Register of advice

The list below includes a record of advice we have provided.

There is a statutory duty, under section 51 of the Planning Act 2008 as amended by the Localism Act 2011, to record the advice that is given in relation to an application or a potential application and to make this publicly available. A record of the advice 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.

Advice provided between the period between 1 October 2009 and 13 April 2011 has been archived and is available from this spreadsheet.

PreviewProject
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Early Submission’ of draft application documents by DS Smith Paper Ltd for PINS review
Please see attached

14 February 2018
DS Smith Paper Ltd - anon.
Kemsley Paper Mill (K4) CHP Plant
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please can you send me the Rule 6 letter, agenda for the preliminary meeting and draft timetable for the examination of the application.
After searching our records, Connect Plus Services don’t appear to be an Interested Party in the examination. Interested Parties are those with a legal interest in land affected by a nationally significant infrastructure project or that have made a relevant representation.

This may hinder your participation in the examination, as you will not be automatically invited to Hearings or have the right to make written representations (though the Examining Authority may accept any submission at their discretion), nor be notified of the final decision.

If you have a legal interest in land affected by a nationally significant infrastructure project, then you can make a request to the Examining Authority to become an interested party under s102A of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended). This can be done here:

[attachment 1]

As an Interested Party, you will be informed of the progress of the Examination and be notified of the final Decision by the Secretary of State. You can also:

• Make representations about the application being examined.

• Have the opportunity to attend and speak at the Preliminary Meeting or hearings that take place during the Examination.

• Have the opportunity to provide further written evidence to the appointed Examining Inspectors, known as the Examining Authority.

Further information on the examination process can be found in our suite of advice notes:

[attachment 2]

For your information, a copy of the Rule 6 letter can be viewed here:

[attachment 3]

08 February 2018
Connect Plus Services - Juliet Umeibekwe
Tilbury2
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer submitted representations regarding the merits of the proposed development to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of a proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

I note you have included comments regarding the Applicant’s 2018 consultation. Please see our published FAQ for information and advice on the correct channels to forward your concerns about the Applicant’s Pre-application community consultation: [attachment 2]

08 February 2018
Gabriel Holland
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation, which included representations regarding the merits of the proposed development, to the Planning Inspectorate.
I note that since your previous correspondence in July 2017, we have published an FAQ for information and advice about how to engage with the process at the Pre-application stage: [attachment 1]

If you wish to make comments about the Applicant’s Pre-application consultation, please do so following the process set out in the above FAQ. However, as you have included the Applicant and Thanet District Council in your email, they will have already seen your comments.

I also note that your email contains representations regarding the merits of the proposed development. The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations at this time; for information about how and when you will be able to do this, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 2]

08 February 2018
Jane Etherington
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer sent their response to the Applicant's 2018 statutory consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of a proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

We have also published an FAQ for information and advice about how to engage with the process at the Pre-application stage: [attachment 2]

08 February 2018
Terry Prue
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer submitted representations regarding the merits of the proposed development to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of a proposed development at this time. I do note however, that you have copied in the Applicant and Thanet District Council to your email.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

We have also published an FAQ for information and advice about how to engage with the process at the Pre-application stage: [attachment 2]

08 February 2018
Dr Jeremy Gledhill
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
Please can I confirm that there is no need to attend the Preliminary Meeting in order to be able to submit responses to questions, etc. or take part in future hearings?
The Preliminary Meeting is a procedural meeting that helps inform how the application will be examined.

At the Meeting, invited people and organisations will be invited to make comments on the draft Examination Timetable and arrangements for future Examination events, before the Examining Authority finalises the timetable.

It is not an opportunity for interested parties to put forward their views about what they like or don’t like about the application. Irrespective of whether you attend the preliminary meeting, once the Examination begins following the preliminary meeting, you will be able to:

• Make representations about the application that is being examined.

• Have the opportunity to attend and speak at the hearings that take place during the Examination and attend the accompanied site inspection.

• Have the opportunity to provide further written evidence to the appointed Examining Inspectors, known as the Examining Authority.

07 February 2018
Purfleet Real Estate Limited - Benjamin Dove-Seymour
Tilbury2
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I understand you are interested in the adequacy of the consultation.

So I should like to make it clear that I had thought all this consultation was over and re-inventing the airport was no longer an issue. I was surprised and horrified when friends told me there was yet another consultation by Riveroak - because they still want to have an airport with night flights over our home.

I have seen absolutely NO information about how many night flights they plan. Nor have I seen anything that gives me information about exactly how any of their plans will impact on my health. I also do not know how their plans will affect the tourism industry in Ramsgate, nor the educational achievements of the children of Ramsgate.

During a previous consultation I attended, I received a glossy brochure that didn't appear to have any substantive information. I saw models and photographs and lots of staff. But there was no definitive information about the number of flights, whether day time or at night, etc. I had no way to tell staff that I was opposed to the plan - or, indeed, that I supported it. It seemed to be a show ... and one without audience participation.
The FAQ document below sets out that the correct, tiered process for commenting on an applicant's Pre-application consultation, if an application is yet to be submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, is to first contact the Applicant directly with your concerns regarding the consultation. If you do not receive a satisfactory response, you may wish to forward your concerns to the relevant local authority, to take into consideration as part of their 'Adequacy of Consultation Representation' that the Inspectorate will request once an application has been submitted.

I note that you copied in both the Applicant and relevant local authority - Thanet Borough Council (TBC) - when you emailed your concerns to the Planning Inspectorate. Therefore, you may wish to confirm your concerns with TBC if you do not receive a satisfactory response from the Applicant.

Only once have you forwarded your concerns to both the above parties, and still remain unsatisfied, may you contact the Secretary of State, through the Planning Inspectorate. The Planning Inspectorate can consider your concerns regarding Pre-application consultation in addition to the statutory Acceptance tests when making the decision about whether or not to accept the application under section 55 of the Planning Act 2008.

[attachment 1]

07 February 2018
Mariette Castellino
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
We are writing in response to RSP’s recent Consultation event held in Ramsgate.
The event itself was not well advertised and many residents and businesses were completely unaware that it was taking place. This is most inadequate given the enormity of the impact it will have on both individuals and the town as a whole. RSP documentation (12.9.68) –“ Considering that the impact is permanent and that a large number of dwellings within communities are subject to moderate or major adverse impacts, significant adverse effects have been identified at the communities of Ramsgate..... The effects would be characterised by a perceived change in the quality of life for the occupants of buildings”.

Given that section 12.9.58 lists Chatham and Clarendon Grammar School as being one of several non-residential receptors identified as being significantly adversely affected by the potential airport, it is totally unacceptable and unimaginable that the school was not contacted by RSP in advance and invited to attend the consultation event. Chatham and Clarendon Grammar School have, however, received no notification or information what-so-ever which is utterly inexcusable and unprofessional.

Christ Church School, which RSP have also identified as being affected by their proposed airport, has not received any information or been contacted by the company either.

We also noticed that RSP appear to have omitted to mention Ramsgate Library as another non-residential building that will suffer from the noise created from the airport and which is all the more incredible since it is being used as the venue for their documents to be made available to the public! The library itself has also not been contacted by RPS and invited to comment on their proposals as an institution in its own right. One has to question how many other public / commercial buildings and spaces have also not been contacted.

In referring to the public buildings that RSP have included, Section 12.9.59 states, “The significant effect will be characterised by potential disruption, disturbance or interference with tasks by the users of the buildings”. These are places of valuable learning, leisure and spiritual activities; they are places in which we learn, read, engage with others, take part in sporting activities, act, sing, pray, talk, think, listen, concentrate and play.

The event itself was inconveniently mid-week (on a Tuesday) which again made it difficult for many to attend. Surely the people of Ramsgate deserve to be given ample opportunity to see for themselves what RSP is intending to inflict upon them and RSP should therefore have made their event run for several days including evenings and weekends. The chosen location was a fairly small room which quickly felt over crowded.

When we asked a direct question to a RSP representative at the Ramsgate event about proposed night flights, she kept replying over and over again “...as I say, we are not ‘planning’ for night flights.” The RSP documentation, however, would suggest that this is not the case as 12.9.69 “During the night time – minor to major adverse impacts are predicted in Ramsgate.” 12.9.70 continues....” The effect would be characterised as a perceived change in the quality of life for occupants of buildings in these communities or a perceived change in the acoustic character of shared open spaced within these communities during the night time.” The information given at the consultation therefore felt deliberately misleading, contradictory and the tone was insulting.
We would like to again draw your attention to the fact that in Ramsgate, the combination of the topography of the land, densely packed and often tall, terraced housing means that noise is funnelled down and intensifies. Having lived in this house for 15 years, we know that the noise is extreme and affects us terribly. It is impossible even to continue a conversation with someone in the same room or speak on the telephone when the planes cross. We have also noted that the noise seems less intrusive in the car park of the Manston Tesco, for example, where, despite being nearer to the airport and the planes being even lower, the noise dissipates and is less intense as there is more open space. One really has to question the intentions and integrity of a company who appear to have deliberately avoided drawing attention to their plans from the thousands of inhabitants who might well be some of the most adversely affected.

We also pointed out that every time a plane has crossed our house during night time hours, every member of our family has fully wakened and the children frightened as the noise on the top floor where they sleep is unbearable and terrifying. This contravenes our Human Right to sleep and fails to meet the guidelines set by the world Health Organisation. RSP are now saying that there would be a need a considerable number of night flights between 11pm and 7am. This would have a catastrophic effect on ours and our children’s health, education and well-being.

The alternative proposal for Stone Hill Park would be hugely preferable, providing much needed housing, green space and leisure facilities. We do put it to all concerned, however, that the former Manston Airport Site is a valuable piece of land in the centre of the Isle of Thanet with its stunning beaches and seaside towns, each with its unique character. Surely we can work with imagination and vision to find a use that is inspiring and beneficial to the area as a whole; one that is positive and forward looking, providing varied and high quality work, entertainment and education opportunities and is something to be proud of for locals and visitors alike. Whoever would have thought that a couple of giant greenhouses in a disused quarry in Cornwall would be such a huge success and draw people from all over the world to learn, wonder and celebrate what the Eden Project has to offer? Surely, Thanet deserves better!
Firstly, if you wish to make comments about the Applicant’s Pre-application consultation, please do so following the process set out in our Community Consultation FAQ (see in particular the advice at FAQ1): [attachment 1]

I also note that your email contains representations regarding the merits of the proposed development. The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations at this time; for information about how and when you will be able to do this, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 2]

07 February 2018
Mr and Mrs Laven
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation and queried the Planning Inspectorate's advice on the provision for night flights in the proposed development.
Firstly, if you wish to make comments about the Applicant’s Pre-application consultation, please do so following the process set out in our Community Consultation FAQ (see in particular the advice at FAQ1): [attachment 1]

The FAQ document above sets out that the correct, tiered process for commenting on an applicant's Pre-application consultation, if an application is yet to be submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, is to first contact the Applicant directly with your concerns regarding the consultation. If you do not receive a satisfactory response, you may wish to forward your concerns to the relevant local authority, to take into consideration as part of their 'Adequacy of Consultation Representation' that the Inspectorate will request once an application has been submitted.

I note that you copied in both the Applicant and relevant local authority - Thanet Borough Council (TBC) - when you emailed your concerns to the Planning Inspectorate. Therefore, you may wish to confirm your concerns with TBC if you do not receive a satisfactory response from the Applicant.

Only once have you forwarded your concerns to both the above parties, and still remain unsatisfied, may you contact the Secretary of State, through the Planning Inspectorate. The Planning Inspectorate can consider your concerns regarding Pre-application consultation in addition to the statutory Acceptance tests when making the decision about whether or not to accept the application under section 55 of the Planning Act 2008.

In response to your query regarding the Planning Inspectorate’s advice on provision for night flights, by way of clarification: beyond the acceptance tests applied to a submitted application for airport-related development (as set out in s23 of the Planning Act 2008), the Planning Inspectorate does not dictate the operational characteristics of airport-related applications made to it.

If an airport applicant intends to operate night flights, its Environmental Impact Assessment will need to include an assessment to identify the likely significant effects arising from those night flights, along with a description of the measures envisaged in order to avoid, prevent, reduce or offset them.

If an airport applicant does not intend to operate night flights, or have the option to operate night flights, there will be no need to assess the impact of night flights as part of its Environmental Impact Assessment.

07 February 2018
James Chappell
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer forwarded representations they had sent to their local MP with regard to the proposed development.
Although I note your email was sent to a group, the Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of a proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

Please note we have also published an FAQ for information and advice about how to engage with the process at the Pre-application stage: [attachment 2]

06 February 2018
Derek Smith
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer sent their response to the Applicant's 2018 statutory consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of a proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

We have also published an FAQ for information and advice about how to engage with the process at the Pre-application stage: [attachment 2]

05 February 2018
Elaine Stevens
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer sent their response to the Applicant's 2018 statutory consultation to the Planning Inspectorate and queried the suitability of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) consenting process for the Proposed Development.
It is not for the Planning Inspectorate to consider the content of your response to the Applicant’s consultation. For details about how and when you will be able to make representations about the merits of the proposal to the Planning Inspectorate, please see Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination: [attachment 1]

In respect of your comment about the suitability of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) process, airport development that requires development consent is defined in section 23 of the PA2008. Any application by RiverOak Strategic Partners for a Development Consent Order will be considered for acceptance against the statutory tests in section 55 of the PA2008. Amongst those tests, the application must demonstrate how the thresholds in section 23 of the PA2008 would be met by the authorised development.

05 February 2018
Martin Weller
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer sent their response to the Applicant's 2018 statutory consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of a proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

We have also published an FAQ for information and advice about how to engage with the process at the Pre-application stage: [attachment 2]

05 February 2018
Jean Tedder
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation.
If you have not done so already please provide your comments directly to the Applicant and Thanet District Council.

Since I last advised you we have published a Community Consultation FAQ. In the context of your enquiry please read in particular the advice at FAQ1: [attachment 1]

01 February 2018
Lesley and Paul Chater
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer forwarded an from Transport for London in response to their request under the Freedom of Information Act (FOI-2993-1718).
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of a proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

01 February 2018
Nicolette McKenzie
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation.
If you wish to make comments about the Applicant’s Pre-application consultation, please do so following the process set out in our Community Consultation FAQ (see in particular the advice at FAQ1): [attachment 1]

01 February 2018
Dr Philip Shotton
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer submitted representations regarding the merits of the proposed development to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

01 February 2018
Keith Nicholls
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
As a Ramsgate resident, I am appalled that the creation of a 24/7 cargo hub is even being considered on the old Manston site.

I am not a NIMBY, afraid of the effect on the price of my house. I care deeply about the town and its beautiful natural situation.

A cargo hub would cause noise pollution, the damaging effects of which are widely known, as well as air and sea pollution.

The prospective owners say that water will run off the runway into the sea - a coastline that has a nature reserve, seal sanctuary and many rare sea birds. It CANNOT be allowed to happen.

How cynical of RSP to use images of heritage planes in their posters. There is nothing nostalgic or romantic about cargo planes flying at night, disrupting wildlife, sleep, buildings and a peaceful coastal way of life.

Their claims of creating 30,000 jobs are misleading, to put it politely. Their bristling defence of any concerns over the environment (the word wasn’t mentioned once on any of their shoddy presentation boards at the recent Ramsgate consultation at the Comfort Inn) and dismissal of genuine health concerns as ‘rubbish’ told me everything I needed to know about the lack of care over the issues that greatly concern the majority of residents in Ramsgate and Herne Bay.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of a proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

30 January 2018
Christabel Bradley
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I want to offer my voice to the protests regarding the re-opening of Manston Airport.

There has been a massive distortion by the River Oak Strategic Partnership in the interpretation that the attendees at the consultation meetings were in support of their plans to re-open the airport. The people I met were certainly not in support and were in fact very strongly against. Everyone was asked to sign into the meeting and then we are told that the signatures were to show our support of River Oaks plans. Surely this is illegal?

There has also been distortions in the number of jobs that the re-opening will create. It has been quoted by River Oak that this will generate 30,000 local jobs. This would mean Manston was employing more people that Gatwick and Heathrow combined.

There also hasn’t been any data provided regarding the pollution that the airport will create with the flights and the haulage of cargo from the airport.

Please build the houses that we need on this site. It would be a fantastic initiative to help solve the housing crisis in Southern England.

I look forward to hearing your thoughts on the above.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of a proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If you wish to make comments about the Applicant’s Pre-application consultation, please do so following the process set out in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

30 January 2018
Jeremy Green
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
We have received information from yourselves with regards Tilbury 2 Project.

We manage a retirement estate across the water in Gravesend and wondered if this would impact us?
You have received our letter because you have been identified by the applicant as being interested in land potentially affected by the proposed scheme. Therefore you have the status of an Interested Party in the examination and can fully participate in the examination.

You can view all the project documents at the project website:
[attachment 1]

As an Interested Party, you will be informed of the progress of the Examination and be notified of the final Decision by the Secretary of State. You can also:

• Make representations about the application that is being examined.

• Have the opportunity to attend and speak at the Preliminary Meeting or hearings that take place during the Examination.

• Have the opportunity to provide further written evidence to the appointed Examining Inspector(s), known as the Examining Authority

However, you are not obliged to participate.

Further information on the examination process can be found in our suite of advice notes:
[attachment 2]

Advice notes 8.2 – 8.5 include information relating to the examination process.

If you have any questions about the examination process, please do not hesitate to contact me.

30 January 2018
Elm Group - Michelle Cable
Tilbury2
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I, in common with many local residents, am extremely strongly opposed to RSP's plans as hugely detrimental to the commercial and amenity value of Thanet in general and specifically Ramsgate and Herne Bay, popular tourist destinations, which will be particularly blighted should the DCO application be successful. I would be grateful if you could incorporate my views in your assessment of the suitability of RSP's plans.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of a proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

29 January 2018
Phil Shotton
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I've explained to you that key details of the proposal are missing from the consultation documentations, rendering any consultation meaningless. You previously told me that all of the information I had talked about would be available in the pre-consultation documentation. What is the point of your meetings with the applicants if you aren't ensuring that they consult properly?

Firstly, I would like to ask if you did tell them to include provision for night flights in their application and, if so, how many night flights did you tell them to include?

Secondly, if you have given them advice on this, how is it that this conversation doesn't feature in any of the minutes of the meetings between the applicants and the Planning Inspectorate? Are conversations taking place which are not minuted or recorded on your web-site?
I have previously explained that the Planning Inspectorate cannot compel an applicant to include particular information in its Preliminary Environmental Information, which is defined in Regulation 2 of the 2009 EIA Regulations (and Regulation 12 of the 2017 EIA Regulations). The Inspectorate’s Pre-application service for applicants, which summarises the purpose of applicant meetings, is set out in detail here: [attachment 1]

The Planning Inspectorate has not advised the Applicant to include provision for night flights in its application. All of the advice issued to the Applicant has been recorded and published to the Inspectorate’s website in accordance with s51 of the Planning Act 2008.

29 January 2018
Peter Binding
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
What would the complaints procedure be if I considered that the DCO process was being misused?
You will already be aware of the complaints procedure at the Pre-application stage of the process in respect of consultation, as set out in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 1]

You will also be aware that the Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of a proposed development at the Pre-application stage of the process. For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to an appointed Examining Authority, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 2]

In respect of making a ‘complaint’ relating to the matter implied, this could be approached in the following ways:

• You could make representations to an appointed Examining Authority, at the appropriate time, about the Applicant’s case for Compulsory Acquisition (CA). Strict statutory tests must be satisfied by an applicant in order for powers relating to the CA of and rights to be included in a Development Consent Order. For more information see government guidance related to procedures for the CA of land: [attachment 3]; and
• Following the issue of the final decision by the Secretary of State, you could challenge the decision in the High Court through the process of Judicial Review (JR). You would need to take your own legal advice about the grounds upon which an application for JR could be made.

Separately, the Planning Inspectorate accepts that it is inevitable that there will sometimes be concerns about the Examination process or the Examining Authority’s report to the Secretary of State. In this respect, we will carefully consider and respond to any matters that you wish to raise. Information about our complaints procedure is available here: [attachment 4]

29 January 2018
Michael Child
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Request submitted to become an interested party.
Thank you for your recent section 102A request to become an Interested Party, in relation to the Tilbury2 project.

You have been identified by the applicant as a category 3 person. Therefore you already have the status of an Interested Party in the examination and can fully participate in the examination.

Your details are included in the in the Book of Reference; this document is provided by the applicant. You can view this document, along with all the other project documents at the project website:

[attachment 1]

As an Interested Party, you will be informed of the progress of the Examination and be notified of the final Decision by the Secretary of State. You can also:

• Make representations about the application being examined.

• Have the opportunity to attend and speak at the Preliminary Meeting or hearings that take place during the Examination.

• Have the opportunity to provide further written evidence to the appointed Examining Inspector(s), known as the Examining Authority

Further information on the examination process can be found in our suite of advice notes:

[attachment 2]

Advice notes 8.2 – 8.5 include information relating to the examination process.

This response is sent without prejudice and cannot be considered as legal advice on which you can rely.

29 January 2018
Ioan-Eugen Ciobanu
Tilbury2
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I have sent back my views to RSP in their recent emailed form regarding the above matter.

As a resident and also a business person I have the strongest views against this proposal - and I am somewhat bemused that after the previous request by RSP and the subsequent rejection they are back yet again. This time actually acknowledging that they will have night flights carrying cargo across and over the top of a residential and built up town.

This is so WRONG on so many levels:

The pollution effect is distressing alone - the noise, which will only harm peoples health but lack of sleep, the devaluation of the area and businesses- lack of jobs ( honestly how many people would it employ) possibly a handful.

The viability of the cargo hub lets remember its already been used as an airport and it was a dismal failure then - this proposed use will effect, schools, businesses and tourists and impact greatly on the towns of Ramsgate and Herne Bay and all the villages and its residents.

RSP are not people we can trust - they had no idea at the last consultation I attended and when asked various questions, they were literally stabbing in the dark for answers on flight paths etc.

No NO No we do not want a cargo hub here - despite everything Ramsgate is trying to keep its head up and become a pleasant holiday and recreational and viable town -

I have already sent my form to RSP but because I do not trust them I am ccing you all on my strong feelings regarding the proposed scheme.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of a proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

26 January 2018
Christine Isteed
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer sent their response to the Applicant's 2018 statutory consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations of this type at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

26 January 2018
Susan Hammock
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
A question, please, about the scope of the environmental impact assessment described in the consultation documents recently issued by RSP.

I note that a scoping opinion was sought from PINS/the Secretary of State prior to the first statutory consultation. But that concerned an environmental assessment which was to be conducted in accordance with legal rules which have now changed. I appreciate that there is considerable overlap between the two sets of regulations. On the other hand, -and as the European Commission explained when the parent law was made - the new law requires a deeper approach to environmental impact.

Reading through the PEIR I have come across a number of important instances where there is a question whether the new Regulations require further or different work by the developer. Air quality, heritage assets, and noise are examples of three areas where such points have arisen. In these instances the question appears quite often to have been resolved in the negative by the developer. They includes cases where the Secretary of State/PINS gave written notice of disagreement with the developer's decisions on "scoping out" under the old regulations.

I think I understand that the developer's judgement is not final and that matters he has ruled out of scope actually remain in scope until and unless the Secretary of State determines otherwise. But the developer's current decisions plainly potentially affect the depth and quality of the consultation. Indeed they risk contradicting the purpose of the new Union law which is to ensure that the public and others are consulted on the basis of a full picture of the significant environmental effects of the developer's plans.

Given that these are new and to some extent untested Regulations, the public interested in the developer consulting you and the local authority about what should be scoped in and scoped out would seem especially strong. Perhaps the developer did so informally?

Could you kindly clarify the position regarding scope and explain how best ordinary members of the public can enjoy the rights intended for them by the new Regulations?
The current consultation being undertaken by the Applicant concerns Preliminary Environmental Information (PEI). PEI is described in the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2009 (the EIA Regulations 2009) as:

“information referred to in Part 1 of Schedule 4 which—
(a) has been compiled by the applicant; and
(b) is reasonably required to assess the environmental effects of the development
(and of any associated development);”

In the revised regulations the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations (the EIA Regulations 2017), PEI is described as:
“information referred to in regulation 14(2) which—
(a) has been compiled by the applicant; and
(b) is reasonably required for the consultation bodies to develop an informed view of the likely significant environmental effects of the development (and of any associated development).”

In undertaking consultation on PEI, the Applicant is fulfilling part of their consultation requirements under the EIA Regulations and the Planning Act 2008. This provides the public and consultation bodies the opportunity to comment on the assessment undertaken.

A Scoping Opinion was sought under the EIA Regulations 2009. Scoping is a voluntary process that an Applicant may choose to undertake but is not a legal requirement. The EIA Regulations 2017 included transitional provisions that allow an applicant to continue to progress a project under the EIA Regulations 2009 subject to certain circumstances defined in the regulations. It is for an Applicant to justify which set of regulations they consider they fall under.

With respect to a Scoping Opinion, under the EIA Regulations 2009 an Applicant could request an Opinion as to the information to be provided in the environmental statement. The Applicant should provide this information unless it is able to justify not providing it (e.g. the design of the project has changed therefore the original Scoping Opinion is not fully applicable). The Applicant has not sought a Scoping Opinion under the EIA Regulations 2017.

