current pre-application stage we would also recommend Advice Note 8.1: ‘Responding to the developer’s pre-application consultation’ and Advice Note 8.2: ‘How to register to participate in an Examination’.

I can assure you that anyone interested in the proposed developments, their potential impacts and any planning matters can be fully engaged in the examination process.

Please note, in accordance with Section 51 of the PA2008, a summary of your query and our advice will be published on the project’s webpage of the National Infrastructure website.

If you or the GREAT group require any further advice about the National Infrastructure process please contact the Cleve Hill Case team at the Planning Inspectorate. They can be contacted by email via the project mailbox at [email protected] or via the Customer Services Team on telephone number 0303 444 5000.

07 September 2018
Graveney Rural Environment Action Team (GREAT) - Vicky Ellis
Cleve Hill Solar Park
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Draft document feedback and project update meeting.
Please see attached meeting note and feedback document.

05 September 2018
Highways England - anon.
Trans Pennine Upgrade Programme
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Planning Act 2008 process meeting with Scottish Power Renewables
Please see attached

05 September 2018
Scottish Power Renewables - anon.
East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Planning Act 2008 process meeting with Scottish Power Renewables
Please see attached

05 September 2018
Scottish Power Renewables - anon.
East Anglia ONE North Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via phone
response has attachments
Project update meeting with the representatives of Suffolk Coastal and Waveney District Councils (SC&WDCs) and Suffolk County Council (SCC).
Please see attached

05 September 2018
Local Authorities - anon.
East Anglia ONE North Offshore Windfarm
response has attachments
Project update meeting with the representatives of Suffolk Coastal and Waveney District Councils (SC&WDCs) and Suffolk County Council (SCC).
Please see attached

05 September 2018
Local Authorities - anon.
East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I have been asked to research guidance for the Heathrow Local Impact Report.
Statutory guidance on Local Impact Reports (LIR) is comprised within paras 52 to 57 of Planning Act 2008: Guidance for the examination of applications for development consent: [attachment 1]

The Planning Inspectorate has also produced an advice note (Advice Note One) about the production of LIRs: [attachment 2]

All LIRs submitted to historic and live examinations are available to view on the discrete project pages on the National Infrastructure Planning website. Three in particular have been identified by the Inspectorate as good examples, hosted here: [attachment 3]

03 September 2018
The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead - Holly Campbell
Expansion of Heathrow Airport (Third Runway)
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
As an "Interested party" living within half a mile of the flight path of any proposed cargo aircraft landing at Manston, which they will have to do in my case at a height of some 200meters, at least 32 during any day and night, can you let me know what email address I can use to make my submission, which contains 3 PDF's?
To be deemed valid, Relevant Representations (RRs) must be submitted on a fully completed Planning Inspectorate Registration and Relevant Representation form, which can be completed online here: [attachment 1]

We request that supporting documents are not submitted alongside RRs. The Inspectorate recommends that RRs remain under 500 words and focus on the issues the Examining Authority (ExA) should take account of in its examination of the application. Once the Examination formally begins, there will be further opportunities to provide more detailed written representations, as well as oral representations, that expand on the issues identified at the RR stage.

Please note that once you have registered in the prescribed manner set out above, you will become an Interested Party and will legally be able to participate in the Examination. The deadline to register is 8 October 2018.

If you wish to complete a paper copy of the Registration and Relevant Representation form, please provide your address and we will post one to you.

03 September 2018
Dennis Franklin
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Following the submission for a DCO made by Riveroak I would like to ask about compulsory acquisition.

I believe, as part of their submission Riveroak are asking for a compulsory acquisition of the land currently owned by Stonewall Park and others. If the DCO is successful is the compulsory acquisition also granted as part of that application or are both issues decided separately.

Is it possible that the DCO be granted and the Compulsory acquisition of land be refused, or visa versa?

Are both issues considered together or do objectors need to address each issue separately?
In summary, proposed Compulsory Acquisition powers are subject to discrete tests in the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) - see sections 122 to 134: [attachment 1]. The Secretary of State will therefore necessarily reach discrete conclusions about (i) the case for the development and (ii) the case for Compulsory Acquisition.

If in any applicable case the Secretary of State is not satisfied that it is appropriate to grant some or all of the Compulsory Acquisition powers sought in a Development Consent Order (DCO), the DCO can be made in modified form with some or all of the proposed Compulsory Acquisition powers deleted. Conversely however, a DCO cannot be made if it does not include development for which development consent is required ie a DCO cannot grant Compulsory Acquisition powers alone.

In respect of making a Relevant Representation* about a Proposed Development, it will assist the appointed Examining Authority if comments relating to the potential impacts of proposed Compulsory Acquisition powers are made clear in the Relevant Representation eg under a separate heading. It is not however necessary or encouraged to submit separate Relevant Representations about (i) the case for the development and (ii) the case for Compulsory Acquisition.

* See Advice Note 8.2: [attachment 2]

Please see 'Planning Act 2008: guidance related to procedures for the Compulsory Acquisition of land' for more information: [attachment 3]

03 September 2018
James Hose
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The following persons attempted to make comments to the Inspectorate on the merits of the Proposed Development between 17 and 31 August 2018:
Tony and June Bate; Marc Flint; Margaret and Ken Bolwell; Neil & Sarah Wyllie; John Buttle; hench 595; David Dunkerley; Roger Latchford; Jean Lavington; Ken Richardson; Clive Langley; Raymond Rogers; Pat Griffiths; Stephanie Crow; Richard Brown; Susan Still; Dean Spinks; Gareth Harwood
David Garrod; Guy Topping; Josephine Renton; Terry Cutts; Derek Williams; Anthony Hodges; Ivan Pullen; Peter Szewcuzk; Dr C A Eastman and Mr D RidgwayAlan Martin; Steven East; Richard Eastland; Jane Holden; Sylvie Richardson; Roger Richardson; Julie Older; Tobias Brackett; Roger Kelly; Graham Higgs; Rod Giddins; Marguerite Wilkinson; MG & TJ Houghton; Peter Tye; Joe Bradley; Richard Josey; Margaret Symonds; RL Symonds; Dudley and Patricia Cloake; Paul Whiteside; Judi and Ken Kimble; John Reid; Stephen Samuels; Juliette Baker; Mr and Mrs Andrew Smith; Mr and Mrs Toby Smith; Mr and Mrs Darren Wilson; Peter Harbor; Alwyn and Carole Williams; Laurie Dunn; Paul Smith; Mr and Mrs Haill; Chris Turner; Don Shaw-Case; Paul Machin; Paul Reid; Phill Cavalli.
We cannot consider your comments about the merits of the Proposed Development at this time.

Please read the Planning Inspectorate's 'Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination' for details about how and when you can make a Relevant Representation to the appointed Examining Authority: [attachment 1]

31 August 2018
Various enquiries - anon.
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
About a week ago, the website said that interest could be registered from September 3, but that date has now been removed from the website. Is there a reason for this?
Please see our response to a similar query here: [attachment 1]

We have now published the Applicant’s s56 notice, formally notifying that the application has been accepted for Examination. This notice also confirms when the registration period will open:
[attachment 2]

31 August 2018
Poppy Jeffrey
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I didn't think this would be such a bureaucratic process. I have given my thoughts and there will be nothing more from me.
As previously advised, the comments you have provided will not be considered by the appointed Examining Authority until they are submitted at the correct time in the prescribed manner, as set out in the Planning Inspectorate's 'Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination': [attachment 1]

Once the registration period opens, please complete the Relevant Representation form, either online or on a paper copy by request, to ensure your comments are accepted and included in the Examination of the Manston Airport application.

31 August 2018
Paul Whiteside
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Perhaps there is some way of making RSP put the documents online, on an ordinary, navigable and searchable website.

Online as a serried of pdfs where you can’t really tell what information they contain, I can only say it probably ticks the boxes but isn’t really usable
As my colleague has already advised, the functionality you have described is not available on the National Infrastructure Planning website at the moment. Additionally, there is no prescribed manner in which applicants must display the application documents on their website.

You may have noticed that we have now published the Applicant’s s56 notice, formally notifying that the application has been accepted for Examination. This notice also sets out where members of the public can inspect hard copies of the application, which may be an easier way to navigate it, as well as how copies can be requested directly from the Applicant.

[attachment 1]

31 August 2018
Michael Child
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
Various enquiries by email from Jonathan Dean concerning the scoping opinion
Advice given by email on 30 August 2018:

Enquiry 1: The environmental impact assessment shall identify, describe and assess in an appropriate manner, in the light of each individual case, the direct and indirect significant effects of a project on ... (d) material assets". "material assets" would include property? Please advise if I have interpreted this correctly.

Response: The Inspectorate is unable to provide advice on the interpretation of legislation.

Enquiry 2: Can I make a suggestion to improve the planning process. Before the scope of the Environmental Statement is locked down, the public should be consulted;

Response: The scoping process is governed by the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017. As part of the process the Inspectorate, on behalf of the SoS, is required to consult with the consultation bodies as defined in the regulations. There is no requirement to consult with the public.

Enquiry 3: Is there a process to challenge the scope? If so, I would think it is better to do this before the DCO is submitted so Grid have an opportunity to respond.

Response: The Scoping Opinion is the SoS’s opinion as to the scope, and level of detail, of the information to be provided in the Environmental Statement. There is no process to challenge the SoS’s opinion. Should you have any views on the proposed assessment scope we suggest you contact the Applicant directly.

Enquiry 4: Impact on property value.

Response: It is for the Applicant to interpret the content of the SoS’s Scoping Opinion and undertake the assessment accordingly.

Enquiry 5: I understand from BEIS that the Scoping Opinion is in fact the work of PINS rather than the SoS. Is there not a potential conflict of interest?

Response: The Scoping Opinion is issued by the Planning Inspectorate on behalf of the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government. The decision whether to grant development consent for an energy project is made by the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy.

30 August 2018
Jonathan Dean
North Wales Connection
Enquiry received via email
Enquiry (from Jonathan Dean by email on 16 July 2018):

Can I make a suggestion for a way to improve the overall process for future projects? I am particularly impressed by PINS website presenting all questions etc, such as this, for the public to access. I am now being sent, by various members of the public, their submissions to the three stages of consultation by National Grid. The vast majority of which has not been reported in the consultation reports. Many of these have clearly involved considerable effort and technical, legal and economic consideration. Would it be possible for future projects that either PINS host the consultation repository, or the developer have to maintain a public repository? In this way the consultation would be more collaborative, and may be more acceptable to the public. Currently the vast majority of the public's effort is "lost" into National Grid's archive, and no one knows what others are saying. Collaborative efforts generally result in better acceptance of the outcomes.
Response (by email on 30 August 2018):

Thank you for your suggestion. The pre-application consultation is the responsibility of the applicant and therefore it would not be appropriate for the Planning Inspectorate’s website to host consultation documents. There is a risk that this could cause some confusion as any responses to the consultation should be sent to the applicant, and not the Inspectorate. It is for an applicant to determine the best way of presenting their consultation material and they consult the relevant local authorities on this in their Statement of Community Consultation.

30 August 2018
Jonathan Dean
North Wales Connection
Enquiry received via email
Enquiry (from Jonathan Dean by email on 22 August 2018):

I understand from National Grid that PINS conducted a consultation on the SoS Scoping Opinion. Please could I have more details of that consultation as I do not recall being consulted.
Response (by email on 30 August 2018):

Under the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2009 that were in force at the time of the scoping request for the North Wales Connection (but have since been replaced by the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017), the Planning Inspectorate was required to consult with the person who made the request and the consultation bodies prior to adopting a scoping opinion.

Consultation bodies are defined under the EIA Regulations as:
•a body prescribed under s42(1)(a) of the PA2008 (duty to consult) and listed in column 1 of the table set out at Schedule 1 to the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations where the circumstances set out in column 2 are satisfied in respect of that body;
•each authority that is within s43 of the PA2008 (local authorities for purposes of s42(1)(b)); and
•if the land to which the application, or proposed application, relates or any part of that land is in Greater London, the Greater London Authority.

The Planning Inspectorate conducted this consultation upon receipt of the North Wales Connection scoping request in May 2016. The consultation bodies are detailed in Appendix 2 of the Scoping Opinion.

The Planning Inspectorate’s approach to identifying scoping consultation bodies is detailed in Advice Note three: EIA consultation and notification.

30 August 2018
Jonathan Dean
North Wales Connection
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Several people have expressed concerns that, should they register as interested parties for the Manston Airport DCO, their names and possibly addresses will be made public on the Planning Inspectorate website. This concern arises because the individuals are worried that they will receive abuse on social media from people who support the reopening of the airport, something which has been prevalent from certain groups/individuals since the closure of the airport.

Can the Planning Inspectorate please advise whether the personal details of interested parties will be kept confidential if they choose to register.
The Planning Inspectorate is required to make Relevant Representations available for public inspection as soon as practicably possible after the close of the registration period. This includes publishing the Interested Party’s name alongside their representation; however, all other information provided on the Relevant Representation form will remain confidential.

The Inspectorate’s Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination: [attachment 1] advises groups of people who share similar views to submit combined representations/ communications to assist the process. Those persons you refer to in your email may be comforted to know that only the organisation name, and not the persons represented, will appear on the website if they participate in a group representation. Persons names provided in the representation itself can be redacted on request.

We offer this advice based on the principle that it is the relevance and importance of the issues raised that will attract weight in an Examining Authority's deliberations at the Examination stage, not the quantity of responses. Therefore persons shall not be prejudice by not submitting individual representations. The Inspectorate recommends that one person from the group is elected to speak if the group wishes to attend and give oral representations at public hearings once the Examination stage formally commences.

30 August 2018
Jonathan Fowler
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update Meeting.
Please see attached meeting note and separate document containing the Planning Inspectorate's comments on draft documents.

30 August 2018
Highways England - anon.
A303 Stonehenge
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Please see attached
Please see attached

28 August 2018
Highways England - anon.
A63 Castle Street Improvement-Hull
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Does PINS routinely accept for examination plans for developments where the money will be raised at a later date?
Did PINS consider how the project would be funded before accepting this application for examination?
Is PINS satisfied that the sources of funding for this project have been made sufficiently clear and that the sources are legitimate sources of funding?
What will happen to the DCO if it emerges that the compensation bill is likely to be far higher than the £7.5 million which RSP have allowed for? Will the examination be stopped or will you allow a hiatus in the process whilst they go off to try to raise further funds?
If the DCO were completed and RSP were able to fund acquisition of the site, what would happen if they were then unable to raise the money to deliver the development they have proposed? At that point, would PINS accept a modified proposal which was not the same in nature or scale to the original proposal?
“Does PINS routinely accept for examination plans for developments where the money will be raised at a later date?”

The test in The Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009 requires that, where a proposed order would authorise the Compulsory Acquisition of land or an interest in or right over land, applicants provide “a statement to indicate how an order that contains the authorisation of compulsory acquisition is proposed to be funded”. RiverOak Strategic Partners provided a Funding Statement setting out how it proposes to fund the order. The content of the Funding Statement can be interrogated by the Examining Authority in the course of the examination.

“Did PINS consider how the project would be funded before accepting this application for examination?”

The Planning Inspectorate issued advice about the content of draft funding statements at the following meetings:

• [attachment 1];ipcadvice=70d0cc5690
• [attachment 1];ipcadvice=11d13371d4

“Is PINS satisfied that the sources of funding for this project have been made sufficiently clear and that the sources are legitimate sources of funding?”

The Planning Inspectorate has not reached any conclusion in this respect. The evidence provided by the Applicant in the application documents will be tested by the appointed Examining Authority, at its own discretion, in a manner that seeks to be fair to all parties and thorough in its examination.

“What will happen to the DCO if it emerges that the compensation bill is likely to be far higher than the £7.5 million which RSP have allowed for? Will the examination be stopped or will you allow a hiatus in the process whilst they go off to try to raise further funds?”

The six month Examination stage is statutory. It has never been extended. If in any case an Examining Authority is not, by the end of the examination, satisfied in respect of one or more of the tests associated with the Compulsory Acquisition of land and rights, a positive recommendation may not be made to the relevant Secretary of State in respect of the Compulsory Acquisition powers sought.

Please see ‘Planning Act 2008: Guidance related to procedures for the compulsory acquisition of land’ for more information: [attachment 3]

“If the DCO were completed and RSP were able to fund acquisition of the site, what would happen if they were then unable to raise the money to deliver the development they have proposed? At that point, would PINS accept a modified proposal which was not the same in nature or scale to the original proposal?”

There is a formal process for requesting changes to Development Consent Orders post-consent. The principles are explained in ‘Planning Act 2008: Guidance on changes to Development Consent Orders’: [attachment 4]

24 August 2018
Peter Binding
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
Up until yesterday, the PINS website showed a date for the opening of registration of interested parties. Today, the website shows that you will publish the date for registration, implying that the original window for registration is no longer available. I am aware that The Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009 prescribe the publication of information regarding accepted DCO applications but am not aware that RSP have met the provisions of these regulations.

Can you please confirm the reason for the suspension of the registration period (and specifically whether this is in relation to the above referenced regulations).

In addition, can you confirm when the registration window is likely to be reopened.
Changes to the Planning Inspectorate’s website were temporary and reflected testing in preparation for the forthcoming registration period.

For definitive information about the dates associated with this period you should await the Applicant’s formal notice of the accepted application under s56 of the Planning Act 2008.

24 August 2018
Jonathan Fowler
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
1. You have decided that the project is a NISP ?
2. That RSP have addressed to your satisfaction on the issues you raised with them regarding their initial submission which they withdrew ?
3. You have decided that the various consultations were of an adequate standing ?
1. On the basis of the information provided in the application documents dated 17 July 2018, the Planning Inspectorate is satisfied that the Draft Development Consent Order includes development for which development consent is required (ie that it is a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project within the meaning of the Planning Act 2008).
2. The Applicant addressed the concerns set out by the Inspectorate to the extent that the application accepted for examination on 14 August 2018 was considered to be of a satisfactory standard.
3. The Planning Inspectorate is satisfied that the Applicant acted reasonably in seeking to comply with Chapter 2 of Part 5 (pre-application procedure) of the PA2008, including in carrying out its statutory consultation duties.

24 August 2018
Adem Mehmet
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I write further to the statement issued by Tony Freudmann to KMTV, which was published yesterday and which is at approximately 19 minutes into the broadcast which can be found at the following link :
[attachment 1]

In this broadcast, Tony Freudmann is quoted as saying, "Some of the people in Ramsgate are just about having no night flights, some just don't want an airport at all and some worried about noise.

If you look at the Planning Inspectorate you will find the impact assessment which concludes there will be no impact, or if there is it will be negligible."

This statement directly contradicts the information regarding noise which is presented in RSP's application, which, for example, includes the following statements :

"During the daytime:
? Moderate adverse impacts are predicted in Ramsgate;
? A moderate adverse impact is predicted at Pegwell Bay; and
? Minor adverse impacts are predicted in Manston."

"Considering that the impact is permanent and that a large number of dwellings within the communities are subject to minor to moderate adverse impacts, significant adverse effects have been identified at the communities of Ramsgate, Pegwell Bay and Manston as a result of the Proposed Development. The effect would be characterised as a perceived change in quality of life for occupants of buildings in these communities or a perceived change in the acoustic character of
shared open spaces within these communities during the daytime."

"During the night-time:
? Moderate adverse impacts are predicted in Ramsgate;
? Minor adverse impacts are predicted in Manston;
? A minor adverse impact is predicted in Wade; and
? A minor adverse impact is predicted in West Stourmouth;"

"Considering that the impact is permanent and that a large number of dwellings within the communities are subject to minor to moderate adverse impacts, significant adverse effects have been identified at the communities of Ramsgate, Manston, Wade and West Stourmouth as a result of the Proposed Development. The effect would be characterised as a perceived change in quality of life for occupants of buildings in these communities or a perceived change in the acoustic character of shared open spaces within these communities during the night-time."

(taken from the Environmental Statement volume which can be found here : [attachment 2])

The impacts listed above are, specifically, identified as not being negligible, and this is made clear in the impact assessment.

Can the Planning Inspectorate please advise whether they consider that it is acceptable for an applicant to publish lies or disinformation, about their proposed development, especially when such lies appear to be designed to downplay the likely impacts of the proposals.

If there is another explanation as to why Mr Freudmann has given such a quote containing incorrect information, then I am more than happy to be informed as to what the explanation is.

I'm sure that RSP and BDB will be more than happy to publish a retraction of Tony Freudmann's statement on their own website. Could BDB, on behalf of RSP, confirm whether this will be done.

This email should be considered as a S. 51 request and should therefore be published in full on the relevant section of the Planning Inspectorate website.
We cannot comment on statements made by applicants, or anybody else, which relate to the impacts of a Proposed Development. In this case, the evidence provided in the application documents dated 17 July 2018 is the definitive evidence provided by the Applicant upon which the appointed Examining Authority will commence its examination.

The Planning Inspectorate may consider seeking to clarify comments made by an applicant in the media if they relate to a misrepresentation of the Planning Act 2008 process.

Helpfully your email is copied to RSP/ BDB.

23 August 2018
Jonathan Fowler
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I note that it is now time for the applicant, RiverOak Strategic Partners Ltd to publicise the fact that its application has been accepted for examination and invite people who are interested in the proposal to register with the Planning Inspectorate as an interested party by making a relevant representation.

Where has this happened it was accepted for examination a week ago on 14 August 2018.?
There is no statutory time limit associated with the Pre-examination stage of the process. On that basis the Applicant can discharge its notification/ publication duties in respect of the accepted application at any time.