On submission of an Environmental Statement with a submission for development consent, the Inspectorate will consider whether the Environmental Statement complies with the regulations and is sufficient to be examined.

26 January 2018
Mark de Pulford
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
How is it that the Planning Inspectorate is giving the possible applicants advice, but the possible applicants keep producing incomplete, opaque and confusing information?
Under section 51 of the Planning Act 2008 the Planning Inspectorate may give advice to potential applicants about applying for an order granting development, and to any other person about making representations about a proposed application for development consent. Save for EIA screening/ scoping functions, that is the extent of the Planning Inspectorate’s powers at the Pre-application stage of the process.

Please refer to our Community Consultation FAQ for details about how, and to whom, you should make comments about an applicant’s Pre-application consultation: [attachment 1]

26 January 2018
Peter Binding
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer sent their response to the Applicant's 2018 statutory consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of a proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

26 January 2018
Susan Holton
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
As part of the consultation process can you let me know what powers the TDC has to enforce control on night flights? Also, what plans will TDC have in place to monitor health of us residents to assess the impact of night flights on blood pressure and sleeplessness? Has World Health Organisation data been consulted to assess risk on local population health by runway and aircraft activity?
Local authorities have a special the Planning Act 2008 process. For more details please see:

• The Planning Inspectorate’s Advice Note One and Advice Note Two; and
• Our Community Consultation FAQ.

Both are available to view at the following address: [attachment 1]

The development proposed by the Applicant is EIA development and an Environmental Statement must therefore be produced to support the application. For specific information about the Applicant’s Environmental Impact Assessment, please contact the Applicant directly at: manston@communityrelations.co.uk

26 January 2018
Denis Booth
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I have just read a very troubling article regarding RSP’s latest application for night flights from Manston.

The suggestion that Ramsgate should even consider accepting a proposal to include any night freight traffic overhead is worrying enough and now this application shows that it will in fact require more noisy, polluting freight planes than even Heathrow allows. I struggle to resolve this request when considering the small number of benefits the airport offers. History shows that very few employees are required to man a freight airport and beyond them, who else benefits? The benefits to our area do not balance with the destructive effect these planes will have.

I implore the planning inspectorate to use good judgement and to consider the failures of the very recent past when making this decision. There is a well known saying; if we carry out the same action every time we will get the same result every time...and so far the airport has only ever failed!
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations of this type at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

23 January 2018
Tiffany Wilmans
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I really do not understand why Manston airport might open again. It is a failing Airport and will ruin Tourism in Ramsgate. I have an estate agent coming around today to look at selling my business because it will go bankrupt if the flights start again.

I am sure all the people who wanted it open were thinking of a nice airport, not like is being applied for with 24/7 cargo.

Why are RiverOak still trying for this when all the evidence is stacked against it actually working?
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations of this type at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

23 January 2018
Stephanie Flower
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Will local business get compensated for having to relocate?
Please see the government's guidance related to procedures for the compulsory acquisition of land: [attachment 1]

The Applicant, RiverOak Strategic Partners, will be able to advise you about any compensation package proposed to be included as part of its application for development consent.

23 January 2018
Stephanie Flower
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Update meeting for the Applicant to outline the consultation materials and approach
Please see the attached meeting note

23 January 2018
Highways England - Josh Hodder
A30 Chiverton to Carland Cross Scheme
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
We have copied you into this email we have sent to RSP because of concerns we have over notification of & access to documentation regarding their latest public consultation. We wanted you to be aware that we have contacted them and so far have had no resolution in spite of contacting RSP twice regarding these problems. We are now over a week into the consultation with the one presentation in Ramsgate on Tuesday. The centre of our estate is less than 1.5km from the boundary of Manston and yet it seems no one here has had notification from RSP informing them. This is meant to be a public consultation.
If you have not already done so, please provide your comments about the Applicant’s Pre-application consultation to your local authority which will be able to consider them in conjunction with making its Adequacy of Consultation Representation; if an application is submitted. Our Community Consultation FAQ provides more advice in this regard: [attachment 1]

22 January 2018
Ian Scott
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I am writing as someone whose home is on the flightpath for Manston Airport.

I have just been told by a friend that there will be a consultation on this on January 23 (tomorrow). However, I had no notification of this in advance by the proposed developers – either by email or, as would have been more correct, by post. The consultation is therefore invalid and should be re-run.

On points of detail I would like to know what account will be taken of the following points in the environmental impact assessment:

What affect will the cargo hub airport have on the rejuvenation of Ramsgate by new people moving to the area?

What affect will the cargo hub airport have on tourism?

What will be done to mitigate the impact of night flights on the health of the Ramsgate population due to loss of sleep from the night flights?

There is a well advertised shortage of accommodation in South-East England, and recent owners have not succeeded in making a success of Manston as an airport. The environmental consequences for Ramsgate will be disastrous. A mixed-use development for the Ramsgate site is by far the best solution.
If you have not already done so, please contact the Applicant in respect your concerns about its Pre-application consultation.

If you are not satisfied with the Applicant’s response, you can provide your comments to your local authority which will be able to consider them in conjunction with making its Adequacy of Consultation Representation; if an application is submitted. Our Community Consultation FAQ provides more advice in this regard: [attachment 1]

In respect of the Environmental Impact Assessment, at this stage of the process these are questions for the Applicant. RiverOak Strategic Partners can be contacted at manston@communityrelations.co.uk and manstonconsultation@bdb-law.co.uk

If an application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate and subsequently judged to be of an satisfactory standard to be examined, you will be able to register your interest and make representations about the Proposed Development to an appointed Examining Authority. Please see our Advice Note 8 series for more details about when and how to have your say: [attachment 2]

22 January 2018
Clive Aslet
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
Query around slight amendments made in response to feedback to the proposals presented during the statutory consultation. I was advised (in a meeting with the Inspectorate on 12 January 2018) that whilst para 75 in the DCLG Guidance March 2015 on Pre-Application Consultation refers to ‘informing’ affected parties, general practice was to apply para 76 and carry out targeted consultation. If this approach is taken, can you advise me of any key parameters to follow i.e. to consult relevant individuals and organisations in writing with 21 days to reply.
We are not aware of any set timescale for further, targeted consultation however we would advise that to ensure meaningful opportunity for people to engage (who maybe have not engaged previously), it may be wise to provide at least 28 days to receive responses.

22 January 2018
Steven Edwards
Reinforcement to North Shropshire Electricity Distribution Network
Enquiry received via phone
response has attachments
Norfolk Boreas Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

22 January 2018
Vattenfall - anon.
Norfolk Boreas
Enquiry received via email
We write regarding two schemes for SRFIs at Milton Northants, namely Roxhill (Northampton Gateway) and (Rail Central) Ashfield Land, both developers have now clearly indicated that their proposals are running on very similar time lines Roxhill having commenced Phase 2 consultation and Ashfield Land indicating Phase 2 consultation expected in Q1/2 2018.

We write with regard to the potential adverse cumulative impacts the interrelationship of both schemes, now running it appears concurrently, may have.

We have referred to PINS advice note 17 “Cumulative Effects Assessment”(CEA)in section 1.3 reference is specifically made to environmental effects, and in section 1.4 Advice note 17 PINS also state “When considering cumulative effects the ES should provide information on how the effects of the applicants proposal would combine and interact with the effects of other development”.

Could PINS confirm if the Cumulative impact relating to the practical aspects of the scheme(as well as environmental issues),which in this instance is two SRFIs potentially connecting into the same very limited Northampton Loop of the WCML, would be deemed to fall under Advice note 17 1.4 and thereby would need to be considered by both developers, and given the importance of Rail connectivity should this be dealt with in this pre application period.

We would appreciate your advice on this
If a proposed development requires an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) to be submitted as part of the application, the EIA Regulations necessitate that the applicant undertakes an assessment of cumulative effects, and considers alternatives to the proposed development. The assessment of cumulative effects would take into account other reasonably foreseeable schemes including any other relevant Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIP). Both developers are undertaking an EIA and will therefore submit an Environmental Statement as part of their application.

It would be for the Applicant for each scheme to make the case for, and to assess the impacts of, their proposed development taking into consideration the cumulative effects of the relevant built, consented and/or proposed developments as appropriate at the time that their application is lodged. Each case would be judged on its individual merits, where the appointed Examining Authority (ExA) would assess the material of the Applicant’s application documents and submissions received during the Examination (should the application be Accepted for Examination by the Secretary of State (SoS) via the Acceptance process) from interested parties.

You made reference specifically to section 1.4 of Advice Note 17, however we would encourage you to review the document in its entirety as it provides more information on cumulative effects assessment and includes the proposed methodology for Applicants to consider when reviewing cumulative effects.

The Applicants for both the Northampton Gateway and Rail Central SRFI proposal, have confirmed that they would be undertaking a cumulative assessment which would include the others proposal and therefore this matter is being considered/dealt with at the pre-application stage. We would encourage you to review the meeting notes published on both project pages (Northampton Gateway Rail Freight Interchange and Rail Central SRFI) to have sight of discussions held between the Planning Inspectorate and the Applicants regarding their respective proposals. It is therefore safe to assume that as both Applicant’s would be considering each other’s proposal and their possible cumulative effects, that the decision maker (the SoS) would be equipped with an assessment of the likely cumulative effects associated with both schemes including if they were both operational.

It is essential to note, that when making a decision on whether or not to grant consent for an NSIP, the SoS will have regard to any important and relevant matter; as will the ExA appointed to examine an application and report to the SoS. The impact of a proposal on existing uses and its compatibility with other developments is a matter that could be raised in submissions and could be capable of being relevant and important.

19 January 2018
Pat Hargreaves
Rail Central (Strategic Rail Freight Interchange)
Enquiry received via email
We write regarding two schemes for SRFIs at Milton Northants, namely Roxhill (Northampton Gateway) and (Rail Central) Ashfield Land, both developers have now clearly indicated that their proposals are running on very similar time lines Roxhill having commenced Phase 2 consultation and Ashfield Land indicating Phase 2 consultation expected in Q1/2 2018.

We write with regard to the potential adverse cumulative impacts the interrelationship of both schemes, now running it appears concurrently, may have.

We have referred to PINS advice note 17 “Cumulative Effects Assessment”(CEA)in section 1.3 reference is specifically made to environmental effects, and in section 1.4 Advice note 17 PINS also state “When considering cumulative effects the ES should provide information on how the effects of the applicants proposal would combine and interact with the effects of other development”.

Could PINS confirm if the Cumulative impact relating to the practical aspects of the scheme(as well as environmental issues),which in this instance is two SRFIs potentially connecting into the same very limited Northampton Loop of the WCML, would be deemed to fall under Advice note 17 1.4 and thereby would need to be considered by both developers, and given the importance of Rail connectivity should this be dealt with in this pre application period.

We would appreciate your advice on this
If a proposed development requires an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) to be submitted as part of the application, the EIA Regulations necessitate that the applicant undertakes an assessment of cumulative effects, and considers alternatives to the proposed development. The assessment of cumulative effects would take into account other reasonably foreseeable schemes including any other relevant Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIP). Both developers are undertaking an EIA and will therefore submit an Environmental Statement as part of their application.

It would be for the Applicant for each scheme to make the case for, and to assess the impacts of, their proposed development taking into consideration the cumulative effects of the relevant built, consented and/or proposed developments as appropriate at the time that their application is lodged. Each case would be judged on its individual merits, where the appointed Examining Authority (ExA) would assess the material of the Applicant’s application documents and submissions received during the Examination (should the application be Accepted for Examination by the Secretary of State (SoS) via the Acceptance process) from interested parties.

You made reference specifically to section 1.4 of Advice Note 17, however we would encourage you to review the document in its entirety as it provides more information on cumulative effects assessment and includes the proposed methodology for Applicants to consider when reviewing cumulative effects.

The Applicants for both the Northampton Gateway and Rail Central SRFI proposal, have confirmed that they would be undertaking a cumulative assessment which would include the others proposal and therefore this matter is being considered/dealt with at the pre-application stage. We would encourage you to review the meeting notes published on both project pages (Northampton Gateway Rail Freight Interchange and Rail Central SRFI) to have sight of discussions held between the Planning Inspectorate and the Applicants regarding their respective proposals. It is therefore safe to assume that as both Applicant’s would be considering each other’s proposal and their possible cumulative effects, that the decision maker (the SoS) would be equipped with an assessment of the likely cumulative effects associated with both schemes including if they were both operational.

It is essential to note, that when making a decision on whether or not to grant consent for an NSIP, the SoS will have regard to any important and relevant matter; as will the ExA appointed to examine an application and report to the SoS. The impact of a proposal on existing uses and its compatibility with other developments is a matter that could be raised in submissions and could be capable of being relevant and important.

19 January 2018
Alan Hargreaves
Northampton Gateway Rail Freight Interchange
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I write to oppose RSPs proposed DCO of Manston Airport Land
After deceiving myself, residents and yourself, for many months, and at previous unsatisfactory "consultations", RSP Have now come clean and have included in their Environmental Impact Statement a proposal for 4000 Q4 aircraft movements during the night time period, together with a further 2000 Q4 movements during a shoulder period defined as between 6:00 and 7:00 am.
That they wait until now, one week before what they hope will be a final acceptable consultation, to admit the necessity of extensive night flights to their plans, makes one question either their honesty or their understanding of what a nationally significant freight hub entails.
The residents of Ramsgate in particular, living between 200 yards and 2 miles of the end of the runway and directly on the most frequently used (70%) flight path, have been here before. Previous owners of the airport, that has now been closed for 3 years, have proposed night flights as a possible mitigation for the airport's repeated economic failure. Those proposals, similar to the current proposal, were met with a huge protest from Ramsgate residents, business owners, educationists etc. This was despite the offer then being passenger flights and state of the art aircraft rather than what is on offer now, which would have little direct benefit to residents. Residents were quite aware that the noise, sleep disturbance and environmental pollution would severely impact on their health and quality of life. The many tourist related businesses also saw a polluting airport as serious impediment to their viability, with predictable detrimental effects on employment.
In considering whether to support the application, I assume that it is necessary to consider the alternative proposal by the legitimate owners. I understand they have submitted a master plan that includes a heritage aviation facility that would honour the local history and enhance the visitor offer; an extensive business park building upon the owners extensive track record, and housing estate promising to be large enough to be sustainable, and avoiding the need to use green field land to meet the councils housing targets.
Taking land off of legitimate owners should not be done lightly. I see nothing in the Government's aviation plans that would justify doing this in this case.
Please refer to our FAQ for information and advice about how to engage with the process at the Pre-application stage: [attachment 1]

Our Advice Note 8 series explains how and when to register as an Interested Party and make representations about a proposed development if an application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate and subsequently found to be of a satisfactory standard to be examined: [attachment 2]

19 January 2018
David Green
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I am wondering if a past potential investor should make a submission to you when and if River Oak actually make the application to try to acquire Manston.
Anybody can choose to register as an Interested Party and make representations to an appointed Examining Authority in the manner set out in our Advice Note 8 series:
[attachment 1]

19 January 2018
Richard Card
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer sent his response to the Applicant's 2018 statutory consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
Helpfully your email is also addressed to Thanet District Council, which will be invited to make an Adequacy of Consultation Representation if an application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate in due course.

For more information and advice about the community consultation process, please see our FAQ: [attachment 1]

19 January 2018
Gary Ottewill
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I understand that, according to the DCO process, RSP should have prepared a Consultation Report to PINS outlining how it took into account the feedback responses from its public consultations held in June and July 2017. Am I correct in my understanding that no such report was prepared?
I have been told by RSP that, following the current January and February 2018 statutory consultations, it now intends to prepare a Consultation Report describing how it has responded to feedback from both the 2017 and 2018 consultations.
Would you not agree that that is less than satisfactory? Surely PINS should have received, and the public would rightly expect, the report from the 2017 consultations before a further consultation would take place?
The Applicant will be required to submit a Consultation Report with its application for development consent. The Consultation Report is not an iterative document and applicants are not required to produce a separate Report for each round of consultation that they undertake. The Planning Inspectorate cannot test the adequacy of an applicant’s Pre-application consultation until an application (including the Consultation Report) is formally submitted to it.

Notwithstanding the explicit statutory duties places on applicants in respect of their Pre-application consultation (under the Planning Act 2008), the Planning Inspectorate’s Advice Note 14 summarises the purpose and gives advice about the expected format and content of the Consultation Report: [attachment 1]

For more information and advice about the community consultation process, please see our FAQ: [attachment 2]

19 January 2018
Simon Crow
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
I’m writing as a resident of Ramsgate who’s recently received an email from a company currently calling itself ‘RSP’ informing me that they are planning yet another inadequate round of consultations pertaining to their attempted land grab of some 800 acres of brownfield land formerly known as Manston Airport. My question for you is thus: seeing as every independent report into the viability of an airport at Manston has come to the same conclusion, that it simply isn’t viable, it seems ridiculous that RSP can continue to blight an entire district indefinitely. So can RSP continue indefinitely in their pre-application? It would substantial flaw in the planning process to allow a company with no evidence of any funds whatsoever to create such uncertainty to an entire district based upon a totally unviable business plan with no recourse for their actions or time limit. Please can you let me know if this is case.
The PA2008 process is frontloaded, meaning the onus is on applicants to prepare their applications fully before they are submitted to the Planning Inspectorate. On that basis, provided that the statutory procedures set out in the PA2008 are satisfied there is no limit placed on the number of Pre-application consultation exercises a particular applicant may choose to undertake, and it is not unprecedented or unusual for an applicant to carry more than one statutory consultation exercise.

In respect of funding, an application for a Development Consent Order (DCO) that would authorise the Compulsory Acquisition (CA) of land/ rights must be accompanied by a Funding Statement which should demonstrate that adequate funding is likely to be available to enable the CA within the statutory period following the DCO being made. Funding Statements are published to the Planning Inspectorate’s website alongside the rest of the application documentation, and their content is routinely examined by appointed Examining Authorities.

19 January 2018
Aaron Oldale
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I'm writing to complain about the most recent consultation by RiverOak Strategic Partners.

Firstly, as a resident directly under the Manston flight path I have received no notification from them about the consultation and how I might participate. Given my keen interest in the subject, I have made myself aware but I am dismayed that yet again, so many residents directly affected by their proposals have been kept in the dark.

Secondly, as per the previous consultations the documentation available (allegedly) via RSP's website is actually not user friendly, in fact it can prove totally inaccessible. The files are so large that accessing them is extremely difficult as is downloading, let alone printing. It was only after several attempts and some help from others that I managed to access most at all. And with only 5 weeks to comment. There is no cross-referencing provided by RSP which means that I, and all residents, are presumably expected to wade through last year's documents together with this year's in order to identify any amendments or additions. This is completely unsatisfactory.

Finally, yet again those most affected by RSP's proposals have only a limited opportunity to attend. At least two opportunities, with one at the weekend, should have been provided.

Consultations, if meaningful, need to be properly announced, ensure accessible documentation, be of sufficient length and allow full participation by as many as possible Yet again, a failure on all counts.
Helpfully your email is also addressed to Thanet District Council, which will be invited to make an Adequacy of Consultation Representation if an application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate in due course.

For more information and advice about the community consultation process, please see our FAQ: [attachment 1]

19 January 2018
Susan Kennedy
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
It has come to my attention via a friend that RSP are doing another consultation with regards to Manston Airport.

I have not had notification to my address. If you look on a map you will see that I am two miles away, if not less, to the runway and in direct line of the flight path.

I would like to know why my house, and neighbours, as I have been along my street asking, have not had written notification about this. I thought all of Ramsgate had to be notified?

Please can you advise what the guidelines are?
The statutory guidance in respect of an Applicant’s Pre-application consultation duties is available here: [attachment 1]

The Planning Inspectorate has also produced an FAQ document which provides advice about Pre-application community consultation: [attachment 2]

19 January 2018
Anne-Marie Nixey
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I am writing to voice my utter disgust at the Riveroak proposition. PLEASE DO NOT LET IT GO AHEAD!!!!!!

I am concerned that overall the proposal would have a seriously detrimental to the town and its residents.

It will ruin lots of hard work and investment into regenerating this area, deterring people from moving here, ruining tourism and most importantly damaging the health of mine and other's children and inhibiting their ability to learn and prosper and social mobility.

I am concerned about the proposed leading to both noise and air pollution, sleepless nights, damage to the infrastructure and the prospect of thousands of lorries bringing fuel, clogging up the commuter roads in addition to the danger and extra carbon monoxide this will bring.

I am concerned for proposed detrimental effect on the nature reserves and the wildlife, some of which are rare and endangered.

I also want houses built on the Manston site because we need more housing in this area and I would prefer them to be built on brownfield rather than greenfield farm land. Again, for the sake of our environment and the children.

Also, I cannot see how the project is necessary or viable. There is not a shortage of capacity for cargo in the existing airports nearby.

Also, due to our positioning, the is only one entrance and exit and a lot of sea. If you put circles concentrically around the Manston site to achieve an economically viable capacity they would be needing to bypass existing airports, with capacity, to get to Manston. That cannot make sense. Surely, the Midlands and further up the country are in greater need than this location right in the corner of England.

I would also like to complain about the proposal process. The lack of information and consultation and time given. It is a shambles.

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE DO NOT LET THIS PROPOSAL GO THROUGH!!!!!!
Please refer to our FAQ for information and advice about how to engage with the process at the Pre-application stage: [attachment 1]

Our Advice Note 8 series explains how and when to register as an Interested Party and make representations about a proposed development if an application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate and subsequently found to be of a satisfactory standard to be examined: [attachment 2]

19 January 2018
Ceri Diffley
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Note of presentation to the Heathrow Airport Consultative Committee (HACC).
See attached meeting note and presentation.

17 January 2018
Heathrow Airport Consultative Committee - anon.
Expansion of Heathrow Airport (Third Runway)
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached meeting note

16 January 2018
Orsted - Stuart Livesey
Hornsea Project Three Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Would you be kind enough to advise me as to if and/or when the original Ferrybridge C power station is to be demolished please?
As grateful as I am for the information on offer regarding the multi fuel power project I have found that your information has provided to be 'heavy going'; I am keen to know if any of the new development will be visible from my home on Hillcrest Road Townville (ordinance survey explorer 289 map reference 463253). Currently I can only see the very tops of the old pair of chimneys in the winter months when there are no leaves on the trees. Due to the juxtaposition of the woods the view from the back of my house has been a major feature of my location. At the time of writing I do not see any of the new development from my property and am keen to know if it is to stay that way.
Thank you for your time.
Thank you for your email which has been received in the inbox for the Ferrybridge Multifuel 2 (FM2) Power Station. The FM2 project has been consented in July 2016. On 11th January 2018 the Applicant has made an application to the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy for a non-material change in relation to the alternative provision of land for landscaping and biodiversity enhancement.

However, it appears that you might be referring to the Ferrybridge D Combined Cycle Gas Turbine (CCGT) Power Station Project which is at the pre-application stage, and we would suggest that you direct all your queries to the developer at jim.lawrie@sse.com as the project has not been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate yet.

Advice note eight provides information on how to get involved in the pre-application process, and later in the examination of the application, should it become accepted by the Planning Inspectorate. It can be found at this link: [attachment 1]

16 January 2018
Rowland Smith
Ferrybridge Multifuel 2 (FM2) Power Station
Enquiry received via
response has attachments
North Shropshire Reinforcement project update meeting
Please see attached.

12 January 2018
SP Manweb - anon.
Reinforcement to North Shropshire Electricity Distribution Network
Enquiry received via
response has attachments
Scoping clarifications and project update meeting
Please see attached

12 January 2018
Highways England - anon.
A303 Sparkford to Ilchester Dualling
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Nodyn Cyfarfod - 12 Ionawr 2018 / Meeting Note - 12 January 2018

12 January 2018
National Grid - anon.
North Wales Connection
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Nodyn Cyfarfod - 11 Ionawr 2018 / Meeting Note - 11 January 2018

11 January 2018
Natural Resources Wales - anon.
Wylfa Newydd Nuclear Power Station
Enquiry received via email
Having reviewed your hearing agendas I wish to raise an issue best discussed in your Issue Specific Hearing (ISH). However at this moment in time I don’t believe my attendance at this meeting is required.
Northern Gas Network own and operate a 12” steel intermediate pressure gas main that crosses the roundabout I believe you are carrying out work. (att is our plans)
We treat our IP pipelines with the same safety protocols as our HP assets which insist that all work carried out in proximity to this pipeline is subject to NGN procedure SSW22 which I have also attached. This includes supervision of work within 3m of the pipeline.

Have you/your other consultees considered our pipeline and discussed this with any other member of NGN such as our diversions team/major projects? (if you are planning to divert)
Please can you present to me the scope of your works and how this will affect our asset. I am happy to arrange a site meeting, free of charge, with one of our pipeline technicians to discuss the projection of our pipeline should you wish?
Firstly, Highways England (the Applicant) has submitted an application under Section 37 of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) for an order to grant development consent (a DCO) for the A19/A184 Testos Junction Improvement scheme. The application is currently being examined by the Planning Inspectorate on behalf of the Secretary of State for Transport (SoST). Therefore, I recommend you contacting Highways England directly with regards to the scope of the works.

As you are unable to attend the hearings next week to address your concerns set out in your email below to the Applicant, would you like the Examining Authority (ExA), appointed on behalf of the SoST to examine the application, to address these concerns to the Applicant? There is scope to accept your email as an ‘Additional Submission’ in order to refer to it during the Compulsory Acquisition Hearing (CAH1) scheduled for 18 January 2018, when addressing Statutory Undertakers provisions of the PA2008.

If you do wish for your concerns to be brought to the ExA’s attention, please advise if you wish to submit them again in a more formal letter or are happy for your email to be used.

11 January 2018
Northern Gas Networks - David Turner
A19 / A184 Testos Junction Improvement
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Nodyn Cyfarfod - 10 Ionawr 2018 / Meeting Note - 10 January 2018

10 January 2018
Horizon Nuclear Energy - David Palmer
Wylfa Newydd Nuclear Power Station
Enquiry received via phone
response has attachments
Draft document review teleconference
Please see attached meeting note and the draft application documents feedback summary

10 January 2018
Suffolk County Council - anon.
Lake Lothing Third Crossing
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I have read your recent report and this seems in conflict with a recent announcement that you were demolishing and going on to gas. Please confirm where we now stand. It is getting confusing.
Thank you for your email which has been received in the inbox for the Ferrybridge Multifuel 2 (FM2) Power Station. The FM2 project has been consented in July 2016. On 11th January 2018 the Applicant has made an application to the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy for a non-material change in relation to the alternative provision of land for landscaping and biodiversity enhancement.

However, it appears that you might be referring to the Ferrybridge D Combined Cycle Gas Turbine (CCGT) Power Station Project which is at the pre-application stage, and we would suggest that you direct all your queries to the developer at jim.lawrie@sse.com as the project has not been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate yet.

Advice note eight provides information on how to get involved in the pre-application process, and later in the examination of the application, should it become accepted by the Planning Inspectorate. It can be found at this link: [attachment 1]

10 January 2018
James Smith
Ferrybridge Multifuel 2 (FM2) Power Station
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
With regards to Evidence Plans, you have advised that an Evidence Plan would definitely be advantageous, and that PINS may be able to provide some support. You have kindly agreed to look into the process and get back to me.
See attached document.

09 January 2018
Atkins - Paul Watts
M25 junction 10/A3 Wisley interchange improvement
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I have just revisited this application to check for any progress. Please excuse this email being a bit muddled and fragmentary but I am short of time at the moment and fitting writing it in between customers at work. I would respectfully remind you that while you get paid for responding to it I don’t get paid for writing it. As I am directly affected by having long delayed and unclear plans for a potentially significant national infrastructure project hanging over the town I live and trade in I am obliged to respond to it.
As far as I can see the majority of people living here have been subjected to ongoing cries of wolf mixed with confused objectives so that there is very little public awareness of the situation.
I think if asked most local people would like to save the local airport with a view to being able to fly locally to holiday destination and having historic air displays, which is roughly what has happened in the past.
The actuality of the result of any DCO would appear to be a highly polluting freight facility with very little likelihood of either leisure flights or airshows.
The actual DCO remit as stated on the pins website is. “The upgrade and reopening of Manston Airport primarily as a cargo airport, with some passenger services, with a capacity of at least 12,000 air cargo movements per year.” Without any more precise commitment at this level then I assume that would be applicant’s obligation. This has however been presented from inception as “saving Manston Airport” which is something very different, holidays in the sun, a boost to the local economy and additional leisure events.
My main concern from inception has been addressing pollution issues with respect to the amount freight movements that would be necessary to comply with DCO legislation.
At the moment there seems to be conflicting information as to whether it would be only necessary to build an airfreight hub at Manston with the capacity for 10,000 movements per annum, or whether it would be necessary to increase the airfreight capacity of Manston by 10,000 freight movements per annum to qualify for a DCO.
Further to this there seems to be some confusion as to whether the existing airfreight capacity of Manston would be taken as the capacity prior to its recent closure or whether some other figure is taken as the existing capacity.
Could you kindly clarify this?
My main concern from inception has been addressing air pollution issues with respect to the amount freight movements that would be necessary to comply with DCO legislation.
As per your recommendations [attachment 1];ipcadvice=c2ba63ed60 “we would advise you to liaise directly with the Applicant, as the application for the proposed development is still in the process of being developed, and as such your views still have the opportunity to shape the application.”
I have copied my emails to the aplicant to you so I assume you will know that liaising seems to have presented difficulties for the applicant and so far they haven’t made any meaningful response to me and to honest I have now given up trying.
As the scientific journals relating to particulate air pollution enter the public domain I had been passing the information on, but without any connected response it is difficult to tell if the applicant was taking this information onboard.
The main November publications being related to abnormal sperm [attachment 2] and pulmonary function of children [attachment 3]
In December another aspect that I hadn’t considered came up which is the affect of behaviour in adolescents, see [attachment 4]
Once again I should stress that it is the combination of burning at least 10,000 tones of jet fuel p.a. in a relatively small area, with a densely populated area immediately along the prevailing air flow direction and the onshore breezes action of reducing the air flow at the perimeter of the densely populated area, that looks particularly concerning.
With Ramsgate the other significant issue would be aircraft noise exacerbated by the difficulties associated with sound insulation in the conservation area with many listed buildings including several schools.
Do you know if there has been any progress in addressing this problem?
I am assuming that there would have to be a property compensation scheme in place prior to acceptance of the DCO, as dealing with the noise compensation property blight issue in Ramsgate is likely to be one of the more costly aspects of the project. Obviously as the applicant has to prove to pins that they have adequate legitimately sourced funding to qualify for a DCO then I assume the approximate costs have to be known to do this, can you confirm this is the case?

As a result of revisiting this issue I note that there will be further consultation events [attachment 5] “Following the recent announcement that RiverOak Strategic Partners will be offering the public an opportunity to comment on its now fully-developed proposals for Manston Airport, prior to submitting the Development Consent Order application, RSP can now confirm the dates and venues for consultation events will be as follows:
23 January: Comfort Inn, Ramsgate 14:00-20:00
24 January: The Kings Hall, Herne Bay 14:00-20:00
Further details about the consultation period and how to respond will be provided in due course.”
In the first instance, I can’t find any notification relating to this consultation elsewhere, nothing on the pins website [attachment 6] nothing posted up in the Ramsgate information centre, I registered my interest at both the previous consultations and haven’t had any notification from rsp. I run a retail business in Ramsgate and have asked some of my customers if the are aware of this consultation. I haven’t been able to find anyone who is aware of it.
I have been unable to find the “fully-developed proposals for Manston Airport” mentioned, do you know if the can be found online?
I also can’t fine any statement of community consultation relating to these events, either on the rsp website or the TDC one, as I now have accessibility issues, the time I have before the events to make arrangements to overcome them is important to me. Can you please tell me the last date the statement of community consultation has to appear before the consultation event?
In view of the large number of people, particularly under the unavoidable flight path in Ramsgate and the issue of having both to revisit extensive documentation and presumably read further new documentation I would think time is running out.
Can you please confirm that this is actually a third consultation and that there will be some point in interested parties like me attending it? To expand on this, will comments be collated in some way and count towards the decision to accept the DCO?
Personally I have developed tinnitus since this project started and I foresee that I would have considerable accessibility issues if the Ramsgate session is reasonably well attended. To expand on this, a lot of people in a confined space all talking at once would be very difficult if not impossible for me to attend.
The underlying issue here is that from a common sense point of view a freight hub at Manston progressively appears increasingly unlikely to be viable. The figures just don’t appear to add up, the site already has an experienced and enthusiastic ownership with plans to exploit its brownfield status, which would suggest site acquisition compensation around that of brownfield land value for southeast England making the site worth around £1bn.
Any compensation package for Ramsgate along the lines of the one proposed for London airport expansion would be very costly, unless of course it is envisaged that the freight hub would go ahead without reasonable compensation.
Conversely the applicant appears to have no other airfreight hubs in fact no airports whatsoever, no tangible existing business where one could see evidence of substantial and available funds, that would in some way be logically directed into a substantial freight business.
At the moment the only impact the DCO application appears to be having is a variable amount of localised economic blight dependent on the publicity related to the DCO and so perhaps this could be used for investment purposes.
So I think my main question relates to how I should proceed with this one, I have a limited amount of resources to put into responding to something that looks like an ongoing series of cry wolf in the hope that either there will eventually be no opposition, or the objective is not an aviation one.
Do pins consider that this application can remain open in perpetuity?
Have pins considered ways in which DCO application could be used to adjust an economic background for investment purposes?
As an interested party is there some way I can be notified about further consultations, or indeed anything I should read or respond to relating to this DCO?
At the moment there seems to be conflicting information as to whether it would be only necessary to build an airfreight hub at Manston with the capacity for 10,000 movements per annum, or whether it would be necessary to increase the airfreight capacity of Manston by 10,000 freight movements per annum to qualify for a DCO. Further to this there seems to be some confusion as to whether the existing airfreight capacity of Manston would be taken as the capacity prior to its recent closure or whether some other figure is taken as the existing capacity. Could you kindly clarify this?

A teleconference between the Planning Inspectorate and RiverOak Strategic Partners was held on 22 November 2017, a note of which has been published: [attachment 1];ipcadvice=05e3f8e2c6

In the teleconference the Applicant confirmed that the consultation documents informing its January 2018 consultation would set out the Applicant’s position on the baseline assumed in terms of flight numbers for the purposes of the capability test set out in the Planning Act 2008 (the PA2008).

The Planning Inspectorate, on behalf of the Secretary of State, cannot take a view on the Applicant’s approach in this regard until such time as an application is formally submitted and s55 of the PA2008 is engaged.

With Ramsgate the other significant issue would be aircraft noise exacerbated by the difficulties associated with sound insulation in the conservation area with many listed buildings including several schools. Do you know if there has been any progress in addressing this problem?

The Planning Inspectorate is unsighted on the detail of any updates in respect of the Applicant’s Environment Impact Assessment. The Applicant’s original Preliminary Environment Information Report is the only extant information about the likely significant effects of the Proposed Development in the public domain. The Applicant did confirm in the aforementioned 22 November 2017 teleconference that its draft Development Consent Order would include provisions to secure a Noise Mitigation Plan and Noise Quota Count; but any special provisions in respect of heritage assets have not at this stage been specified.

I am assuming that there would have to be a property compensation scheme in place prior to acceptance of the DCO, as dealing with the noise compensation property blight issue in Ramsgate is likely to be one of the more costly aspects of the project. Obviously as the applicant has to prove to pins that they have adequate legitimately sourced funding to qualify for a DCO then I assume the approximate costs have to be known to do this, can you confirm this is the case?

In respect of claims for compensation, the provisions under the PA2008 are set out in s44 and s55.

In its Environmental Statement, the Applicant will be required to provide a description of the expected significant adverse effects of the Proposed Development and include measures to prevent or mitigate them. Those measures must in turn be secured in the Development Consent Order. If a compensation package forms part of an applicant’s mitigation strategy then logically the associated cost would need to be factored-in to an applicant’s demonstration that adequate funding is likely to be available.

In respect of funding, paragraph 18 of the DCLG’s guidance related to procedures for the Compulsory Acquisition of land states that applicants should be able to demonstrate that adequate funding is likely to be available to enable the Compulsory Acquisition within the statutory period following the order being made, and that the resource implications of a possible acquisition resulting from a blight notice have been taken account of.

I have been unable to find the “fully-developed proposals for Manston Airport” mentioned, do you know if the can be found online?

In the 22 November 2017 teleconference, the Applicant stated that its consultation materials would include an updated full Preliminary Environmental Information Report (PEIR). The Planning Inspectorate would expect for the updated PEIR to be made available in conjunction with the Applicant’s formal notifications for its January 2018 consultation exercise.

Can you please tell me the last date the statement of community consultation has to appear before the consultation event?

The Applicant’s duties in respect of the preparation and publication of a Statement of Community Consultation (SoCC) are set out in s47 of the PA2008. The SoCC must be made available for inspection in a way that is reasonably convenient for people living in the vicinity of the land, and published in a local newspaper.

Can you please confirm that this is actually a third consultation and that there will be some point in interested parties like me attending it? To expand on this, will comments be collated in some way and count towards the decision to accept the DCO?

The Planning Inspectorate understands that the January 2018 consultation will be a second consultation carried out by the Applicant on a statutory basis. The first consultation undertaken by the Applicant was on a non-statutory basis. Anybody can make comments about the application to the Applicant in the same way as its previous statutory consultation exercise. As the consultation will be undertaken on a statutory basis, the Applicant will be required to have regard to the responses received as per the provisions in s49 of the PA2008.

Do pins consider that this application can remain open in perpetuity?

The PA2008 process is frontloaded, meaning the onus is on applicants to get their applications right before they are submitted to the Planning Inspectorate. On that basis, provided that the statutory procedures set out in the PA2008 are satisfied there is no limit placed on the number of Pre-application consultation exercises a particular applicant may choose to undertake, and it is not unprecedented or unusual for an applicant to carry more than one statutory consultation exercise.

Have pins considered ways in which DCO application could be used to adjust an economic background for investment purposes?

Speculation of this type does not fall within the remit of the Planning Inspectorate’s consideration of land-use development consent applications.

As an interested party is there some way I can be notified about further consultations, or indeed anything I should read or respond to relating to this DCO?

Applicants must publish a SoCC in the prescribed manner, as set out in s47 of the PA2008. Please contact the Applicant directly about any non-statutory means by which the local community can be kept up to date about its proposals.

05 January 2018
Michael Child
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I should be grateful for any advice you may be able to offer regarding what impact HMG would expect last year's EIA regulations to have upon the developer's forthcoming public consultation. What does he have to address that was not previously the case?

I have looked at the text of the new regulations and various on-line commentaries, including the guidance issued by the DCLG. I have tried to identify the changes which are directly relevant to the RSP proposal (see attached table).

Whilst I would not of course expect PINS to have time to mark my homework (as it were), it would be helpful to know if this analysis has got something badly wrong. What I am trying to work out is what additional information could reasonably be expected from RSP.

I appreciate that the new regulations are a transposition of EU law and that, as the law currently stands, their meaning is ultimately a matter for the Court of Justice. I am not expecting an authoritative reply, just your view on whether broadly I have identified the principal substantive points.
The attached document summarises some of the new requirements, but as you pre-empt I cannot authoritatively comment on whether or not its content is exhaustive in respect of what is directly relevant to the RSP proposal. The Secretary of State’s exclusive point of reference in testing whether an applicant’s EIA has complied with the 2017 Regulations are the 2017 Regulations themselves.

02 January 2018
Mark de Pulford
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I should be grateful for any advice you may be able to offer regarding what impact HMG would expect last year's EIA regulations to have upon the developer's forthcoming public consultation. What does he have to address that was not previously the case?

I have looked at the text of the new regulations and various on-line commentaries, including the guidance issued by the DCLG. I have tried to identify the changes which are directly relevant to the RSP proposal (see attached table).

Whilst I would not of course expect PINS to have time to mark my homework (as it were), it would be helpful to know if this analysis has got something badly wrong. What I am trying to work out is what additional information could reasonably be expected from RSP.

I appreciate that the new regulations are a transposition of EU law and that, as the law currently stands, their meaning is ultimately a matter for the Court of Justice. I am not expecting an authoritative reply, just your view on whether broadly I have identified the principal substantive points.

Naturally I appreciate that you cannot "approve" the list for any legal or official purpose and that any comments you may make can only be regarded as informal and not necessarily exhaustive.
The attached document summarises some of the new requirements, but as you pre-empt I cannot authoritatively comment on whether or not its content is exhaustive in respect of what is directly relevant to the RSP proposal. The Secretary of State’s exclusive point of reference in testing whether an applicant’s EIA has complied with the 2017 Regulations are the 2017 Regulations themselves.

Broadly however, the requirements identified in the left hand column of the table within your document reflect the new requirements which align with the stage of the EIA process that RSP currently considers itself be at. Other new requirements relate explicitly to the screening, scoping or decision stages.

02 January 2018
Mark de Pulford
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
You say that the onus is on applicants to get their applications right before they are submitted. How are they supposed to do this if the feedback they need is not given until later? For example, the local council will not be asked to provide their opinion on the adequacy of consultation until after the application has been submitted. Until the council is asked to comment you cannot know the full horror of what was done (or not done) and just how many people knew nothing about the proposal. Surely, the applicants need to know that their consultation has not been good enough if they are to design a better one? The points I have made in previous correspondence stand. RSP have not provided people who would be badly affected by noise from their proposed development, with adequate information about the likely impacts.

This proposed development is somewhat different from others, in that the applicants are seeking to use the DCO process to reopen something which previously existed. Quite how there can be a national need for a new freight airport, when the old one went bust because it wasn't viable, is something which needs to be explained. Three separate aviation consultants' reports have now concluded that an airport at Manston is not viable. These include York Aviation, whose claim that RSP have cherry-picked and misrepresented their findings. We know that it will generate unacceptable levels of noise because that's what it did when it was open previously. It is not acceptable for the applicants to make a unilateral decision not to advertise their consultation to large numbers of people who were previously affected by severe noise.

It would make a great deal of sense to separate the decision on whether a project is a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project from the rest of the application process. In many cases it will be obvious that a proposal is of national significance but, in this case, the rationale for needing a new freight depot really should have been established before the applicants were allowed to embark on this ridiculous exercise. When the vast bulk of freight is carried in the belly-hold compartments of passenger aircraft, it makes no sense whatsoever to be trying to create a facility which is dedicated to freight planes so far from the major passenger hubs. I have been in touch with the Infrastructure Planning Commission and they have confirmed that this project is not something which they have either considered or backed.

I would like to see this application put on hold pending a decision on whether it is or is not a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project. The ongoing uncertainty is causing a great deal of damage in Thanet, and the repeated delays just prolong the misery. I don't believe the DCO process was ever intended to be used in this way and it is incumbent on those in positions of authority not to allow it to be drawn out indefinitely.
I am only able to reiterate that the Secretary of State cannot test the project against the provisions in section 23 of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) until an application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate. The Applicant has however stated that the consultation documents for its 2018 exercise will set out its position on the baseline assumed in terms of flight numbers for the purposes of the capability test set out in the PA2008: [attachment 1]

21 December 2017
Peter Binding
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
I was surprised to read from paragraph 1.4.2 of the Report to the SoS that Royal Mail’s submission following the IP Registration date was not treated as a Relevant Representation despite correspondence from PINS accepting it as such (as attached) and subsequent dialogue with PINS and HE up to 22 May 2017 before completion of the Examination on 2 June 2017. Based on previous advice from PINS, as a statutory consultee Royal Mail is able to notify the Examining Authority under section 89(2A) b of the Planning Act 2008 that it wishes to become an IP post registration.

Please can you explain why Royal Mail was not advised that its submission was not being treated as a Relevant Representation during the Examination process.
The representations submitted by Royal Mail were received on 19 October 2016. The registration or ‘Relevant Representation’ period closed on 3 October 2016.

What constitutes a Relevant Representation is a matter of fact, as set out in s102(4) of the Planning Act 2008. The representations provided by RM were not in the prescribed form and were received later than the applicable deadline under s56 (3 October 2016). RM’s submission therefore could not be treated as a Relevant Representation. Please see my attached email to you dated 25 November 2016.

Notwithstanding this, statutory consultees such as RM can notify an Examining Authority of their wish to be considered as an Interested Party at any time prior to the close of an Examination.

In short, RM became an IP following our receipt of your 19 October 2016 email request, but the attached submission could not be treated as Relevant Representation. The submission was however accepted by the ExA to be read in conjunction with the Examination.

20 December 2017
BNP Paribas for Royal Mail - Daniel Parry-Jones
M20 Junction 10A
Enquiry received via post
response has attachments
Please see attached
As the project has not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate we have no formal powers to intervene on consultees behalf. The Applicant, Vattenfall Wind Power Ltd, has recently consulted on their proposed development and, while this closed on 11 December 2017, you may wish to contact them to give them your views, including on your preferred transmission technology.

National Policy Statements (NPS) set out Government policy which the Secretary of State is required to take into account when determining a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project. The overarching NPS for Energy (EN-1) recognises that virtually all nationally significant energy infrastructure will have effects on the landscape but the aim should be to minimise harm to the landscape, having regard to siting, operational and other relevant constraints and provide reasonable mitigation where possible. EN-1 also requires the Applicant to carry out a landscape and visual assessment and report it in the Environmental Statement which will be submitted as part of the application.

Once an application is made (currently anticipated to be in Q2 2018), the Inspectorate will have 28 days to decide whether to accept the application for Examination. A copy of your correspondence has been placed on our records and will be presented to the Inspector at the Acceptance stage, together with the application documents and local authorities’ comments on the Applicant’s consultation.
After the decision has been made regarding whether to accept the application for Examination all documents used to inform the decision will be published on our website. If the application for development consent is formally accepted you will be able to submit your views in relation to the project which will be considered by the Examining Authority during the Examination. The Inspectorate has published a series of advice notes which explain the Examination process, including information on how to get involved; of particular interest are advice notes 8.1 to 8.5. These are available at: [attachment 1]

19 December 2017
Little Dunham Parish Council - Simon Fowler
Norfolk Vanguard
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Inception Meeting
Please see attached

16 December 2017
SSE - anon.
Ferrybridge D Combined Cycle Gas Turbine (CCGT) Power Station Project
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Nodyn Cyfarfod - 15 Rhagfyr 2017 / Meeting Note - 15 December 2017

15 December 2017
Abergelli Power Limited - anon.
Abergelli Power
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Thank you for your prompt response to my queries about RSP's forthcoming consultation exercise. Needless to say, your response is very unsatisfactory.

It may well be true that you are ticking all of the correct boxes to show that you did things by the book. But even you must be able to see how ridiculous your position is. You are suggesting that this company can go ahead and organise as many pre-application consultations as they like, and that none of them needs to include essential details like how many night flights they are planning to have or the mitigation measures they are planning. What on Earth is the point of the consultation? Meanwhile RSP are popping into your office on a regular basis for cosy chats over tea and biscuits. During those cosy chats you are under no obligation whatsoever, to steer them on what should or should not be included in a consultation. What on Earth is the point of your cosy chats? Is it not about time you had a meeting with the Minister to explain how this application is exposing some major shortcomings in the procedure which you are following in order to tick the boxes? Is it not about time the Planning Inspectorate told this company to do it properly or not at all?
Our Pre-application meetings with applicants are undertaken within the procedures set out in the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008). In accordance with section 51 of the PA2008 we record all advice that is issued in the meeting dialogue, along with a summary of the key issues discussed. Pre-application meetings form an important part of the Pre-application service for applicants for the reasons set out in our Pre-application Prospectus: [attachment 1]

The PA2008 process is frontloaded, meaning the onus is on applicants to get their applications right before they are submitted to the Planning Inspectorate. On that basis, provided that the statutory procedures set out in the PA2008 are satisfied there is no limit placed on the number of statutory Pre-application exercises a particular applicant may choose to undertake, and it is not unprecedented or unusual for an applicant to carry more than one statutory consultation exercise. Whether an application is sufficiently progressed and ready for submission is a judgment for applicants to take, at their own risk.

As you are aware, the Applicant has publicly summarised justification for its 2018 statutory consultation exercise and states that further details will follow in due course: [attachment 2]

14 December 2017
Peter Binding
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I’m writing to share my concerns regarding the proposed West Mids. Rail Freight Interchange at Four Ashes, in South Staffordshire. Please could these be forwarded directly to one of the case officers dealing with the application?

I believe it would be in everybody's best interests including the developers for these issues to be addressed sooner rather than later given the extent of the impact they are likely to have on the viability of the scheme.

I've expressed my concerns through the regular channels in the statutory and non-statutary consultations. However, given the fact the Stage 2a consultation is still completely failing to recognise these issues, I would suggest the developers have no intention to reconfigure their plans or offer any mitigating solutions this side of your decision.

If you could look at our concerns my family and I would be extremely grateful.
Thank you for your email.

We note that you have contacted the applicant in relation to the proposed West Midlands Interchange.

At this stage the application for this proposed development has not been finalised, and as such we advise for any concerns related to the project to be submitted directly to the developer, in order for your views to inform the application before formal submission to the Planning Inspectorate.

If your concerns are related to the applicant's consultation activities and you have not already done so, we would also advise you to contact the relevant local authority to inform them of your concerns, as your views may inform their Adequacy of Consultation response, once the application has been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate (the Acceptance stage of the Planning Act 2008 planning process for Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIPs)).

If the application for the West Midlands Interchange is submitted and subsequently accepted for examination, you will also have the opportunity to register to participate in that examination and make submissions on whether or not the form of the proposal that is described in the application is acceptable, and whether development consent should be granted.

The Planning Inspectorate has recently published to our website a Frequently Asked Questions document (attached to this email) which provides information on the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 planning process for Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIP), which you may find helpful.

Please contact us if you have any further queries

14 December 2017
Daniel Williams
West Midlands Interchange
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Meeting regarding update on the proposed scheme, feedback on the Scoping Opinion and outline of consultation approach
Please see attached

14 December 2017
Highways England - anon.
M42 Junction 6 Improvement
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I see that RSP did not submit their application for a DCO before the end of December 2017, as had been advertised on the Planning Inspectorate's website. I see that they now plan to engage in another round of consultation.