That said, the Pre-examination stage usually lasts for around three months (from the date the application is accepted until the Preliminary Meeting*). The aforementioned notification/ publication then is necessarily usually discharged in close proximity to the date of the Acceptance decision.

If you have signed up for updates about the project on the National Infrastructure Planning website, you will be notified when the Relevant Representation form becomes available.

* [attachment 1]

21 August 2018
Samara Jones-Hall
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The Faversham Society's views on the Consultation Process - please see attachment 1
Please see attached advice - attachment 2

20 August 2018
The Faversham Society - Harold Goodwin
Cleve Hill Solar Park
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I am looking for guidance on what role if any the applicant/developer has during the Examination stage of a DCO. For example are they present at all hearings and do they have a right to cross examine those giving evidence against the project?

Your guidance is silent on these matters and those of us opposing the Manston Airport DCO would welcome your advice please as we prepare for the Examination Stage.
The Applicant is an Interested Party. It is therefore afforded the same rights in the examination as anybody else who chooses to register an interest in the examination (by making a Relevant Representation) or who otherwise fall within the definitions in s102 of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008). Interested Parties can attend and provide oral evidence at any hearings and provide written evidence to the appointed Examining Authority (ExA). Generally the Applicant will be in attendance at any hearings, but may not always choose to make oral representations.

The PA2008 sets out an inquisitorial approach to the examination of applications, both in writing and at hearings. At hearings in most cases it will be the appointed ExA that will ask questions of persons making oral representations. In certain circumstances the ExA may allow an Interested Party, or his/ her representative, to question a person making oral representations at a hearing (ie allow cross-examination). The ExA may do so where it considers that this is necessary to ensure the adequate testing of any representations, or where it considers that it is necessary to allow an Interested Party a fair chance to put their case.

For further information please see ‘Planning Act 2008: Guidance for the examination of applications for development consent’: [attachment 1] and Advice note 8.4 and 8.5: [attachment 2]

20 August 2018
Nigel Phethean
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

20 August 2018
Cory Riverside Energy
Riverside Energy Park
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project meeting with Highways England
Please see attached meeting note

20 August 2018
Highways England - anon.
A585 Windy Harbour to Skippool Improvement Scheme
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I must say that my client [Associated British Ports] finds it disappointing that despite what we continue to believe are a number of fundamental defects in the pre-application process as prescribed by the Act, the Secretary of State has still decided to validate the application submitted by Suffolk County Council in relation to the Port of Lowestoft Third Crossing scheme. In the context of your consideration of the application, it would be extremely helpful if you could let me know whether, apart from advice offered by PINS which I appreciate you are required to publish on the web-page, there has been any contact - by way of written correspondence/email, telephone discussion or meetings between PINS and the applicants, their agents or solicitors since 25 July, the date of my original letter to you.

I should explain that my client's outstanding concerns are twofold. They derive first from its belief that the applicants have failed to comply with the required pre-application process, and second, in so doing, that failure has now severely prejudiced my client. You should be aware, incidentally, that according to the applicants' Lake Lothing Third Crossing Community Newsletter, the Council proudly note that the application submission runs to –

"- 14 boxes of folders;
- Approx. 154kg in weight;
- Total of 448 Documents;
- Approx. 26,600 pages the length of 80 football pitches if put together".

We do not think that this weight of documentation is something that should be welcomed and suspect that many interested parties and individuals who wish to participate in the examination process will share our concerns. On our initial review of the mass of application documents we have identified a worryingly large number of documents which we have never seen before and which will require careful consideration and assessment before we will be in a position to submit our relevant representations – if those representations are to be of any genuine value to the Examining Authority.

In this context, we should point out that our client's position has been further prejudiced and undermined by the fact that rather than recognise the clear logistical difficulties that will now face participants required to read and assess the 14 boxes of application folders that have been submitted in the middle of the August holiday season, the County Council have determined that the period for registration and submission of representations merits only a short extension beyond the minimum required, until 24 September.

We do find it difficult to understand how such a process can in any way be seen to be equitable. I would certainly be grateful if you would ensure that our client's concerns are placed before the Examining Authority as appropriate and in the meantime, I would welcome your response to the question raised above as soon as may be practicable.
Since 25 July 2018 we have had no contact with Suffolk County Council (SCC) in respect of any of the issues raised by your client.

Following publication of SCC’s s56 notice, the Registration form became available on the National Infrastructure Planning website today [17 August 2018]: [attachment 1]

The deadline for registration is 11.59pm on 24 September 2018, giving 38 days for parties to make a Relevant Representation.

Please note that an Examining Authority is yet to be appointed to examine this application.

17 August 2018
Clyde and Co LLP - anon.
Lake Lothing Third Crossing
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I note from RSPs submission that they seem to be claiming that with the number of stands they are providing they could support over 83,000 movements, way in excess of the additional 10,000 over whatever the existing capacity of the previous airport was. However their very ambitious and somewhat discredited business plan indicates a maximum number of around 30000 movements. On this basis they should be able to achieve their business plan with about a third of the stands they propose and on that basis do not need the entire site. This seems to be in breach of the requirement for them to modify and moderate their plans such that they only need to compulsorily purchase land required to deliver their business plan. Will this be something you will consider prior to deciding whether to accept the submission for examination or will it only be considered during the examination should the submission be accepted ? Likewise the applicant does not appear to have considered purchasing one of the airfields currently being sold openly in the market, again will this be something you will consider prior to deciding whether to accept the submission for examination or will it only be considered during the examination should the submission be accepted ?
These questions, which deal with the merits of the Proposed Development, are for the examination. To the extent that the Secretary of State has not already drawn conclusions under s55 of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) (ie against the Acceptance tests in s55 of the PA2008, and as expressed in the s55 Checklist), the evidence provided by the Applicant in the application documents will be tested by the appointed Examining Authority, at its own discretion, in a manner that seeks to be fair to all parties and thorough in its examination.

The Applicant is now required to publicise and give notice of the accepted application, providing the dates within which anybody can registered as an Interested Party by making a Relevant Representation. See Advice Note 8.2 for further information: [attachment 1]

If you choose to make a Relevant Representation about the Manston Airport proposals, it will assist the appointed Examining Authority (and all other interested persons) significantly if you refer only to the application documents that are under examination ie those submitted 17 July 2018 and accepted for examination on 14 August 2018, rather than the documents associated with the application withdrawn by letter dated 4 May 2018, which are superseded.

17 August 2018
Adem Mehmet
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I have now disgested much of the RSP application docs for their withdrawn application.

Unfortunately I still have some very significiant gaps in my understanding of how this could ever be made to work. The aviation analysis that has been provided still seems a very flimsy basis on which to proceed given the breadth of unaddressed and conflicting evidence that is available on the matter, the conflicting government forecasts and the acknowledged lack of any material funding that has actually been committed to deliver the project. Simply put there does not seem to be any commercial evidence within RSP's submission that supports a reasonable conclusion that the necessary funding for the project could ever be raised from investors.

Additionally, in an effort to understand the capacity point, which RSP attempt to address in their NSIP justification paper I have researched the historic levels of aircraft movements at Manston which are recorded with the CAA. These indicate that in each year between 2007 and 2011 that Manston catered for between 16,000 and 22,000 movements. Now, it is not clear from the statistics what type of planes that these movement represented - but it seems self evident from these numbers that Manston has signiciant inherent capcacity in its existing infrastructure.

Can you confirm what external advice you have taken in relation to assessing Manston's capacity and RSP's market analysis?
To the extent that the Secretary of State has not already drawn conclusions under s55 of the Planning Act 2008 (ie against the Acceptance tests, and as expressed in the s55 Checklist), the evidence provided by the Applicant in the application documents will be tested by the appointed Examining Authority, at its own discretion, in a manner that seeks to be fair to all parties and thorough in its examination.

The Applicant is now required to publicise and give notice of the accepted application, providing the dates within which anybody can registered as an Interested Party by making a Relevant Representation. See Advice Note 8.2 for further information: [attachment 1]

If you choose to make a Relevant Representation about the Manston Airport proposals, it will assist the appointed Examining Authority (and all other interested persons) significantly if you refer only to the application documents that are under examination ie those submitted 17 July 2018 and accepted for examination on 14 August 2018, rather than the documents associated with the application withdrawn by letter dated 4 May 2018, which are superseded.

17 August 2018
S Alvers
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I note that the application has been accepted for examination and that you decided, overall, that the statutory consultation could be accepted also.

I have looked at what your "application check list" says about the consultation but it is not clear to me if you reached a view about the accuracy of the picture of the proposal, as it was presented, directly to the public.

This concerns me because of the weight of unequivocal evidence that the proposals were not accurately described by the applicant. Can you kindly clarify your view in relation to this issue?
To the extent that the Secretary of State has not already drawn conclusions under s55 of the Planning Act 2008 (ie against the Acceptance tests, and as expressed in the s55 Checklist), the evidence provided by the Applicant in the application documents will be tested by the appointed Examining Authority, at its own discretion, in a manner that seeks to be fair to all parties and thorough in its examination.

The Applicant is now required to publicise and give notice of the accepted application, providing the dates within which anybody can registered as an Interested Party by making a Relevant Representation. See Advice Note 8.2 for further information: [attachment 1]

17 August 2018
Mark de Pulford
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
Please consider the attached detailed comments regarding the adequacy of the applicant's statutory consultation.

Could you also kindly clarify if you regard the statutory consultation processes as satisfying any requirement of Union law regarding local consultation on national infrastructure projects?
Thank you for your comments which were treated in the same way as all previous submissions made to the Planning Inspectorate about the adequacy of the Applicant’s Pre-application consultation.

In respect of the question “Could you also kindly clarify if you regard the statutory consultation processes as satisfying any requirement of Union law regarding local consultation on national infrastructure projects?”, can you please provide further details/ explanation about what this means? If you refer to the statutory consultation processes as set out in the Planning Act 2008, they have been subject to parliamentary scrutiny and brought into force by royal assent. In that respect you would need to take your own legal advice on which you can rely.

17 August 2018
Mark de Pulford
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

17 August 2018
Highways England - anon.
M25 junction 28 improvements
Enquiry received via email
Can you please advise if it possible to extend the time period for implementation of a previously consented DCO scheme?
Thank you for your email. It is possible to amend the terms of a development consent order via an application for a material or non-material change. The Government has published guidance on this, which you can find here.
Without knowledge of the circumstances, that is as much as I am able to say. I suggest that you take your own legal advice if you have any specific circumstances in mind.

16 August 2018
Jacobs Environment, Maritime & Resilience - Ted Keegan
General
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I have just looked on the Companies House website and note that Riveroak Strategic Partners Limited filed accounts for a dormant company in 11 April 2018. How can a dormant company apply for a DCO?

Also, the statutory reporting for persons with significant control statement states that 'the company knows or has reasonable cause to believe there is no registrable person or registrable person or relevant legal entity in relation to this company'. How can a company which has 'no warm body' apply for a DCO?

Further, on the Register of Person(s) with Significant Control it states that the information is not on the public register since 19 April 2018.

Further on the Register of Members it states that the information is not on the public register since 19 April 2018.

How can a company without a register of members apply for a DCO?
Dormant companies are companies that are not trading or do not have investments. See the following link for more information: [attachment 1]. They remain registered as companies and therefore exist as legal entities and can make applications for Development Consent Orders in the same way as any other legal entity.

Please see the following link for information about persons with significant control, in particular paragraph 2.2: [attachment 2]. Making a statement such as “the company knows or has reasonable cause to believe there is no registrable person or registrable person or relevant legal entity in relation to this company” does not affect the legal status of the registered company. A registered company may choose whether or not to keep information about persons with significant control or members on the register: [attachment 3]. None of these choices affect the legal status of the registered company which can make applications for Development Consent Orders in the usual way.

When an application is submitted, the Applicant is required to submit a Funding Statement setting out how the project is proposed to be funded. The appointed Examining Authority (ExA) can examine the content of the Funding Statement to its satisfaction in the examination process. The ExA needs to be satisfied that, amongst other things, adequate funding is likely to be available to enable the Compulsory Acquisition within the statutory period following the order being made, and that the resource implications of a possible acquisition resulting from a blight notice have been taken account of.

16 August 2018
Samara Jones-Hall
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
Could you please advise where and when a hard copy of the Manston DCO Environmental Statement may be viewed.
The Applicant is now required to publicise and provide notice of the accepted application, which must include details about where and when the application and accompaniments (including the Environmental Statement) can be viewed.

Please contact the applicant directly for more information: [email protected]

16 August 2018
Steve Harding
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Can you please confirm whether your decision to accept means that:

1. You have decided that the project is a NISP?
2. That RSP have addressed to your satisfaction on the issues you raised with them regarding their initial submission which they withdrew?
3. You have decided that the various consultations were of an adequate standing?
Please refer to the published Section 55 Acceptance of Applications Checklist for the conclusions drawn by the Planning Inspectorate on behalf of the Secretary of State: [attachment 1];stage=2&filter1=Procedural+Decision

15 August 2018
Adem Mehmet
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I am sure you always aim to act in the best interests of all but i plead with you to pay serious consideration to rejecting the DCO at Manston Airport.

Commercially it has never been a success, mainly due to its locality, being 80 Miles from London and the roads are not geared up for hundreds of freight lorry movements.

RSP through their several unofficial fan clubs and associations are claiming the airport will bring 30,000 local jobs. If this is in anyway true the jobs taken at the airport would need to be backfilled and I don’t believe many would be, and in a largely unskilled population it’s unrealistic to think that the jobs can all be filled from local people which would mean that people moving to the area would need to find housing, schools etc which are already under strain.

On the subject of housing the Local Plan that is offered as an alternative would mean mass housing being built in unsuitable locations with unsuitable infrastructure to support rather than a modern, built for purpose Garden Village on the Manston site.

Finally, RSP have showed themselves to be nothing but amateur throughout the entire process so I cannot even begin to imagine how they could fund and manage a project to the time of half a billion pounds.
We cannot consider your comments about the merits of the Proposed Development at this time.

Please read the Planning Inspectorate's 'Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination' for details about how and when you can make a Relevant Representation to the appointed Examining Authority: [attachment 1]

15 August 2018
Andy Hodder
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please grant the DCO for the reopening of Manston airport.

It is a national asset which can serve the country as a whole for years to come.

I am currently involved in a project which may also reap the benefits of having Manston available as a strategic asset if correctly implemented into our projects long term goals.

Wouldn’t it also be fantastic to give skills and transferable knowledge to the local residence and to also aid the younger generation in having aims and aspirations they can fulfil in following their dreams.

I would also like to add that once strategic assets such as these are built on there is no going back, they are lost forever. We, the nation, can’t allow that to happen to Manston it’s just too important a place with far too much to offer.

So, please save Manston Airport, the gateway to our nation for over 2000 years.
We cannot consider your comments about the merits of the Proposed Development at this time.

Please read the Planning Inspectorate's 'Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination' for details about how and when you can make a Relevant Representation to the appointed Examining Authority: [attachment 1]

15 August 2018
Adam Satchwell
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please can you clarify the situation re advice from pins to rsp. Dco was withdrawn last time so you could advise rsp further. It now seems again that pins are now actively supporting rsp in coaching and gaining extra information that has not been supplied as part of the dco application. To me and others it looks like planning inspectorate are doing all they can to help rsp succeed on the application. Please advise me if this is or is not the case as rsp are boasting via there supporters that pins are bending over backwards in helping rsp. This should not be happenning.
The Planning Inspectorate offered the same Pre-application service to RiverOak Strategic Partners as it does to all potential applicants. The service is set out in our Prospectus for Applicants: [attachment 1]

15 August 2018
Ken Wraight
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
See attached Meeting Note
See attached Meeting Note

15 August 2018
Esso Petroleum Company Limited - anon.
Southampton to London Pipeline Project
Enquiry received via email
Query about the proposed development
Thank you for your email in relation to the Riverside Energy Park project (EN010093).

Please accept my apology for the delay in responding to your email.

As the project has not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate (the Inspectorate), I would encourage you to contact the developer directly ([email protected]) to make your concerns heard as the Applicant has a statutory duty to take your views into account.

However, if you feel that your comments are not being considered and you need further information, I would advise you to write to your Local Authority (LA) and set out your concerns. Your comments will be considered when the LA provides its comments to the Inspectorate on whether the Applicant has fulfilled its consultation duties. The LA’s comments on the Applicant’s consultation will be taken into account when the Acceptance Inspector makes his/ her decision whether to accept the application for examination.

Should the application be accepted by the Planning Inspectorate for examination, the Applicant has a duty to notify the local community when providing information on how to register as an Interested Party for the purpose of the process.

The process under the Planning Act 2008 (PA 2008) has been designed to allow members of the public and statutory stakeholders to participate in examination of all DCO applications. During the examination of an application the Examining Authority (ExA) has a duty to take into account all matters assessed by the Applicant in the Environmental Statement and may ask additional questions as required.

More information is provided in the Planning Inspectorate’s Advice notes Advice Note 8: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others.

At the current pre-application stage we would recommend you look at Advice note 8.1. Responding to the developer’s pre-application consultation.

If the application is accepted for examination please look at Advice Note 8.2. How to register to participate in an Examination. By submitting a Relevant Representation during the pre-examination stage you as an individual and/or on behalf of a group are in position to highlight particular planning matters.

We have also published a document Section 47 - Community Consultation. Frequently Asked Questions regarding Pre-application consultation which may address some of your queries. However, please note that it is for the Applicant to decide how to carry out non-statutory and statutory consultation, and there is no statutory requirement under PA2008 for the Applicant to consult on the content of a Statement of Community Consultation (SoCC).

Please be assured that anyone interested in the proposed developments, their potential impacts and any planning matters can be fully engaged in the examination process. A copy of your correspondence has been placed on our records and will be presented to the Inspector at acceptance together with the application documents and Local Authorities’ comments on the Applicant’s consultation.

If you require any further advice about the National Infrastructure process please contact the Riverside Energy Park Case team at the Planning Inspectorate. They can be contacted by email via the project mailbox at [email protected] or via the Customer Services Team on telephone number 0303 444 5000.

Please note, in accordance with Section 51 of the PA2008, a summary of your query and our advice will be published on the project’s webpage of the National Infrastructure Website.

14 August 2018
Anonymous
Riverside Energy Park
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting.
Please see attached note.

14 August 2018
Highways England - anon.
A303 Stonehenge
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached meeting note

13 August 2018
Cleve Hill Solar Park Ltd
Cleve Hill Solar Park
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer attached correspondence from Suffolk County Council responding to requests for information by the enquirer's client, Associated British Ports. The enquirer stated that "should the current application be [accepted], our client will be significantly prejudiced in terms of timescale when required to submit its representations on the application to the Secretary of State."
The Inspectorate considered whether to accept the Lake Lothing Third Crossing application in accordance with the requirements of Section 55 of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008): [attachment 1]. As ABP will be aware, under s56 of the PA2008 SCC is now required to provide notice of the accepted application, confirming the dates for the Relevant Representation period.

We encourage ABP and SCC to continue negotiations at the Pre-examination stage. In the first instance, ABP will be able to set out its technical concerns in a Relevant Representation at the appropriate time.

10 August 2018
Clyde and Co LLP - anon.
Lake Lothing Third Crossing
Enquiry received via email
My understanding is that the applicant must go through scoping and then conduct impact inquiry taking account of precautionary principle and cumulative effect assessment. This must form part of the PINS application ?

Is it the case that govt toxic legacy tests are scheduled for Manston ? Possibly firefighting foams testing but I am not sure
There is no mandatory requirement to undertake scoping but an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) scoping opinion was sought for the proposed Manston Airport development in 2016. The Proposed Development is classed as EIA development and is therefore required to submit an Environmental Statement and Non-Technical Summary providing the information required in Schedule 4 of the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017. The EIA should be prepared taking into account both the precautionary principle and cumulative effects.

The Applicant will be required to consider ground contamination issues as part of its EIA.

10 August 2018
Richard Card
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached

10 August 2018
Womble Bond Dickinson Osborne Clarke - anon.
Rail Central (Strategic Rail Freight Interchange)
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached Meeting Note.

08 August 2018
Wheelabrator Technologies Inc (WTI) - anon.
Wheelabrator Kemsley Generating Station (K3) and Wheelabrator Kemsley North (WKN) Waste to Energy Facility
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Like many others I am concerned about the planed resurrection of Manston as a cargo hub . Please can you tell me if ( should the dco be granted ) there is an opportunity for people like myself to voice our objections regarding air and noise pollution . I’m sure you will understand the need for debate with something on such a massive scale .
The Manston Airport application is currently in the Acceptance stage following resubmission on 17 July 2018. The Planning Inspectorate (the Inspectorate) is in the process of considering whether to accept the application, in accordance with the requirements of Section 55 of the Planning Act 2008, and will issue a decision on or before 14 August 2018. Please note this decision is whether the application is accepted for examination by the Inspectorate.

If the application is accepted for examination, the Relevant Representation period will be the first time during which comments on an application can be submitted to the Inspectorate for consideration by the Examining Authority. It is the Applicant’s duty to advertise the Relevant Representation period and provide details about how to register to become an Interested Party.

You may wish to sign up to the Inspectorate's email update service to receive updates on the application, which will include when the Relevant Representation period will open. This feature is located on the right-hand side of the project overview page:
[attachment 1]

Please see the following link for information on registering to participate in the Examination:
[attachment 2]

There is also a short video setting out how to participate in the process here:
[attachment 3]

07 August 2018
Allan Tudor
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
I would be grateful if you could help me with some questions relating to land interest questionnaires please.