It has not been made clear how the new consultations will differ from the previous ones, or why new consultations are needed. One of the key issues with the previous consultations was the lack of clarity over what RSP is intending to do and how this was likely to affect local communities. The people staffing the consultations, who included senor directors of RSP, did not seem to be able to answer basic questions, such as whether there would be night-flights. Despite receiving many complaints about the previous consultations, the Planning Inspectorate has made no note of any criticism. If the Planning Inspectorate agreed that the previous consultations were inadequate, surely the organisation should have made some comment to RSP in advance of them repeating the consultation exercise?

Since meeting with the planning inspectorate, RSP has stated that they intend to introduce environmental controls on the levels of noise using a quota count system. None of this has been set out in black and white so that local people can read what they are planning to do.

It is very unclear what rationale there is for RSP's proposed controls. They have not produced any data to show how many flights there would be, what types of aircraft would be involved, the times of the day when these flights would be taking place and how much noise this would generate. This data, which would be an essential component of a statutory Environmental Impact Assessment, is needed before it is possible to decide which environmental controls are appropriate or required. In the absence of any companies who have said they would use Manston, I appreciate that the prediction of what will take place is difficult to achieve, but there are professional companies out there who specialise in making these kinds of projections. It would only require RSP to spend a small slice of the hundreds of millions to which they claim to have access to have a report prepared which would inform people about the likely environmental impact.

This brings me to my final. and most important point. The quota count system was devised at Heathrow to deal with the environmental impact of night-flights on local residents. It does not prevent night-flights from taking place, but restricts movements of the noisiest categories of aircraft and levies financial penalties on operators who breach the rules. It is the government which has imposed this system on the airport. However, it is not a perfect system and people living in the vicinity of the airport will confirm that it is nowhere near as effective as a total ban on night-flights such as they have at Frankfurt airport.

Who has decided that a quota count system is appropriate for Manston and will address the environmental issues which will arise from having freight aircraft overflying a historic seaside town at low altitude? Why is a quota count system being proposed when the local MP has been telling local people that RSP do not need or intend to have night-flights? The contradictions is glaring and ought to be resolved before any further consultation takes place.

In summary, the previous consultations were inadequate because the prospective applicants did not have an Environmental Impact Assessment including noise contour maps and projected noise levels over the residential areas adjacent to the site of the former airport. Can the Planning Inspectorate confirm that RSP will be required to produce this information in any new consultations? Can the Planning Inspectorate confirm that RSP will be required to confirm in writing whether or not their new freight depot will require night flights and, if so, the likely levels and patterns of this activity, before they engage in further consultation? Can the Planning Inspectorate confirm that RSP will be required to produce written details of their proposed quota count system before engaging in any further consultation? Can the Planning Inspectorate confirm that RSP will be required to discuss and agree their proposed quota count system with the local planning authority before presenting it to the public? (As far as I'm aware, RSP has not approached Thanet District Council to discuss their proposed quota count system).
If the Planning Inspectorate agreed that the previous consultations were inadequate, surely the organisation should have made some comment to RSP in advance of them repeating the consultation exercise?

The Planning Inspectorate cannot take a view on the adequacy of an applicant’s Pre-application consultation until an application is formally submitted to it. The Planning Inspectorate has therefore to date not tested the adequacy of the Applicant’s Pre-application consultation, has not ‘agreed’ that it was inadequate, or provided any advice to that effect. The Applicant’s rationale for carrying out a further round of consultation is explained on its website ([attachment 1]) and the Planning Inspectorate is not sighted on any further justification beyond that which is already in the public domain.

Can the Planning Inspectorate confirm that RSP will be required to produce this information [noise contour maps and projected noise levels] in any new consultations?

The Applicant summarised in its teleconference with the Planning Inspectorate on 22 November 2017 the materials which would inform its 2018 consultation exercise: [attachment 2]. The Planning Inspectorate cannot compel an applicant to include particular information in its Preliminary Environmental Information, which is defined in Regulation 2 of the 2009 EIA Regulations (and Regulation 12 of the 2017 EIA Regulations).
Can the Planning Inspectorate confirm that RSP will be required to confirm in writing whether or not their new freight depot will require night flights and, if so, the likely levels and patterns of this activity, before they engage in further consultation?

The position in respect of night flights remains the same as that outlined in previous advice issued by the Planning Inspectorate: [attachment 3];ipcadvice=ae77ee5495. The Planning Inspectorate has access to the same information as the local community and statutory consultees ie the Applicant’s Scoping Report states at paragraph 11.6.10 that “The airport will be operational during the day and may be operational to some extent at night. The noise generated due to this activity may give rise to potentially significant effects”. If night flights are proposed for the airport, the likely significant effects will need to be assessed by the Applicant as part of its Environmental Impact Assessment and presented in the Environmental Statement. The content of the Environmental Statement cannot be examined by an appointed Examining Authority until the Examination stage of the process.

Can the Planning Inspectorate confirm that RSP will be required to produce written details of their proposed quota count system before engaging in any further consultation?

Details of the Applicant’s proposed Noise Quota Count will be included in the application when it is formally submitted. This was confirmed by the Applicant in its meeting with the Planning Inspectorate on 2 November 2017. The strategy will be open to examination by an appointed Examining Authority, and members of the local community will be able to register to become an Interested Party and make representations to the Examining Authority about any mitigation strategies proposed by the Applicant. For more information about how (and when) to have your say please see the Planning Inspectorate’s Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 4]

Can the Planning Inspectorate confirm that RSP will be required to discuss and agree their proposed quota count system with the local planning authority before presenting it to the public?

The Applicant confirmed in the 22 November 2017 teleconference (link above) that its draft Development Consent Order (dDCO) would include provisions to secure its proposed Noise Mitigation Plan and Noise Quota Count. Applicants are encouraged to share draft iterations of their dDCOs with key stakeholders (including local authorities) at the Pre-application stage. See the Pre-application Prospectus: [attachment 5]. Local authorities are otherwise able to make representations to an appointed Examining Authority about the content of a submitted dDCO in the same way as the local community. They also have a special role in the Planning Act 2008 process as outlined in the Planning Inspectorate’s Advice Note 1 and Advice Note 2 ([attachment 6].

12 December 2017
Peter Binding
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I have written to you before with the argument that since Kent Health Protection Agency in 2009 said epidemiology inquiry is needed to investigate long term health impact of chemical contamination of Thanet water supply. This is preliminary scientific examination that triggers the compulsory application of precautionary principle. The situation is, as I understand it, when and if the application is made I can submit argument?
As you correctly anticipate, the matters covered in your email cannot be considered by the Planning Inspectorate at this stage. If an application is submitted and accepted for examination, the Applicant will advertise a period within which you and anybody else can register and make a Relevant Representation about RiverOak Strategic Partner’s proposals.

For information about how to engage with the process please refer to the Planning Inspectorate’s Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

11 December 2017
Richard Card
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Having now had the opportunity to review the re-aligned boundaries we are concerned that there is land identified (significant amounts) outside of the original NSIP boundary. Clearly this is being utilised for non-infrastructure purposes (eg land inside the Nissan MUK plant).

Can you confirm that the revised plan which has been signed off includes more land that that shown on the original NSIP? Could you also clarify the instances where greater land take is acceptable.
As you will be aware, the International Advanced Manufacturing Park Area Action Plan was adopted in November 2017, you may find this link helpful: [attachment 1] The Inspector’s final report on page 3 refers to ‘Allocation of 150ha (instead of 100ha) of employment land and deletion of proposed safeguarded land’.

As the IAMP Two Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP) application has yet to be submitted, the Applicant will need to ensure they undertake adequate statutory pre-application consultation on the proposal, in accordance with the Planning Act 2008 (as amended) and associated guidance. During this pre-application phase, I recommend that you contact the Applicant directly to discuss the details of their proposals, to ensure they are aware of any comments you may have, prior to submission.

11 December 2017
Hedley Planning Services Ltd - Sean Hedley
International Advanced Manufacturing Park (IAMP)
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I note that the notes of the meeting held on 2nd November 2017 have been published by the Planning Inspectorate. However, when considering the comments made in the Annex to the meeting note, it is difficult to understand these notes because they specifically reference the applicant's documentation but these documents are not available. I am sure that you will appreciate that this is not helpful with regards to transparency.

Please could you either make copies of the documentation available, or update the meeting notes to include a copy or quote of the specific elements of the documents which are being referred to.
The draft application documents review offer is a bespoke service for applicants. For more information please refer to our Pre-application Prospectus, available here: [attachment 1]

The advice that we issue in this respect is recorded and published in accordance with s51 of the Planning Act 2008, as per the meeting note that you have viewed.

It is not our policy to publish draft iterations of application documents that we do not own, however the Applicant in this case may be prepared to do so. Please therefore contact RSP with your request.

08 December 2017
Jonathan Fowler
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The Ramsgate Society of which I am a member of the Executive Committee understands you have recently published an interim report on the RSP DCO application.

I have been unable to trace such a document on your website and would be grateful if you could advise me as to whether you have issued anything of this nature.
The Planning Inspectorate has not issued a report on the emerging RSP application, but we have recently reviewed and provided advice about a suite of draft applications documents. The record of that exercise has been published and is available to view here: [attachment 1];ipcadvice=dc973c4465

08 December 2017
Nigel Phethean
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Telecon with IAMP LLP to discuss the IAMP Two proposal, following the section 35 Direction Variation
Please see attached meeting note

08 December 2017
IAMP LLP
International Advanced Manufacturing Park (IAMP)
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The note [of the telecom between the Planning Inspectorate and the Applicant on 22 November 2017] suggests that the primary reason for the third consultation is to conform to the 2017 Environmental Regulations (implementing the latest EU Directive on the topic).

I note that this topic is recorded as having come up several times in the past few months but that RSP have been insistent that they need not comply with the new Regulations.

Perhaps they have now taken Counsel's advice.

Be that as it may, the present position feels like an abuse of process: how many bites at the cherry are these guys allowed? If they make a mess of this third consultation will they be able to undertake a fourth? A fifth? These things are divisive in the local community and waste a great deal of time and energy for all concerned.
Please refer to the DCLG’s statutory guidance on the Pre-application process which, amongst other things, sets out the principles in respect of the Pre-application consultation duties placed on applicants (in particular pages 5 through 22): [attachment 1]

Practically, provided that the statutory procedures set out in the Planning Act 2008 are satisfied there is no limit placed on the number of statutory Pre-application exercises a particular applicant may choose to undertake.

07 December 2017
Mark de Pulford
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
This is a bit of a lateral question in a way, but something that puzzles us greatly. Can you tell us why in a lot of the Vattenfall documents (SOCC and PEIR for instance) the Secretary of State refers to the life of the projects as being 50 years? Vattenfall say 25 years.

I hope you can help us understand.
Thank you for your email. The SoCC and PEIR are the Applicant’s documents and therefore the Secretary of State would not have stated anything within these. I note from the Applicant’s PEIR that they state the design life of the project is 25 years.

07 December 2017
Jenny Smedley
Norfolk Vanguard
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Planning Inspectorate project update and draft document feedback meeting with Suffolk County Council
See attached meeting note and draft docs review

07 December 2017
Suffolk County Council - anon.
Lake Lothing Third Crossing
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting

06 December 2017
D S Smith - anon.
Kemsley Paper Mill (K4) CHP Plant
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please find attached my letter outlining my objections to Vattenfall's flawed proposal to put two huge substation at Necton/Ivy Todd in Norfolk. Please also find attached Necton Substation Action Group's objection document, which goes into wider detail. I look forward to hearing from you, thank you.
Thank you for your email. As the project has not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate (the Inspectorate) all responses to the Applicant’s consultation should be sent directly to them. We have no formal powers to intervene on consultees behalf therefore I would encourage you to contact the developer directly to make your concerns heard as the Applicant has a statutory duty to take your views into account. However, if you feel your comments are not being taken into account, I would advise you to write to your local authority and set out why you think the Applicant is failing to conduct its consultation properly. Your comments should be taken into account when the local authority sends the Inspectorate its comments on whether the Applicant has fulfilled its consultation duties. The local authority’s comments on the Applicant’s consultation will be taken into account when the Acceptance Inspector makes their decision whether to accept the application for Examination.

A copy of your correspondence has been placed on our records and will be presented to the Inspector at Acceptance, together with the application documents and local authorities’ comments on the Applicant’s consultation.

After the decision has been made regarding whether to accept the application for Examination all documents used to inform the decision will be published on our website. If the application for development consent is formally accepted you will be able to submit your views in relation to the project which will be considered by the Examining Authority during the Examination. The Inspectorate has published a series of advice notes which explain the Examination process, including information on how to get involved; of particular interest are advice notes 8.1 to 8.5. These are available at: [attachment 1]

We have also published a Frequently Asked Questions document regarding Pre-application consultation and this can be viewed on our website here: [attachment 2].

05 December 2017
H Phoenix
Norfolk Vanguard
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Note of tripartite meeting between the Planning Inspectorate, Heathrow Airport Ltd and the Civil Aviation Authority.
Please see attached meeting note.

05 December 2017
Heathrow Airport Ltd and Civil Aviation Authority - anon.
Expansion of Heathrow Airport (Third Runway)
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting.
See attached meeting note.

05 December 2017
Heathrow Airport Ltd - anon.
Expansion of Heathrow Airport (Third Runway)
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Meeting between Planning Inspectorate and Highways England
See attached meeting note

30 November 2017
Highways England - anon.
A19 Downhill Lane Junction Improvement
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Nodyn Cyfarfod - 29 Tachwedd 2017 / Meeting Note - 29 November 2017

29 November 2017
Horizon Nuclear Energy - David Palmer
Wylfa Newydd Nuclear Power Station
Enquiry received via email
Whilst I do understand that each case would be judged on its individual merits, for example there must surely be a point at which the cumulative impact of two schemes competing for rail connectivity on a stretch of track that is already nearing capacity is considered. If, as is widely thought to be the case, the West Coast Main Line could only handle the freight paths for one additional SRFI in the area, if one SRFI application is granted a DCO then any other similar proposals in the area would become “road-served” and non-compliant with the National Networks National Policy Statement. This would then remove other existing proposals from PINS’ jurisdiction.
At what stage would this happen?
In your email you refer to removing proposals from PINS’ jurisdiction and at what stage this would occur. To confirm, a proposal will be considered a nationally significant infrastructure project (NSIP) if it meets the thresholds set within the Planning Act 2008 (as amended). A decision to grant a development consent order for one project will not therefore remove the NSIP ‘status’ of another project.

It is for Applicant’s themselves to decide whether or not to progress with submitting their application for a development consent order under the Planning Act 2008 (as amended). The Planning Inspectorate would deal with any submitted application(s) [as detailed in our previous advice dated 2nd November 2017].

29 November 2017
Tommy Gilchrist Parliamentary Assistant to the Rt Hon Andrea Leadsom MP
Rail Central (Strategic Rail Freight Interchange)
Enquiry received via email
Whilst I do understand that each case would be judged on its individual merits, for example there must surely be a point at which the cumulative impact of two schemes competing for rail connectivity on a stretch of track that is already nearing capacity is considered. If, as is widely thought to be the case, the West Coast Main Line could only handle the freight paths for one additional SRFI in the area, if one SRFI application is granted a DCO then any other similar proposals in the area would become “road-served” and non-compliant with the National Networks National Policy Statement. This would then remove other existing proposals from PINS’ jurisdiction.
At what stage would this happen?
In your email you refer to removing proposals from PINS’ jurisdiction and at what stage this would occur. To confirm, a proposal will be considered a nationally significant infrastructure project (NSIP) if it meets the thresholds set within the Planning Act 2008 (as amended). A decision to grant a development consent order for one project will not therefore remove the NSIP ‘status’ of another project.

It is for Applicant’s themselves to decide whether or not to progress with submitting their application for a development consent order under the Planning Act 2008 (as amended). The Planning Inspectorate would deal with any submitted application(s) [as detailed in our previous advice dated 2nd November 2017].

29 November 2017
Tommy Gilchrist Parliamentary Assistant to the Rt Hon. Andrea Leadsom MP
Northampton Gateway Rail Freight Interchange
Enquiry received via email
We are instructed by the Kent County Council (the “KCC”). KCC has been approached by developers in connection with the proposed redevelopment of Manston Airport (formerly RAF Manston) situated near Ramsgate. The developers have sought information from the KCC in connection with land they believe to be owned or leased or otherwise connected with KCC which surrounds Manston Airport.

Manston Airport itself is a very large site with a perimeter measured in miles and the developers’ request is, as you might expect, demanding given the vast space Manston Airport comprises. The developers have provided KCC with a very extensive list comprising 11 pages for which they have requested details of all the property they believe KCC has an interest in. Having examined the list and the map schedules attached to the developer’s letter, we had to conduct an exercise which necessitated further examination of the maps supplied by the developer, which did not necessarily accord with the data available from HM Land Registry, that we would have ordinarily expected a sophisticated developer to have supplied our client with.

On the basis that the information supplied by the developer has not been as accurate as it would have wished, our client is concerned at the level of costs it would need to incur at this stage in order to comply with the request. As such we have asked the developer to meet our client’s costs in order to provide all the information and correct any inaccuracies but the developer’s land agent is very reluctant to accept responsibility for costs. This seems inequitable.

The results of our initial searches revealed a mixture of registered land as well as public highways. In order to be thorough and conduct the exercise in accordance with the spirit of the law, and further to other recent development in the area, this exercise would require significant input from Kent Highways too. Having reverted to our client, KCC is concerned that it is being asked, in effect, to provide a free service to the developer, entirely at KCC’s not inconsiderable cost, which, if the developer is proposing to redevelop an airport, surely has resources of its own to identify individual parcels of land and highways with absolute granularity in the same we can from HM Land Registry rather than taking a rather more general approach.

Our client is in no way seeking to shirk its responsibility but does not feel that it represents good value to the public purse to be conducting searches and research, which constitutes significant work, for and on behalf of commercial entities who stand to reap vast reward, at the expense of the council taxpayers.

Having looked at the Guidelines, we see that there is no apparent mention as to how costs are addressed.

Please can you provide us with your thoughts and guidance as to how the matter of costs for local authorities have been addressed in the past with regards to significant projects such as this. As we have stated, our client is not trying to absolve itself of responsibility but does not feel it is appropriate to have to conduct research on behalf of a sophisticated developer who has the resources and acumen to ensure that its requests are presented in sufficient but not adequate detail.
A person (‘the Applicant’) who proposes to make or who has made a Development Consent Order (‘DCO’) application under the Planning Act 2008, as amended (the
‘PA2008’) may apply for authorisation to serve a written notice (‘a land interests notice’) which requires the recipient to provide information to the Applicant about interests in land under s52 of the PA2008. This process is administered by the Planning Inspectorate (the Inspectorate) on behalf of the Secretary of State in line with our Advice Note 4: Section 52: Obtaining information about interests in land (Planning Act 2008).

No application for authorisation under s52 has been received by the Inspectorate at this time, although any DCO Applicant is entitled to make such a request.

The Inspectorate cannot comment on any private financial arrangements made between organisations.

28 November 2017
Invicta Law for Kent County Council - anon.
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
In the notes of the meeting held on the 26th September between RiverOak Strategic Partners and the Planning Inspectorate it states that :

"It was agreed that draft versions of certain documents would be submitted to the Inspectorate on Friday 29 September 2017, including the Development Consent Order (DCO), Explanatory Memorandum, Statement of Reasons, Book of Reference, Consultation Report and Funding Statement. Draft versions of the Land Plans and Works Plans would be submitted the following week, and chapters of the Environmental Statement and Habitats Regulations Assessment Report submitted the week after that. The Inspectorate advised that their review at this stage would involve examining the structure of the documents as well as their content, and requested at least one hard copy version of the draft documents."

Can the Planning Inspectorate please provide confirm the following:

1. Whether any of the above documents were submitted by RSP, and if so, what date these submissions were made, specifying which documents were submitted on which date.

2. What feedback, if any, the Planning Inspectorate have provided to RSP as a result of these submissions. Please provide copies of any written feedback, or, if the feedback was verbal, an indication of the general content of the feedback provided.

3. If RSP did not submit any of the documents listed above, please could you provide copies of any communication between the Planning Inspectorate and RSP in relation to their failure to submit those documents to the Planning Inspectorate, or, if the feedback was verbal, an indication of the general content of the feedback provided.
A meeting at which the Planning Inspectorate fed back to the Applicant on its suite of draft documents took place on 2 November 2017.

A note of that meeting is being finalised and will be published imminently, and I will provide a link to you directly as soon as I am able.

I believe that the content of the meeting note should answer each element of your enquiry, however, if having read the note you have any further questions or require clarification about its content, please do not hesitate to contact me again directly.

28 November 2017
Jonathan Fowler
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
In the name of honesty and of transparency, can PINS please shed some light on the facts behind the applicant’s news release, which appeared in my in box earlier today?

[attachment 1]

RSP’s position had been that they have done everything lawfully required of them in relation to the statutory consultation.

My question is a simple one: had they done everything required of them, according to PINS?

I don’t expect to be given commercially sensitive information, but I do not believe it is right to allow the wool to be pulled over the public’s eyes. That’s what has been so objectionable about the earlier consultations by RSP. If PINS, a public, accountable body, has advised the applicant to do another public consultation then I think we should be told plainly that this is the case.

I am sure you will understand the annoyance that three public consultations on the same basic subject will create. Fine, if a third is necessary for statutory reasons. Not fine, if it is – as RSP suggest – an optional matter.

Can we please have some transparency and truth here?

The 2008 planning regime does not appear to envisage three consultation exercises. What is going on?

If we must have a third consultation let’s start things off truthfully and not in a miasma of elision and half-truth.

Could you please include with your reply some information on any public bodies to whom you are accountable for the quality and impartiality of your advice?
By way of update, a meeting at which the Planning Inspectorate fed-back to the Applicant on its suite of draft application documents took place on 2 November 2017. A note of that meeting is being finalised and will be published to the project webpage imminently. I will provide a link to you directly as soon as I am able.

Arising from some elements of the advice issued by the Planning Inspectorate on 2 November 2017, a follow-up meeting was requested by the Applicant. This took place on 22 November 2017 by teleconference. A note of that meeting is also being finalised and will be published imminently. I will provide a link to you directly, as above.

I believe that the content of these meeting notes will provide the clarifications sought in your email, however, if having read the notes you have any further questions please do not hesitate to contact me again directly.

In respect of accountability, the Planning Inspectorate is an executive agency of the Department for Communities and Local Government. Our fundamental values are our commitment to openness, transparency and impartiality in the conduct of our business. We are committed to proactively publishing information which we hold unless to do so would be likely to damage the effective conduct of our statutory functions or the conduct of our business. Under section 51 of the Planning Act 2008 we have powers to issue advice about applying for an order granting development consent or making representations about an application (or proposed application). A record of all of the advice we provide is published on our website. Importantly, none of the advice that we issue under s51 of the PA2008 constitutes legal advice upon which applicants (or others) should rely.

28 November 2017
Mark de Pulford
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Hi thank you for the response, for clarity:-

The consultees to non material changes do not include interested or registered persons from the full formal process?
Who are the required consultees?
How do i register to receive or be made aware of any published item on the HPC inspectors page?
Increasing the size of a building by some 50% to form one of the largest building on site and major changes to the sea wall are not seen as a material change?

Thank you for your time.
Thank you for your email. I will attempt to answer your questions. The answers to questions 1 and 2 are found in regulation 7 of the Infrastructure Planning (Changes to, and Revocation of, Development Consent Orders) Regulations (as amended).

[attachment 1]

The copy on legislation.gov.uk does not include the amendments made in 2015:

[attachment 2]

1) Parties who registered as interested parties are not automatically consulted on a proposed non-material change.

2) The required consultees are each person for whose benefit the development consent order has effect; each person that was notified of the acceptance of the original application for a Development Consent Order by the applicant under S56 of the Planning Act 2008; and any other person who may be directly affected by the changes proposed in the application. This is subject to a provision that allows the Secretary of State to consent to a shorter list of consultees on a case-by-case basis. By way of an example, please see this letter here:

[attachment 3]

3) There is no way to register to be informed directly every time a document is published on our website.

4) This is a matter for the Secretary of State. The decision on the application will include a decision on whether or not the proposed change is material.

As I mentioned below, there is guidance on changes to development consent orders, which can be found here:

[attachment 4]

27 November 2017
Leigh Redman
Hinkley Point C New Nuclear Power Station
Enquiry received via phone
Query in relation to responding to the developer’s consultation during pre-application and, if the application is accepted to proceed to examination what a relevant representation could include.
Consultation material presented by the developer at the pre-application stage is not “the application”. The pre-application process is intended to allow the developer to gather useful information from the public and others that will influence the preparation of the application that is eventually submitted. Further information about responding to the developers pre-application consultation can be found in Advice Note 8.1 (see links below).

If an application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate and is accepted to proceed to examination there will be an opportunity for anyone who would like to register to take part in the examination, by making a Relevant Representation during the pre-examination stage of the process. The Applicant will advertise the period when a Relevant Representation can be made. There is no requirement for an individual to have responded to the developer’s pre-application consultation, to enable them to make a relevant representation.

If you participated in the pre-application consultation your views on the project at that stage should have been reflected in the Consultation Report that was submitted as part of the application. However, at this stage we are seeking your views on the application as it has been submitted. Remember, the project you commented on previously may have changed in response to the pre-application consultation carried out by the applicant. A Relevant Representation should relate to the application. It must include a summary of points which you agree and/or disagree with about the application, highlighting what you consider to be the main issues and impacts. Further information about registering to participate in an examination can be found in Advice Note 8.2 (see links below).

The Advice Note 8 series provides an overview of the Nationally Significant Infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others. I have included links to these documents below for your information:

Advice note eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others (PDF 2.2 MB) Published February 2017 Advice note eight has been produced in five sections and aims to take you step by step through the planning process for major infrastructure projects: Advice note 8.1: Responding to the developer’s pre-application consultation (PDF 2.1 MB) (version 2) Advice note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination (PDF 1.4 MB) (version 2) Advice note 8.3: Influencing how an application is Examined: the Preliminary Meeting (PDF 2 MB) (version 4) Advice note 8.4: The Examination (PDF 1.4 MB) (version 4) Advice note 8.5: The Examination: hearings and site inspections (PDF 2 MB) (version 4)

24 November 2017
Andrew Bodman
Northampton Gateway Rail Freight Interchange
Enquiry received via
response has attachments
Please find attached the report we commissioned from BLB Utilities on the alternative site we suggested to Vattenfall. This was paid for with donations from the residents of Necton. It has been send direct to Vattenfall, and will of course also go to other relevant bodies.
Thank you for your email. As the project has not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate (the Inspectorate), we have no formal powers to intervene on consultees behalf. I would therefore encourage you to contact the developer directly to make your concerns heard as the Applicant has a statutory duty to take your views into account. However, if you feel your comments are not being taken into account, I would advise you to write to your local authority and set out why you think the Applicant is failing to conduct its consultation properly. Your comments should be taken into account when the local authority sends the Inspectorate its comments on whether the Applicant has fulfilled its consultation duties. The local authority’s comments on the Applicant’s consultation will be taken into account when the Acceptance Inspector makes their decision whether to accept the application for Examination.

A copy of your correspondence has been placed on our records and will be presented to the Inspector at Acceptance, together with the application documents and local authorities’ comments on the Applicant’s consultation.

After the decision has been made regarding whether to accept the application for Examination all documents used to inform the decision will be published on our website. If the application for development consent is formally accepted you will be able to submit your views in relation to the project which will be considered by the Examining Authority during the Examination. The Inspectorate has published a series of advice notes which explain the Examination process, including information on how to get involved; of particular interest are advice notes 8.1 to 8.5. These are available at: [attachment 1]

We have also published a Frequently Asked Questions document regarding Pre-application consultation and this can be viewed on our website here: [attachment 2].

23 November 2017
Necton Substation Action Group - anon.
Norfolk Vanguard
Enquiry received via post
response has attachments
Please see attached letter from the North Wales Wildlife Trust, dated 24 October 2017
Please see the attached letter from the Planning inspectorate, dated 23 November 2017

23 November 2017
North Wales Wildlife Trust
Wylfa Newydd Nuclear Power Station
Enquiry received via
response has attachments
Please find attached the report we commissioned from BLB Utilities on the alternative site we suggested to Vattenfall. This was paid for with donations from the residents of Necton. It has been send direct to Vattenfall, and will of course also go to other relevant bodies.
Thank you for your email. As the project has not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate (the Inspectorate), we have no formal powers to intervene on consultees behalf. I would therefore encourage you to contact the developer directly to make your concerns heard as the Applicant has a statutory duty to take your views into account. However, if you feel your comments are not being taken into account, I would advise you to write to your local authority and set out why you think the Applicant is failing to conduct its consultation properly. Your comments should be taken into account when the local authority sends the Inspectorate its comments on whether the Applicant has fulfilled its consultation duties. The local authority’s comments on the Applicant’s consultation will be taken into account when the Acceptance Inspector makes their decision whether to accept the application for Examination.

A copy of your correspondence has been placed on our records and will be presented to the Inspector at Acceptance, together with the application documents and local authorities’ comments on the Applicant’s consultation.

After the decision has been made regarding whether to accept the application for Examination all documents used to inform the decision will be published on our website. If the application for development consent is formally accepted you will be able to submit your views in relation to the project which will be considered by the Examining Authority during the Examination. The Inspectorate has published a series of advice notes which explain the Examination process, including information on how to get involved; of particular interest are advice notes 8.1 to 8.5. These are available at: [attachment 1]

We have also published a Frequently Asked Questions document regarding Pre-application consultation and this can be viewed on our website here: [attachment 2].

23 November 2017
Necton Substation Action Group - anon.
Norfolk Boreas
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Good afternoon, i note on your website a number of ‘non material changes’ have both been advertised and confirmed, i was part of the original inspection, registering and speaking.

I am interested to understand why as has been indicated, I have an interest in the process, i do not appear to have received formal notification from you of these requests to change/vary the DCO.

During the process great play was made of the fact that ‘once agreed there will be no change to the DCO’.

Your response would be welcomed.
Thank you for your email. The process for making non-material changes to a Development Consent Order is governed by the Infrastructure Planning (Changes to, and Revocation of, Development Consent Orders) Regulations (as amended) which set out the parties who must be consulted, and allow the Secretary of State to give consent for the applicant to consult less widely.

The process can only be used if the change is not material. There are alternative processes for material changes, which can include a further examination of those changes in a similar fashion to the examination of the original application. The Secretary of State has published guidance on changes to development consent orders which can be found here and may answer many of your questions.

[attachment 1]

22 November 2017
Leigh Redman
Hinkley Point C New Nuclear Power Station
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting (teleconference).
See attached meeting note.

22 November 2017
RiverOak Strategic Partners - anon.
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via
response has attachments
West Burton C Project Draft Documents Feedback Meeting
Please see attached

22 November 2017
EDF Energy - anon.
West Burton C power station
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached meeting note

21 November 2017
Ørsted (previously DONG Energy) - Stuart Livesey
Hornsea Project Three Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via phone
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

17 November 2017
Vattenfall - anon.
Thanet Extension Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
As you are more than aware LRCH has now delayed the submission of its DCO Application for the The London Resort for a fourth time, further extending the uncertainties and potential disruption faced by local businesses, residents and communities, many of which are already treading on eggshells.

PMG, representing the 140 businesses on the Swanscombe Peninsular, has had some meetings with LRCH representatives and despite assurances that they want to work with us, it is now evident that they are pursuing a course through the Compulsory Acquisition route as LRCH currently has no funds to buy properties or relocate businesses. Thus, if the DCO Application is granted it could mean the extinguishment of many very successful, profitable and valuable businesses and the loss of thousands of full-time jobs, not to mention the impact on local communities.

Furthermore, LRCH and its sister businesses' financial credibility is open to question as they have yet again - for the third year running - failed to file annual accounts to Companies House on time, apart from for one dormant company. Surely the commercial NSIP process was not introduced to allow a near 'insolvent' business to undermine and kill-off many very successful smaller businesses.

I would welcome the DCLG's opinion on this situation and, in particular:

• Did DCLG undertake any financial checks on LRCH prior to granting NSIP status?
• Does PINS monitor applicants' financial credibility (accounts etc) during a DCO Application process?
• How long will DCLG allow an applicant to submit a potential commercial DCO Application before suggesting that any NSIP should be withdrawn if the timescales are constantly being deferred? Technically, I know there is no time limit but, in this case, I would be surprised if DCLG thought such applications could be used to undermine local businesses and communities. This is totally against the current Government's ethos and, if this commercial NSIP status is allowed to continue, will be a sign to any developer that there is potential to acquire land and property through this process irrespective of existing uses.

If you feel this matter is beyond your remit, I'd be grateful of you could forward it to the relevant contact within DCLG and the appropriate Minister. Many thanks for your time.
I apologise for the delay in replying to you. Two of your direct questions were matters for the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG). Having consulted my colleagues there, I will attempt to answer your questions:

1. DCLG is not required to undertake financial checks on applicants prior to making a direction that a project is nationally significant (where the project will be treated as development for which development consent is required). This is a matter which is explored during the examination of an application, please see below.

2. Any application for a development consent order must be accompanied by a statement to indicate how an order that contains the authorisation of compulsory acquisition is proposed to be funded. This is called a ‘funding statement’. The Secretary of State has published guidance which explains that this statement should provide as much information as possible about the resource implications of both acquiring the land and implementing the project for which the land is required.

You can find a copy of that guidance here: [attachment 1]

That funding statement, along with the remainder of the application documents, will be carefully considered by the examining authority if the application is accepted for examination; and the examining authority’s report will have regard to all relevant and important matters. If, having seen the funding statement, you wish to register to participate in the examination and make submissions to the examination on matters of funding, you are welcome to do so. Landowners identified by the applicant as affected by compulsory acquisition do not need to register in order to participate in the examination.

3. The Secretary of State took the view in issuing the direction on 9 May 2014 that this project is nationally significant for the reasons given in his letter, here: [attachment 2] Letter.pdf

The project is therefore considered to fall under the nationally significant infrastructure regime. Once a project has been directed into the regime in this way, it is for the applicant to take it forward to submit an application under the provisions of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended). As you indicate, the Secretary of State’s direction letter sets no time limit for that to happen and there is no legislative requirement to do so.

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

16 November 2017
Dan Bramwell
The London Resort
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I understand that when EDFE submit their DCO for Sizewell C to the Planning Inspectorate for deliberation, the documents that the case will be considered against will be EN1 and EN6.

Are there any other Planning documents that will be pertinent to the Application?

As the Sizewell C site is in the Suffolk Coast and Heaths AONB I understand that IROPI may be used to by pass the AONB designation. Would you please tell me if this is the case.
I can confirm that, on the information currently before us, the relevant National Policy Statements are EN-1 (Energy) and EN-6 (Nuclear Power Generation). It would not be appropriate for us to advise what the relevant planning policy will be before the application has been submitted. This will be set out by the Applicant in their Planning Statement and, if the application is accepted for examination, the local authority(ies) will be invited to set out their local planning policy considerations as they relate to the proposed development in their Local Impact Report.

With regard to IROPI, this acronym is used with reference to impacts on European sites designated for nature conservation (for example Special Areas of Conservation, Special Protection Areas, Ramsar sites) that are protected under the Habitats Directive (The Habitats Regulations in the UK), not AONB. We are aware that there are a number of European nature conservation sites within the vicinity of the existing power station (and therefore, in the absence of a proposed boundary, within the likely vicinity of any proposals). For further information on this you may wish to see our Advice Note 10: Habitats Regulations Assessment relevant to nationally significant infrastructure projects: [attachment 1]

Alternatively, perhaps your reference to IROPI is in relation to EN1, which in paragraph 5.9.10 makes reference to demonstrating ‘public interest’ when considering development in an AONB. It will be for the applicant to present their case with regard to the ‘public interest’ (in whatever context) in their application.

14 November 2017
Joan Girling
Sizewell C New Nuclear Power Station
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached meeting note

14 November 2017
Drax Power Limited - Jim Doyle
Drax Re-power
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I have come across a fault in the traffic assessment submitted and accepted for the DIRFT III project. That project has not developed sufficiently for the local community to 'encounter' that fault.

I am a retired scientist resident in Blisworth which is very near the sites of two major SRFI projects that are being presently prepared for submission to PINS. In my research associated with analysing the traffic forecasts for these projects I noticed how closely the applicants have formatted their traffic figures on the figures presented for DIRFT III and accepted a few years ago.

Just the current figures gave me concern enough and I will deal with them at the appropriate time.

However I wish to report the faulty DIRFT format, as it appears to me, found in the DIRFT data. This was prepared by Vectos and I refer you to Table 8.1 in the document entitled "Document 6.2 Regulation 5(2)(a) Environmental Statement Technical Appendices Transport Assessment, February 2013". The table is reproduced and annotated in the attachment.

Dealing with only the "total persons trips" there are six readily identifiable peak values in the one hour slots and these are coloured red for arrivals and blue for departures. There appears to be evidence for a traditional 3-shift employment system, the figures for which overlay 'background' streams of arrivals and departures throughout the day that correspond to office staff and support workers.

I try to concentrate on the shift worker contingents which I separate from the aforementioned background by a straight forward arithmetical procedure. I get from this:

1. 0600 shift, 1227 arrive and 8 hours later 731 depart.
2. 1400 shift, 550 arrive 430 depart.
3. 2200 shift, 440 arrive 311 depart.

If compared with the steady arrival of loads that need processing at a high and steady rate throughout the day (but with 10s of percentage fewer during night time), this profile of 1227, 550 and 440 contingents does not look right at all - the figures are too small. Here I suspect massaging of the figures at source probably in order to avoid local traffic overload in their forecast.

There is another issue: the contingents departing are only 60 to 78% of the corresponding arrivals. The rather obvious reason for this is that workers are charged with a shift duration that in many cases will differ from 8 hours, usually longer by up to 4 hours. Indeed it is entirely plausible that a proportion of workers are taken on with 12 hour shifts starting at various times.

There is choice in interpretation here: either the figures are carelessly massaged to avoid forecasting a traffic overload or a CONFIGURATION of shift allocations has been invoked and this done without any supporting textual description in the document as far as I can find. Both are a serious problem but what worries me most is that any 'configuration', whether explained to PINS or not, rather assumes that the group of various occupiers (or rather the group of CEOs) would be expected to form a 'club' in which it is agreed that such configuration shall be observed at least until such time that either (a) Highways England can continue to maintain a program of adequate improvements or (b) the onset of warehouse automation sweeps the problem away.

What is clearly unacceptable would be traffic pulses on completion of DIRFT III corresponding to 1500-2000 cars at each shift change arriving and departing whilst far fewer were actually forecasted.

I hope to receive a reply on the points in this letter so I will know whether I am barking at the wrong tree and this is why the letter is entitled "Seeking advice". This letter is not copied to anyone other than PINS but I wonder whether that is wisest.
Following an examination, which considered the Environmental Statement submitted alongside the application, a decision on the application for a development consent order for Daventry International Rail Freight Terminal was taken on 03 July 2014 and has now been issued. That examination cannot be reopened and that decision can only be challenged in the courts. You can find a copy of the Statement of Reasons and the Examining Authority's report to the Secretary of State on our website, here:

[attachment 1]

The period for legal challenge is defined in s118 of the Planning Act 2008. Further information about legal challenge can be found in the letter sent to all interested parties accompanying the statement of reasons.

If you have concerns about how the Development Consent Order is being implemented, I suggest you contact your local planning authority in the first instance.

If you have any questions about the process for considering applications for development consent, please do not hesitate to contact me.

13 November 2017
Tony Marsh
Daventry International Rail Freight Terminal
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I would like to add my name to what I believe is a growing list of people concerned with the potential adverse effects on the environment of Norfolk by the increasing amount of onshore infrastructure inflicted on the County for offshore windfarms. My personal concern being Vattenfalls Norfolk Vanguard and Norfolk Boreas offshore windfarms and the location of the onshore substation at Necton.
I believe that Vattenfall, et al are riding roughshod over the Norfolk populace by hiding behind an outdated mandate used by the National Grid. This is resulting in, among other things, the ludicrous cable routing and crossing issues ensuing between Vattenfall and Dong near Salle. Plus the building of huge onshore substations in totally inappropriate locations.
In addition I am very concerned that companies such as Vattenfall are being economical with the truth when explaining/indoctrinating local people on their consultations.
Despite what is said, in usually patronising terms, local people have no real say in determining the final outcome of such consultations. Companies such as Vattenfall do them purely as a paper exercise because they are required to consult, without actually heeding too much to local opinion. To them we are a nuisance to be brushed aside.
They are not doing these projects to be altruistic and save the world. They do them to make money. And by the way, Vattenfall, which is owned by the Swedish Government, also build coal fired power stations. Are they being selective in which parts of the world they want to save? Or is it all down to money?
Thank you for your email. As the projects have not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate (the Inspectorate), we have no formal powers to intervene on consultees behalf. I would therefore encourage you to contact the developer directly to make your concerns heard as the Applicant has a statutory duty to take your views into account. However, if you feel your comments are not being taken into account, I would advise you to write to your local authority and set out why you think the Applicant is failing to conduct its consultation properly. Your comments should be taken into account when the local authority sends the Inspectorate its comments on whether the Applicant has fulfilled its consultation duties. The local authority’s comments on the Applicant’s consultation will be taken into account when the Acceptance Inspector makes their decision whether to accept the applications for Examination.

A copy of your correspondence has been placed on our records and will be presented to the Inspector at Acceptance, together with the application documents and local authorities’ comments on the Applicant’s consultation.

After the decision has been made regarding whether to accept the applications for Examination all documents used to inform the decisions will be published on our website. If the applications for development consent are formally accepted you will be able to submit your views in relation to the projects which will be considered by the Examining Authority during the Examinations. The Inspectorate has published a series of advice notes which explain the Examination process, including information on how to get involved; of particular interest are advice notes 8.1 to 8.5. These are available at: [attachment 1]

We have also published a Frequently Asked Questions document regarding Pre-application consultation and this can be viewed on our website here: [attachment 2].

09 November 2017
Tony Smedley
Norfolk Vanguard
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I would like to add my name to what I believe is a growing list of people concerned with the potential adverse effects on the environment of Norfolk by the increasing amount of onshore infrastructure inflicted on the County for offshore windfarms. My personal concern being Vattenfalls Norfolk Vanguard and Norfolk Boreas offshore windfarms and the location of the onshore substation at Necton.
I believe that Vattenfall, et al are riding roughshod over the Norfolk populace by hiding behind an outdated mandate used by the National Grid. This is resulting in, among other things, the ludicrous cable routing and crossing issues ensuing between Vattenfall and Dong near Salle. Plus the building of huge onshore substations in totally inappropriate locations.
In addition I am very concerned that companies such as Vattenfall are being economical with the truth when explaining/indoctrinating local people on their consultations.
Despite what is said, in usually patronising terms, local people have no real say in determining the final outcome of such consultations. Companies such as Vattenfall do them purely as a paper exercise because they are required to consult, without actually heeding too much to local opinion. To them we are a nuisance to be brushed aside.
They are not doing these projects to be altruistic and save the world. They do them to make money. And by the way, Vattenfall, which is owned by the Swedish Government, also build coal fired power stations. Are they being selective in which parts of the world they want to save? Or is it all down to money?
Thank you for your email. As the projects have not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate (the Inspectorate), we have no formal powers to intervene on consultees behalf. I would therefore encourage you to contact the developer directly to make your concerns heard as the Applicant has a statutory duty to take your views into account. However, if you feel your comments are not being taken into account, I would advise you to write to your local authority and set out why you think the Applicant is failing to conduct its consultation properly. Your comments should be taken into account when the local authority sends the Inspectorate its comments on whether the Applicant has fulfilled its consultation duties. The local authority’s comments on the Applicant’s consultation will be taken into account when the Acceptance Inspector makes their decision whether to accept the applications for Examination.

A copy of your correspondence has been placed on our records and will be presented to the Inspector at Acceptance, together with the application documents and local authorities’ comments on the Applicant’s consultation.

After the decision has been made regarding whether to accept the applications for Examination all documents used to inform the decisions will be published on our website. If the applications for development consent are formally accepted you will be able to submit your views in relation to the projects which will be considered by the Examining Authority during the Examinations. The Inspectorate has published a series of advice notes which explain the Examination process, including information on how to get involved; of particular interest are advice notes 8.1 to 8.5. These are available at: [attachment 1]

We have also published a Frequently Asked Questions document regarding Pre-application consultation and this can be viewed on our website here: [attachment 2].

09 November 2017
Tony Smedley
Norfolk Boreas
Enquiry received via email
I would like to know whether the decision to go ahead with a Development Consent Order is based on what is theoretically possible or what is actually being proposed. I am asking this question because one prominent campaigner in favour of the airport, XXX, is claiming that she attended a meeting organised by RSP to keep their faithful supporters updated. At this meeting, XXX says that they drew a distinction between the plans which had been presented to the Planning Inspectorate and what they were actually intending to do. The essence of the comments is that RSP are only putting forward plans for a very large cargo hub to justify the DCO. They don't actually intend to deliver anything of that scale.

I don't know what was said at this meeting. I wasn't there because I'm not one of RSP's faithful supporters. However, in light of XXX's comments, I have serious concerns that the Planning Inspectorate may be being misled. I don't know whether this would be a criminal offence, but I am concerned that the DCO process should only be used where and when it is needed. It should not be used as a technique for one developer to wrest control of a plot of land from another developer.

I have pasted a screenshot of XXX's comments below. There are others I could supply but please can you explain whether the application for a DCO has to specify what will be done, rather than portraying a hypothetical scenario which the company involved has not intention of delivering?
Development consent can be granted where the project is for the alteration of an airport where the alteration is expected to have the effect of increasing the number of cargo aircraft movements by at least 10,000 per year (s23(4) and (5) of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008)). The Applicant should be able to demonstrate in its application that the alteration it is proposing would be expected to increase the number of aircraft movements by the legislated amount. The extent of the alterations which will lead to the increase should be clear from the description of the works in the draft Development Consent Order (dDCO) and the accompanying plans.

If there is doubt as to whether an Applicant will build out a full Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project under s23(4) and (5) of the PA2008 and if the application is accepted the appointed Examining Authority, if it considered it necessary or appropriate, would be able to explore with/ suggest to the Applicant the possibility of including wording in the dDCO to specify a minimum number of works that when provided could have the effect of increasing aircraft movements. Alternatively, it would be possible for the Examining Authority to ask the Applicant to include a Requirement in the dDCO to specify that particular parts of the development must not be commenced until other enabling infrastructure is provided (eg a sufficient number of aircraft stands must be provided which would be expected to have the effect of increasing the number of aircraft movements to at least 10,000).

Both of these approaches may enable enforcement action to be taken against the Undertaker if there were to be a breach of the terms of the made DCO or a failure to comply with the terms of the DCO (offences under s161 of the PA2008).

09 November 2017
Peter Binding
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via
response has attachments
Meeting regarding a potential non-material change request
Please see the attached meeting note

09 November 2017
North London Waste Authority - Ursula Taylor
North London Heat and Power Project
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Inception Meeting
Please see attached

08 November 2017
Highways England - anon.
A303 Sparkford to Ilchester Dualling
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Meeting with SSE Group
Please see attached

07 November 2017
SSE - anon.
Dogger Bank Creyke Beck
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Meeting with SSE Group
Please see attached

07 November 2017
SSE - anon.
Dogger Bank Teesside A&B
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Below is a copy of my email to Vattenfall. Astonishingly, Necton and Ivy Todd residents haven't been given any graphical projection as to what we are really talking about in terms of mass and position. I would hope that we can look forward to this information.

Dear Vattenfall

I am writing to ask if you would please supply us with aerial views, accurately plotting the positions of the 4 proposed sitings, to scale.

So far, there haven't been any simulations to show the mass, the perspective from the villages, in order to gain an insight as to what is being proposed. We need graphics to be able to understand the actual impact the substations will have. Your photomontages show small distant views which do not serve the purpose of letting residents clearly see the true impact of the proposals. We need the views to represent Necton and Ivy Todd, with the inclusion of the properties which will be worst affected, and showing the substations in relation to the properties.

I was astounded at the July presentation at Swaffham, that your photomontages were so inadequate, and were, what I felt to be less than truly representative and transparent.

Thank you.
Yours faithfully
Diana Lockwood
Thank you for the copy of your email to Vattenfall. As the project has not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate (the Inspectorate), we have no formal powers to intervene on consultees behalf. You are doing what we would encourage you to do, which is to contact the developer directly to make your concerns heard as the Applicant has a statutory duty to take your views into account. However, if you feel your comments are not being taken into account, I would advise you to write to your local authority and set out why you think the Applicant is failing to conduct its consultation properly. Your comments should be taken into account when the local authority sends the Inspectorate its comments on whether the Applicant has fulfilled its consultation duties. The local authority’s comments on the Applicant’s consultation will be taken into account when the Acceptance Inspector makes their decision whether to accept the application for Examination.

A copy of your correspondence has been placed on our records and will be presented to the Inspector at Acceptance, together with the application documents and local authorities’ comments on the Applicant’s consultation.

After the decision has been made regarding whether to accept the application for Examination all documents used to inform the decision will be published on our website. If the application for development consent is formally accepted you will be able to submit your views in relation to the project which will be considered by the Examining Authority during the Examination. The Inspectorate has published a series of advice notes which explain the Examination process, including information on how to get involved; of particular interest are advice notes 8.1 to 8.5. These are available at: [attachment 1].

We have also published a Frequently Asked Questions document regarding Pre-application consultation and this can be viewed on our website here: [attachment 2].

06 November 2017
Diana Lockwood
Norfolk Vanguard
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
A number of my constituents are of the opinion that the Northampton Gateway proposals have now leapfrogged Rail Central, with Roxhill having now entered the statutory consultation phase. Some months ago it appeared that Rail Central / Ashfield Land were more progressed in their plans.