Please forgive me for giving you all the background information. I wanted to show you how this brings me on to my questions below.

I am Chair of a local residents' group. Through my role, and connection with other groups, I became aware that thousands of residents received Land Interest Questionnaires ("LIQs") from Suffolk County Council who is the applicant of the above stated project.

The areas that received the LIQs are made up of many elderly and vulnerable sectors of society.

I have spoken with many, and been made aware of other recipients of the LIQs that were confused and distressed as they assumed their homes would be subject to compulsory purchase orders as they were asked to volunteer information about their mortgage companies as part of LIQ process.

Following a public outcry of receiving these letter, a newspaper article and radio interview were broadcast as it became clear that the applicant had caused a huge amount of unnecessary panic. Consequently, the local MP was forced to issue a statement that "No residential properties will be compulsory purchased". However, some businesses would be. Had these simple words been incorporated into the LIQs, so many thousands of people would not have had to unnecessarily endure such upset.

This beings me to my questions:-

1. Why would details relating to peoples' mortgages be asked in LIQs when an applicant already knows residential homes would not be the subject of compulsory purchase orders?

2. Does the Planning Inspectorate promote and encourage applicants (in particular applicants who are local authorities), to be sensitive in their questioning and give reasons for their questions to mitigate distress to the public whilst taking into account factors such as race, age, etc.?

3. Does the Planning Inspectorate only require one form of LIQ to be sent to businesses and residential properties? Is this considered best practice?

4. How does the distress and unecessary worry to so many people get documented/recorded when it occurs prior to the consultation period?

I would be very grateful if you could help me understand these points.

Kind regards,

Nicky Wilson
Dear Ms Wilson,

Thank you for your email. I apologise for the delay in replying to you.

I note the contents of your email, and I will try to respond to your questions:

1) The applicant is required to undertake diligent inquiry to establish the owners of land or rights that may be affected by the proposed scheme; including those parties who may be outside the land of the proposed scheme itself, but potentially able to make a relevant claim. How the applicant goes about doing this is a matter for them.

2) The government has published guidance on how to approach compulsory acquisition, which can be found here. Paragraph 24 of the guidance reads, in part: “Early consultation with people who could be affected by the compulsory acquisition can help build up a good working relationship with those whose interests are affected, by showing that the applicant is willing to be open and to treat their concerns with respect.”

3) How the applicant goes about undertaking diligent inquiry is a matter for them.

4) I would suggest that you engage fully with the applicant’s pre-application consultation, and make your concerns known to them. We will look to the applicant to show that they have had regard to all responses to their statutory consultation when an application is made.

If you have any other questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.

07 August 2018
Nicky Wilson
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Evidence Plan Steering Group initiation meeting with Ørsted, East Riding of Yorkshire Council, Natural England and the Marine Management Organisation.
Please see attached

07 August 2018
Ørsted et al - anon.
Hornsea Project Four Offshore Wind Farm (Generating Stations)
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update and review of draft documents
Please see attached

06 August 2018
SP Manweb - anon.
Reinforcement to North Shropshire Electricity Distribution Network
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
At RSP's latest consultation the public was told that RSP planned to have 17000+ ATMs a year. That number has risen to 83000. Will there be another consultation?
The Manston Airport application is currently in the Acceptance stage following resubmission on 17 July 2018. The Planning Inspectorate is in the process of considering whether to accept the application, in accordance with the requirements of Section 55 of the Planning Act 2008, and will issue a decision on or before 14 August 2018.

If the application is accepted for examination you will have the opportunity to make representations about the merits of the application to an appointed Examining Authority at the appropriate time. Please see the advice note below for more information:

Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination
[attachment 1]

It will be for the Applicant to take a view about whether any further consultation is required if the application is withdrawn or not accepted for examination.

03 August 2018
Marva Rees
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation.
The Planning Inspectorate can consider your comments in addition to the statutorily required Acceptance tests when making the decision about whether or not to accept the application under section 55 of the Planning Act 2008. It will be for the decision maker (the Planning Inspectorate on behalf of the Secretary of State) to decide the weight to give to the views expressed in your comments based on the individual facts of the case.

Please note the comments received by the Inspectorate in respect of RSP's first submission dated 10 April 2018, which relate to the Applicant's formal statutory consultation under s42, 47 and/ or 48 of the Planning Act 2008, will be treated as if they had been provided in relation to the second submission dated 17 July 2018.

If the application is accepted for examination you will have the opportunity to make representations about the merits of the application to an appointed Examining Authority at the appropriate time.

02 August 2018
Mark de Pulford
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
I'm concerned about RSP's unwillingness to correspond with me about the number of ATM's they propose. The Meeting Notes of the 11 May meeting between the PI and RSP show all sorts of figures for the anticipated ATM's, including one of 83,000. This latter is so much bigger than anything RSP had previously mentioned that I emailed them to try to find out more.

RSP make promise and excuse after promise and excuse. I don't think that it is acceptable for RSP to Consult on one set of ATM's, and then introduce numbers almost an order of magnitude larger without at the very least some cogent explanation to those likely to be affected.
We note the comments made.

The Planning Inspectorate can consider your comments in addition to the statutorily required Acceptance tests when making the decision about whether or not to accept the application under section 55 of the Planning Act 2008. It will be for the decision maker (the Planning Inspectorate on behalf of the Secretary of State) to decide the weight to give to the views expressed in your comments based on the individual facts of the case.

If the application is accepted for examination you will have the opportunity to make representations about the merits of the application to an appointed Examining Authority at the appropriate time.

02 August 2018
James Chappell
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
I have noticed that RSP have reapplied for a DCO on the Manston site. I have being regularly checking your site but there was no notice of this . In your minutes of the meeting of 22 June RSP agreed to give you notice. I see Paul Messenger announced it to a KCC meeting last week and Roger Gale on Radio Kent the week before so as you can understand it has left me confused . Did RSP not inform you with a timetable, as agreed, or did you not update your website. I also notice there is no list of attendees with the minutes of the 22 June please could you supply this and who the various people represent.

I have also seen a copy of their previous DCO submission even the most cursory scan shows important information that was not available to residents and interested parties during the consultation period on such matters as night flights and aircraft types. I would go as far as to say I was lied to by RSP when I asked questions. How can anyone come to an informed decision when important information is withheld or you are told lies. I have also seen TDC response to the consultation where they quote RSP in saying that where someone notified them that they never received notice of the consultation they re-distributed to the whole street. This simply isn't true we never got a card neither did anyone on our street in spite of me contacting RSP several time. It seems doubtful anyone on Nethercourt estate got notice of the consultation as I made a point of asking anyone I see and only people who contacted RSP got one sent directly to their home.

I hope PINS will take on board the very poor quality of RSP’s consultation into consideration when making a decision to accept the application
Whilst RiverOak’s representatives had given the Planning Inspectorate (the Inspectorate) an indication that submission of the application could be in July 2018, the date of Tuesday 17 July was not confirmed until Thursday 12 July (by telephone). The Planning Inspectorate will consider whether to accept the Manston Airport application dated 17 July 2018 in accordance with the requirements of Section 55 of the Planning Act 2008.

The Inspectorate can consider your comments in addition to the statutorily required Acceptance tests when making the decision about whether or not to accept the application under section 55 of the Planning Act 2008. It will be for the decision maker (the Planning Inspectorate on behalf of the Secretary of State) to decide the weight to give to the views expressed in your comments based on the individual facts of the case.

Please note the comments received by the Inspectorate in respect of RSP's first submission dated 10 April 2018, which relate to the Applicant's formal statutory consultation under s42, 47 and/ or 48 of the Planning Act 2008, will be treated as if they had been provided in relation to the second submission dated 17 July 2018.

02 August 2018
Ian Scott
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
A47 Projects Programme Update Meeting
Please see attached.

02 August 2018
Highways England - anon.
A47 Wansford to Sutton
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
A47 Projects Programme Update Meeting
Please see attached.

02 August 2018
Highways England - anon.
A47 North Tuddenham to Easton
response has attachments
A47 Projects Programme Update Meeting
Please see attached.

02 August 2018
Highways England - anon.
A47/A11 Thickthorn Junction
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
A47 Projects Programme Update Meeting
Please see attached.

02 August 2018
Highways England - anon.
A47 Blofield to North Burlingham
Enquiry received via email
I note from social media postings that an email was yesterday leaked, from Bircham Dyson Bell to PINs regarding RSP's withdrawn DCO application - indicating that they were seeking to optimise the timing of the publication and facts of their withdrawal letter to suit their own PR purposes and were requesting specific guideance from PINS as to when they should send their withdrawal letter to PINS so it did not get publised before their preferrered date - thus avoiding any difficult questions from the public over the bank holiday weekend.

Is it normal that PINS would accomdate such flexibility on behalf of an applicant that is withdrawing and why would you do so in this case? and how does that square with PINS obligations to be transparent on the DCO processs and to keep the public informed. This again goes to previously expressed concerns by other correspondents regarding the time being taken to actually post meeting notes meaning that the public, who are most impacted, are consistently behind the curve and suggests RSP are being granted high levels of flexibility at the cost of public transparency.

Another example was RSP's revised application that appreared out of left field with no prior notice on the PINs website or futher consultation with the public.
An email from Bircham Dyson Bell (BDB) to The Planning Inspectorate (the Inspectorate) dated 3 May 2018 was released as part of a Freedom of Information request. No email response was issued from the Inspectorate in respect of that email. BDB then sent the formal ‘withdrawal’ email to the Inspectorate outside of working hours on Friday 4 May 2018. The Inspectorate did not receive or action that email until the next working day which was Tuesday 8 May 2018 due to the Bank Holiday. Normal working practices were followed in this case.

01 August 2018
S Alvers
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached meeting notes

01 August 2018
Highways England - anon.
A63 Castle Street Improvement-Hull
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
See attached Meeting Note
See attached Meeting Note

01 August 2018
INRG SOLAR (Little Crow) Ltd - anon.
Little Crow Solar Park
Enquiry received via post
response has attachments
Ørsted sent their draft Statement of Community Consultation to the Planning Inspectorate for comment.
Please see attached

01 August 2018
Orsted et al - anon.
Hornsea Project Four Offshore Wind Farm (Generating Stations)
Enquiry received via phone
response has attachments
The enquirer acknowledged that the Royal Parks had not been consulted by the Applicant and raised concerns regarding potential effects to the Longford River.
Thank you for your call with regards to the proposed Expansion of Heathrow Airport (Third Runway) application.

As discussed, the proposed application is currently in the pre-application stage, therefore any comments or queries should be made directly to the Applicant – Heathrow Airport Limited. I also note from the Applicant’s website, accessed via the below link, that further public consultation (‘Heathrow Consultation 2’) is due to take place before formal submission to the Planning Inspectorate:

[attachment 1]

You may wish to sign up for email updates from the Planning Inspectorate, which, amongst other things, will notify you of when the application is formally submitted. This function is available on the overview tab of our project webpage.

Please also find links to our suite of advice notes setting out how to engage once the application has been submitted and has been accepted for Examination by the Planning Inspectorate:

Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others
[attachment 2]
Advice Note 8.1: Responding to the developer’s pre-application consultation
[attachment 3]
Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination
[attachment 4]
Advice Note 8.3: Influencing how an application is Examined: the Preliminary Meeting
[attachment 5]
Advice Note 8.4: The Examination
[attachment 6]
Note 8.5: The Examination: hearings and site inspections
[attachment 7]

27 July 2018
The Royal Parks - Margaret Blackburn
Expansion of Heathrow Airport (Third Runway)
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Please see attached
Please see attached

27 July 2018
Highways England - anon.
A27 Arundel Bypass
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Query regarding selection of Zone 7 Friston by Scottish Power for the onshore wind farm substation and grid connection.
Thank you for your email of 4 July 2018 and the attached documents regarding Friston site selection process for the East Anglia ONE North and East Anglia TWO projects.

The Planning Inspectorate (the Inspectorate) is a government agency and part of the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) responsible for examining Development Consent Order applications for Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIPs). The Inspectorate makes a recommendation to the relevant Secretary of State who will then make a final decision whether to grant or to refuse development consent. The SoS of Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) is the relevant minister in regards to energy projects. However, the Inspectorate has no remit in regards to creating planning Policies. It can provide procedural advice and in relation to these specific projects, any advice issued can be found here: East Anglia TWO and East Anglia ONE North.

As the projects have not yet been submitted to the Inspectorate, the Inspectorate has no formal powers to intervene on consultees’ behalf and we are therefore not in a position to supervise the statutory consultation process conducted by the Applicant.

As part of the pre-application stage in the Development Consent Order (DCO) process, an Applicant has a number of duties that they are required to carry out which include extensive surveys and consultations to identify, for example, any suitable areas for investigation and selecting the cable route corridors, and substations.

The Applicant, as part of its Statement of Community Consultation (SoCC), is required to set out how they intend to conduct consultation on a project and in relation to the East Anglia projects. Whilst the Inspectorate cannot comment on the Applicant’s selections, more detailed information on the project can be found on the Applicant’s websites SPR - East Anglia TWO and SPR - East Anglia ONE North which also includes their reasoning for the choices of the Zone 7: SPR - Summary and Approach to Site Selection.

I would encourage you to continue engaging with the developer directly to make your concerns heard as the Applicant has a statutory duty to have regard to all consultation responses which should be demonstrated in the in the Consultation Report as part of the DCO application. However, if you feel that your comments are not being taken into account, I would advise you to write to your local authority and set out why you think the applicant is failing to conduct is consultation properly. Your comments should be taken into account by the local authority when sending the Inspectorate its comments on whether the applicant has fulfilled its consultation duties. The local authority’s comments on the applicant’s consultation will be taken into account when the Examining Inspector makes their decision whether to accept the application for examination.

Should the DCO application be accepted by the Inspectorate for examination, the Applicant has a duty to publicise the accepted application and provide information on how to register as an Interested Party.

The process under the Planning Act 2008 (PA 2008) has been designed to allow members of the public and statutory stakeholders to participate in examination of all DCO applications so that anyone interested in the proposed developments, their potential impacts and any relevant matters can be fully engaged in the examination process.

During the examination, the Examining Authority has a duty to take into account all matters assessed by the Applicant in the Environmental Statement and may ask additional questions as required. More information is provided in the Planning Inspectorate’s Advice notes Advice Note 8: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others, and at the current pre-application stage we would recommend especially Advice note 8.1. Responding to the developer’s pre-application consultation and Advice Note 8.2. How to register to participate in an Examination.

[attachment 1]

Please note, in accordance with Section 51 of the PA2008, a summary of your query and our advice will be published on the project’s webpage of the National Infrastructure Website.

26 July 2018
Elizabeth Thomas
East Anglia ONE North Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Query regarding selection of Zone 7 Friston by Scottish Power for the onshore wind farm substation and grid connection.
Thank you for your email of 4 July 2018 and the attached documents regarding Friston site selection process for the East Anglia ONE North and East Anglia TWO projects.

The Planning Inspectorate (the Inspectorate) is a government agency and part of the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) responsible for examining Development Consent Order applications for Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIPs). The Inspectorate makes a recommendation to the relevant Secretary of State who will then make a final decision whether to grant or to refuse development consent. The SoS of Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) is the relevant minister in regards to energy projects. However, the Inspectorate has no remit in regards to creating planning Policies. It can provide procedural advice and in relation to these specific projects, any advice issued can be found here: East Anglia TWO and East Anglia ONE North.

As the projects have not yet been submitted to the Inspectorate, the Inspectorate has no formal powers to intervene on consultees’ behalf and we are therefore not in a position to supervise the statutory consultation process conducted by the Applicant.

As part of the pre-application stage in the Development Consent Order (DCO) process, an Applicant has a number of duties that they are required to carry out which include extensive surveys and consultations to identify, for example, any suitable areas for investigation and selecting the cable route corridors, and substations.

The Applicant, as part of its Statement of Community Consultation (SoCC), is required to set out how they intend to conduct consultation on a project and in relation to the East Anglia projects. Whilst the Inspectorate cannot comment on the Applicant’s selections, more detailed information on the project can be found on the Applicant’s websites SPR - East Anglia TWO and SPR - East Anglia ONE North which also includes their reasoning for the choices of the Zone 7: SPR - Summary and Approach to Site Selection.

I would encourage you to continue engaging with the developer directly to make your concerns heard as the Applicant has a statutory duty to have regard to all consultation responses which should be demonstrated in the in the Consultation Report as part of the DCO application. However, if you feel that your comments are not being taken into account, I would advise you to write to your local authority and set out why you think the applicant is failing to conduct is consultation properly. Your comments should be taken into account by the local authority when sending the Inspectorate its comments on whether the applicant has fulfilled its consultation duties. The local authority’s comments on the applicant’s consultation will be taken into account when the Examining Inspector makes their decision whether to accept the application for examination.

Should the DCO application be accepted by the Inspectorate for examination, the Applicant has a duty to publicise the accepted application and provide information on how to register as an Interested Party.

The process under the Planning Act 2008 (PA 2008) has been designed to allow members of the public and statutory stakeholders to participate in examination of all DCO applications so that anyone interested in the proposed developments, their potential impacts and any relevant matters can be fully engaged in the examination process.

During the examination, the Examining Authority has a duty to take into account all matters assessed by the Applicant in the Environmental Statement and may ask additional questions as required. More information is provided in the Planning Inspectorate’s Advice notes Advice Note 8: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others, and at the current pre-application stage we would recommend especially Advice note 8.1. Responding to the developer’s pre-application consultation and Advice Note 8.2. How to register to participate in an Examination.

[attachment 1]

Please note, in accordance with Section 51 of the PA2008, a summary of your query and our advice will be published on the project’s webpage of the National Infrastructure Website.

26 July 2018
Elizabeth Thomas
East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
I am a member of the public and I have a couple of general questions.

1. I have been told the consultation period is six weeks. Is this period set in stone? Due to the complexity of this NSIP and the amount of information involved, six weeks doesn't give a lay person much time to get through everything.

2. Also, can ask whether it is possible to have a representative of the planning inspectorate attend any of the public consultations?

The applicant in this instance is Suffolk County Council and they are trying to make the plans for this project fit in but not taking any public views into regard. We feel having the presence of someone impartial woukd be benificial so that a fair view can be taken without the outcome of the consultation being written up in a one sided way.

I am a member of an action Group for local residents called the Wherstead Road Action Group. Together with two other groups (Rivers Action. Group and Friends of Hollywells Park) we are not in favour of this project due to so many reason. Many peoples' lives will be affected by car pollution, noise, danger crossing an already very busy road with no traffic calming present, wildlife issues, house prices decreasing, etc.

I would very much welcome your response.

Kind regards,

Nicky Wilson
Dear Ms Wilson,

Thank you for your email.

The period given by the applicant for their statutory pre-application consultation with the local community is not set in stone, but should accord with their Statement of Community Consultation, which should be published. The applicant may also undertake non-statutory consultation in advance of or after their statutory consultation, if they feel it appropriate given the circumstances of their scheme.

Unfortunately, we are unlikely to be able to attend local consultation events being run by the applicant. However, you may want to review our advice notes, and particularly advice note 8, which can be found here.

I would strongly encourage you to engage with the applicants pre-application consultation. The applicant is required to have regard to any responses to their statutory consultation, and we will be looking to the applicant to demonstrate that they have done this when their application is submitted. If we are not satisfied that they have, the application will not be accepted for examination.

If you have any other questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.

26 July 2018
Nicky Wilsom
General
Enquiry received via phone
response has attachments
The enquirer asked how he could provide comments to the Planning Inspectorate on recent press articles relating to compulsory acquisition which reported information that conflicted with the Applicant’s assurances to Sefton Parish Council to date.
I understand that you have read recent press reports that have presented conflicting information to that which Sefton Parish Council had been given by the Applicant, and have discussed the matter with our case team.

At this stage any such comments or queries on the proposed application should be made directly to Applicant. I also note from the Applicant’s website, accessed via the below link, that further public consultation is due to take place in summer/autumn of this year:

[attachment 1]

Any comments that you may have on the consultation undertaken by the Applicant should also be relayed to your Local Planning Authority so that they can be incorporated in the Adequacy of Consultation Response that the LPA will prepare and provide to the Planning Inspectorate once the application has been submitted.

25 July 2018
Sefton Parish Council - Johnny Duffy
A5036 Port of Liverpool Access Scheme
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
See attached letter.
The Inspectorate will consider whether to accept the Lake Lothing Third Crossing application in accordance with the requirements of Section 55 of the Planning Act 2008.

We note you have made the Applicant aware of your concerns in the past, you may wish to make them aware of this correspondence if you have not done so already.

Furthermore, if you have not done so already, you can send the comments relating to the Applicant’s Pre-application consultation to the relevant local authority. Relevant local authorities have been invited to make a representation to the Inspectorate about the adequacy of the Applicant’s Pre-application consultation. Your client’s local authority will be able to consider your comments in preparing its ‘Adequacy of Consultation Representation’ (AoCR). Note that the deadline for receipt by the Inspectorate of any AoCRs is 27 July 2018. Amongst other things, the Inspectorate must have regard to all AoCRs received from a relevant local authority in taking its decision about whether to accept an application for examination.