Does PINS have a view on whether it is likely that both SRFIs could be granted a Development Consent Order? I appreciate you won’t be able to comment on the merits of either scheme – I do not seek any such – but I would be interested to know if it was a case of “first come first served”, and if the granting of one would remove the business case for the other.
Thank you for your correspondence below. It would be for the Applicant for each scheme to make the case for, and to assess the impacts of, their proposed development taking into consideration the cumulative effects of the relevant built, consented and/or proposed developments as appropriate at the time that their application is lodged. Each case would be judged on its individual merits, where the appointed Examining Authority (ExA)/Panel would assess the material of the Applicant’s application documents and submissions received during the Examination (should the application be Accepted for Examination by the SoS via the Acceptance process) from interested parties. It is not possible to state whether the granting of consent for one project would necessarily remove the business case for another, it would be for the appointed ExA/Panel to assess all relevant material during the Examination on its individual merits to conclude on such matters and provide to the Secretary of State a recommendation on the matters assessed during the Examination. It would ultimately be the decision of the relevant Secretary of State (in this instance DfT) to decide on such matters.

PINS acts on behalf of the relevant Secretary of State on Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIP) and does not consider any NSIP proposals on a “first come first served” basis. All material and discussions had with the Applicants have all been published on the relevant webpage for their projects. It is the Applicant’s decision to determine when they deem their proposal is adequate for submission.

We provide for information a link to the note of our last meeting with Rail Central and subsequent advice issued to them:

[attachment 1];ipcadvice=c2a692a96e

02 November 2017
Andrea Leadsom MP
Rail Central (Strategic Rail Freight Interchange)
Enquiry received via email
Vattenfall sent their draft Statement of Community Consultation to the Planning Inspectorate for comment
We note that you have consulted Thanet and Dover District Councils and Kent County Council on the SoCC however due to the offshore elements of the project you may wish to also consult the Marine Management Organisation.

We note that the table at 10.1 lists the places that the SoCC will be available to view. Paragraph 57 of the Communities and Local Government pre-application guidance also advises that the SoCC should be made available online, at any exhibitions or other events (such as those listed at 10.3), placed at local deposit points (such as those listed at 10.2) and sent to local community groups as appropriate.

We note the list of newspapers in which the consultation will be advertised at table 7.1.1.1. Due to the offshore element of the project you may also wish to advertise in a fishing trade journal. Please note that a notice stating where the SoCC can be inspected must be published in a local newspaper.

The dates for the consultation period are not yet set out in the SoCC. In accordance with paragraph 23 of the Communities and Local Government pre-application guidance the deadline for consultation responses should be not less than 28 days from the day after receipt/last publication.

02 November 2017
Vattenfall Wind Power Ltd - Joanna Clements
Thanet Extension Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
A number of my constituents are of the opinion that the Northampton Gateway proposals have now leapfrogged Rail Central, with Roxhill having now entered the statutory consultation phase. Some months ago it appeared that Rail Central / Ashfield Land were more progressed in their plans.

Does PINS have a view on whether it is likely that both SRFIs could be granted a Development Consent Order? I appreciate you won’t be able to comment on the merits of either scheme – I do not seek any such – but I would be interested to know if it was a case of “first come first served”, and if the granting of one would remove the business case for the other.
Thank you for your correspondence below. It would be for the Applicant for each scheme to make the case for, and to assess the impacts of, their proposed development taking into consideration the cumulative effects of the relevant built, consented and/or proposed developments as appropriate at the time that their application is lodged. Each case would be judged on its individual merits, where the appointed Examining Authority (ExA)/Panel would assess the material of the Applicant’s application documents and submissions received during the Examination (should the application be Accepted for Examination by the SoS via the Acceptance process) from interested parties. It is not possible to state whether the granting of consent for one project would necessarily remove the business case for another, it would be for the appointed ExA/Panel to assess all relevant material during the Examination on its individual merits to conclude on such matters and provide to the Secretary of State a recommendation on the matters assessed during the Examination. It would ultimately be the decision of the relevant Secretary of State (in this instance DfT) to decide on such matters.

PINS acts on behalf of the relevant Secretary of State on Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIP) and does not consider any NSIP proposals on a “first come first served” basis. All material and discussions had with the Applicants have all been published on the relevant webpage for their projects. It is the Applicant’s decision to determine when they deem their proposal is adequate for submission.

We provide for information a link to the note of our last meeting with Rail Central and subsequent advice issued to them:

[attachment 1];ipcadvice=c2a692a96e

02 November 2017
Andrea Leadsom MP
Northampton Gateway Rail Freight Interchange
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

02 November 2017
Cory Riverside Energy - anon.
Riverside Energy Park
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Draft application documents feedback meeting.
See attached meeting note.

02 November 2017
RiverOak Strategic Partners - anon.
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
Further to our telephone call letting me know that members of the public cannot comment on the published “scoping report” for the A303 by Stonehenge WHS, would you be kind enough to let me know who the consultees are? I might be able to contact one of them to discuss further.

I’ve obviously not understood the report’s status or the opportunity it presents.
Thank you for your email. There is no statutory provision for us to issue the full list of consultation bodies at this point. However, the Scoping Opinion (when it is published on or before 30 November) will include in it, a list of all the EIA scoping consultation bodies.

The process of identifying EIA consultation bodies is set out in the Planning Inspectorate’s Advice note three: EIA consultation and notification and they include the relevant parish councils which have responsibility for the location where the proposals may or will be sited (ie parishes within which the application site boundary falls). I understand from your discussion with my colleague Rob that it is the parish councils which we consulted that you were particularly interested in, and these are as follows:

• Berwick St. James Parish Council
• Winterbourne Stoke Parish Council
• Shrewton Parish Council
• Amesbury Town Council
• Durrington Town Council
• Bulford Parish Council
• Steeple Langford Parish Council
• Woodford Parish Council
• Wilsford cum Lake Parish Meeting
• Cholderton Parish Meeting

We would encourage you, if possible, to engage with one of the parish councils and seek to convey your views as part of their response to the EIA scoping consultation if you wish to do so.

You should also note that there are statutory pre-application consultation requirements which the applicant must undertake in accordance with section 42 (Duty to consult) and section 47 (Duty to consult local community) of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended). There is further information on this process in the Planning Inspectorate’s Advice note eight series, including information as to how members of the public and other persons interested in the project can participate in the process. The statutory consultation process under the Planning Act is separate to the EIA scoping consultation process and is undertaken by the applicant themselves. I understand from Highways England’s own A303 Stonehenge project page that the statutory consultation process is planned to take place in “early 2018” and this is also referred to at section 4.4 of their Scoping Report which I understand you may have already seen. I would encourage you to speak to the applicant directly regarding the specific arrangements for their consultation process, and you will be able to participate in this process that the applicant is required to undertake (should you wish to do so). It is also worth noting that the applicant has a specific duty under s49 of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended) to have regard to relevant responses to their consultation in the preparation of their application.

26 October 2017
Kate Freeman
A303 Stonehenge
Enquiry received via email
I am contacting you on behalf of Holme Hale Parish Council in Norfolk who have an interest in the proposals coming forward from Vattenfall concerning the development of the Norfolk Vanguard Offshore windfarm. In particular, councillors are seeking information as to whether the parish council would be regarded as a statutory consultee for this project (as prescribed in Schedule 1 of the Infrastructure Planning Regulations 2009) with whom the developer has a duty to consult, as prescribed under s.42 of the Planning Act 2008?
This development is a large scale project and the proposals are likely to have a significant impact upon the landowners and parishioners in the local communities like Holme Hale. As such, councillors in Holme Hale would wish to be included in the statutory consultation phase/process relating to the application from Norfolk Vanguard.

Any help you can give in relation to this matter would be most appreciated.
Thank you for your email. We can confirm that, on the information provided to us by Vattenfall when they submitted their Scoping Report to the Planning Inspectorate, Holme Hale Parish Council are a statutory consultee as prescribed in Schedule 1 of the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009. You should have a received a letter from us, dated 5 October 2016, advising that the Secretary of State had identified Holme Hale Parish Council as a consultation body for the scoping opinion and inviting comments on the information to be provided in the Environmental Statement.

However, regardless of the information above anyone, with an interest in the project, whether they are a statutory consultee or not, is encouraged to respond to the consultation.

25 October 2017
Holme Hale Parish Council - Ron Graham
Norfolk Vanguard
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
In the course of conversation with friends I have discovered that parish council has been sent a letter from The Planning Inspectorate in respect of Highways England Development Consent for the A303 Stonehenge to Berwick Down.
I am aware that I am not a consultation body as such, but as the owner and farmer of land where the western portal and surface carriageway is being proposed I am surprised that I am not also included in these communications. I have a lifetime of knowledge of this landscape but as time progresses I am feeling increasingly marginalised with little opportunity to feed in this information until decisions have already been made. I would like to be able to add my experience into the development process so the resulting scheme will be harmonious to our environmental projects and farm business as well as benefit the whole of the World Heritage Site.
The applicant has requested a Scoping Opinion under Regulation 10 of The Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 (the EIA Regulations). They have also formally notified the Secretary of State under Regulation 8(1)(b) of the same regulations that they are proposing to provide an Environmental Statement in respect of the development. The Planning Inspectorate administers the processes relating to requests for scoping opinions on behalf of the Secretary of State.

Under Regulation 10 of the EIA Regulations, the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) must not adopt a scoping opinion until they have consulted the “consultation bodies”, which are defined as:

(a) a body prescribed under section 42(1)(a)(c) (duty to consult) [of the Planning Act 2008] and listed in column 1 of the table set out in Schedule 1 to the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009 where the circumstances set out in column 2 of that table are satisfied in respect of that body;

(b) each authority that is within section 43(e) (local authorities for purposes of section 42(1)(b)) [of the Planning Act 2008]; and

(c) if the land to which the application, or proposed application, relates or any part of that land is in Greater London, the Greater London Authority;

These “consultation bodies” includes local planning authorities, parish councils, statutory advisory bodies (such as Historic England, Natural England and the Environment Agency) and others. Further details on the process of defining the consultation bodies can be found in the Planning Inspectorate’s Advice note three: EIA consultation and notification.

By way of a response to your query, the regulations do not provide for any other persons outside of the defined “consultation bodies” being consulted as to the scope of the Environmental Statement, so you are correct in that you cannot be a consultation body as such under the EIA Regulations. It should also be noted that the requesting of a Scoping Opinion is not a mandatory requirement in the Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project process, but it is an option which applicants typically take.

However, there are statutory pre-application consultation requirements which the applicant must undertake in accordance with section 42 (Duty to consult) and section 47 (Duty to consult local community) of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended). There is further information on this process in the Planning Inspectorate’s Advice note eight series, including information as to how members of the public and other persons interested in the project can participate in the process. The statutory consultation process under the Planning Act is separate to the EIA scoping consultation process and is undertaken by the applicant themselves. I understand from Highways England’s own A303 Stonehenge project page that the statutory consultation process is planned to take place in “early 2018” and this is also referred to at section 4.4 of their Scoping Report which I understand you may have already seen. I would encourage you to speak to the applicant directly regarding the specific arrangements for their consultation process.

I understand your wish to participate in the EIA scoping process at this time, and to this end I would encourage you, if possible, to engage with your local parish council and seek to convey your views as part of their response to the EIA scoping consultation. You will also be able to participate in the separate statutory consultation process that the applicant is required to undertake as described above (should you wish to do so) and the applicant has a specific duty under s49 of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended) to have regard to relevant responses to their consultation in the preparation of their application.

The relevant pieces of legislation referred to in this email can be found on our website: [attachment 1]

Whilst we are not able to accommodate your request to be a consultation body for the purposes of the EIA Regulations, I trust the above is helpful.

25 October 2017
Rachel Hosier
A303 Stonehenge
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
We spoke on the telephone this morning about the statutory consultation on Highways England’s scoping report on the A303 Stonehenge scheme. You advised me that only statutory consultees could be asked to comment on the report.

I am wondering if you are able to tell me, please, whether the National Trust is being consulted on the report and, if so, on what basis? I’d also be grateful if you should tell me whether all land owners whose land would be affected by the scheme are being consulted on the scoping report.
The applicant has requested a Scoping Opinion under Regulation 10 of The Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 (the EIA Regulations). They have also formally notified the Secretary of State under Regulation 8(1)(b) of the same regulations that they are proposing to provide an Environmental Statement in respect of the development. The Planning Inspectorate administers the processes relating to requests for scoping opinions on behalf of the Secretary of State.

Under Regulation 10 of the EIA Regulations, the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) must not adopt a scoping opinion until they have consulted the “consultation bodies”, which are defined as:

(a) a body prescribed under section 42(1)(a)(c) (duty to consult) and listed in column 1 of the table set out in Schedule 1 to the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009 where the circumstances set out in column 2 of that table are satisfied in respect of that body;

(b) each authority that is within section 43(e) (local authorities for purposes of section 42(1)(b)); and

(c) if the land to which the application, or proposed application, relates or any part of that land is in Greater London, the Greater London Authority;

The relevant pieces of legislation referred to here can be found on our website: [attachment 1]

As discussed on the phone yesterday the “consultation bodies” includes local planning authorities, parish councils, statutory advisory bodies (such as Historic England, Natural England and the Environment Agency) and others. Further details on the process of defining the consultation bodies can be found in the Planning Inspectorate’s Advice note three: EIA consultation and notification.

By way of a response to your query, the National Trust and land owners whose land would be affected by the scheme do not fall within the definition of “consultation bodies” for the purposes of the EIA Regulations. However, there are other statutory pre-application consultation duties which the applicant must undertake in accordance with section 42 (Duty to consult) and section 47 (Duty to consult local community) of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended). There is further information on this process in the Planning Inspectorate’s Advice note eight series. I understand from Highways England’s own A303 Stonehenge project page that the statutory consultation process is planned to take place in “early 2018” and this is also referred to at section 4.4 of their Scoping Report which I understand you have already seen.

25 October 2017
Kate Fielden
A303 Stonehenge
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I thought I would give you the heads up that, as previously indicated, we will shortly be sending to you draft documentation for consideration. This will comprise the documentation identified with a “Y” in the fourth column on the attached document list. I anticipate sending the documentation during the course of next week with the exception of the Consultation Report which will follow in approximately 3 weeks’ time.

In the meantime I have an urgent query on the above scheme relating to the need for further consultation. In response to consultation responses there are some changes that we intend to make to the scheme basically comprising:
- some tweaks to junction improvements which may require additional third party land;
- the inclusion of a lorry park within the SRFI scheme; and
- the inclusion of a facility for an aggregate terminal within the rail terminal

We obviously will do a focussed consultation with the owners of any additional land required for highway works but wanted to check whether you would expect a full consultation be undertaken in respect of the second two issues. We intend to submit our application by the end of January 2017 and wish to be sure we have undertaken all necessary consultation you feel is required.
Thanks for your correspondence provided below regarding submission of draft application documents for PINS to review.

Regarding your query on the other matters below, please be advised that the decision on whether to undertake full statutory consultation is a decision for yourselves (‘the Applicant’) to consider and dependent on whether the changes described below amount to material changes to the proposed application. If the Applicant is of the opinion that any of these changes is a material change then this indicates that a full consultation would need to be facilitated. The Applicant should also consider whether these changes have previously been consulted on as part of the preparation of the ES or adequately addressed within the ES (e.g. introduction of Lorry Park, could increase traffic movement not previously assessed). If not, then this points to a need to carry out a full statutory consultation including consultation with the relevant statutory bodies.

It should be noted that as the scoping request was submitted in December 2016, under the transitional provisions (regulation 37) in the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017, the 2009 Infrastructure Planning (EIA) Regulations would normally apply. However, if the Proposed Development has altered since the version described in the Scoping Report, the 2009 EIA Regulations may no longer apply. You should satisfy yourselves that the ES has been based on the appropriate set of EIA Regulations.

We note in your correspondence below that you intend to submit a draft Consultation Report for comment within the next 3 weeks (separate from those to be received shortly), if you could provide us with a specific date that would be appreciated, so we can take this into consideration when issuing final comments on all draft documents. We would also like to draw your attention to PINS Prospectus for Applicants, regarding reviewing of draft application documents (Section 3.3)

[attachment 1]

It is note therein, that the Applicant should allow around 3 months for review of draft documents and/or as a minimum 6 weeks. Given the timing of these submission and the Applicants anticipated submission date (end January 2018), it would be useful if you could confirm whether there are any specific documents you would like us to review? We would also need to diarise a date for PINS case team to meet your project team to discuss our feedback, which we could hopefully discuss upon receipt of draft documents. Please note that owing to resource constraints we are not able to provide comments on the whole ES. We are however happy to comment on the chapter that deals with the project description and on any report relating to the Habitats Regulations.

25 October 2017
Morag Thomson
Northampton Gateway Rail Freight Interchange
Enquiry received via phone
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

24 October 2017
Scottish Power Renewables - anon.
East Anglia ONE North Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via phone
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

24 October 2017
Scottish Power Renewables - anon.
East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via
response has attachments
A project update meeting took place on 23 October 2017
A note of that meeting is attached.

23 October 2017
Highways England - anon.
Lower Thames Crossing
Enquiry received via email
I have a query about some of the Regulation 5 plans – specifically the Location Plan and the historical/ecological plans.

Due to the scale of both the project, and the search area for these topics, some of these plans will need to be at a smaller scale that 1:2500 as required by the Regulations in order that the appropriate context can be seen for the location of the Scheme, historical assets and ecological sites.

I am seeking to ensure that despite this that scale bars and north arrows are included in all these plans, but it will not be feasible to change the plan scale.

In light of the above, please could you confirm that it would be acceptable for such smaller scale plans to be submitted?
An application can only be accepted for examination if the application is of a standard that the Secretary of State considers satisfactory. Applications can be accepted if there are minor discrepancies.

Whether an application is of a satisfactory standard is a decision that is made after it is submitted. There is precedent for the plans you mention to be submitted at a smaller scale, and for the application to be accepted for examination. You may wish to explicitly justify departures of this sort in the covering letter to your application.

19 October 2017
Pinsent Masons LLP - Matthew Fox
Tilbury2
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
See attached meeting note

19 October 2017
Vattenfall - anon.
Norfolk Boreas
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project feedback meeting with National Grid
Please see attached meeting note

19 October 2017
National Grid
Richborough Connection Project
Enquiry received via email
In the MetroWest Scoping Opinion (August 2015), PINS identified LNG at Appendix 1 as a "relevant statutory undertaker" for EIA consultation purposes.

In March 2017, LNG was dissolved and struck off the Companies House register. The relevant strike-off notice published by Companies House (dated 27 December 2016) stated that "Upon dissolution all property and rights vested in, or held in trust for, the company are deemed to be bona vacantia, and accordingly will belong to the crown."

As we finalise our list of MetroWest S42 consultees, could you confirm please if MetroWest should remove any successor to LNG from the list of consultees? We are not aware of any successor company, and do not know if LNG's property and rights now belong to Crown. We could send a consultation letter to the Treasury Solicitor as the relevant Crown representative in case LNG's property and rights are bona vacantia, but we would welcome PINS' view before doing so.
If there is a possibility that the property and rights of LNG Portable Pipeline Services Limited are bona vacantia then our advice would be for you to consult the relevant part of the Government Legal Department in respect of this matter.

17 October 2017
Bond Dickinson LLP - George Morton Jack
Portishead Branch Line - MetroWest Phase 1
Enquiry received via email
My query relates to Regulation 11(c)(ii) of the Infrastructure Planning (EIA) Regulations 2017.

Regulation 11(c)(ii) requires the Secretary of State or relevant authority to notify the applicant in writing of any particular person it considers likely to be affected by the proposed development, but unlikely to become aware of the development by means of the measures taken in compliance with Part 5 (applications for orders granting development consent) of the Planning Act 2008.

Our understanding is that for MetroWest, there has been no Regulation 11(c)(ii) notification in writing from PINS to North Somerset District Council as the promoter. Please can you confirm?
Regulation 11(c)(ii) is part of the Infrastructure Planning (EIA) Regulations 2017. As far as we are aware, the Applicant is relying on the transitional provisions in the new Regulations and therefore would be subject to the Infrastructure Planning (EIA) Regulations 2009. This means that there is no requirement for a Regulation 11(c)ii notification. However, as part of the scoping process, we considered whether there were any Regulation 9(1)c persons when preparing the Regulation 9 list that was issued to the Applicant. We did not identify any 9(1)c persons for the MetroWest project.

17 October 2017
Bond Dickinson LLP - George Morton Jack
Portishead Branch Line - MetroWest Phase 1
Enquiry received via email
Could you please clarify for us the position of our Parish Council in respect to the above project?

You already kindly said this in a previous email: “Parish Councils are one of the bodies we would expect the developer to engage with at the pre-application stage.” (their pre-application stage started 7th October and will run to 11th December – according to Norfolk County Council ).

However, despite this our Parish Council are still saying “"when the planning application is presented, this Council will be in a position to deliberate and make decisions", a quote from their minutes which seems to indicate that they still believe that they are not allowed to make any comments on suitability or otherwise of sitings until after planning application is put it, by which time of course it will be too late.

Could you be very kind and clarify things for us from your point of view?
We understand from the Applicant that they have engaged fully with the local parish councils. Statutory consultation for the Norfolk Vanguard project will open on 7 November and run until 11 December 2017 and all members of the community, including parish councils, are encouraged to participate and respond to the consultation material provided by the Applicant.

17 October 2017
Jenny Smedley
Norfolk Vanguard
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached note.

17 October 2017
Ørsted Hornsea Project Three (UK) Ltd - Stuart Livesey
Hornsea Project Three Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
My late father came to xxxx, Necton in 1956, and I have lived and worked here all of my life.
The proposed Norfolk Vanguard Substation site would be closest to my home and also too close to many other homes. No body wants it here, spoiling a peaceful rural area which provides much habitat for wildlife and productive farmland. People choose to live here because they want the quiet surroundings it offers.

As I am farming on a relatively small scale, it is becoming financially necessary to look at farm diversification. I have been looking into offering bespoke holiday accommodation and in particular maximising the asset of our tranquil rural countryside.
I consider the location of my farm very important to my livelihood, and the potential to offer rural retreats, away from noise and pressures of everyday life, would be lost.
Necton already has the Dudgeon Substation and the far reaching views across my fields have been spoilt; I do not want more large structures encroaching my view, especially when even closer to xxxx.

What can be done to protect my potential farm diversification plans and earnings?
Planting tall screening to try and hide the substation would restrict views and would not compensate for such a terrible loss of countryside.

My mother, aged 82, does not want this industrial monstrosity so close to her home, she is very worried, as this would change and spoil the area where she has lived for 61 years.

Property devaluation (obviously, any houses in close proximity to giant substations would be much less desirable ) would also effect the potential development of a range of old farm buildings, which would not be viable anymore.

There is a small stream, tributary of the river Wissey, running along side my house which regularly floods into the adjoining road, and in 1982 after prolonged heavy rain, flooded the ground floor of the house.

This small watercourse would need significant work to enable it to cope with excess run off water from the substation and to protect an area already prone to flooding. Land drains stop this land being waterlogged, so it is not an ideal site for infrastructure, and I am very concerned of further flood risk.
This is a real worry, can it be guaranteed this would not flood our house again?

The EMF of this substation is very concerning due to its enormity The biological effectof EMFs is currently under debate and still a controversial issue. Is comparable data even available for a site of this size? .

Background noise is another concern, a hum would be especially noticeable in the quiet of night or crackleing in damp weather . This would be unacceptable and a cause anxiety which can also impact health. There was a misunderstanding regarding background noise monitoring carried out on behalf of Vattenfall so I can only hope their results are accurate. Can it be guaranteed there would be no background noise hum or crackle?

xxxx wants to sell his farm to Vattenfall, (I think 172 acres) but they have declined to purchase. Please could you look into this? It is close to Vattenfall's preferred connection point and further away from the many residents of Ivy Todd, Necton and Necton Village. It does however affect the residents of xxxx, who have recently moved there, but overall this seems a better option.

Infrastructure of this scale and capacity shouldn't be cited so close to any populated area. It is too invasive, but the worst thing for me would be to walk a short distance from my house, along a farm track, and instead of wonderful field views see an ugly industrialised area of massive substations.

If Norfolk Vanguard receives development consent then Boreas will be sure to follow and how many more? We do not want Necton surrounded by Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects.

The stress of many years of construction disturbance and then to have the imposition of living next to this intrusive site is causing much distress and anxiety to both myself and my mother.
As the project has not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate (the Inspectorate), we have no formal powers to intervene on consultees behalf. I would therefore encourage you to contact the developer directly to make your concerns heard as the Applicant has a statutory duty to take your views into account. However, if you feel your comments are not being taken into account, I would advise you to write to your local authority and set out why you think the Applicant is failing to conduct its consultation properly. Your comments should be taken into account when the local authority sends the Inspectorate its comments on whether the Applicant has fulfilled its consultation duties. The local authority’s comments on the Applicant’s consultation will be taken into account when the Acceptance Inspector makes their decision whether to accept the application for Examination.

A copy of your correspondence has been placed on our records and will be presented to the Inspector at Acceptance, together with the application documents and local authorities’ comments on the Applicant’s consultation.

After the decision has been made regarding whether to accept the application for Examination all documents used to inform the decision will be published on our website. If the application for development consent is formally accepted you will be able to submit your views in relation to the project which will be considered by the Examining Authority during the Examination. The Inspectorate has published a series of advice notes which explain the Examination process, including information on how to get involved; of particular interest are advice notes 8.1 to 8.5. These are available at: [attachment 1]

We also recently published a Frequently Asked Questions document regarding Pre-application consultation and this can be viewed on our website here: [attachment 2].

16 October 2017
Colin King
Norfolk Vanguard
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I came to **** in 1956 with my husband, the farm has been my life, providing work place and home, where we raised 3 children.

My husband passed away in 2010 and I now live here with my son and we rely on farming our 80 acres for income, which is becoming more difficult to achieve due to changing markets etc.

I am very upset, that without our agreement, this massive substation can violate the quality of my life by ruining the beautiful location of our home. We are looking into farm diversification ideas too, which rely on the peaceful, rural nature of where we live.

Our house was flooded in 1982, as the adjacent stream could not contain excessive storm water. I am very concerned about increased flood risk, will there be more run off water from the substation than our stream can cope with?

I am retired and enjoy the peace and tranquillity of my life here, and strongly object to Vattenfall building giant substations so close by.
As the project has not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate (the Inspectorate), we have no formal powers to intervene on consultees behalf. I would therefore encourage you to contact the developer directly to make your concerns heard as the Applicant has a statutory duty to take your views into account. However, if you feel your comments are not being taken into account, I would advise you to write to your local authority and set out why you think the Applicant is failing to conduct its consultation properly. Your comments should be taken into account when the local authority sends the Inspectorate its comments on whether the Applicant has fulfilled its consultation duties. The local authority’s comments on the Applicant’s consultation will be taken into account when the Acceptance Inspector makes their decision whether to accept the application for Examination.

A copy of your correspondence has been placed on our records and will be presented to the Inspector at Acceptance, together with the application documents and local authorities’ comments on the Applicant’s consultation.

After the decision has been made regarding whether to accept the application for Examination all documents used to inform the decision will be published on our website. If the application for development consent is formally accepted you will be able to submit your views in relation to the project which will be considered by the Examining Authority during the Examination. The Inspectorate has published a series of advice notes which explain the Examination process, including information on how to get involved; of particular interest are advice notes 8.1 to 8.5. These are available at: [attachment 1]

We also recently published a Frequently Asked Questions document regarding Pre-application consultation and this can be viewed on our website here: [attachment 2].

16 October 2017
Margaret King
Norfolk Vanguard
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
As a local resident of South Staffordshire, we are at present campaigning against the proposed West Midland Strategic Rail Freight Interchange (WM SFRI)
We have had public consultations with the developers where we have expressed our opinions and opposition to this proposal, on many issues.
One of the issues being the development on 700 acres of Green Belt land, and the impact this will have on the Wildlife and destruction of Mature Trees.
I urge you to look into your governments policies regarding Green Belt and the Natural Environment and Rural communities, with regard to this matter.
At present this proposed development is in the Pre-Application stage of the planning process for nationally significant infrastructure projects (NSIPs); during this stage the developer will be preparing their application documents to be submitted to us, as well as consulting with the local community on their proposals. At this stage the application has not been finalised, and as such we advise for any concerns related to the project to be submitted directly to the developer, in order for your views to inform the application before the final version is submitted to us for consideration.

The contact information for the developer is as follows:

contactus@communityrelations.co.uk
tel. 0800 377 7345

We also advise you to contact the relevant local authority with any concerns, as they are required to submit a report to us on the consultation activities undertaken by the Applicant during the Pre-Application stage once the application for the project has been submitted.

If the application is submitted and accepted by us, the appointed Examining Authority is required to take the relevant National Policy Statement into consideration, along with any other relevant policies as part of their Examination of the application prior to submitting their recommendation to the Secretary of State.

I have attached a copy of our Advice Note: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public, which I hope you will find helpful. Please also refer to our website for further information.

16 October 2017
Mary Jones
West Midlands Interchange
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Draft documents review meeting
Please see attached documents.

13 October 2017
Sembcorp Utilities (UK) Limited - Scott Taylor
Tees CCPP
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
See attached meeting note

12 October 2017
Vattenfall - anon.
Norfolk Vanguard
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached meeting note

12 October 2017
RPS for Wheelabrator Technologies Inc - Chris LeCointe
Wheelabrator Kemsley Generating Station (K3) - Power Upgrade
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
A meeting to discuss draft documents took place on 12 October 2017
A note of the meeting is attached

12 October 2017
Port of Tilbury London Limited - anon.
Tilbury2
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I have lived in Necton for over twenty years now and have always enjoyed village life and loved living with open views and rolling countryside.
When Dudgeon substation came along as a whole residents had no conception of how much land would be taken up by this huge monstrosity
and I, as one that overlooks the present one, have been affected for the past three years with noise and light pollution. With full blackout
curtains searchlights, which were left on continually overnight, lit up my bedroom despite various promises and apologies this problem
continued. Of course, as the hedgerows are lowered and the winter months approach bringing lacing to the hedgerows we will view more of
this substation. Of course we then had our lanes and roads dug up to accommodate the underground electrical cabling which went on and on
and on.
Vattenfall who also now want to invade our village of course say they are very aware of environmental issues, respect the wishes of residents, etc.
etc., have listened and have 'learned from the Dudgeon mistakes' - I DON'T THINK SO! We are now at the pre-application stage and have been
told that no views can be taken into consideration until the application has been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate - of course this gives no time
for changes.
Two very obvious alternative sites have been put before Vattenfall by Necton Substations Action Group as very much more suitable positions which
are away from villages. We are not prepared to sit down and be bullied by these people who put profit before people and the environment.

The Vattenfall proposal is much larger than the Dudgeon site which I understand will in total take up 70 acres and be 80ft high. How can anybody
in their right mind give the OK for our village, or any other, to be invaded and spoilt forever by these people. I understand these substations have
a very limited life so, of course, once all this countryside has been concreted over we are left with large areas of farmland which can then only be used
for industrial purposes - GREAT!

Has anyone got the message yet - WE DON'T WANT ANY MORE SUBSTATIONS - WE'VE DONE OUR BIT.
As the project has not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate (the Inspectorate), we have no formal powers to intervene on consultees behalf. I note you have contacted the developer directly and we would encourage you to do this to make your concerns heard as the Applicant has a statutory duty to take your views into account. However, if you feel your comments are not being taken into account, I would advise you to write to your local authority and set out why you think the Applicant is failing to conduct its consultation properly. Your comments should be taken into account when the local authority sends the Inspectorate its comments on whether the Applicant has fulfilled its consultation duties. The local authority’s comments on the Applicant’s consultation will be taken into account when the Acceptance Inspector makes their decision whether to accept the application for Examination.

A copy of your correspondence has been placed on our records and will be presented to the Inspector at Acceptance, together with the application documents and local authorities’ comments on the Applicant’s consultation.

After the decision has been made regarding whether to accept the application for Examination all documents used to inform the decision will be published on our website. If the application for development consent is formally accepted you will be able to submit your views in relation to the project which will be considered by the Examining Authority during the Examination. The Inspectorate has published a series of advice notes which explain the Examination process, including information on how to get involved; of particular interest are advice notes 8.1 to 8.5. These are available here: [attachment 1].

You may also wish to see our compilation of advice about the Pre-application procedure and community consultation: [attachment 2]

09 October 2017
Edna Greening
Norfolk Vanguard
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
We are writing to all concerned regarding the proposed location for Vattenfalls Substation which they hope to site close to Necton Village.
We are deeply concerned that Vattenfall are still hell bent on siting this monstrosity so close to a rural village. It is a quiet village consisting of a large percentage of retired and elderly residents who are distressed that their way of life will be ruined by siting this substation close to residential properties.
There is also a primary school which will also be affected - who knows what impact this will have on young lives.
We feel our complaint is justified especially as two other sites have been put forward for consideration that would have little or no impact on peoples lives and way of living.
One site - 185 acres at Top Farm is available for purchase by the owner who contacted Vattenfall . Joe Hill had thought they were definitely buying it, but had then heard no more until VF announced their preferred site on the land that is NOT for sale on Necton Farm (close to Ivy Todd). Necton Farm is not for sale and would therefore have to be subject to a compulsory purchase. This seems madness !
Top farm would be an appropriate site because it has no flooding issues, it is closer to the pylon than Necton Farm would be. It also has natural landscaping and topography . The structures would not been seen from Necton, Holme Hale, West End or Ivy Todd.

Other alternative sites would be near Scarning as proposed by Tony Smedley. One site would be close to the cable corridor at a crossing point on the A47.
The other site being beyond this one down Watery Lane where there is land on either side of the road. This total lot being 165 acres which is for sale on the open market.
Both sites at Scarning are sparsely populated and would have little or no impact on peoples lives. So why does Vattenfall refuse to consider these sites?

Why also is Necton Parish Council only able to speak against the proposals once the planning applications have gone in. By that time it is too late for them to make any objections as the chosen site would by then be impossible to change. This to us seems extremely unfair and biased. This means that Vattenfall have no consideration for the lives of the people who live in Necton and the impact on them.
Why are our human rights not being considered ???

We have sent various emails to Vattenfall in the past but have never had any reply from them. Only an automatic reply saying they will get back to us.
It shows their contempt for the people of Necton. !!
As the project has not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate (the Inspectorate), we have no formal powers to intervene on consultees behalf. I note you have contacted the developer directly and we would encourage you to do this to make your concerns heard as the Applicant has a statutory duty to take your views, as well as any Parish Council’s views, into account. However, if you feel your comments are not being taken into account, I would advise you to write to your local authority and set out why you think the Applicant is failing to conduct its consultation properly. Your comments should be taken into account when the local authority sends the Inspectorate its comments on whether the Applicant has fulfilled its consultation duties. The local authority’s comments on the Applicant’s consultation will be taken into account when the Acceptance Inspector makes their decision whether to accept the application for Examination.

A copy of your correspondence has been placed on our records and will be presented to the Inspector at Acceptance, together with the application documents and local authorities’ comments on the Applicant’s consultation.

After the decision has been made regarding whether to accept the application for Examination all documents used to inform the decision will be published on our website. If the application for development consent is formally accepted you will be able to submit your views in relation to the project which will be considered by the Examining Authority during the Examination. The Inspectorate has published a series of advice notes which explain the Examination process, including information on how to get involved; of particular interest are advice notes 8.1 to 8.5. These are available here: [attachment 1].

You may also wish to see our compilation of advice about the Pre-application procedure and community consultation: [attachment 2]

09 October 2017
Roy and Angela Campbell
Norfolk Vanguard
Enquiry received via email
This is a general question on Projects of National Importance and the Statutory Consultations that I hope you can help with, as to us people ‘on the ground’ these parts of the process are most puzzling and, a lot of the time, most infuriating.

Can you tell us why the very people who should be available to represent the residents at this time, and those with the most knowledge of the village in general, and it’s needs, are effectively gagged by the consultation process?

I’m talking about our Parish Councils, who are apparently, only able to speak for or against a proposal, once siting has been decided and planning permission has been applied for.

It seems totally bizarre to us that our PC are not allowed to give an opinions, good or bad, on the various proposals being considered for planning applications. Because of course by the time planning applications go in, the site has been refined and chosen and would be, at that stage, almost impossible to change.

Surely the PC, as our representative body, should be consulted, and allowed to represent Necton, before the final site is chosen, ie before planning is applied for, as afterwards it is far too late for them to have any useful input.

Please can you help us with this, as it has caused terrible dissent and fracturing of the society of our village because so many people think that the PC is not responding by choice, and don’t understand that they are effectively gagged by the terms of the consultation process?
Parish Councils are one of the bodies we would expect the developer to engage with at the pre-application stage. As advised previously, as the projects have not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate we have no formal powers to intervene on consultees behalf therefore if the Parish Council has concerns about the consultation process then they should contact the developer directly to make their concerns heard as the Applicant has a statutory duty to take their views into account. If the Parish Council feels their views are not being taken into account I would advise them to contact the local authority.

06 October 2017
Jenny Smedley
Norfolk Boreas
Enquiry received via email
This is a general question on Projects of National Importance and the Statutory Consultations that I hope you can help with, as to us people ‘on the ground’ these parts of the process are most puzzling and, a lot of the time, most infuriating.

Can you tell us why the very people who should be available to represent the residents at this time, and those with the most knowledge of the village in general, and it’s needs, are effectively gagged by the consultation process?

I’m talking about our Parish Councils, who are apparently, only able to speak for or against a proposal, once siting has been decided and planning permission has been applied for.

It seems totally bizarre to us that our PC are not allowed to give an opinions, good or bad, on the various proposals being considered for planning applications. Because of course by the time planning applications go in, the site has been refined and chosen and would be, at that stage, almost impossible to change.

Surely the PC, as our representative body, should be consulted, and allowed to represent Necton, before the final site is chosen, ie before planning is applied for, as afterwards it is far too late for them to have any useful input.

Please can you help us with this, as it has caused terrible dissent and fracturing of the society of our village because so many people think that the PC is not responding by choice, and don’t understand that they are effectively gagged by the terms of the consultation process?
Parish Councils are one of the bodies we would expect the developer to engage with at the pre-application stage. As advised previously, as the projects have not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate we have no formal powers to intervene on consultees behalf therefore if the Parish Council has concerns about the consultation process then they should contact the developer directly to make their concerns heard as the Applicant has a statutory duty to take their views into account. If the Parish Council feels their views are not being taken into account I would advise them to contact the local authority.

06 October 2017
Jenny Smedley
Norfolk Vanguard
Enquiry received via
When does the inspectors work start officially? Is there a public announcement and can members of the public attend.
Once an application has been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate we have 28 days to decide whether it is of a satisfactory standard to be examined. An Acceptance Inspector, along with the Case Team, will check the application against the statutory Acceptance tests under section 55 of the Planning Act 2008, on behalf of the Secretary of State. This process is not open to the public, however we will invite the host and neighbouring local authorities to submit a representation on the adequacy of consultation. We will also pass the Acceptance Inspector all correspondence that we have received in the pre-application period. Our website will be updated to advise the public that an application has been received and, if the applicant agrees, the application documents will be published on our website.

05 October 2017
Katie Taylor
Norfolk Vanguard
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I OBJECT to the current plans to build West Burton C Power Plant (a gas-fired peaking plant) adjacent to the existing power stations in West Burton, Nottinghamshire.

I strongly believe if this development is approved it will have an adverse impact on the local community: this structure will further spoil the landscape character of the surrounding countryside, generate more traffic during the construction stages and ongoing maintenance, as well as reduce the quality of air, once commissioned.
Please see attached letter

05 October 2017
Caroline Merriman
West Burton C power station
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I am interested in having a much better understanding the road safety implications of two major projects under consideration:-

Rail Central (Strategic Rail Freight Interchange)
Ashfield Land Limited Pre Application

Northampton Gateway Rail Freight Interchange
Roxhill Developments Limited Pre Application

I want to see any information you have regarding:-

• Projected increases in traffic density on the local roads M1 A508, A45, A43, A5 and all the Rat Runs trough the local villages such as Stoke Bruerne, Shutlanger, Blisworth, Whittlebury etc.
• Increase in Dark Hours HGV (24 Hour Operation).
• Road Traffic Accident assessment due to the increased traffic density, increase HGV volume and HGV night operations.
• Increased delay times at the well known rush hour blackspots such as J15 and J15A
• Contingency plans for traffic diversion when say the M1 or A45 is closed due to RTA
• Anything else you think may be of interest.

Thank you.
Both the Rail Central and Northampton Gateway Rail Freight Interchange projects are currently in the Pre-Application stage of the planning process for nationally significant infrastructure projects under the Planning Act 2008 (as amended) (PA2008). During this stage the developer is responsible for all information submitted, and we advise you to contact them directly in the first instance.

The contact information for both projects is as follows:

Rail Central (Strategic Rail Freight Interchange): Point of Contact: Ben Copithorne, 0207 6367366, Website: [attachment 1]

Northampton Gateway Rail Freight Interchange:
Email: contact-us@northampton-gateway.co.uk,
Tel: 01788 538 440
Postal Address: Northampton Gateway SRFI, P O Box 10570, Nottingham, NG2 9RG
Online contact form: [attachment 2]

I have also attached our Advice Note 8: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public, which I hope you will find helpful.

03 October 2017
Terry Owen
Rail Central (Strategic Rail Freight Interchange)
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update and draft documents review meeting
Please see attached meeting note

03 October 2017
Horizon Nuclear Power
Wylfa Newydd Nuclear Power Station
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Cyfarfod Diweddaru Prosiectau
Gweler y nodyn cyfarfod sydd ynghlwm

03 October 2017
Horizon Nuclear Power
Wylfa Newydd Nuclear Power Station
Enquiry received via email
Queries raised following the issue of the Kemsley Paper Mill (K4) CHP Plant Scoping Opinion
Further to my email below we have looked into your queries and have the following comments. For ease of reference my comments are made under the same headings as in your email.

Risks of Accidents and Disasters

You have asked the Inspectorate to confirm if your proposed approach to assessing the risk of major accidents and disasters during construction and decommissioning set out in your email below is an acceptable one. The approach described was not contained in your Scoping Report and so the Inspectorate did not address this specifically in the Scoping Opinion. The Inspectorate does not consider it appropriate to comment in detail on the scope of an assessment outside of the formal Scoping Opinion process. However, the Applicant is reminded that an Environmental Statement (ES) must include (amongst other things) a description of the likely significant effects and of any features of the Proposed Development or measures envisaged in order to avoid, prevent or reduce and, if possible, offset likely significant adverse effects on the environment. Therefore, if the proposed approach described by the Applicant is sufficient to address the requirements of the EIA Regulations in this regard then it may be regarded as an acceptable one. The Applicant should note that in any event the Inspectorate, on behalf of the Secretary of State, is required to consider the overall adequacy of the information provided with an application for a Development Consent Order. The consideration will include whether the ES is adequate according to the EIA Regulations.

The Inspectorate’s comments contained in the ‘Risk of accidents and disasters’ section of the topic-based scoping table (page 46) in the Scoping Opinion the location of which you have queried refer to points raised at paragraphs 3.3.19 – 3.3.20 of the Scoping Opinion.

Human Health

It is correct that the Inspectorate did not comment specifically on human health in the Scoping Opinion. The information contained in Table 2.1 of the Scoping Report indicated that matters relating to human health would be scoped in for all phases of the Proposed Development, and that it will be considered under other topics, such as, for example, air quality, ground conditions and noise. The Inspectorate did not feel the need to comment on this approach.

Community, Social and Economic, Land Use and Waste Effects

To clarify, the Inspectorate agreed, in paragraph 3.3.7 of the Scoping Opinion, that these topics do not need to be included in the ES as standalone chapters. However, as you note, the Inspectorate considers that matters relating to waste should be considered within relevant topic chapters as appropriate and in particular where there may be potential for significant effects, such as, for example, in relation to increased traffic.

In relation to your final point, our understanding according to paragraph 1.4.9 of the Scoping Report is that K3 will supply energy in the form of steam to the paper mill; not to K4, the Proposed Development.

02 October 2017
DHA Planning - Tim Spicer
Kemsley Paper Mill (K4) CHP Plant
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting.
See attached meeting note.

29 September 2017
Heathrow Airport Ltd - anon.
Expansion of Heathrow Airport (Third Runway)
Enquiry received via phone
response has attachments
Nodyn Cyfarfod - 28 Medi 2017 / Meeting Note - 28 September 2017

28 September 2017
Abergelli Power Limited - Dermot Scanlon
Abergelli Power
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Note of meeting between the Planning Inspectorate and Stone Hill Park Ltd (the Manston Airport landowner) to request advice in accordance with section 51 of the Planning Act 2008 about matters relating to applying for an order granting development consent and making representations about a proposed application
See attached meeting note.

27 September 2017
Pinsent Masons for Stone Hill Park Ltd - anon.
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Inception meeting for A303 Stonehenge – Amesbury to Berwick Down
Please see attached

27 September 2017
Highways England - anon.
A303 Stonehenge
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I have finally got from the project team a copy of the Statement of Community Consultation

Is this normally made available to the public?

It is not on the project website and if you had not told me they have to produce it, I would not have known about it. I had to ask several times before they sent me a link to it on their main website
The Statement of Community Consultation (SoCC) is available on National Grid’s website here: [attachment 1]. In accordance with s47(6)(za) of the Planning Act 2008 the SoCC should be made available for inspection by the public in a way that is reasonably convenient for people living in the vicinity of the land. In accordance with s47(6)(a) the SoCC should also be published in a newspaper circulating in the vicinity of the land.

How National Grid has met these requirements should be set out in their Consultation Report which will be submitted with their application and we will be looking at this as part of our compliance checks with s55 of PA2008.

26 September 2017
Jonathan Dean
North Wales Connection
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached meeting note.

26 September 2017
RiverOak Strategic Partners - anon.
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Nodyn Cyfarfod - 26 Medi 2017/ Meeting Note - 26 September 2017

26 September 2017
Cyngor Sir Ynys Môn/ Isle of Anglesey C Council - anon.
North Wales Connection
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Nodyn Cyfarfod - 26 Medi 2017/ Meeting Note - 26 September 2017

26 September 2017
Cyngor Sir Ynys Môn/ Isle of Anglesey C Council - anon.
Wylfa Newydd Nuclear Power Station
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
DCO amendment meeting
Please see attached

25 September 2017
Multifuel Energy Ltd - anon.
Ferrybridge Multifuel 2 (FM2) Power Station
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update telecon meeting
Please see attached meeting note

22 September 2017
National Grid - Eloise Frank
North Wales Connection
Enquiry received via email
Local Authorities have had a well-established role in the Secretary of State’s determination of Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects and in implementing/enforcing Development Consent Orders. Given that metro-mayors have responsibility for Planning and Transport, I would be grateful if you would please specify the role, if any, a metro-mayor would have in the determination of a NSIP affecting land in their Combined Authority and how it would relate to the role(s) previously played by the Local Authority or Local Authorities affected.
Local authorities have a special role in the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) process which, dependant on their spatial status, enables them to:

• Engage with the preparation of an applicant’s Statement of Community Consultation;
• Submit representations about the adequacy of an applicant’s Pre-application consultation; and
• Submit a Local Impact Report (see our Advice note one).

Local authorities are usually also a discharging authority (and/ or consultee) in respect of Requirements attached to a Development Consent Order.

The status and role of local authorities is prescribed by the PA2008.

Metro mayors/ combined authorities do not have a prescribed role in the PA2008 process. At the Pre-application stage of the process therefore, it will be at the discretion of an applicant whether a metro mayor is notified and directly consulted about an application. Notwithstanding this, a metro mayor would never be precluded from having his/ her say in respect of shaping a project at the Pre-application stage as he/ she could engage with the Applicant through the processes set out under s47 of the PA2008.

The Planning Inspectorate has statutory functions in respect of the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017. When consulting on the information to be included in an Environmental Statement the Inspectorate can consult with metro mayors/ combined authorities as non-prescribed consultation bodies where we consider that they have relevant functions and responsibilities which are akin to other statutory consultation bodies (see our Advice note three).

If an application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, and subsequently accepted for examination, in order to engage with the examination of a specific application metro mayors/ combined authorities will need to register as an Interested Party in the same way as any other non-prescribed individual or organisation (see our Advice note eight).

21 September 2017
Des Brennan
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
An initial meeting regarding a non-material change application
A note of the meeting is attached

21 September 2017
Augean - Augean
East Northants Resource Management Facility
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Meeting between the Planning Inspectorate and Natural Resources Wales to discuss the Wylfa Newydd Generating Station project
Please see attached meeting note

21 September 2017
Natural Resources Wales - Henry Aron
Wylfa Newydd Nuclear Power Station
Enquiry received via post
response has attachments
See attached letter
I note you acknowledge that National Grid has paused its work on the North West Coast Connection project and as the project has not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate (the Inspectorate), we have no formal powers to intervene on consultees behalf. However the Applicant has a statutory duty to take consultation responses into account and, if the application is submitted to us, part of our compliance checks are to ensure the consultation has been conducted properly.

With regard to your concern about the timeframe for the Applicant’s response to nopylons’ alternative proposal for an offshore route from Selker Bay to Walney, this is something the Applicant may respond to in their Consultation Report, which would be submitted to the Inspectorate as part of the application documentation. The Applicant has stated in their Scoping Report that a description of the alternatives considered, and an explanation of the decisions taken, will be provided within the Environmental Statement, which will also be submitted as part of the application documentation. The Examining Authority can also request the Applicant’s view on nopylons’ proposal during the Examination, if they consider it relevant to their examination of the application.

A copy of your correspondence has been placed on our records and will be presented to the Inspector at Acceptance, together with the application documents and local authorities’ comments on the Applicant’s consultation.

After the decision has been made regarding whether to accept the application for Examination all documents used to inform the decision will be published on our website.

If the application for development consent is formally accepted you will be able to submit your views in relation to the project which will be considered by the Examining Authority during the Examination.

The Inspectorate has published a series of advice notes which explain the Examination process, including information on how to get involved; of particular interest are advice notes 8.1 to 8.5. These are available at: [attachment 1]

We also recently published a Frequently Asked Questions document regarding Pre-application consultation and this can be viewed on our website here: [attachment 2].

20 September 2017
C A Rowntree
North West Coast Connections Project - N Grid
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I know that residents are not normally involved in the consultation process until the decisions have been made, and with my neighbours, I have been collating the regular lack of publicity and invitations to information sessions. I live a mere 200m from one of the proposed sites and with my neighbours, were not included in invitations to an information evening about the proposed “Cable Relay Station” which will have a huge impact and blight on our lives and businesses.