Note that applicants are required to demonstrate in their applications for development consent how they have carried out their Pre-application consultation duties in accordance with the provisions of the Planning Act 2008. Negotiations between applicants and persons with an interest in affected lands are expected to progress after consultation has elapsed and in the course of the examination of applications. If this application is accepted for examination, you will be able to make representations to an appointed Examining Authority at the appropriate time. See our Advice Note 8 series for further information, here: [attachment 1]

25 July 2018
Clyde and Co LLP - anon.
Lake Lothing Third Crossing
Enquiry received via email
Hello,

Could you please confirm if Parish Councils would be considered a statutory stakeholder for a DCO application under the 2008 Planning Act if located in a host local authority ward or if in the immediate vicinity of the proposal.

Thank you
Hi Chris,

The prescribed consultees for DCO applications are set out in schedule 1 to the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009 (as amended).

This includes the “The relevant parish council, or, where the application relates to land Wales or Scotland the relevant community council” in all cases. The note to the table explains that ““relevant”, in relation to a body, shall mean the body which has responsibility for the location where the proposals may or will be sited or has responsibility for an area which neighbours that location.”

Therefore, parish councils are statutory consultees for DCO applications.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any further questions.

24 July 2018
Chris Purslow
General
Enquiry received via email
In the June 22 meeting note that has just been loaded it says it was agreed Riveroak would tell you the anticipated submission date once known. As many are saying that it is an attempt to influence the local plan vote this week can you please confirm when Riveroak first told you it was going to submit its application on at the start of this week?
Whilst RiverOak’s representatives had given the Inspectorate an indication that submission of the application could be in July 2018, the date of Tuesday 17 July was not confirmed until Thursday 12 July (by telephone).

24 July 2018
Ackers Johnson
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
Can you please advise when the Planning Inspectorate became aware of RiverOak's intention to submit their application on this date, as nothing was noted on your website.
Whilst RiverOak’s representatives had given the Inspectorate an indication that submission of the application could be in July 2018, the date of Tuesday 17 July was not confirmed until Thursday 12 July (by telephone).

24 July 2018
Jonathan Fowler
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
Having reviewed the submission documents which you kindly sent me it seems clear that there is significant information disclosed in these documents that was not available to the general public for them to comment on during the consultations, in particular on the very important issue of night flights. At the consultation we were constantly told by RSP representatives and their promoter Sir Roger Gale MP that night flights were not required other than for humanitarian reasons and emergency flights. This is clearly not the basis upon which their submission was made to you and therefore further evidence that the consultations were not adequate. I hope you will be directing RSP to hold further consultations so the general public can comment on these new plans in an informed way.

One further question if I may. It would seem RSP are proposing to site their house receptor 6.5km from the airport. This locates it in the sea where there are no houses or population base which seems pointless. It also means that noise over the densely populated town of Ramsgate with its many schools, community buildings, businesses and residential buildings will not be monitored at all, I suspect because at these locations the noise levels specified for fines to be levied will be breached by each and every flight. Surely this cannot be the right way to measure and monitor noise over such a densely populated area directly under a flightpath with planes at around 300/500ft above buildings ?

Lastly there is reference to a report which RSP are using which asserts that as long as someone's sleep is not disturbed more than 18 times during the night this is acceptable from a noise disturbance perspective. I have tried but failed to secure a copy of this report from any source including RSP. Will you please confirm that you have seen this report and had it examined by an appropriate expert in order to determine its validity.
We note the comments made. The Planning Inspectorate will consider whether to accept the Manston Airport application dated 17 July 2018 in accordance with the requirements of Section 55 of the Planning Act 2008.

If the application is accepted for examination you will have the opportunity to make representations about the merits of the application to an appointed Examining Authority at the appropriate time.

24 July 2018
Adem Mehmet
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer wrote to the Planning Inspectorate urging the Secretary of State to refuse to accept the application on the grounds of inadequate Pre-application consultation.
The Planning Inspectorate will consider whether to accept the Lake Lothing Third Crossing application in accordance with the requirements of Section 55 of the Planning Act 2008.

If you have not done so already, you can send the comments relating to the Applicant’s Pre-application consultation to your client’s local authority. Relevant local authorities have been invited to make a representation to the Inspectorate about the adequacy of the Applicant’s Pre-application consultation. Your client’s local authority will be able to consider your comments in preparing its ‘Adequacy of Consultation Representation’ (AoCR). Note that the deadline for receipt by the Inspectorate of any AoCRs is 27 July 2018. Amongst other things, the Inspectorate must have regard to all AoCRs received from a relevant local authority in taking its decision about whether to accept an application for examination.

Note that applicants are required to demonstrate in their applications for development consent how they have carried out their Pre-application consultation duties in accordance with the provisions of the Planning Act 2008. Negotiations between applicants and persons with an interest in affected lands are expected to progress after consultation has elapsed and in the course of the examination of applications. If this application is accepted for examination, you will be able to make representations to an appointed Examining Authority at the appropriate time. See our Advice Note 8 series for further information, here: [attachment 1]

24 July 2018
Birketts LLP - anon.
Lake Lothing Third Crossing
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer copied a letter, addressed to representatives of Suffolk County Council, to the Planning Inspectorate. The letter set out the enquirer's client's objection to the Proposed Development.
The Inspectorate will consider whether to accept the Lake Lothing Third Crossing application in accordance with the requirements of Section 55 of the Planning Act 2008.

If you have not done so already, you can send the comments relating to the Applicant’s Pre-application consultation to your client’s local authority. Relevant local authorities have been invited to make a representation to the Inspectorate about the adequacy of the Applicant’s Pre-application consultation. Your client’s local authority will be able to consider your comments in preparing its ‘Adequacy of Consultation Representation’ (AoCR). Note that the deadline for receipt by the Inspectorate of any AoCRs is 27 July 2018. Amongst other things, the Inspectorate must have regard to all AoCRs received from a relevant local authority in taking its decision about whether to accept an application for examination.

Note that applicants are required to demonstrate in their applications for development consent how they have carried out their Pre-application consultation duties in accordance with the provisions of the Planning Act 2008. Negotiations between applicants and persons with an interest in affected lands are expected to progress after consultation has elapsed and in the course of the examination of applications. If this application is accepted for examination, you will be able to make representations to an appointed Examining Authority at the appropriate time. See our Advice Note 8 series for further information, here: [attachment 1]

24 July 2018
Howes Percival LLP - anon.
Lake Lothing Third Crossing
Enquiry received via email
Query 1 (from Jonathan Dean by e-mail on 9 July 2018)

I’m sorry but this is a circular argument !
National Grid requested impact on house prices be put out of scope
The SoS agreed
You put this in “the opinion”
I want to know why? And why is it in scope in Cumbria?

It cannot be right for National Grid to make up the rules and police themselves! There simply has to be some form of check!

Who wrote “the opinion”? Who signed it off? What was the decision making process?
Anglesey is being discriminated against, again!

Query 2 (from Jonathan Dean by e-mail on 10 July 2018)

Thank you for this

The scoping opinion may well have been in the public domain, but Grid never made reference to it in the public consultation, and certainly never drew attention to the fact that impact on house prices was out of scope (PMO please take note)

I am trying to find out the rational behind impact on house prices being out of scope. BEIS direct me to you, and you direct me to National Grid. Obviously Grid want as much as possible out of scope, so who made the decision? I had assumed it was the SoS - is this not the case? Someone, somewhere, other than National Grid must think this is reasonable, so who was it? And on what basis?

Grid are currently taking about two months to answer any questions, so if I wait for a reply from them the DCO will have been submitted!

Query 3 (from Jonathan Dean by e-mail on 11 July 2018)

I have just been reading the Scoping Opinion for Wylfa Newydd, as well as the North West Coast Connection, and , of course, the North Wales Connection.
Impact on house prices has not been put out of scope for Wylfa Newydd, but has for the North Wales Connection, and I have already mentioned the North West Coast
Horizon presumably consider their project will have an impact on house prices, and the SoS must agree, and yet National Grid believe the opposite, and the SoS agrees
Is this a question for PINS, Horizon or the SoS, and now that Horizon's DCO has been accepted for examination, is it still appropriate to ask them or wait for the inquiry?
Response (by e-mail dated 23 July 2018)

The Scoping Opinions for both North Wales Connection and North West Coast Connection were prepared by the Planning Inspectorate, on behalf of the Secretary of State.

The Scoping Opinion for North Wales Connection agreed to scope out impacts on house prices, for the reasons explained in paragraph 3.53. Whilst the Scoping Opinion for North Coast Connection did not make specific reference to impacts on house prices, the Applicant stated their intent to scope this matter out in paragraph 16.9.11 of the Scoping Report on the basis that “This is not a matter that requires assessment under the 2009 EIA Regulations and is not a material consideration in the determination of planning merits of the proposal”.

Notwithstanding the above, it is important to note that decisions within a Scoping Opinion are primarily based on the information provided by the Applicant and by having regards to the characteristics of the Proposed Development and the receiving environment. It does not necessarily follow that a decision made in relation to one Scoping Opinion would equally translate to another.

As you are aware, the Wylfa Newydd Nuclear Power Station application has been accepted. As you have already registered as an Interested Person for the Wylfa application, you may submit any additional views on the application that you would like to make known to the Examining Authority by the relevant deadline, which will be confirmed in due course.

23 July 2018
Jonathan Dean
North Wales Connection
Enquiry received via email
What duty is there on an applicant to disclose facts which may be adverse to their cause ?

Has RSP disclosed that there are as yet unresolved police, public health and environment agency inquiries ?

These have been notified to BDB solicitors to RSP and also notified to Roger Gale MP when he was sent a draft of a Commons Petition of complaint against his Commons history due for submission after Public Health and Environment Agency replies.
Where a Proposed Development is EIA development, Applicants must identify the likely significant effects of the Proposed Development on the environment. The description of those likely significant effects should cover the direct effects and any indirect, secondary, cumulative, transboundary, short-term, medium-term and long-term, permanent and temporary, positive and negative effects [my emphasis added] of the development.

If the application is accepted for examination, you will be able to make representations about the content of the Applicant’s Environmental Statement to an appointed Examining Authority, as described previously.

23 July 2018
Richard Card
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
Does that mean that the DCO compensation, probably many millions, could be paid via the planning inspectorate thus avoiding legitimate money sourcing legislation?
The payment of compensation manifests as direct transactions between the Undertaker and those whose interests are affected. Any dispute in respect of the compensation payable is determined by the Lands Chamber of the Upper Tribunal. The Planning Inspectorate is not involved in this process.

23 July 2018
Michael Child
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Necton Parish Council query the adequacy of the applicant's pre-application community consultation.
See attached document.

23 July 2018
anon.
Norfolk Vanguard
Enquiry received via email
My understanding was that for pins to accept the application fee, which they have, they would have to be reasonably sure that the money was legitimately sourced.

I thought this would apply to any UK organisation accepting money.

so three questions.

Are pins exempted from The Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017?

If not do they have a maximum amount they can receive without compliance and if so how much is it?

At what point in a DCO would pins have to check that money paid to pins was legitimately sourced?
The Planning Inspectorate is not subject to The Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017. Those affected are listed in Regulation 8 and Regulation 103 of those Regulations.

20 July 2018
Michael Child
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
RiverOak-RSP announced on 16th July 2018 that they have resubmitted their DCO application, see [attachment 1]

Can you please confirm that the application has been resubmitted.

I assumed that there would be some dialogue in terms of questions from the applicant and advice from pins that would have to be published somewhere on the pins website as part of the statutory DCO legislation, but I can’t find it, can you send me the links?

In terms of payments, fees etc, that RiverOak can pay to pins, is there an amount at which money laundering legislation becomes applicable? I think the latest legislation would be Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018.
The application was submitted on 17 July 2018.

You asked: “I assumed that there would be some dialogue in terms of questions from the applicant and advice from pins that would have to be published somewhere on the pins website as part of the statutory DCO legislation, but I can’t find it, can you send me the links?”

The Planning Inspectorate can issue advice under s51 of the Planning Act 2008 about:

• Applying for an order granting development consent; or
• making representations about an application for such an order.

The last s51 advice issued to the Applicant was at the 22 June 2017 project update meeting:
[attachment 2]

20 July 2018
Michael Child
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I note from media coverage regarding the recently resubmitted DCO application for the former Manston Airport that part of the site could be used for Operation Stack. The following excerpt is taken from a KentOnline article which can be found at the following link :

[attachment 1]

"Thanet Conservative county councillor Paul Messenger first revealed the news that there was to be a second application at a full council meeting.

And he revealed there was the possibility the company - RiverOak Strategic Partners - could offer part of the site for holding lorries during Operation Stack.
In remarks that pre-empted any official announcement from the company, Cllr Messenger said Manston would help build the county’s resilience in the event that Brexit threatened to cause gridlock."
Could the Planning Inspectorate please clarify whether a proposal for use as the site as a lorry park is compatible with a DCO, ie. can a lorry park be considered as a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project? Or can it be included as part of a separate DCO application which may be an NSIP, even though it is not itself an NSIP, and where it is not an activity which is directly associated with the NSIP.
Section 14 of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) defines what ‘Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project’ means ie it sets out the types of projects that require development consent in the form of a Development Consent Order (DCO). Section 115 of the PA2008 sets out what development may be included in a DCO.

Government has issued guidance about ‘associated development’, which is available here: [attachment 2]

20 July 2018
Jonathan Fowler
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
I understand RSP may have submitted their DCO application again this week. Can you please confirm that all comments previously received by you when the first application was made and subsequently withdrawn will be considered by Pins with respect to this new application, in particular those comments regarding the adequacy of the consultation.

In addition given the information provided when the first application was made was significantly greater than that provided during the consultation and that further information has now been provided over and above that, in particular with reference to the number of aircraft movements, it would seem that further consultations should be required so those affected by the project can properly evaluate it and comment on it appropriately, in particular the statutory bodies, some of which were omitted initial or provide with the documents at a very late stage with little time to comment adequately.
Where they relate to the Applicant's formal statutory consultation under s42, 47 and/ or 48 of the Planning Act 2008, the comments received by the Inspectorate in respect of RSP's first submission dated 10 April 2018 will be treated as if they had been provided in relation to the second submission dated 17 July 2018.

20 July 2018
Adem Mehmet
Manston Airport
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached

20 July 2018
EDF Energy - anon.
Hinkley Point C New Nuclear Power Station
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer submitted representations regarding the merits of the proposed development to the Planning Inspectorate.
The application was submitted to Planning Inspectorate on 26 June 2018. Beginning on the day after it was submitted the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) has 28 calendar days to decide whether the application can be accepted for examination.

The Acceptance decision must therefore be taken on or before 24 July 2018. The decision will be published on the project webpage, here:

[attachment 1]

If the application is accepted, the following documents will also be published on the project webpage:

• Any Adequacy of Consultation Representations submitted by relevant local authorities.
• The Planning Inspectorate’s Acceptance Checklist.

The Acceptance tests

Section 55 of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) states what the Planning Inspectorate, on behalf of the Secretary of State, must have regard to when taking its decision about whether to accept an application:

a) The Consultation Report received with the application.
b) Any Adequacy of Consultation Representations received by the Planning Inspectorate from a local authority consultee.
c) The extent to which the Applicant has had regard to government guidance.

Comments about the merits of the Proposed Development (eg setting out support for or objection to the principle of the Proposed Development) cannot be considered at the Acceptance stage. If the application is accepted for examination, in order to make comments about the merits of the Proposed Development to an appointed Examining Authority, you will need to register as an Interested Party by making a Relevant Representation at the appropriate time. For more information about how and when you can have your say, please see our Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination: [attachment 2]

Once registered as an Interested Party, you will be invited to: attend the Preliminary Meeting, attend any scheduled hearings, attend the Accompanied Site Inspection(s) and submit written representations. In addition to this, you can request that the Examining Authority holds an Open Floor Hearing where you can raise concerns about the project, which can include those set out in your email.

19 July 2018
Jenny Smedley
Norfolk Vanguard
Enquiry received via email
As you seem to be back in the pre-application stage I wonder if you have ever answered these two questions;

1. You have made it quite clear that the application has to follow the procedure as laid out in PA 2008 and that states that before being involved in a DCO the applicant must make a recognised offer to buy the land from the legal owners. As the legal entity was only created in 2016 I can find no attempt to buy the land from the legal owners after this date. Have PINS been provided proof that they have made such an offer?
2. Also included in PA2008 is the acknowledgement that the applicant has to provide assurances that they have considered alternate airports were they could buy and create a Cargo Hub such as RAF Mildenhall or USAAF Lakenheath both surplus to requirements and available to purchase and of course more centrally located for a Cargo Hub. There are of course other airfields but have RSP provided assurances they have looked to purchase alternative airfields in the UK?
Amongst other things, the Secretary of State must be satisfied that all reasonable alternatives to Compulsory Acquisition (including modifications to the scheme) have been explored by an applicant. The Inspectorate would expect to find evidence in this regard in the Statement of Reasons submitted with an application. This will be tested at the Examination stage if the 17 July 2018 application is accepted.

A description of the reasonable alternatives studied by the Applicant and an indication of the main reason for the option chosen must be provided in the Environmental Statement, which will be subject to examination if the 17 July 2018 application is accepted.

19 July 2018
Barry
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
RSP are saying that they have resubmitted their DCO application to you but as yet it’s not showing on your website and I haven’t received an email. Could you confirm if RSP have resubmitted and if so why is it not on the website.
The Manston Airport application was resubmitted on 17 July 2018; the project website now reflects this:

[attachment 1]

18 July 2018
Sophie Fowler
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
As a further development, I note that RiverOak Strategic Partners have today announced that they have resubmitted their application. Can you please confirm whether this is actually the case.
The Manston Airport application was resubmitted on 17 July 2018; the project website now reflects this:

[attachment 1]

18 July 2018
Jonathan Fowler
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via phone
response has attachments
Telephone enquiry by Vicky Ellis
Response by email on 17 July 2018:

Dear Vicky,

As discussed, I have had a look into the meaning of the statement: ‘The Applicant has been discussing the possibility of disallowing legislation relating to the EA’, as documented in the meeting note of 30 April 2018.

Whilst the Applicant has not yet provided details of specific discussions with the Environment Agency (EA), I have found some background information which I hope is useful, which comes from Annex D of the Planning Inspectorate’s Advice Note 11: Working with Public Bodies: [attachment 1].

The Applicant is considering the possibility of ‘disapplying’ some of the EA’s legislation, to enable it to undertake any necessary maintenance works to the flood defences. So that was a typo in the meeting note. In summary, disapplying EA legislation means:

•Section 120 of the Planning Act 2008 allows other types of consents to be included in a Development Consent Order (DCO - which is the type of planning permission required for a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project such as Cleve Hill Solar Park), meaning that they would be consented through the DCO, rather than through a separate consenting route.

•Section 150 of the Planning Act provides that for ‘prescribed’ consents (which are defined in the Infrastructure Planning (Interested Parties and Miscellaneous Prescribed Provisions) Regulations 2015; the relevant body (in this case, the EA) must consent to the inclusion of the consent in the DCO.

•Where the EA agrees that a DCO can remove the requirement to obtain the specified separate consent, they usually make their consent conditional on the inclusion of ‘protective provisions’ (which are essentially to ‘protect’ the interests of statutory bodies, whose assets or functions may be affected by the proposed development) within in the DCO, to enable the risk associated with the activity to be managed. This process is usually referred to as agreeing to ‘disapply’ the legislation specified in the DCO.

So if an Applicant intends to disapply any EA legislation, this would need to be discussed and agreed with the EA (before the application is submitted, or during the Examination, if the application is accepted).

We will seek a progress update on this matter at our next meeting with the Applicant and document this in the meeting note.

I trust that this assists, but if you have any further queries, please do get in touch.

17 July 2018
Vicky Ellis
Cleve Hill Solar Park
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
It is almost three weeks since you recorded that a project update meeting was held on 22 June 2018 with representatives of RSP.

In the interests of transparency can you please indicate how much longer before a note of the matters discussed is published on your website?
Please follow the link below to view the recently published note of the meeting with RiverOak Strategic Partners Limited (RSP) held on 22 June 2018.

[attachment 1]

16 July 2018
Nigel Phethean
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I would like to register an official complaint about the 2nd phase consultation being undertaken by Cleve Hill Solar Park Ltd for their NSIP pre-application stage. The public feedback deadline date is today.

In brief, the consultation has:
- provided misleading information
- used biased methods to gather feedback
- used non-relevant information in an attempt to influence the public
- left out some important pieces of information
- made assertions in publicity information that have not been included in the PEIR
- provided a non-technical PEIR summary which doesn't match the main PEIR
- provided a PEIR that is massive and unwieldy which can only be intimidating to the general public
- been organised poorly in terms of the time allowed
- disadvantaged local people in terms of physical access to the events
- disadvantaged some in the population who aren't IT literate
- has failed to use modern social communication channels appropriately
- has not provided sufficient signposting about the consultation on the site
- has relied on out-of-date data for mail distributions

Local people have been left confused, angry and in some case distraught by the actions of the developers and their contractors.

I contend that the consultation is of such poor quality that any application that relies on this will fail the Planning Inspectorate's Acceptance test in terms of the standards required.

If the information in this email isn't sufficient, please could you tell me how to do this more formally?
Please see the attached letter

13 July 2018
Chair of the local campaign group: Graveney Rural - Michael Wilcox
Cleve Hill Solar Park
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting.
See attached meeting note.

13 July 2018
Heathrow Airport Ltd - anon.
Expansion of Heathrow Airport (Third Runway)
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please could you confirm whether it is possible to submit a DCO application in outline, following by subsequent reserved matters? If so, please can you provide some further details on the process?
A Development Consent Order (DCO) application cannot be submitted as an outline application to be followed by application(s) for reserved matters at a later date. Applicants should make every effort to finalise details applicable to the Proposed Development prior to submission of their DCO application.

The ‘Rochdale Envelope’ approach has been used for some proposals under the Planning Act 2008, where the nature of the Proposed Development means that some details of the whole project have not been confirmed (for instance the precise dimensions of structures) when the application is submitted, and flexibility is sought to address uncertainty.

The Planning Inspectorate has issued a series of Advice Notes on the DCO process which you may find useful, these include an Advice Note specifically concerning Using the Rochdale Envelope: [attachment 1]

DCOs may contain requirements, which are similar to conditions under the Town and Country Planning Act, which specify the matters for which detailed approval needs to be obtained before the development can be lawfully begun, for example a detailed landscaping scheme

All other Advice Notes relevant to the Planning Act 2008 can be found by following the link below:
[attachment 2]

11 July 2018
A Henderson
General
Enquiry received via email
I know ignorance is no defence, but I have only just become aware of the Scoping Report and the SoS's Scoping Opinion, both on your website. Both of these were prepared prior to the 2016 consultation, but many facts in these documents were not made public during the consultation. I would go as far as to say that the very existence of them was not publicised during the consultation. This cannot be right and proper behaviour, but I am keen to know your views
The purpose of the scoping process is for an applicant to ask the Secretary of State its opinion as to the scope and level of detail of the information to be provided in the Environmental Statement. This will help inform the applicant’s Preliminary Environmental Information Report (PEIR). National Grid published their PEIR in October 2016 as part of their statutory consultation. The Scoping Report was published on our website on 9 June 2016 and the Scoping Opinion was published on 1 July 2016, so both were in the public domain prior to statutory consultation. As advised previously, any concerns you have about the Applicant’s consultation should be directed to Isle of Anglesey County Council who may wish to include them with their adequacy of consultation response.

Thanks

10 July 2018
Jonathan Dean
North Wales Connection
Enquiry received via email
I read with interest your advice given on April 12, 2017 regarding access rights. I understand there are two pieces of legislation that could be used:

s53 of the Planning Act 2008
s172 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016
To paraphrase, your advice was to use s53 of the Planning Act 2008. This states:

"Any person duly authorised in writing by the Secretary of State may at any reasonable time enter any land for the purpose of surveying and taking levels ..."

Please could you comment on the following:
1 - if access has been granted under s172 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016, ie against your advice, will the findings be considered acceptable in the DCO
2 - if access is being requested under s172 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016, what should the land owner do?

3 - if access is requested under s53 of the Planning Act 2008, what evidence does the requester have to provide to demonstrate that they are "authorised in writing by the Secretary of State"
1 - The Planning Inspectorate is not responsible for requests made under s172 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016. Decisions regarding whether or not to accept applications for examination are made in accordance with the requirements of the Planning Act 2008 and associated statutory instruments.
2 – The Planning Inspectorate is not responsible for requests made under s172 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016. As such the Inspectorate is unable to provide advice regarding this process.
3 – If the Secretary of State authorises access to land under s53 of the Planning Act 2008, it will issue an authorisation notice to the requester. The authorisation notice would also be published on the Planning Inspectorate website. Further information is available in Planning Inspectorate Advice Note Five: Section 53 – Rights of entry.

09 July 2018
Jonathan Dean
North Wales Connection
Enquiry received via email
I have just read the North Wales Connection scoping opinion. While it is clear dormice are out of scope, it is not clear if brown hare are out of scope also. Please could you advise?

With regard to sections 3.50 - 3.52 of the Scoping Opinion, can I interpret from this that the effect of EMFs in a high radon environment is also out of scope? Radon is particularly high in some areas of Anglesey, through which the proposed development will pass, and the combined effects of EMFs and radon together can be quite different to the two in isolation.
With regard to section 3.53 of the Scoping Opinion, whilst many projects are planned for Anglesey and will happen in tandem for the construction phase, this is not the case for the operation phase. There is only one project that will impact 30 km of Anglesey. Was it really the intent of the SoS to out-scope the operation phase of the proposed development? It would not be difficult to assign impacts to this single project as section 3.53 suggests.
It would appear to the the SoS's opinion that impact on house prices is out of scope for the North Wales Connection (Anglesey), but is in scope for the North West Coast Connection (Cumbria). I can think of no rational reason why this should be, and it seems a little unfair. Please could you explain this.
With regard to section 3.60 of the scoping Opinion, should the Wylfa Newydd project not go ahead, the existing line would be largely redundant and no doubt removed. As such, it could be argued, the existing line is not part of the 60 year baseline scenario. Please could you comment on how the cumulative baseline has been created and what, exactly has been determined to be the "do nothing" scenario against which proposed scenarios are compared.
The Scoping Opinion for the North Wales Connection Project was adopted by the Planning Inspectorate on behalf of the Secretary of State and in accordance with the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2009. In making the Opinion the Planning Inspectorate had regard to information provided by the Applicant in its Scoping Report and to responses from consultation bodies. The purpose of the Scoping Opinion is to set out those aspects/matters which the Secretary of State considered could result in likely significant effects and so should be assessed by the Applicant and presented in their Environmental Statement (ES). Interpretation of the Scoping Opinion and preparation of the ES is a responsibility of the Applicant; accordingly if you have any comments on the approach to the assessment in the ES during the pre-application stage these should be directed to the Applicant.

09 July 2018
Jonathan Dean
North Wales Connection
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

09 July 2018
Wheelabrator Technologies Inc - anon.
Wheelabrator Harewood Waste-to-Energy Facility
Enquiry received via email
Is it possible for a husband and wife to register separately as interested parties if they have the same email address?
Certainly two parties can register using the same email or postal address; please be aware that you may receive duplicate correspondence as a result.

06 July 2018
Stephen Blyth
General
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The question in my original email was, if you have to agree minutes from meetings with RSP is this is what is delaying publication ?

You had a meeting in January which had relevant details that were not published until after RSP’s consultations so people who were aware of it were unable to raise it with RSP. We have a right to be involved but when important information is not published in a timely way for whatever reason this is not possible

I have to say the whole DCO process seems secretive, flawed and very biased in favour of the applicant. Taxpayers seem to be paying for you to give free advice to the applicants while residents, who will be the ones to live with the consequences', get no support. Do you ever consider meeting groups who are opposed to these proposals and inform them of their legal position ?
As explained in the advice signposted in our previous response to you ([attachment 1], the internal and external review process takes time. For the meeting note in question, no particular party was responsible for the exceptional delay in publication.

In respect of your enquiry about advice to the local community about its legal position, section 51 of the Planning Act5 2008 establishes what the Inspectorate can issue advice about:

• Applying for an order granting development consent; or
• Making representations about an application, or a proposed application, for such an order.

Any advice given under section 51 does not constitute legal advice upon which enquirers can rely. Legal advice must be sought independently.

The volume of enquiries fielded in this case (and recorded on the project webpage) demonstrates the support the Inspectorate has endeavoured to provide to the local community in terms of understanding the process. We can and do meet with interest groups to provide advice within the scope summarised above in order to facilitate the process. Requests for meetings of this type are considered on a case by case basis.

Otherwise, if an application is resubmitted and accepted for examination, as previously advised you will have opportunities to make representations about the merits of the Proposed Development to the appointed Examining Authority. Please see Advice Note Eight, here: [attachment 2]

06 July 2018
Ian Scott
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Teleconference to discuss submission logistics.
See attached meeting note.

05 July 2018
Highways England - anon.
A303 Sparkford to Ilchester Dualling
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I notice since RSP withdrew their application for a DCO your web page shows that “the applicant has set no timetable for this application” Is there any indication of when they will.

Given the problems with their submission and they submitted more than double the pages of information to PINS that was available to residents will there have to be another consultation period. We live on Nethercourt estate and could not be closer to Manston yet RSP failed to inform the majority of the residents of their consultation as it seems they did many areas affected. Before the pre-application was withdrawn was any decision made as to the validity of consultation for DCO purposes ?

I also understand you had a meeting with RSP on June 22. When is a record of this meeting to be published by PINS. I have to say there seems to be a long delay in publishing the minutes from these meetings. Is it because they have to be agreed by yourselves & RSP. I do think an effort should be made to produce these quicker.

Can you also tell me are BDB still representing RSP in discussions with PINS regarding this DCO.
“I notice since RSP withdrew their application for a DCO your web page shows that “the applicant has set no timetable for this application” Is there any indication of when they will.”

In respect of resubmission, the Planning Inspectorate understands that the position established in RSP’s letter dated 4 May 2018 is currently maintained: [attachment 1]

“Before the pre-application was withdrawn was any decision made as to the validity of consultation for DCO purposes ?”

A decision was not taken about whether the application could be accepted for examination. By association therefore a decision was not taken about the adequacy of the applicant’s Pre-application consultation. A record of the Planning Inspectorate’s principle concerns in respect of the withdrawn application is summarised in the note of the meeting held on 11 May 2018: [attachment 2]

“I also understand you had a meeting with RSP on June 22. When is a record of this meeting to be published by PINS. I have to say there seems to be a long delay in publishing the minutes from these meetings. Is it because they have to be agreed by yourselves & RSP. I do think an effort should be made to produce these quicker.”

The note of the meeting held on 22 June 2018 is currently in the process of being prepared and will be published on the project webpage as soon as practicable. All attendees (other than the Inspectorate) are given an opportunity to fact-check prior to publication.

Please see the following advice with regards likely timescales for the publication of meeting notes: [attachment 3]

Can you also tell me are BDB still representing RSP in discussions with PINS regarding this DCO.

BDB are acting as RSP’s legal representation for the Manston Airport application resubmission.

“Would you tell me if RSP have to give PINS notice of their intention to re-submit their DCO application or can they do it at any time without informing PINS first?”

There is no statutory requirement for applicants to notify the Planning Inspectorate of their intention to submit a DCO application. The Planning Inspectorate request that applicants provide anticipated submission dates in advance and regular dialogue on the run up to submission to enable the Planning Inspectorate to resource appropriately for Acceptance.

05 July 2018
Ian Scott
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
You have indicated a preference for combined communications (most recently on 2018-06-26) :
“We encourage and advise all stakeholders who share similar views to collate communications to us because this assists the process.”
However on 2017-07-21 a 286 signatory letter, and on 2018-06-26 an 1,850 signatory letter, being combined communications from Save Manston Airport association (SMAa), have been published by PINS without the signatures of the additional signees, the second communication only listed as anon. This we consider to be an unfair treatment of all the people who have gone to the trouble of signing the communications.

Why we feel this matter needs a resolution, is that shortly we believe RSP will be re-submitting the DCO application. And a little later SMAa hope the DCO process will be in the Examination phase. Now we would be pleased to submit at least some of the comments our members wish to make as joint communications. However there is clearly no point in doing this if PINS will again just be treating them all as a single communication from “anon”. Thus it would become necessary to ask all those that wished to sign a letter, to instead write or email their own views personally and individually.
The Planning Inspectorate encourages groups of people who share similar views to submit combined representations/ communications because this assists the process. We offer this advice based on the principle that it is the relevance and importance of the issues raised that will attract weight in an Examining Authority's deliberations at the Examination stage, not the quantity of responses.

In respect of the SMAa petition submitted on 19 June 2018, there is no mechanism by which its content can be considered by the Inspectorate at the Pre-application or Acceptance stages of the process. Only correspondence received at the Pre-application stage regarding an applicant’s formal statutory consultation under s42, s47 and/ or s48 can be considered at the Acceptance stage.

The petition signatories have been anonymised under the General Data Protection Regulation.

05 July 2018
Save Manston Airport association (SMAa) - anon.
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
have a query relating to section 92 of the 2008 Act which I wondered if you could help with.

92(2) states: “The Examining authority must fix, and cause each affected person to be informed of, the deadline by which an affected person must notify the [Secretary of State] that the person wishes a compulsory acquisition hearing to be held.”

Do you know what timescale is given for persons to notify the SoS they wish a compulsory acquisition hearing to be held?

I can’t see that it is prescribed anywhere in secondary legislation.
In a nutshell, there are no set timescales in the Infrastructure Planning (Examination Procedure) Rules 2010 for affected persons to request a Compulsory Acquisition (CA) hearing; it is a deadline for the appointed Examining Authority to set on each case. This is explained in Rule 6(3) of the Rules:

Where the Examining authority holds any other meeting for the purposes of the examination to which these Rules apply, it shall arrange for such notice to be given of that meeting as appears to the authority to be necessary.

As you will be aware, the ExA will issue its Rule 6 letter inviting parties to attend the Preliminary Meeting (PM). This letter will also set a draft timetable for the examination of the application, which is discussed at the PM. The timetable will include a deadline for requests for CA hearings.

Following the Preliminary Meeting the ExA will then issue the Rule 8 letter which confirms the timetable for the examination. This will include a deadline for requests for CA hearings, in line with Rule 8(1)(g), which specifies:

the date by which any affected person must notify the Examining authority of their wish to be heard at a compulsory acquisition hearing.

Rule 13(1) specifies that the ExA must allow at least a 21 day deadline for submitting requests for a CA hearing:

In fixing, and causing persons to be informed of, a deadline under section 92(2) (compulsory acquisition hearing) or 93(1) (open-floor hearing), the Examining authority must ensure that the deadline is at least 21 days after the date on which notice of the deadline is given.

It’s also worth noting Rule 13(2) which specifies:

The Examining authority may disregard any request for an open-floor hearing or for a compulsory acquisition hearing to be held which is received after the deadline.

04 July 2018
Welsh Government - anon.
General
Enquiry received via email
I’ve just been on your web-site and cannot find any supporting documentation to the submitted DCO (i.e. the EIA etc).

When do you expect have all these documents downloaded onto the web-site?
The suite of application documents is currently in the process of being prepared ahead of publication as soon as practically possible.

We anticipate that the full suite will be available to view on the project page early next week. However, if it’s published sooner, I will let you know.

03 July 2018
Norfolk County Council - Stephen Faulkner
Norfolk Vanguard
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Have RiverOak Strategic Partners resubmitted their application or given you any indication when they will be resubmitting?
RiverOak Strategic Partners (RSP) has yet to resubmit the Manston Airport application.

In respect of resubmission, the Planning Inspectorate understands that the position established in RSP’s letter dated 4 May 2018 is maintained: [attachment 1]

03 July 2018
Sophie Fowler
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
it was pins saying 'In terms of payment of fees, there is no due diligence that the Planning Inspectorate is required to undertake. It is the payment and clearing of a fee in respect of a named case that triggers the required actions to be undertaken by The Inspectorate, for example on submission of the application and the application fee, the Planning Inspectorate has 28 days to determine whether an application will be accepted to progress to the next stage'

I thought that pins made it pretty clear in saying that, that submitting the application and paying the fee triggered money laundering checks.

Are you saying this meant something else and if so what?
In the context of the 2016 response (which I did not author), reference to the triggering of ‘required actions’ can only relate to the commencement of the Planning Inspectorate’s deliberations at the Acceptance stage. The Acceptance tests applied at the Acceptance stage are a matter of fact, and do not include investigations into the source of Acceptance fees.

03 July 2018
Michael Child
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via post
Query regarding consultation and selection of Zone 7 Friston by Scottish Power for the EA2 onshore wind farm substation and grid connection.
Thank you for your letter of 20 June 2018 enclosing a letter addressed to Therese Coffey MP, also of 20 June 2018, in relation to the East Anglia ONE North and East Anglia TWO projects.
The Planning Inspectorate (the Inspectorate) is a government agency and part of the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) responsible for examining Development Consent Order applications for Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIPs). The Inspectorate makes a recommendation to the relevant Secretary of State who will then make a final decision whether to grant or to refuse development consent. The SoS of Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) is the relevant minister in regards to energy projects. However, the Inspectorate has no remit in regards to creating planning Policies. It can provide procedural advice and in relation to these specific projects, any advice issued can be found here: East Anglia TWO and East Anglia ONE North.
As the projects have not yet been submitted to the Inspectorate, the Inspectorate has no formal powers to intervene on consultees’ behalf and we are therefore not in a position to supervise the statutory consultation process conducted by the Applicant.
As part of the pre-application stage in the DCO process, an Applicant has a number of duties that they are required to carry out which include extensive surveys and consultations to identify, for example, any suitable areas for investigation and selecting the cable route corridors, and substations.
The Applicant, as part of its Statement of Community Consultation (SoCC), is required to set out how they intend to conduct consultation on a project and in relation to the East Anglia projects, phase 3 of their SoCC, included Public Information Days (PID), one of them being held in Friston on Friday 29 June 2018.
Whilst the Inspectorate cannot comment on the Applicant’s selections, more detailed information on the project can be found on the Applicant’s websites SPR - East Anglia TWO and SPR - East Anglia ONE North which also includes their reasoning for the choices of the Zone 7: SPR - Summary and Approach to Site Selection.
I would encourage you to contact the developer directly to make your concerns heard as the Applicant has a statutory duty to have regard to all consultation responses which should be demonstrated in the in the Consultation Report as part of the DCO application. Should the DCO application be accepted by the Inspectorate for examination, the Applicant has a duty to notify the local community when providing information on how to register as an Interested Party for the purpose of the process.
The process under the Planning Act 2008 (PA 2008) has been designed to allow members of the public and statutory stakeholders to participate in examination of all DCO applications so that anyone interested in the proposed developments, their potential impacts and any relevant matters can be fully engaged in the examination process.
During the examination, the Examining Authority has a duty to take into account all matters assessed by the Applicant in the Environmental Statement and may ask additional questions as required. More information is provided in the Planning Inspectorate’s Advice notes Advice Note 8: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others, and at the current pre-application stage we would recommend especially Advice note 8.1. Responding to the developer’s pre-application consultation and Advice Note 8.2. How to register to participate in an Examination.
Please note, in accordance with Section 51 of the PA2008, a summary of your query and our advice will be published on the project’s webpage of the National
Infrastructure Website.

28 June 2018
Nicholas Thorp
East Anglia ONE North Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
I read recently in the Wylfa Newydd PEIR that 41% of Anglesey adults had never been online.My concern is engaging them to participate in the National Grid examination. Could you comment on ways that you have effectively tackled this issue before?
If the application is accepted for Examination, members of the public who are unable to register online can request a paper copy of the Relevant Representation form. We will then communicate with those individuals by post throughout the Examination.

Unfortunately, when considering which deposit locations to use for access to documents during the Examination, we are unable to insist on hard copies in all locations. However, we will be looking for libraries in the vicinity of the Proposed Development that provide free internet access with printing facilities. We also understand that National Grid will be providing a hard copy of all application documents in the council offices and members of the public can request paper copies of documents directly from the Applicant, which may be subject to a cost.

28 June 2018
Jonathan Dean
North Wales Connection
Enquiry received via post
Query regarding consultation and selection of Zone 7 Friston by Scottish Power for the EA2 onshore wind farm substation and grid connection.
Thank you for your letter of 20 June 2018 enclosing a letter addressed to Therese Coffey MP, also of 20 June 2018, in relation to the East Anglia ONE North and East Anglia TWO projects.
The Planning Inspectorate (the Inspectorate) is a government agency and part of the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) responsible for examining Development Consent Order applications for Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIPs). The Inspectorate makes a recommendation to the relevant Secretary of State who will then make a final decision whether to grant or to refuse development consent. The SoS of Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) is the relevant minister in regards to energy projects. However, the Inspectorate has no remit in regards to creating planning Policies. It can provide procedural advice and in relation to these specific projects, any advice issued can be found here: East Anglia TWO and East Anglia ONE North.
As the projects have not yet been submitted to the Inspectorate, the Inspectorate has no formal powers to intervene on consultees’ behalf and we are therefore not in a position to supervise the statutory consultation process conducted by the Applicant.
As part of the pre-application stage in the DCO process, an Applicant has a number of duties that they are required to carry out which include extensive surveys and consultations to identify, for example, any suitable areas for investigation and selecting the cable route corridors, and substations.
The Applicant, as part of its Statement of Community Consultation (SoCC), is required to set out how they intend to conduct consultation on a project and in relation to the East Anglia projects, phase 3 of their SoCC, included Public Information Days (PID), one of them being held in Friston on Friday 29 June 2018.
Whilst the Inspectorate cannot comment on the Applicant’s selections, more detailed information on the project can be found on the Applicant’s websites SPR - East Anglia TWO and SPR - East Anglia ONE North which also includes their reasoning for the choices of the Zone 7: SPR - Summary and Approach to Site Selection.
I would encourage you to contact the developer directly to make your concerns heard as the Applicant has a statutory duty to have regard to all consultation responses which should be demonstrated in the in the Consultation Report as part of the DCO application. Should the DCO application be accepted by the Inspectorate for examination, the Applicant has a duty to notify the local community when providing information on how to register as an Interested Party for the purpose of the process.
The process under the Planning Act 2008 (PA 2008) has been designed to allow members of the public and statutory stakeholders to participate in examination of all DCO applications so that anyone interested in the proposed developments, their potential impacts and any relevant matters can be fully engaged in the examination process.
During the examination, the Examining Authority has a duty to take into account all matters assessed by the Applicant in the Environmental Statement and may ask additional questions as required. More information is provided in the Planning Inspectorate’s Advice notes Advice Note 8: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others, and at the current pre-application stage we would recommend especially Advice note 8.1. Responding to the developer’s pre-application consultation and Advice Note 8.2. How to register to participate in an Examination.
Please note, in accordance with Section 51 of the PA2008, a summary of your query and our advice will be published on the project’s webpage of the National
Infrastructure Website.

28 June 2018
Nicholas Thorp
East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
It seems to me that the powers granted under the 2008 planning act were really supposed to speed up the planning process for major infrastructure designated by government as essential to the future of the country. These powers are extremely developer friendly and should therefore only be used by developers of significant size with relevant experience of delivering projects of the type designated. Looking at the usual applicants for a DCO they generally meet these conditions, but it seems the legislation allows anyone, even me, to apply for a DCO even though they might have no balance sheet assets or experience of operating successfully within the respective area. I don't believe this can have been the objective of the legislation and wondered therefore how the current legislation could be challenged and changed so it is used more appropriately as I believe was intended.
You would need to take your own legal advice is respect of this matter.

The Planning Inspectorate can issue advice about:

• Apply for an order granting development consent; or
• Making representations about an application for development consent.

28 June 2018
Adem Mehmet
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
Near the beginning of the pre application stage I asked pins about the position regarding money paid to pins by RiverOak RSP in terms of how pins would ensure that the money, from what is basically a foreign company that in it's various forms has operated out of at least two locations considered as tax havens.

Back when I asked RiverOak appeared to be located in Connecticut but registered as a Delaware LLC (perhaps for tax avoidance purposes) but my understanding is that this would have made pretty much impossible to ensure that funds from them were legitimately sourced and compliant with UK money laundering legislation.

At that time pins made me assurances that compliance was deemed to start at the point where RiverOak paid the acceptance fee to pins, which you say they now have.

My understanding is that RiverOak is still funded partly or wholly from outside the UK.

Can you please provide me with details of how pins ensured the payment was legitimately sourced?
Relevant legislation does not place a requirement on the Planning Inspectorate to investigate or test the source of Acceptance fees.

28 June 2018
Michael Child
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
You were asked why you were writing to the pro-airport organisation, asking them to write to you, whilst simultaneously telling them that only comments relating to the applicants consultation can accepted at the pre-examination stage. You have made no attempt whatsoever to explain your, apparently, contradictory behaviour.

You were also asked to comment on the allegation that you have considered things which should rightly have been considered at a later stage of the process. You have stated that the application was subjected to the relevant acceptance tests. You have not commented on the allegation which has been made and you have not denied the allegation.
The Inspectorate has not written to SMAa in the context implied. The advice issued to SMAa in respect of ‘collated responses’ was issued in September 2017 and was provided in response to an enquiry concerned explicitly with the Applicant’s Pre-application consultation. I had intended to provide a link to the record of this enquiry in my previous response to you – apologies for that omission: [attachment 1]

By way of clarification, my advice to SMAa on 26 June 2018 was that “only correspondence regarding an applicant’s formal statutory consultation under s42, s47 and/ or s48 can be considered at the Acceptance stage [emphasis added]. All other aspects of the Acceptance decision are deliberated and taken by the Secretary of State on the basis of the application documents alone.”

The Inspectorate considered the application submitted on 10 April 2018 against the Acceptance tests, which are a matter of fact. On that basis nothing within the application documentation as submitted was considered prematurely.

27 June 2018
Peter Binding
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The SMAa Committee submitted a letter to the Planning Inspectorate, supporting the Manston Airport DCO, and requesting that the process move forwards faster, so that thousands of pro Manston Airport supporters can register their support and comments in the pre-Examination and Examination stages.

The letter was signed by the SMAa Committee on behalf of 3,500 members and endorsed by 1,850 signatures, collected specifically for the letter, from both SMAa members and national and international signatories who actively wish for Manston to re-open for jobs and travel.

“Dear Planning Inspectorate,

You have requested that the Save Manston Airport association (SMAa) members send multi-signature letters rather than lots of separate ones.

We have generally respected the ruling that Pre-application Stage 1 is not the correct time to write to PINS but this may now be working to our disadvantage because it is clear that it is being ignored by several vociferous opponents of Manston as an Airport - we have been waiting in anticipation of Stages 3 and 4 for a long time.

Notwithstanding the above we now feel we should object most strongly to the apparent inclusion of items into the Acceptance stage (as discussed in the minutes of the recent meeting with RSP, on the PINS web site) that properly belong in the Examination stage.

SMAa just wish to remind PINS that we are here and urgently waiting for the DCO to move to the Pre-examination and Examination stages, these being the correct times for us to express our views to you. This delay is effectively preventing our members and other pro-aviation people from expressing their viewpoints; viewpoints that will certainly be presented at the Pre-examination and Examination stages.

There is presently a live SHP planning application (OL/TH/18/0660) on the Thanet District Council web-site regarding a major housing development on the Manston Airport site; on reading the representations the vast majority are Objections and are pro-airport. The latest figures at close of play Tuesday 6th June 2018 stands at: Grand total percentages: Supports Housing: 20.46%; Objections: 78.01%; Neutral:1.53%.

So SMAa would claim an effective level of support for the airport and for the DCO process from local residents and businesses to keep Manston for aviation; this stands at least at 78%, well in line with the results of the two previous SHP planning applications to TDC, and many other polls, elections, petitions, etc.

The population of Thanet and East Kent are waiting for these jobs, and they are getting concerned at the continual delays, they wish to express their views!"
When an application is withdrawn, and where the Applicant states a clear intention to resubmit at some point in the future, the stage of the process reverts from Acceptance to Pre-application. The meeting held on 11 May 2018 took place at the Pre-application stage and its content included advice to the Applicant in respect of the Planning Inspectorate’s three principal concerns with the application documents submitted on 10 April 2018. All three concerns directly related the Acceptance tests set out in s55 of the Planning Act 2008, including s55(3)(f) which states that application must be of standard that the Secretary of State considers satisfactory.

In respect of the content of your 13 June 2018 email, please note that only correspondence regarding an applicant’s formal statutory consultation under s42, s47 and/ or s48 can be considered at the Acceptance stage. All other aspects of the Acceptance decision are deliberated and taken by the Secretary of State on the basis of the application documents alone.

If an application is resubmitted, and subsequently accepted for examination, SMAa (and anybody else) will be able to make submissions about the merits of the Proposed Development in a Relevant Representation: [attachment 1]

26 June 2018
Save Manston Airport association Committee - anon.
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please would you indicate: how many meetings (face-to-face or teleconference) have occurred between RSP and the PI since May 3rd; and when the next meeting or teleconference between RSP and the PI is scheduled.
Two meetings have taken place with RSP and its representatives since 3 May 2018.

The first of these project update meetings took place on 11 May 2018. The note of that meeting is available here: [attachment 1]

The second project update meeting took place on 22 June 2018. The note of the meeting is being prepared and will be published on the project webpage as soon as practicable.

26 June 2018
James Chappell
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
According to this petition, you have specifically asked the pro-airport Manston campaign groups to submit multi-signature letters rather than writing to you individually. Is this true? My understanding was that you couldn't accept lobbying on behalf of the plan for an airport until the DCO was accepted. If this is the case, what's the point of telling them to write to you?

The petition also claims that you have not dealt with the DCO application correctly. It is said that, in considering the application you have considered items which should belong in the Acceptance stage. I believe one of the local MP's has made this remark too. It isn't obvious whether the MP got it from the petition or whether the petition got it from the MP.

Personally, I don't see the problem. If you have to find out whether they've got the money to pursue this project you might as well find out before you spend even more public money subjecting to examination. However, for the record, could you explain whether the petition is correct in claiming that you have not dealt with the DCO correctly?
Please see our previous advice to SMAa, which included the following:

“We encourage and advise all stakeholders who share similar views to collate communications to us because this assists the process.”

We have today responded to the SMAa petition. Our advice will be published to the project webpage tomorrow. [[attachment 1]]

The application submitted on 10 April 2018 was subjected to the Acceptance tests set out in s55 of the Planning Act 2008, including s55(3)(f) which states that an application must be of standard that the Secretary of State considers satisfactory.

26 June 2018
Peter Binding
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
In your note of meeting of 11 May 2018 with representatives of RSP it was stated that a further meeting would be held once matters raised by the Inspectorate had been addressed by the applicant. Has a date been agreed for that further meeting and if not what does the Inspectorate understand is the position is with respect to a further application for a DCO ?
A project update meeting was held on 22 June 2018. The note of that meeting is being prepared and will be published on the project webpage as soon as practicable.

In respect of resubmission, the Planning Inspectorate understands that the position established in RSP’s letter dated 4 May 2018 is maintained: [attachment 1]

26 June 2018
Nigel Phethean
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Comments in relation to the developer's pre-application consultation and potential issues for examination were raised regarding the Northampton Gateway application.
Consultation material presented by the developer at the pre-application stage is not “the application”. The pre-application process is intended to allow the developer to gather useful information from the public and others that will influence the preparation of the application that is eventually submitted. The consultation material presented must be clear and informative, but it is not necessarily a draft version of the application.

The Relevant Representation stage is the point at which comments on the scheme can be submitted to the Examining Authority. This is when anybody who wants to become an Interested Party and take part in the examination can register. You must register separately for each Development Consent Order (DCO) application you wish to be an interested party for. You can register individually, or as part of a group for example a household or Action Group, or organisation; providing all those in the group or organisation have similar views. However it is important to note that that you can’t register as two individuals for example ‘Mr and Mrs’ – Individuals must register separately. For more information on registering please see Advice Note 8.2

The Relevant Representation period for Northampton Gateway opens 28 June. The Application documents have now been published on our website and are available to view on the project specific webpage: [attachment 1]

At the Relevant Representation stage we are seeking your views on the DCO application as it has been submitted. Any Relevant Representation should relate to the application. It must include a summary of points which you agree and/or disagree with about the application, highlighting what you consider to be the main issues and impacts. The Relevant Representation form can be accessed online once registration begins, or if required supplied in hard copy if those who wish to complete a hard copy form contact the Planning Inspectorate and request this.

The Examining Authority will use the views put forward in the Relevant Representations, to carry out an initial assessment of the principal issues. After the close of the registration period, all Relevant Representations will be published on the project webpage on the National Infrastructure Planning website.

After the close of the Relevant Representation period the Examining Authority will invite interested parties to attend an initial Meeting, known as the “Preliminary
Meeting”. The invitation is emailed or posted to Interested Parties at least 21 days before the Preliminary Meeting is held. The invitation will include the Examining Authority’s initial assessment of principal issues.

The purpose of the Preliminary Meeting is to consider how the application will be Examined. Each Examination is unique and is designed to reflect the particular
circumstances of each case. At the Preliminary Meeting, the parties will be able to comment on a draft Examination Timetable. After the close of the Preliminary Meeting, the Examination will begin.

The Examination is the period during which the appointed Examining Authority gather evidence and test information about the application from Interested Parties. This is primarily a written process with deadlines clearly set out in the Examination timetable. Interested Parties can also make representations orally at hearings, which are supplemental to written submissions.

Further information covering a range of process matters in relation to the Planning Act 2008 process can be found on our website: [attachment 2]

25 June 2018
Tommy Gilchrist
Northampton Gateway Rail Freight Interchange
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting.
See attached meeting note.

22 June 2018
RiverOak Strategic Partners - anon.
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached Meeting note

22 June 2018
RiverOak Strategic Partners - anon.
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
I have written to both my local MP Andrea Leadsom and also our local authority South Northants District Council regarding the potential inadequacy of the “cumulative impacts Assessments” produced by both Roxhill(Northampton Gateway) and Rail Central (Ashfield Land) as part of their phase two consultation.

South Northants District Council have already replied to me regarding the potential inadequacy of the “Cumulative Assessments”, a matter they will be taking up with you directly, they were not however able to clarify the timing issue regarding when the “Cumulative Impacts Assessment “should be undertaken, and for that matter what” considered/dealt” with actually means.
A cumulative impact assessment forms part of the Environmental Statement that will be submitted with any application; it is prepared by the applicant at the pre-application stage. It is then considered and examined by the Examining Authority during the examination stage.

We apologise for any confusion caused by our advice, which as I hope you now understand, was consistent.

20 June 2018
Alan Hargreaves
Northampton Gateway Rail Freight Interchange
Enquiry received via email
The Local Authorities' Aircraft Noise Council (LAANC) submitted a response to the Planning Inspectorate during the 28 day Scoping consultation period for the proposed Expansion of Heathrow Airport (3rd Runway).
Since the LAANC is not a prescribed consultation body the Inspectorate did not include this response within the Secretary of State's Scoping Opinion. The Inspectorate has forwarded this response to the Applicant.

20 June 2018
Local Authorities' Aircraft Noise Council - Colin Stanbury
Expansion of Heathrow Airport (Third Runway)
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

20 June 2018
National Grid - anon.
North Wales Connection
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Cyfarfod diweddaru prosiect
Gweler yr atodedig

20 June 2018
National Grid - anon.
North Wales Connection
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Site visit and project update meeting with regards to the proposed Luton Airport expansion application.
Please see attached meeting note.

20 June 2018
London Luton Airport Ltd - anon.
Expansion of London Luton Airport
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached meeting note

20 June 2018
Scottish Power Renewables - anon.
East Anglia ONE North Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached meeting note

20 June 2018
Scottish Power Renewables - anon.
East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Thank you for your response and for directing me to the RSP PIER.

From my reading of these documents while there are extensive they in no way give me any sense of what the potential impact on health, traffic, noise and the environment of an airport operating at its potential capacity would be.

Why was this information not included in any of the consultation processes? and given its absence from the consulation process how could the community realisitically have properly informed input into the project during the consulattoion phase.
The Planning Inspectorate does not comment on the content or quality of an applicant’s Preliminary Environmental Information (PEI). The likely significant environmental effects of a Proposed Development need to be assessed by an applicant as part of its Environmental Impact Assessment, and presented in the Environmental Statement (ES) submitted with its application. If an application is accepted, the appointed Examining Authority will undertake the examination of environmental information having regard to the information in the Applicant’s ES.

FAQ5 in the following document provides further information about PEI: [attachment 1]

19 June 2018
S Alvers
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
See attached Meeting Note
See attached Meeting Note

19 June 2018
TiGRE Project-1 Limited - anon.
TIGRE Project 1 (TP1)
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached meeting note

19 June 2018
IAMP LL - anon.
International Advanced Manufacturing Park TWO (IAMP TWO)
Enquiry received via email
Please can you confirm that you have asked SMAa for a petition in support of the dco application?
Have you asked the legal owners if they would like to submit a counter petition.
It has seemed to be quite confusing at the moment with NO application in play yet you seem to want rsp supporters to contack you. Can you please clarify the currunt status.
The Planning Inspectorate did not ask SMAa to submit a petition. We routinely advise all stakeholders who share similar views to collate communications because this assists the process.

18 June 2018
Ken Wraight
Manston Airport
There is an Ofgem publication that says the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy is the decision maker only for projects in England.
As the North Wales Connection and Wylfa Newydd applications fall under section 14 of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended) jurisdiction to determine the applications lies with the Secretary of State for Business Energy and Industrial Strategy.

18 June 2018
Jonathan Dean
Wylfa Newydd Nuclear Power Station
Enquiry received via email
There is an Ofgem publication that says the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy is the decision maker only for projects in England.
As the North Wales Connection and Wylfa Newydd applications fall under section 14 of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended) jurisdiction to determine the applications lies with the Secretary of State for Business Energy and Industrial Strategy.

18 June 2018
Jonathan Dean
North Wales Connection
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The Applicant provided its draft Statement of Community Consultation for the Inspectorate to feedback.
See attached document.

15 June 2018
Suffolk County Council - anon.
General
Enquiry received via phone
Query regarding the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) process, definitions of highway Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIPs) and consultation requirements.
The Planning Inspectorate (the Inspectorate) provided an overview of the PA2008 process and noted the statutory basis for pre-application duties on applicants (noting in particular Schedule 1 of the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009. The Inspectorate noted some schemes that had come under the PA2008 process, by virtue of s35, and explained the statutory timescales associated with the PA2008 process.

14 June 2018
Kettering Borough Council - anon.
General
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Could you let me know the criteria used to identify which local authorities are consulted on matters associated with Heathrow Expansion such as the recent EIA scoping opinion consultation? I have seen the PI FAQ on EIA scoping opinions which defines types A, B, C and D local authorities, but would like further information on how this is applied to these applications.
The criteria used to identify local authorities to be consulted are set out in our Advice Note Three: EIA consultation and notification [attachment 1] and are defined in s43 of the Planning Act 2008. The Planning Inspectorate uses a dedicated GIS system that identifies relevant consultation bodies in accordance with the regulations and our advice.

14 June 2018
London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham - Elizabeth Fonseca
Expansion of Heathrow Airport (Third Runway)
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Meeting regarding proposed non-material change application
Please see attached meeting note

14 June 2018
Tideway London - Liz Wood-Griffiths
Thames Tideway Tunnel
Enquiry received via email
At N2RS we remain involved in participating in both Hornsea Project Three and Norfolk Vanguard off shore wind farm developments and I wondered if you would kindly answer a couple of points.

1. Could you please provide the name and email address of the representative from the inspectorate involved specifically in the Hornsea Project.

2. In terms of both projects, we would like to know if there is any chance that the public meetings held by the inspectorate in due course will take place in the East Anglia area.
1. Whilst we have a team of people allocated to work on a NSIP project, for Hornsea I am the Case Manager and the Case Officer is KJ Johansson. For info, Tracey Williams is now the Case Manager for Norfolk Vanguard and the Case Officer is Sian Evans.

2. The Preliminary Meetings and any hearings for Hornsea (as well as Norfolk Vanguard should the application be accepted for examination), will be held in East Anglia.

14 June 2018
Katie Taylor
Hornsea Project Three Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via email
At N2RS we remain involved in participating in both Hornsea Project Three and Norfolk Vanguard off shore wind farm developments and I wondered if you would kindly answer a couple of points.

1. Could you please provide the name and email address of the representative from the inspectorate involved specifically in the Hornsea Project.

2. In terms of both projects, we would like to know if there is any chance that the public meetings held by the inspectorate in due course will take place in the East Anglia area.
1.Whilst we have a team of people allocated to work on a NSIP project, for Hornsea I am the Case Manager and the Case Officer is KJ Johansson. For info, Tracey Williams is now the Case Manager for Norfolk Vanguard and the Case Officer is Sian Evans.

2.The Preliminary Meetings and any hearings for Hornsea (as well as Norfolk Vanguard should the application be accepted for examination), will be held in East Anglia.

14 June 2018
Katie Taylor
Norfolk Vanguard
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Please see attached
Please see attached

14 June 2018
RWE Generation UK plc (RWE) - anon.
Tilbury Energy Centre
Enquiry received via phone
The Applicant provided a progress update

14 June 2018
Highways England - anon.
A63 Castle Street Improvement-Hull
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Could you let me know the criteria used to identify which local authorities are consulted on matters associated with Heathrow Expansion such as the recent EIA scoping opinion consultation? I have seen the PI FAQ on EIA scoping opinions which defines types A, B, C and D local authorities, but would like further information on how this is applied to these applications.
The criteria used to identify local authorities to be consulted are set out in our Advice Note Three: EIA consultation and notification [attachment 1] and are defined in s43 of the Planning Act 2008. The Planning Inspectorate uses a dedicated GIS system that identifies relevant consultation bodies in accordance with the regulations and our advice.

14 June 2018
Elizabeth Fonseca
Expansion of Heathrow Airport (Third Runway)
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

13 June 2018
Vattenfall - Vattenfall
Norfolk Vanguard
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Summary of the site visit undertook with the Applicant on 13 June 2018 to view various elements of the Proposed Development.
See attached note.

13 June 2018
Heathrow Airport Ltd - anon.
Expansion of Heathrow Airport (Third Runway)
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Consultation approach and project update meeting.
Please see meeting note. The draft Statement of Community Consultation (SoCC) review is provided at Annex A.

12 June 2018
Norfolk County Council - anon.
Great Yarmouth Third River Crossing
Enquiry received via email
Will the application documents be available on your site before the application is accepted? The Horizon application was submitted on June 1st and the documents are not available yet (June 6th). If it is similar with National Grid, where the results of the pre-application consultation have never been published, any delay is eating into the 14 days for the local authority to respond to you on the adequacy of consultation. Until we see the consultation report, we don't know if we need to write to the authority. (Obviously we have already written to the LA about some issues, and there may be no further issues, but the lack of the report makes this impossible to determine). I don't mean to be critical, but I was expecting the application documents to be available to the public from the day of application, or have I misunderstood the process?
As explained in Advice Note 6 it is for the Applicant to decide when they wish for the application documents to be published. Although it is helpful for documents to be published on submission, it is not mandatory.

We will publish the application documents on our website as soon as practicable after receipt, providing the Applicant agrees. The speed at which an application is published can vary depending on the size of the application. However, regardless of whether or not the application documents are published during the Acceptance period, the local authority(ies) are sent a link to the Consultation Report so that they can provide us comments on the adequacy of the Applicant’s consultation within the 14 day period.

11 June 2018
Jonathan Dean
North Wales Connection
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I have received the folllowing request to sign a petition/letter to you:

([attachment 1])

This seems to have been sent to me in error, as I do not believe that the application is capable of meeting the tests for acceptance which have been laid down by Parliament.

I am concerned at the suggestion that the Secretary of State may defer until the Examination stage any of the matters on which he is required to reach a conclusion prior to acceptance of the application. Those include, of course, not just the standard of the application (and accompaniments) but also if the scheme is, or forms part of, a nationally significant infrastructure project, requiring development consent.

If the Secretary of State has not reached a conclusion on these matters how can he lawfully accept the application for examination?

Could you kindly clarify if PINS has included items into the Acceptance stage that properly belong in the Examination stage, and if so which?

Does the wish of the applicant's supporters to give their views have any bearing on any decision that is required at this stage, please?
The Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) cannot ‘defer’ any of the tests in s55 of the Planning Act 2008 until the Examination stage. What constitutes the Acceptance tests is a matter of fact, and it is those tests alone that were applied to the RSP’s 10 April 2018 submission.

Regarding correspondence from supporters of RSP’s proposals; the same principle applies to any comments made to the Inspectorate before an Acceptance decision is taken:

If you have sent comments about RSP’s Pre-application consultation, these can be considered in addition to the statutorily required Acceptance tests when making the decision about whether or not to accept the application. It will be for the decision maker (the Planning Inspectorate on behalf of the Secretary of State) to decide the weight to give to the views expressed based on the individual facts of the case.

If you have sent comments about the merits of the Proposed Development (eg setting out support for or objection to the principle of the Proposed Development) these cannot be considered at the Acceptance stage. If the application is accepted for examination, in order to make comments about the merits of the Proposed Development to an appointed Examining Authority, you will need to register as an Interested Party by making a Relevant Representation at the appropriate time. For more information about how and when you can have your say, please see our Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination: [attachment 2]

11 June 2018
Mark de Pulford
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Whereas I have concentrated on Thanet District Council failure to comply with law of precautionary principle and spirit of laws of duty to promote well being re public health , the fact is the Environment Agency states that cyclohexanone contamination in ground from Sericol will be a problem for foreseeable future. My understanding is the chemical increases toxicity of agricultural chemicals. There are solvents under remediation at nearby Thor and the ground mercury contamination has not yet began to be subject of remediation.

The applicant knows too that in 2009 the expert authority stated that public health epidemiology inquiry is required. It means the initial scientific appraisal should have triggered the laws of precautionary principle. These should be foundational to the applicant impact studies. The fact is the applicant and the councils have dodged this.
As previously explained, the functions of the Planning Inspectorate are controlled by the provisions in the Planning Act 2008. We can only issue advice about the process as prescribed ie where a request seeks advice about:

• applying for an order granting development consent; or
• making representations about an application, or a proposed application, for such an order.

I refer you back to our previous advice to you which explains how and when you can engage with the process: [attachment 1]

11 June 2018
Richard Card
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
Could you kindly clarify the situation with some aspects of the RSP DCO for me, or failing that tell me who I should be asking?

Now the application has been withdrawn does this mean that it should be seen as at the pre application stage again?

If so does this mean that as a person who would be affected by the development I should be maintaining a diaogue with both pins and with the applicant, or should I view the application as over until such time as the applicant starts the application again with a revised PEIR and consultation?

Did pins receive an application fee as part of the application process that stopped just before the deadline?

I have read the pins advice note Meeting Update TR020002 and although I would doubt I properly understood it all and I am having considerable difficulty the ATM figures in it.

My understanding both from the application as described on the pins website “The upgrade and reopening of Manston Airport primarily as a cargo airport, with some passenger services, with a capacity of at least 12,000 air cargo movements per year.” and from attending the three RSP consultations, communicating with the applicant and with pins by email I formed the impression that is that something in the 12,000 ATMs ball park is what the project intended and not an expansion of the previous capacity. Am I mistaken in this assumption?

The largest figure mentioned in the advice note is 83,222 ATMs, is this meant to be an annual figure? If it is it would mean 228 ATMs a day and wouldn’t seem viable given the infrastructure, history or the environmental implications.

I can see that pins main concern at this point would be the legal aspects of acceptance, but having the general impression of around 12,000 ATMs, which seems to be the sort of ballpark area that everyone I have discussed the project with assumed up until now. I am a bit concerned that the consultation process thus far was less informative than I had assumed.

There is a sense in all of this that while pins can’t respond to questions about the project, you may consider commenting about what the project actually is. In terms of is it an intersection joining 2 major roads or 16?

There is also a sense in which pins seem to be instead of saying the project isn’t NSIP compliant, possibly by a factor of 8 times the project size, instead of rejecting the project pins appear to be trying unreasonably hard to help the applicant above and beyond the interested and affected parties.

With the existing freight capabilities of the airport I am assuming that a baseline of the previous CAA licence which I think was in 23,000 ATMs ballpark would be a significant factor, could you please confirm that this figure is approximately right?

Please appreciate in this instance I am not so much trying to ask pins if the figures arranged in some way make the project a NSIP but to gather the information to enable me to ask either pins or the applicant the right questions. One of which is is the project still seen as ongoing and front loaded?
“Now the application has been withdrawn does this mean that it should be seen as at the pre application stage again?”

If an application is withdrawn at the Acceptance stage, and the Applicant clearly states its intention to resubmit at some time in the future, the project stage is moved back to ‘Pre-application’. This is indicated on the project status bar located on the top right of the Manston Airport project webpage.

“If so does this mean that as a person who would be affected by the development I should be maintaining a dialogue with both pins and with the applicant, or should I view the application as over until such time as the applicant starts the application again with a revised PEIR and consultation?”

Until an application is resubmitted, the Applicant should be your first point of contact. It will be for the Applicant to take a view about whether any further consultation and/ or revised documentation will be required before the application is resubmitted.

“Did pins receive an application fee as part of the application process that stopped just before the deadline?”

The Acceptance fee (£6,939) was paid by the Applicant, and is non-refundable. Any resubmitted application will be a new application for the purposes of the Regulations, and will attract a second Acceptance fee.

“The largest figure mentioned in the advice note is 83,222 ATMs, is this meant to be an annual figure? If it is it would mean 228 ATMs a day and wouldn’t seem viable given the infrastructure, history or the environmental implications.”

83,222 ATMs is an annual figure. Please contact the Applicant directly for more information on matters relating to the design and operational capability of its Proposed Development. The Planning Inspectorate cannot prejudge what any future resubmission may comprise.

“With the existing freight capabilities of the airport I am assuming that a baseline of the previous CAA licence which I think was in 23,000 ATMs ballpark would be a significant factor, could you please confirm that this figure is approximately right?”

The Planning Inspectorate does not hold this information. Please contact the former licence holder.

08 June 2018
Michael Child
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
I've read the minutes of the meeting held between yourselves and RSP in which you raise a number of inconsistencies in their documentation in a variety of areas including basic and essential information like the number of plane movements each year. Based on your concerns, however, you seem to have concluded that the consultations held with the public were satisfactory. Can you please explain on what basis you feel the consultations were adequate given that the information provided to the public was what you reviewed and found to be inconsistent in many areas.
A decision about whether or not to accept the application submitted on 10 April 2018 was not taken. The application was withdrawn before a decision was made. Coincidentally, any decision in respect of whether the Applicant had complied with its duties under Chapter 2 of Part 5 of the Planning Act 2008 (including s47 - Duty to consult local community) was not taken.

Any future application made by RiverOak Strategic Partners (RSP) will be treated as a new application and will be subject to the acceptance tests in s55 of the Planning Act 2008.

07 June 2018
Adem Mehmet
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

07 June 2018
Vattenfall - anon.
Norfolk Boreas
Enquiry received via email
I am a bit puzzled as I can't see how RiverOak can acquire the whole airport if they claim they are only altering it. Thee environmental info said that the runway is only been resurfaced, not lengthened or changed (so no planning needed). The runway isn't incidental - it's fundamental - so not sure how main parts that are not being changed can be included under clause 6.

I could see how they could try to acquire the runway if they were claiming that whole thing is a new airport but they're not. Does this not mean that only existing airports can do DCOs for alterations, and if not, does that not mean every airport in the country could be at risk of hostile takeover by someone else with a plan to increase the size?
“I could see how they could try to acquire the runway if they were claiming that whole thing is a new airport but they're not.”

Any airport would be unable to engage the thresholds in s23(5) of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) without an operational runway.

“Does this not mean that only existing airports can do DCOs for alterations…”

Only an existing airport, in land use terms, could engage s23(4) of the PA2008.

“…and if not, does that not mean every airport in the country could be at risk of hostile takeover by someone else with a plan to increase the size?”

It does not have to be the airport owner/operator that applies to alter an airport under s23 of the PA2008.

07 June 2018
Ackers Johnson
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I note from your recently published records of meetings with RSP that you make reference to their project having a cabability in excess of 82,000 flights. I have not seen that number in any of the consultation documents that were issued by RSP either this year or last - or heard it at their meetings. Can you point me at the souce documentation for this and where the attendant environmental and transport effects of aviation such scale on the community are explained?
Firstly, the source documentation that alludes to the proposed Manston Airport project having a theoretical maximum capability in excess of 82,000 flights was included in the withdrawn application that has not been published in the public domain. Therefore I am currently unable to signpost you to it.

If the Applicant re-submits the Manston Airport application, and it meets the Acceptance tests to be accepted for examination, the full application suite of documents will be published on the Manston Airport project page.

Secondly, with regards to your request for signposting to information in respect of community impacts, please follow the link to the Applicant’s documents page where the Applicant’s Preliminary Environmental Information Report (PEIR) can be viewed:

[attachment 1]

07 June 2018
S Alvers
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Mr and Mrs Sharp wrote to comment on the merits of the application during the acceptance period
This application was received by the Planning Inspectorate on 21 May 2018, and is currently in the acceptance stage. This is when the planning Inspectorate review the application to see if it meets the tests to be accepted for examination.

There is no opportunity during the acceptance stage to make comments on this application.

If the application is accepted, anyone interested in the application will be able to register and express their views during the relevant representation stage and the subsequent examination.

Advice note 8.2 gives further details on the relevant representation period.

[attachment 1]

06 June 2018
Mr & Mrs Sharp
Northampton Gateway Rail Freight Interchange
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting with Esso Petroleum Company Limited
See attached meeting note

06 June 2018
Esso Petroleum Company Limited - anon.
Southampton to London Pipeline Project
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
We are part of a team assessing the feasibility of a pipeline project in Dorset.

The location and route of the pipeline is Portland Port to the NTS at Mappower, Dorset.

In 2007 a project was granted planning for an underground gas storage facility with pipeline connection to the NTS at Mappower, the pipeline was approved by BEER and subsequently extended by DECC to July 2012.

In making our assessment we would like to use the route previously granted permission for in 2008 by BEER and subsequently extended by DECC to 2012 with a deviation into the breakwater protected port as opposed to the original off shore route to an underground gas storage facility which also was granted planning consent.

A plan is attached showing both what was granted and what is planned.

This project is for pipeline to terminate at the NTS at Mappower and within the port breakwater at a sub sea manifold with flexible risers within a mooring system.

This would allow LNG vessels with on board regasification to moor, connect and discharge and leave.

When looking to see what planning route this project would take, local authority or Planning Inspectorate we were told there is no clear cut answer on this one as it does not clearly fit into a DCO category under the 2008 Planning Act definitions. Given its nature and characteristics, with onshore and nearshore impacts and the potential environmental impacts it does feel like a DCO but must cross a number of thresholds.

As such were advised to get a legal opinion or contact you directly.

The pipeline can be sized below 800mm diameter (currently sized at 762mm offshore and 914mm onshore, the length is less than 40km, when in use the vessel would discharge at a pressure in excess of 7 bar, as a gas transporter the gas supplier would own the gas, so is unclear if the supplying to 50,000 customers applies, we do not feel it would have a significant environmental effect.

Or is this a DCO as would be classed as a gas reception facility , but there is permanent gas reception processing plant as is all part of the vessel ? and is such a case how would the vessel be viewed as does not require planning, is covered by its classification and port authority and H and S operational licences and requirements.

Any clarity you can provide would be helpful so we may finalise the planning route and what would need to be included.
Development that is defined as a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project is set out within Part 3 of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended) (PA2008). We would advise you to seek your own legal advice as to whether the development you propose falls within the categories set out in PA2008.

If you consider that the proposed development does not fall within the categories set out in PA2008, section 35 of PA2008 states that the Secretary of State may give a direction for development to be treated as development for which development consent is required.

If, having sought your own legal advice, you consider that your proposed development will be determined through the PA2008 regime we offer a free pre-application service and would welcome meeting you to discuss your project further.

05 June 2018
James Wilson
General
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Unfortunately I did not find that your reply dealt with the question, which was:

"could you kindly clarify if PINS have in place any targets regarding the publication of notes of meetings with DCO applicants and, if not, what the public may reasonably expect in terms of your performance in this area.?"
• There is not an established target in place regarding the publication meeting notes. Our commitment is to publish as soon as practicable.
• The three months elapsed in this case was exceptional, but not unprecedented. The average time it takes to prepare, review, finalise and publish a meeting note is around a month.
• Because we understand that the content of our meeting notes is relied upon by individuals and organisations, they are subject to a rigorous internal review process, which takes time. Meeting attendees (other than the Inspectorate) are also given an opportunity to fact-check prior to publication.
• In some circumstances, for specific reasons, the publication of a meeting note can be delayed by up to six months (see our Pre-application Prospectus: [attachment 1].

05 June 2018
Mark de Pulford
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached notes

05 June 2018
Vattenfall Wind Power Limited - anon.
Thanet Extension Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via email
Could you kindly clarify if PINS have in place any targets regarding the publication of notes of meetings with DCO applicants and, if not, what the public may reasonably expect in terms of your performance in this area. I note that the note of the meeting with the Applicant last February was only very recently published: is 3 months at all normal?
The three months that elapsed before the note in question was published is undesirable; but the delay is not unprecedented.

We understand that the content of our meeting notes is important to persons with an interest in particular applications. However, whilst we endeavour to publish meeting notes as soon as practicable, the Planning Inspectorate is responsible for meeting statutory deadlines in other areas of its work under the Planning Act 2008, which must be prioritised.

04 June 2018
Mark de Pulford
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
In reply to an enquiry by Nigel Phethean (24 May 2018) you said:
“Any delay in the publishing of the note from the meeting with RSP on 11 May 2018 is a result of the drafting and finalisation process.
The note will be published to the Manston Airport project webpage as soon as practicable after finalisation.”

In reply to an enquiry by me (James Chappell 18 May 2018) you said:
“There was no particular reason why there was a delay in publishing it [Feb 23 Meeting Note].
We aim to publish the note of the meeting held with the Applicant on 11 May 2018 asap”

My I observe that the statement “There was no particular reason why there was a delay...” is facile in the extreme. Given that expressions such as “asap” and “as soon as practicable” are meaningless, will the Inspectorate commit to publishing Meeting Notes and other s51 advice within a definite time scale? For an example, an upper bound of 10 working days?

If, for some operational reason, it is quite impossible for the PI to undertake the publishing of key documents to a timetable, then will the PI adopt some sort of process to alert interested parties to the fact that a historical document has been published? This would take away the need for readers having to trawl up and down through 30 pages and 300+ entries, trying to see if something new (or, indeed, old) had been published.
We understand that the content of our meeting notes is important to persons with an interest in particular applications. However, whilst we endeavour to publish meeting notes as soon as practicable, the Planning Inspectorate is responsible for meeting statutory deadlines in other areas of its work under the Planning Act 2008, which must be prioritised.

There is currently no functionality for users of the website to be updated in respect of the publication of meeting notes (or other s51 advice) in the manner suggested. We will however consider this suggestion as we continue to improve the website in future.

04 June 2018
James Chappell
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
What part of the DCO process will enable PINS to say “enough is enough”?

Which begs the question “why not?”

Surely the draftees of PA2008 wouldn’t have drafted legislation that could be misused in this way?

Has any legal owner of land ever applied for a Judicial Review upon an acceptance of a DCO application for examination?
We are not aware of a Judicial Review that has been lodged by an affected landowner in respect of an Acceptance decision.

The Planning Inspectorate’s role at the Pre-application stage includes, amongst other things, advising potential applicants about applying for orders granting development consent. On that basis, provided the advice that the Inspectorate issues is timely, accurate and robust, and provided applicants are responsive to the advice that the Inspectorate issues, the likelihood of multiple application submissions should be minimised. Note previous advice which establishes that only five applications have been withdrawn and resubmitted since the Planning Act 2008 came into force: [attachment 1]

For further information, our role at the Pre-application stage of the process is explained in detail in our Pre-application Prospectus: [attachment 2]

31 May 2018
Barry
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
RSP have said previously that they think they are a NSIP as they are altering the airport. If so, surely compaulsory acquisition powers should only be for the bits that are being altered and need planning to be altered. Therefore, how can they get powers to acquire the existing runway.

If this is allowed, has anyone thought of this as this would open up a Pandora's box where any "investors" could try to use the DCO route to compulsory acquire other airports against the will of the owners. All they would need to show is that they have plans to increase the infrastructure a little to be able to handle another 10,000 cargo flights, and could include compulsory acquisition powers for the rest of the airport under DCO powers. Would a DCO seeking these powers be able to be accepted for examination?
Please read government’s ‘Planning Act 2008: Guidance related to the procedures for the compulsory acquisition of land’ which explains the tests that must be satisfied in order for Compulsory Acquisition powers to be granted: [attachment 1]

31 May 2018
Ackers Johnson
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Response to actions arising from the draft document feedback and project update meeting held on 30 May 2018.
1. You asked for an example(s) of a good Statement of Reasons. I would first caveat that we haven’t really seen a ‘belt and braces’ SoR which hasn’t required a degree of examination to a greater or lesser extent. That said, the SoR for North London Heat and Power may be helpful if you’re looking for a steer - it is particularly helpful in respect of the detail/justification provided in its plot-by-plot approach to establishing need: [attachment 1]
2. You asked for examples of Land Plans in which insets had been used to articulate concentrations of smaller plots. These are helpfully applied in, amongst others, the Land Plans for:
o Thames Tideway Tunnel: [attachment 2]
o Norwich Northern Distributor Road: [attachment 3]
3. You asked for examples of the observations we made in respect of the landmarks used in the descriptions of some plots in the BoR, and their apparent absence from the Land Plans. The following landmarks are used in the BoR but are not annotated on the corresponding Land Plan sheets:
o ‘Blackwater Roundabout’ on Land Plan sheet 1 (Plots 1/1f, 1/1h and 1/1j)
o ‘Greenacres Farm’ on Land Plan sheet 1 (Plot 1/7)
o ‘Silverdene Farm’ on Land Plan sheet 2 (Plot 2/2)
4. John asked for clarification in respect of question nos. 16 and 19 of the draft DCO and EM commentary:
o Question no. 16 re. A24: simply that the Article only provides for extinguishment, but the Schedule title (and content) refers also to provision of new highways and private means of access. Which is right?
o Question no. 19 re. A34: we now note that there is a definition of ‘public utility undertaker’ in A34(4) as meaning gas, water electricity and sewerage undertakers – although those terms should perhaps also be defined?

31 May 2018
Highways England - anon.
A30 Chiverton to Carland Cross Scheme
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Meeting to provide feedback on draft application documents provided by Highways England.
See attached meeting note.

31 May 2018
Highways England - anon.
A303 Sparkford to Ilchester Dualling
Can I ask about how the decision will be made for both these projects (Wylfa Newydd and North Wales Connection). As both are essentially components of a single programme, will the decisions be made simultaneously as one is pointless without the other? Which SoS will (the decision maker) be? Wales or BEIS?
The Planning Inspectorate will examine the applications separately and make its recommendations to the Secretary of State within the statutory timeframes. While the Secretary of State has three months in which to determine the projects ultimately it will be for him to decide when to issue his decisions for each project. The recommendation reports will be sent to the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy.

31 May 2018
Jonathan Dean
Wylfa Newydd Nuclear Power Station
Enquiry received via email
Can I ask about how the decision will be made for both these projects (Wylfa Newydd and North Wales Connection). As both are essentially components of a single programme, will the decisions be made simultaneously as one is pointless without the other? Which SoS will (the decision maker) be? Wales or BEIS?
The Planning Inspectorate will examine the applications separately and make its recommendations to the Secretary of State within the statutory timeframes. While the Secretary of State has three months in which to determine the projects ultimately it will be for him to decide when to issue his decisions for each project. The recommendation reports will be sent to the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy.

31 May 2018
Jonathan Dean
North Wales Connection
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
A project update meeting was held
Please see the attached note of the meeting

31 May 2018
Highways England - anon.
Trans Pennine Upgrade Programme
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Draft document feedback and project update meeting
Please see attached meeting note

30 May 2018
Highways England - anon.
A30 Chiverton to Carland Cross Scheme
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I am enquiring about registering as an interested party for a nationally significant infrastructure project. An individual appears to need to state how the proposed infrastructure project is going to affect them.

Is there then a process at the Planning Inspectorate which screens out those people who have not made a significantly strong case that they will be affected? Or are all such requests to become an interested party accepted, assuming they are not frivolous?

Are there geographical limits on the distance between an interested party and where the proposed project will be built?
Registration to participate in an examination is achieved by submitting a Relevant Representation, which must include an outline of the principal submissions which the person proposes to make to make to the examination. This can be a high-level summary ('topic headings' or similar) and there will be an opportunity to make fuller submissions during the examination.

There is no process of assessing the 'strength' of a representation at registration (though an outline of principle submissions must be included), nor is there a geographical restriction on registration.

If you have not already, I suggest you read our advice note 8.2, "how to register to participate in an examination", which is available on our website here: [attachment 1]

29 May 2018
Waitrose - Andrew Bodman
General
Enquiry received via email
Could you please tell me if RiverOak Strategic Partners have resubmitted their DCO application. If they have could you tell me why it has not been published on your website. If not have they set a date for resubmission and will you be publishing it?
RiverOak Strategic Partners (RSP) has yet to resubmit its application. We are currently awaiting information from RSP when the application is likely to submitted.

25 May 2018
Sophie Fowler
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via phone
Discussion regarding the s52 authorisation request process
There are no statutory timeframes for the Planning Inspectorate to process a section 52 authorisation request, however previous experience has shown they take a minimum of 3 months to determine. It is a criminal offence for the recipient of a s52 notice to fail to comply with a notice without reasonable excuse.

25 May 2018
National Grid - Jacqui Fenn
General
Enquiry received via phone
Discussion regarding the s52 authorisation request process.
There are no statutory timeframes for the Planning Inspectorate to process a section 52 authorisation request, however previous experience has shown they take a minimum of 3 months to determine. It is a criminal offence for the recipient of a s52 notice to fail to comply with a notice without reasonable excuse.

25 May 2018
National Grid - National Grid
North Wales Connection
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
See attachment.

25 May 2018
Ashfield Land - anon.
Rail Central (Strategic Rail Freight Interchange)
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Local residents have asked if they might be able to meet with PINS (presumably you as Case Officer) to discuss the process, and in particular the cumulative impact of both proposals, and how that is taken into account. They very much are aware that it would be inappropriate to comment on the merits of either proposal, but they are wanting to understand how the application are approached, and at what point do cumulative impact assessments become required? Let me know if a meeting would be something PINS could do, as I know it would reassure residents to understand more fully. I presume that you may have had similar meetings with representatives from the developers on points of process?
We note in your correspondence, your request for the Planning Inspectorate (PINS) to meet with local residents to discuss matters of process regarding the Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIP) and in particular to advise on cumulative impact assessments for both proposals. As you have stated in your email, we have met with both Applicants for the above proposals in our Bristol office. In addition, we have also met with the Stop Rail Central group. We have provided written advice to a large number of parties regarding these schemes and a record of the advice can be found on the project specific pages of our website under the section (s)51 advice tab.

Rail Central Proposal:
[attachment 1]

Northampton Gateway Proposal:
[attachment 2]

Whilst we have held meetings with the public to explain the NSIP planning process in certain instances for other proposals, we have now provided the same information in videos as part of the advice readily available on our website.

We therefore feel that the information below will sufficiently cover the advice we could provide in person and we would be grateful if you could please send this to the relevant people.

In order for members of the public to be involved in the examination of a project they must, at the appropriate time, register to become an interested party. This video provides information on how and when to register as an interested party on an application:

[attachment 3]

We would however like to take this opportunity to respond to your queries directly and provide you with links which we trust you will find useful.

If a proposed NSIP requires an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) to be submitted as part of the application, the EIA Regulations necessitates that the Applicant undertakes an assessment of cumulative effects (amongst other matters), and considers alternatives to the proposed development. This process begins at the pre-application stage. The assessment of cumulative effects would take into account other reasonably foreseeable schemes including any other relevant NSIPs. Both developers have confirmed that their application is EIA development and therefore an Environmental Statement (including information on cumulative impacts) will need to be submitted as part of their application.

It would be for the Applicant for each scheme to make the case for, and to assess the impacts of, their proposed development taking into consideration the cumulative effects of the relevant built, consented and/or proposed developments as appropriate at the time of their application being lodged. Each application would be assessed on their individual merits, where the appointed Examining Authority (ExA) would assess the material and/or information submitted by the Applicant within their application documents submitted, including subsequent submissions where for example, more information becomes available on a separate proposal included in the assessment. ).

Both Applicants, namely Roxhill Developments Limited (Northampton Gateway) and Ashfield Land Management and Gazeley GLP Northampton (Rail Central), have confirmed that they are undertaking a cumulative assessment to include the appropriate matters of the other proposal. You may have also noted that the Northampton Gateway proposal was recently submitted and PINS on behalf of the Secretary of State has until 18 June 2018 to decide whether to Accept this application for Examination.

We would encourage you to review the published meeting notes (under the s51 advice tab) for both projects (Northampton Gateway RFI and Rail Central SRFI) to have sight of discussions held between PINS and the relevant Applicant regarding their respective proposals. It is reasonable to assume that consideration by both Applicants regarding each other’s proposal and their cumulative effects will be a matter for consideration during the examination.

Useful Links

Advice Note (AN)17 provides a brief description of the legal context and obligations placed on an Applicant in respect of cumulative effects.

[attachment 4]

The AN8 series (AN8.1 to AN8.5) provides more detailed advice on the application process and aims to take you step by step through the planning process for NSIPs.

Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others
Advice Note 8.1: Responding to the developer’s pre-application consultation
Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination
Advice Note 8.3: Influencing how an application is Examined: the Preliminary Meeting
Advice Note 8.4: The Examination
Advice Note 8.5: The Examination: hearings and site inspections

We would encourage you to please circulate the advice provided hereto to any and/or all local residents with an interest in the abovementioned proposals, specifically drawing their attention to the video and Advice Notes recommended above as well as those published to the National Infrastructure website:

[attachment 5]

If you have any further queries please do not hesitate to contact the relevant case teams via the email addresses provided below:

Rail Central proposal - [email protected]
Northampton Gateway proposal - [email protected]

24 May 2018
Tommy Gilchrist
Rail Central (Strategic Rail Freight Interchange)
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Local residents have asked if they might be able to meet with PINS (presumably you as Case Officer) to discuss the process, and in particular the cumulative impact of both proposals, and how that is taken into account. They very much are aware that it would be inappropriate to comment on the merits of either proposal, but they are wanting to understand how the application are approached, and at what point do cumulative impact assessments become required? Let me know if a meeting would be something PINS could do, as I know it would reassure residents to understand more fully. I presume that you may have had similar meetings with representatives from the developers on points of process?
We note in your correspondence, your request for the Planning Inspectorate (PINS) to meet with local residents to discuss matters of process regarding the Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIP) and in particular to advise on cumulative impact assessments for both proposals. As you have stated in your email, we have met with both Applicants for the above proposals in our Bristol office. In addition, we have also met with the Stop Rail Central group. We have provided written advice to a large number of parties regarding these schemes and a record of the advice can be found on the project specific pages of our website under the section (s)51 advice tab.

Rail Central Proposal:
[attachment 1]

Northampton Gateway Proposal:
[attachment 2]

Whilst we have held meetings with the public to explain the NSIP planning process in certain instances for other proposals, we have now provided the same information in videos as part of the advice readily available on our website.

We therefore feel that the information below will sufficiently cover the advice we could provide in person and we would be grateful if you could please send this to the relevant people.

In order for members of the public to be involved in the examination of a project they must, at the appropriate time, register to become an interested party. This video provides information on how and when to register as an interested party on an application:

[attachment 3]

We would however like to take this opportunity to respond to your queries directly and provide you with links which we trust you will find useful.

If a proposed NSIP requires an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) to be submitted as part of the application, the EIA Regulations necessitates that the Applicant undertakes an assessment of cumulative effects (amongst other matters), and considers alternatives to the proposed development. This process begins at the pre-application stage. The assessment of cumulative effects would take into account other reasonably foreseeable schemes including any other relevant NSIPs. Both developers have confirmed that their application is EIA development and therefore an Environmental Statement (including information on cumulative impacts) will need to be submitted as part of their application.

It would be for the Applicant for each scheme to make the case for, and to assess the impacts of, their proposed development taking into consideration the cumulative effects of the relevant built, consented and/or proposed developments as appropriate at the time of their application being lodged. Each application would be assessed on their individual merits, where the appointed Examining Authority (ExA) would assess the material and/or information submitted by the Applicant within their application documents submitted, including subsequent submissions where for example, more information becomes available on a separate proposal included in the assessment. ).

Both Applicants, namely Roxhill Developments Limited (Northampton Gateway) and Ashfield Land Management and Gazeley GLP Northampton (Rail Central), have confirmed that they are undertaking a cumulative assessment to include the appropriate matters of the other proposal. You may have also noted that the Northampton Gateway proposal was recently submitted and PINS on behalf of the Secretary of State has until 18 June 2018 to decide whether to Accept this application for Examination.

We would encourage you to review the published meeting notes (under the s51 advice tab) for both projects (Northampton Gateway RFI and Rail Central SRFI) to have sight of discussions held between PINS and the relevant Applicant regarding their respective proposals. It is reasonable to assume that consideration by both Applicants regarding each other’s proposal and their cumulative effects will be a matter for consideration during the examination.

Useful Links

Advice Note (AN)17 provides a brief description of the legal context and obligations placed on an Applicant in respect of cumulative effects.

[attachment 4]

The AN8 series (AN8.1 to AN8.5) provides more detailed advice on the application process and aims to take you step by step through the planning process for NSIPs.

Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others
Advice Note 8.1: Responding to the developer’s pre-application consultation
Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination
Advice Note 8.3: Influencing how an application is Examined: the Preliminary Meeting
Advice Note 8.4: The Examination
Advice Note 8.5: The Examination: hearings and site inspections

We would encourage you to please circulate the advice provided hereto to any and/or all local residents with an interest in the abovementioned proposals, specifically drawing their attention to the video and Advice Notes recommended above as well as those published to the National Infrastructure website:

[attachment 5]

If you have any further queries please do not hesitate to contact the relevant case teams via the email addresses provided below:

Rail Central proposal - [email protected]
Northampton Gateway proposal - [email protected]

24 May 2018
Tommy Gilchrist
Northampton Gateway Rail Freight Interchange
Enquiry received via email
It is now nearly two weeks since the meeting the Inspectorate held with RSP to explain its concerns about the documentation submitted leading to the withdrawal of the DCO application.
Given the growing concern that the Inspectorate is being lent on by the local MP to ease the path of this disastrous application can you explain the delay in its publication please
Any delay in the publishing of the note from the meeting with RSP on 11 May 2018 is a result of the drafting and finalisation process.

The note will be published to the Manston Airport project webpage as soon as practicable after finalisation.

24 May 2018
Nigel Phethean
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Do the NPSs, in particular EN-1, 5 & 6 have a "fixed life" or are they in place until superseded?
Evening Jonathan

Thanks for your email.

We would recommend that you review Sections 5 to 13 of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008), which relates to National Policy Statements (NPS).

A copy of the PA2008 can be found on the National Infrastructure Planning website under the tab “Legislation and Advice”, for ease of reference please find the link below to the PA2008:

[attachment 1]

We draw your attention to section 6 of the PA2008, regarding the review of a NPS and where such a statement could be withdrawn and/or amended following the review.

We trust you find this information useful.

Kind Regards


Emré

24 May 2018
Jonathan Dean
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached Meeting Note.

24 May 2018
Wheelabrator Technologies Inc (WTI) - anon.
Wheelabrator Kemsley Generating Station (K3) and Wheelabrator Kemsley North (WKN) Waste to Energy Facility
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached meeting note

23 May 2018
Norfolk County Council - anon.
Great Yarmouth Third River Crossing
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Please see attached
Please see attached

23 May 2018
Network Rail - anon.
Western Rail Link to Heathrow
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
In the attached press article, National Grid say they have shared 40,000 pages of technical information about the North Wales Connection. I have always meant to estimate how much stuff they have produced but never had the time. However I am sure they are correct. How is the general public supposed to find the time, or technical expertise, to meaningfully engage with such a quantity of information? My understanding of the Planning Act 2008 is that the consultation that is required under the Act is supposed to allow for such engagement. In your advice note nine you state:

"Clearly for consultation to be effective there will need to be a genuine possibility to influence the proposal and therefore a project should not be so fixed as to be unable to respond to comments from consultees"
In none of the consultations (2012, 2015 & 2016) has there ever been a "genuine possibility to influence the proposal" in a macro sense, only minor detail, and so it is reasonable to conclude that the consultation has not been "effective"
Paragraph 81 of the DCLG guidance on pre application consultation states:

"81. It is good practice that those who have contributed to the consultation are informed of the results of the consultation exercise; how the information received by applicants has been used to shape and influence the project"
So far, all we have seen is yet another glossy "sales" leaflet, not what I would consider results. How can a developer such as National Grid be allowed to so openly flout such good practice guidance? I accept it is only guidance, not mandatory, but to my mind this clearly demonstrates a breakdown in the relationship between NGET and the Anglesey public
The volume of consultation material for each application will vary depending on the scale of the scheme. The DCLG Guidance on the pre-application process suggests that consultation should be ‘engaging and accessible in style, encouraging consultees to react and offer their views’. Once the application has been formally submitted, compliance with the guidance will be an important consideration when deciding whether the application is of a satisfactory standard to proceed to examination.

The Applicant is required to submit a consultation report with their application and in this they should evidence how feedback from the consultation has influenced the proposals.

22 May 2018
Jonathan Dean
North Wales Connection
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I would be grateful if you would confirm the number of DCO applications in the 5 years to April 2018 that have been withdrawn during the 28 acceptance period (i.e. after the submission but prior to a decision on acceptance or non-acceptance).

I have reviewed the information in the Register of Applications ([attachment 1], and the underlying projects. From my review it appears that out of the last 50 applications (back to Woodside Link Houghton Regis Project submitted in 2013), there are only two projects where an application was submitted and then withdrawn during the 28 day acceptance period.

These projects are York Potash Harbour Facilities Order (January 2015) and Mynydd y Gwynt Wind Farm (May 2014).
I can confirm that five applications have been withdrawn during the Acceptance stage which are as follows:

• Rampion Offshore Wind Farm: [attachment 2]

• Mynydd y Gwynt Wind Farm: [attachment 3]

• York Potash Harbour Facility: [attachment 4]

• Tees CCPP [attachment 5]

• Manston Airport [attachment 6]

22 May 2018
Grey Friars Investments - Jamie Macnamara
General
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Would you please explain just how this process allows a legitimate landowner to have the value of their investment permanently blighted as it seems to many that RSP could, if minded, continuously apply to PINS for a DCO. Although it will cost them in excess of £6000 each time this apparently has no deterrence factor and as I said in a previous response RSP have said if they fail they will regroup and reapply.

What part of the DCO process will enable PINS to say “enough is enough”? and

Will RSP have to pay compensation to the legal owners for their vexatious applications?
Provided that the statutory procedures set out in the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) are satisfied, there is no limit placed on the number of times an applicant could theoretically submit an application for development consent for the same Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP). On that basis, the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State (SoS)) must exercise its delegated powers in testing each submitted application against the relevant provisions in the PA2008, and produce a decision (unless the application is withdrawn). Ultimately, following a recommendation made by the Planning Inspectorate, in each case it is the SoS who will take the final decision about whether or not development consent is granted or refused. For more information about the process, please see our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

The PA2008 recognises that an NSIP may create blight reducing land values. Section 175 of the PA2008 amends Schedule 13 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to enable owner occupiers to serve a blight notice on the SoS requiring the SoS to purchase their property in certain circumstances. These are where a National Policy Statement (NPS) identifies a particular location as a potentially suitable location for an NSIP (there is no NPS in this case) or if land is blighted by an application being made for a Development Consent Order authorising the Compulsory Acquisition of the owner occupier’s land or from such authorisation being given.

Separately, any interference with private interests may give rise to a right to make a relevant claim. For further information see FAQ14 in our Community Consultation FAQs and government guidance relating to Compulsory Acquisition procedures:

• [attachment 2]
• [attachment 3]

There is no mechanism through which a landowner could claim for compensation for time/cost at the Pre-application stage of the process. For details of the applicable costs regime after an application has been accepted for examination, I refer you to government’s ‘Awards of costs: examinations of applications for development consent orders’: [attachment 4]

21 May 2018
Barry
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via post
response has attachments
The Planning Inspectorate has prepared a Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) document for the Expansion of Heathrow Airport (Third Runway) Scoping Process.
Please see attachment.

18 May 2018
anon.
Expansion of Heathrow Airport (Third Runway)
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Compilation of advice about the Environmental Impact Assessment scoping process, undertaken by the Planning Inspectorate on behalf of the Secretary of State.
Please see attached Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) document.

18 May 2018
General - anon - anon.
General
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Is there any special reason why the meeting note in respect of the Feb 23rd meeting has taken almost 3 months to finalise?

How long do you anticipate the preparation and publication of the meeting note of the May 11th meeting will take?
The note of the meeting held with the Applicant on 23 February 2018 has now been published. Please follow the link below to view it:
[attachment 1]

There was no particular reason why there was a delay in publishing it.

We aim to publish the note of the meeting held with the Applicant on 11 May 2018 asap.

18 May 2018
James Chappell
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
You have issued a clear exposition of some major concerns. Those concerns appear, on the face if it, to be incompatible with acceptance of the application as it the stood. Is that inference correct?

Could you also please clarify if the absence of a topic on your list means that the applicant is entitled to conclude that PINS has no major concerns about it? I ask because the applicant's supporters are claiming that your announcement means that you are e.g. satisfied on the adequacy of consultation, which would be surprising.
In respect of both points, the Planning Inspectorate did not reach (or ultimately issue) a decision in respect of whether or not the application could be accepted for examination.

Other omissions/ discrepancies in the application documents were discussed with the Applicant at a meeting on 11 May. A note of that meeting is being prepared and will be published to the Manston Airport project webpage as soon as practicable after finalisation.

18 May 2018
Mark de Pulford
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see the attached note

18 May 2018
Highways England - anon.
Western Rail Link to Heathrow
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Post-consultation and project update meeting.
Please see attachment.

18 May 2018
Highways England - anon.
A303 Stonehenge
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Recent correspondence between PINS and interested parties have included the following statement however in view of the feedback issued to RSP on the 4/5/2018 which precipitated their withdrawal your department gave a list of issues found within the 10000+ pages of their application.

“Advice reflecting the same concerns would have been issued to the Applicant if it had not decided to withdraw the application and the Planning Inspectorate had proceeded to issue an Acceptance decision.”

Reason number 1 was as follows “• An absence of sufficient information within the application documents upon which to the Planning Inspectorate could base a decision about whether the Proposed Development constitutes a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP) within the meaning in s23 of the Planning Act 2008.”

Surely the logic of your statements are that if you have perused the 10000+ pages and cannot determine whether their application meets the criteria for an NSIP then it would be rejected and therefore “Planning Inspectorate had proceeded to issue an Acceptance decision” is a nonsense.

In fact it is clear that had you said nothing to RSP and rejected the application because it wasn’t an NSIP you would then have had a discussion as to whether they continue or shut shop. It does therefore seem to many that the system you follow is designed to achieve 100% acceptance for examination. Many members of the public are now thinking this is about coaching rather than a true examination of the application.
By way of clarification, an ‘Acceptance decision’ in the context of my recent responses is ‘a decision about whether or not to accept the application’ – not a ‘decision to accept the application’.

The Inspectorate’s concerns were summarised in the following advice: [attachment 1]

To reiterate, there was not sufficient information in the application documents upon which the Inspectorate could not take a decision about whether or not the proposed development is a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project.

17 May 2018
Barry
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Our question as to whether this could be viewed in practice as a consultation period between PINS & RSP was really not answered. To an observer this does seem to be the case borne out by conferences you have had with RPS during the 28 day period. Is it normal to liaise with applicants during this period? Also the reply you did give we found confusing.

"Advice reflecting the same concerns would have been issued to the Applicant if it had not decided to withdraw the application and the Planning Inspectorate had proceeded to issue an Acceptance decision."

This does seem to infer that in spite of the inadequacies that there was a possibility that you would allow this application to proceed to examination. Surely given these gaps in information it should be declined. If it had of been accepted(or the possibility it would) what is the the point of the a pre-application. Given the eleventh hour of the withdrawal by RSP PINS must have come to a decision whether to accept the pre-application or not. There is a general feeling in Thanet that you are giving RSP a lot of support and leeway as it is being viewed as an exercise prior to a DCO application from Heathrow.
First, by way of clarification an ‘Acceptance decision’ in the context of the statement copied in to your enquiry is ‘a decision about whether or not to accept the application’ – not a ‘decision to accept the application for examination’.

Second, in analogous circumstances the Planning Inspectorate has contacted other applicants to establish concerns. In that respect, the following applications have also been withdrawn by the respective applicants at the Acceptance stage:

• Rampion Offshore Wind Farm: [attachment 1]
• Mynydd y Gwynt Wind Farm: [attachment 2]
• York Potash Harbour Facility: [attachment 3]
• Tees CCPP: [attachment 4]

17 May 2018
Ian and Hilary Scott
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
Are you able to comment as to whether the applicant at this point has complied with their Schedule 4 obligations ?
The application has now reverted to the Pre-application stage of the process. We cannot comment on or prejudge any material that may form part of a resubmitted application.

17 May 2018
Adem Mehmet
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Nodyn Cyfarfod - 17 Mai 2018 / Meeting Note - 17 May 2018

17 May 2018
Horizon Nuclear Power - anon.
Wylfa Newydd Nuclear Power Station
Enquiry received via post
response has attachments
The enquirer submitted representations regarding the merits of the proposed development during the Pre-application stage.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the
Proposed Development during the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008
process.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the
Planning Inspectorate, please find enclosed the Planning Inspectorate’s Advice Note
8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination.

17 May 2018
John Davison
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via phone
response has attachments
Nodyn Cyfarfod - 17 Mai 2018 / Meeting Note - 17 May 2018

17 May 2018
National Grid - anon.
North Wales Connection
response has attachments
Project update meeting
See attached document

17 May 2018
SSE Group - anon.
Dogger Bank Creyke Beck
Enquiry received via email
I have seen various comments suggesting that an applicant for a DCO must consider other ways in which they can deliver the stated aim of the NISP they are seeking to define. In the case of RSP the aim would appear to be to increase the freight capacity of the UK which of course could be achieved in a variety of ways. If RSP felt certain that another airport was required they could for instance consider buying another facility, I understand Mildenhall, Lakeneath and other U