However, on Friday I became aware of some rather alarming news;

A little while ago Vattenfall changed the dates of publication of the PEIA and thereby appear to have engineered a situation where the report is too late for discussion in Council meetings in November and too early for the meeting in December.

In County Council speak; the result of this is that the consultation period (27/10 - 4/12) does not fit into any of the County Council’s scheduled Environmental Development and Transport Committee dates and will therefore be taken as an “urgent Decision”, i.e. decision to be taken by Chief Officer (Executive Director of Community and Environmental Services in consultation with the EDT Committee Chair and Vice Chair.

This means Norfolk County Council is going to use delegated powers to process the statutory response to the inspectorate. As I see it, this tactic avoids public scrutiny via Cabinet. At the Cabinet meeting at NNDC last week where the Dong application was discussed many councillors only became aware of issues because well informed members of the public were able to speak. As mentioned above, I am really concerned that the publicity of the Vattenfall proposal has been limited and many people are just not yet aware of the huge scope of this project, or the choices available. One of my neighbours visited the building associated with the Sheringham Shoal offshore generation and described it as more akin to a nuclear power station and the constant hum being very intrusive.

So, not only is Norfolk facing two/three huge infrastructure projects (with probably more to follow), but the dates of one of them is resulting in an absence of the normal public scrutiny………!

I can’t believe that Norfolk residents are being hoodwinked in such a callous manner.

Do you have any powers to ensure that there is full, open and proper public consultation on such an important issue?
As the project has not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate (the Inspectorate), we have no formal powers to intervene on consultees behalf. I would therefore encourage you to contact the developer directly to make your concerns heard as the Applicant has a statutory duty to take your views into account. However, if you feel your comments are not being taken into account, I would advise you to write to your local authority and set out why you think the Applicant is failing to conduct its consultation properly.

The Norfolk Vanguard draft Statement of Community Consultation is currently with Norfolk County Council for consultation. This document sets out how Vattenfall will conduct their statutory consultation and prior to finalisation of their draft it was sent to Norfolk County Council for their feedback. Therefore they have an opportunity to comment on the proposed dates of public consultation.

The statutory consultation period will not be the only opportunity for Norfolk County Council to comment on the proposals. Once the applications are submitted to the Inspectorate the Council will be invited to comment on whether the Applicant has fulfilled its consultation duties. The local authority’s comments on the Applicant’s consultation will be taken into account when the Acceptance Inspector makes their decision whether to accept the application for Examination.

Local authorities have a very important role in the 2008 Act process. If the Norfolk Vanguard project is accepted for Examination, the Examining Authority will invite Norfolk County Council to submit a Local Impact Report (LIR), which can give details of the likely impact of the proposed development on the authority’s area. In coming to a decision on whether or not to grant consent for the project, the Secretary of State must have regard to any LIRs that are submitted by the deadline. Norfolk County Council will also have an opportunity to submit written representations and make oral representations at hearings.

A copy of your correspondence has been placed on our records and will be presented to the Inspector at Acceptance, together with the application documents and local authorities’ comments on the Applicant’s consultation.

After the decision has been made regarding whether to accept the application for Examination all documents used to inform the decision will be published on our website. If the application for development consent is formally accepted you will be able to submit your views in relation to the project which will be considered by the Examining Authority during the Examination. The Inspectorate has published a series of advice notes which explain the Examination process, including information on how to get involved; of particular interest are advice notes 8.1 to 8.5. These are available at: [attachment 1]

20 September 2017
Geraldine Watson
Norfolk Vanguard
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Meeting to discuss and provide feedback from the Examination of the
application for the North Wales Wind Farms Connection project.
See attached meeting note

20 September 2017
SP Energy Networks - anon.
North Wales Wind Farms Connection
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
We noted comments, in relation to London Resort, that DCO’s may now include Housing.
Can you tell us if Highways DCO’s are included in this change?
The guidance on Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects and Housing published by the Department for Communities and Local Government in March 2017 states:

“The changes made by the 2016 Act allow development consent to be granted for housing related to any infrastructure project that requires development consent under the 2008 Act as long as the project is to be carried out in England, and/or in waters adjacent to England (up to the seaward limits of the territorial sea).”

The guidance can be found here: [attachment 1]

19 September 2017
Bean Residents Association - Linda Collins
The London Resort
Enquiry received via email
Vattenfall sent their draft Statement of Community Consultation to the Planning Inspectorate for comment.
Your SoCC states that consultation is open to all with an interest in the project but there is no specific information on how you plan to engage with hard to reach communities. You may wish to consider how your SoCC, and in due course, your Consultation Report, demonstrates your strategy for such groups, for example, groups that have limited literacy skills or due to disabilities are unable to partake in your public events.

Please note that the SoCC needs to be published in such a manner that may be prescribed to comply with s47(6)(b) of the Act.

18 September 2017
Vattenfall - anon.
Norfolk Vanguard
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

18 September 2017
Millbrook Power Ltd - Nick Johnson
Millbrook Power
Enquiry received via email
Save Manston Airport association (SMAa) note :
“The Inspectorate confirmed that it had received a large volume of correspondence which raised concerns relating to the statutory consultation events ….”
We also note that we have been encouraged by yourselves to collate communications from our members to yourselves, rather than having them all writing individually.
Thus we would like to enquire of the Planning Inspectorate as to why at no stage has the 286 signatory letter dated 2017-07-21, from SMAa, been acknowledged ? I attach all three parts for your convenience.
This letter, with its two attachments, from 286 of our members, confirmed a broad satisfaction with the RSP Consultation process, across a range of considerations.
Surely such a communication from so many must justify a mention in comparison with the much smaller number of writers who do have concerns regarding the RSP statutory consultation ?
The above documents refer to the list of 286 members who engaged in this response over 10 days, and who should be regarded as signers of that letter.

On behalf of these members. The Save Manston Airport association committee :

• Dr. Beau Webber (Chairman)
• David Stevens (Vice-Chairman)
• R. John Pritchard (Treasurer)
• Clive Cripps (Secretary)
• Liam Coyle
• Bryan Girdler
• Ela Lodge-Pritchard
• Linda Wright
• Gary Dumigan
• Gregory Nocentini
Thank you for your email.
Our meeting notes provide a record of the key topics discussed and any advice issued by the Planning Inspectorate under s51 of the Planning Act 2008.
In the note of the 23 August meeting, reference to the concerns raised in respect of the Applicant’s statutory consultation placed in context our production of the community consultation Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) document. The correspondence from SMAa was not referred to at the meeting, either by the Inspectorate or the Applicant, hence a record of it was not made in the meeting note. The Applicant was provided with an opportunity to comment on a draft of the meeting note before it was published and in response did not raise any concerns in respect of the accuracy of the record.
We encourage and advise all of stakeholders who share similar views to collate communications to us because this assists the process. Thank you therefore to SMAa for positively contributing in this way. However we cannot compel dispersed interest groups to engage in the same way.
As per the advice in our FAQ document, in the same way as the correspondence expressing concerns, your positive commentary about the Applicant’s consultation can be considered by the Secretary of State in addition to the statutorily required Acceptance tests if an application for development consent is submitted.

15 September 2017
Save Manston Airport Association - J B W Webber
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
There is a lot of deep mistrust of Vattenfall's reference to the standards/guidelines relating to visuals/graphics being used to 'demonstrate' the impact of the Norfolk Vanguard on shore installations. We were told that guidance was being adhered to. We believe they are referring to Scottish guidelines. Can you help us out here?
The Applicant has notified the Planning Inspectorate of its intent to submit an Environmental Statement (ES) with their applications for these projects. In their scoping report for both projects (available on our website), the Applicant set out their proposed approach to assessing potential landscape and visual impacts and the guidelines they intend to utilise. This includes:

- The Landscape Institute with the Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (2013). Guidelines for the Assessment of Landscape and Visual Impacts. Third Edition;
- Landscape and Seascape Character Assessments published by Natural England and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (2014);
- An Approach to Landscape Character Assessment (2014). Natural England;
- Scottish Natural Heritage (2012). Assessing the Cumulative Impact of Onshore Wind Energy Developments;
- Scottish Natural Heritage (December 2014). Visual Representation of Wind Farms: Version 2.1; and
- The Landscape Institute (2011). Landscape Institute Advice Note 01/11, Photography and photomontage in landscape and visual impact assessment.

14 September 2017
Katie Taylor
Norfolk Boreas
Enquiry received via email
There is a lot of deep mistrust of Vattenfall's reference to the standards/guidelines relating to visuals/graphics being used to 'demonstrate' the impact of the Norfolk Vanguard on shore installations. We were told that guidance was being adhered to. We believe they are referring to Scottish guidelines. Can you help us out here?
The Applicant has notified the Planning Inspectorate of its intent to submit an Environmental Statement (ES) with their applications for these projects. In their scoping report for both projects (available on our website), the Applicant set out their proposed approach to assessing potential landscape and visual impacts and the guidelines they intend to utilise. This includes:

- The Landscape Institute with the Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (2013). Guidelines for the Assessment of Landscape and Visual Impacts. Third Edition;
- Landscape and Seascape Character Assessments published by Natural England and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (2014);
- An Approach to Landscape Character Assessment (2014). Natural England;
- Scottish Natural Heritage (2012). Assessing the Cumulative Impact of Onshore Wind Energy Developments;
- Scottish Natural Heritage (December 2014). Visual Representation of Wind Farms: Version 2.1; and
- The Landscape Institute (2011). Landscape Institute Advice Note 01/11, Photography and photomontage in landscape and visual impact assessment.

14 September 2017
Katie Taylor
Norfolk Vanguard
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I am a member of the Necton Substations Action Group and have found your contact details from the group, as I can't find a link to register my interest with the Planning Inspectorate.

I am extremely concerned about the proposed sittings of Vattenfall's Norfolk Vanguard and Norfolk Boreas, and the National Grid Extension, at Necton, Norfolk.

I strongly believe Necton is the wrong area for these Nationally Significant infrastructure Projects and attach my thoughts, reasoning and and opinions.

Please can these be looked at and taken into consideration at this crucial pre application stage?

(See attachment)
As the project has not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate (the Inspectorate), we have no formal powers to intervene on consultees behalf. I would therefore encourage you to contact the developer directly to make your concerns heard as the Applicant has a statutory duty to take your views into account. However, if you feel your comments are not being taken into account, I would advise you to write to your local authority and set out why you think the Applicant is failing to conduct its consultation properly. Your comments should be taken into account when the local authority sends the Inspectorate its comments on whether the Applicant has fulfilled its consultation duties. The local authority’s comments on the Applicant’s consultation will be taken into account when the Acceptance Inspector makes their decision whether to accept the application for Examination.

A copy of your correspondence has been placed on our records and will be presented to the Inspector at Acceptance, together with the application documents and local authorities’ comments on the Applicant’s consultation.

After the decision has been made regarding whether to accept the application for Examination all documents used to inform the decision will be published on our website.
If the application for development consent is formally accepted you will be able to submit your views in relation to the project which will be considered by the Examining Authority during the Examination.
The Inspectorate has published a series of advice notes which explain the Examination process, including information on how to get involved; of particular interest are advice notes 8.1 to 8.5. These are available at: [attachment 1]

We also recently published a Frequently Asked Questions document regarding Pre-application consultation and this can be viewed on our website here: [attachment 2].

14 September 2017
Patricia Lockwood
Norfolk Vanguard
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I am a member of the Necton Substations Action Group and have found your contact details from the group, as I can't find a link to register my interest with the Planning Inspectorate.

I am extremely concerned about the proposed sittings of Vattenfall's Norfolk Vanguard and Norfolk Boreas, and the National Grid Extension, at Necton, Norfolk.

I strongly believe Necton is the wrong area for these Nationally Significant infrastructure Projects and attach my thoughts, reasoning and and opinions.

Please can these be looked at and taken into consideration at this crucial pre application stage?

(See attachment)
As the project has not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate (the Inspectorate), we have no formal powers to intervene on consultees behalf. I would therefore encourage you to contact the developer directly to make your concerns heard as the Applicant has a statutory duty to take your views into account. However, if you feel your comments are not being taken into account, I would advise you to write to your local authority and set out why you think the Applicant is failing to conduct its consultation properly. Your comments should be taken into account when the local authority sends the Inspectorate its comments on whether the Applicant has fulfilled its consultation duties. The local authority’s comments on the Applicant’s consultation will be taken into account when the Acceptance Inspector makes their decision whether to accept the application for Examination.

A copy of your correspondence has been placed on our records and will be presented to the Inspector at Acceptance, together with the application documents and local authorities’ comments on the Applicant’s consultation.

After the decision has been made regarding whether to accept the application for Examination all documents used to inform the decision will be published on our website.
If the application for development consent is formally accepted you will be able to submit your views in relation to the project which will be considered by the Examining Authority during the Examination.
The Inspectorate has published a series of advice notes which explain the Examination process, including information on how to get involved; of particular interest are advice notes 8.1 to 8.5. These are available at: [attachment 1]

We also recently published a Frequently Asked Questions document regarding Pre-application consultation and this can be viewed on our website here: [attachment 2].

14 September 2017
Patricia Lockwood
Norfolk Boreas
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Inception meeting, to introduce the scheme
A note of the meeting is attached

14 September 2017
Highways England - anon.
M25 junction 28 improvements
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Inception meeting, to introduce the scheme
A note of the meeting is attached

14 September 2017
Highways England - anon.
M25 junction 10/A3 Wisley interchange improvement
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Inception Meeting
Please see attached

12 September 2017
Drax Power Ltd - Jim Doyle
Drax Re-power
Enquiry received via
response has attachments
I strongly object to this development and wish to protest at this scale and need for this freight hub.

I have and met with the representatives at Coven Memorial as part of their submission piece on the 22nd July.

My concerns relate to the devastating impact in regards to traffic congestion and air, noise and sound pollution due to increased volume of traffic.

In this location in regards to the A449 we already have significant issues within the Brewood Coven Penkridge area and this development will see increase in pollution and nitrous oxide levels due to the increase in HGV traffic.

I myself have breathing difficulties in regards to asthma and this will have significant impact upon the vulnerable within the community both old and young.

It has been estimated that 5000 HGVs will be making the journey in and out of the hub if it was to proceed.

There has already been a declaration from one of their officials to myself and my neighbours that there are very high levels of existing pollution noted on the A5 truck stop and feel this proposed development should have undertaken a through and robust impact health environmental assessment. The numbers and figures have not been authentically checked and they are weighted. What has not been made clear even during intensive scrutiny of the figures that this operation is a 24 our 7 day a week and therefore the residents of the A449 and A5 will see intensive noise sound air pollution. This area already has issues when the M6 becomes congested.

The developers have not undertaken a thorough needs impact health assessment and have not sufficiently research ed in regards to existing pollution levels on the A449 Stafford Road.This has been requested via our Councillor Sutton to ensure the pollution levels are correctly assessed in order to see how much they would gain. Currently we need to meet these obligations regarding increasing air quality.

My concerns also relate to the significance of jobs which will be low paid and will be few in number. Going forward these jobs would be likely be lowered due to the rise of robot technology. This development will only benefit the landowner who has currently have low rewarding agricultural land but due to this proposal see his assets rise excrementally. Also the hub if not proved to be successful can be later developed into nothing more than another road warehouse facility. I feel (FAL) Four Ashes Limited are using the special measures in order to overcome Greenbelt strict planning restrictions. This location does not provide the road infrastructure to sustain such traffic. Other locations such as Stoke do wish to have this facility therefore this should carry more weight in respect to other sites and wishes of residents regarding these developments.

Most people who struggle with plans will not realise the size and enormity of this development which has been proposed. The height and scale of this proposals is absolutely monstrous. The need has not been proven and the attempt to provide banking and build a park is nothing more than a low grade gesture in order to attempt some form of Community Relations PR exercise which most residents will see
through.

The area and beauty should be maintained, we already have seen other schemes rail- roaded to include the recycle centre and the visual impact and congestion in the area that enough is enough.

I have credibility concerns which I raised to the FAL Representative about the misrepresentation of traffic facts and figures to manipulate their shared outcome to the community within their PR information. All of these figures and claims should be independently scrutinized to ensure the community are provided with accurate facts and figures. We deserve to have FAL data verified and checked as part of the scrutiny process by experts who are independent and not on the payroll of FAL.
The staff were shipped in from London and do not have any knowledge or expertise of the area and the current traffic issues we face every day which shows utter contempt for us living in the community.

Please can you send my email and collate my concerns towards your collective campaign
Thank you for including PINS in your correspondence to the Applicant, which raises concerns relating to the proposed development.

We acknowledge that your correspondence was submitted to the Applicant in relation to their Statutory Consultation (‘Stage 2 Consultation’) carried out from 5 July to 30 August 2017. The Planning Act 2008 sets out the legislation and regulations that guides a developer on who and how to consult during the Pre-Application stage - the stage at which the West Midlands interchange project is currently in.

To assist various interest groups, PINS has recently published to our website Frequently Asked Questions ( [attachment 1] ) which provides information on the Pre-Application stage of the Planning Act 2008 planning process for Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIP), which you may find helpful.

Please contact us if you have any further queries related to this project.

08 September 2017
Natalie Fraser
West Midlands Interchange
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Further to our last exchange there have been statutory consultations by the proposer in July and consequential feedback response.
You will no doubt have been copied in by some respondents.
Whilst there is now considerable awareness and resistance to the proposal by the local populace, the proposer has resisted requests to engage with the affected community or the main community representatives. As the main opposition group we have made several requests both direct and indirect - without response.

We previously made you aware of an intimidating style adopted by their land agents. There has been further incidence by the same agent of secretively posting notices requesting land ownership interest details. A number of persons within the community have suggested that they may have certain land interests. However the proposer has not responded to written requests. Copy letter attached.

Additionally we note that despite the massive size of the proposal there has been no community impact assessment made. This should be a minimum requirement for all planning applications in the "strategic" category.
Thank you for your email. We note your concerns below.
As you are aware the Applicant carried out their period of statutory consultation (‘Stage 2 Consultation’) from 5 July to 30 August 2017 which invited responses on the proposed development. The Applicant via their website [attachment 1] made available copies of all Stage 2 Consultation documents for download from their Document Library. These draft documents produced by the Applicant for the proposed development are still available to review (under ‘Stage 2 Technical Documents’ tab) on their website and includes the Interim Consultation Report. If you have not already reviewed these technical documents, we would encourage you to visit the Applicants website and assess the full list available to download.

We note your concern regarding the Applicant’s Land Agents and letter issued to Four Ashes Limited on this matter. It may be useful if you contacted their Land Agents directly (BNP Paribas). Any owners, occupiers or any person with an interest in any of the Order Land associated to the West Midlands Interchange project who wish to discuss matters relating to the negotiation of agreements should contact Derry Mockett of BNP Paribas, One Redcliffe Street, Bristol, BS1 6NP (0117 98 48 424) or derry.mockett@bnpparibas.com.

If you have not already done so, we would also advise you to contact the relevant local authority to inform them of your concerns regarding the applicant’s consultation, as your views may be added to their Adequacy of Consultation report which the local authority is required to provide to us once the application has been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate (the Acceptance stage of the Planning Act 2008 planning process for Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIPs)).

To assist various interest groups, PINS has recently published to our website Frequently Asked Questions which provides information on the Pre-Application stage of the Planning Act 2008 planning process for NSIPs. The FAQ also covers matters such as the community consultation, which may be of interest to you.

08 September 2017
Maurice Cotton
West Midlands Interchange
Enquiry received via email
So the NWConnection is not yet a NSIP? They are telling the public it already is, and threatening compulsory purchase on this basis
As advised previously, NSIPs are defined in ss14 through s30A of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended). In the Non-Technical Summary of the Applicant’s Preliminary Environmental Information Report it states: “The connection project is an overhead line with a voltage greater than 132 kV, and is longer than 2km; hence the project is classed as a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP) under the Planning Act 2008.”

The application is therefore being progressed under the Planning Act 2008 and we will check that the application meets the criteria under s14(1)(b) and s16 once it is submitted.

07 September 2017
Jonathan Dean
North Wales Connection
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Meeting regarding proposed non-material change application
Please see attached meeting note

07 September 2017
DONG Energy - Natasha Litten
Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm (Zone 4) - Project Two
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Feedback on draft documents meeting note and advice
Please see attached

07 September 2017
anon.
West Midlands Interchange
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

07 September 2017
Scottish Power Renewables - anon.
East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

07 September 2017
Scottish Power Renewables - anon.
East Anglia ONE North Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
At what point in the development process does a project become a NSIP?

National Grid were telling the public that the NWC had the potential to be one in 2012, while it was one by 2015

As no DCO has been submitted, is it a NSIP yet?

I have spoken to many people who have basically been mislead. They think pylons are unstoppable as it is a NSIP so have not bothered engaging in the consultation. They do not know that a buried cable would not be a NSIP as information like this has never been publicised
It is for an applicant to decide on the design of their application, in consultation with the local community and stakeholders and taking into account the cost and effects on the environment.

NSIPs are defined in ss14 through s30A of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended). It will be for National Grid to show in their application for a Development Consent Order that the development falls under s14(1)(b) and s16.

06 September 2017
Jonathan Dean
North Wales Connection
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Many thanks for the update, I fully understand that a large volume of enquiries would be an issue as the airfreight hub would have a considerable impact on several thousand people.
A problem is, that because the applicant failed to notify the people who would be directly and negatively affected by the DCO, that the applicant had applied for a DCO and how people would be negatively effected by its implementation, then there will be an ongoing drift of information into local communities and ongoing repetition of the same information, by pins and everyone else involved.
The applicants own PEIR clearly states:-
1 That there will be a noise impact particularly on Residents of Ramsgate who are under the immediate low flying and unchangeable runway approach and on the takeoff route which is yet to be determined so could have noise impact on any of the towns and villages to the west of the runway up to about 20km away and covering the north south East Kent landmass.
2 That there may be night flights.
3 That there will be reductions in life expectancy related to air pollution particularly PM2.5 particulates. These wouldn’t have dispersed significantly before reaching the coastline when travelling in the prevailing wind direction and would probably be concentrated in the coastal towns when the airflow meets the onshore sea breeze.
It is important that affected people should be aware of the DCO and be able to make and informed choice, balancing the economic benefits against negative health impacts affecting them personally.
The most important aspect of this is the air pollution issue, assuming the “reduced life expectancy” stated in applicant’s PEIR document translates as “kill people” and while the DCO process is a slow, research into air pollution issue is moving rapidly at the moment.
The most recent related news item being The Ford Motor Company’s announcement of a scrappage scheme.
The PEIR document’s information on particulate air pollution was already out of date when it was published as it failed to include the recently published results of studies involving 312,944 people in nine European countries, these results concluded the situation was much worse than previously thought and stated also in the PEIR.
Many NHS websites detail these studies here is a link to one of the clearest articles [attachment 1]
I am interested in the rapidly changing situation regarding air pollution related to airport facilities e.g. this important and related report has only just been published [attachment 2]
I did try to enter into a dialogue with the applicant’s environmental team after the previous non statutory consultation and was encouraged to do this by pins, however communication was unsatisfactory inasmuch as they failed to reply after asking for my contact details and saying that they would.
My understanding is that at the moment the DCO process is still front loaded and that environmental mitigation measures are still being formulated, so should I be communicating recent related information to either pins or the applicant or still be engaged in any dialogue related to the DCO with pins, the applicant, any other body?
At this point in the planning process (the Pre-Application stage) we would advise you to liaise directly with the Applicant, as the application for the proposed development is still in the process of being developed, and as such your views still have the opportunity to shape the application.

If the application is accepted for Examination you will be able to submit your views to the Planning Inspectorate during the Relevant Representation stage. By submitting a representation during this stage you will be registered as an Interested Party to the project, whereby you will be kept informed of the progress of the project, and your views may be taken into consideration by the Examining Authority assigned to the Examination of the project. I have attached for your information our Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination, which explains in detail the Relevant Representation stage process.

06 September 2017
Michael Child
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via phone
response has attachments
Project update meeting
See attached meeting note

06 September 2017
Sembcorp Utilities (UK) Limited - Scott Taylor
Tees CCPP
Enquiry received via phone
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

05 September 2017
Vattenfall Wind Power Ltd - Helen Jameson
Thanet Extension Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via email
I wish to inspect the Book of Reference for the Rookery South Energy from Waste Generating Station, which is no longer available for inspection on the National Infrastructure Planning website.

Please could you advise on how I may obtain access to it?
The Explanatory Note at the end of the Order states:

A copy of the plans and book of reference referred to in this Order and certified in accordance with article 32 of this Order may be inspected free of charge at the offices of Central Bedfordshire Council at Monks Walk, Chicksands, Shefford, Bedfordshire SG17 5TQ and Bedford Borough Council at Borough Hall, Cauldwell Street, Bedford MK42 9AP.

31 August 2017
Pinsent Masons - Marie Neirynck
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see the attached meeting note

23 August 2017
anon.
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via
response has attachments
Tripartite meeting with London Resort and Highways England on 23 August 2017
A note of the meeting is attached

23 August 2017
Highways England and London Resort - anon.
The London Resort
Enquiry received via
response has attachments
A tripartite meeting held with London Resort and Highways England on 23 August 2017
A note of the meeting is attached

23 August 2017
Highways England and London Resort - anon.
A2 Bean and Ebbsfleet junction improvements
Enquiry received via email
I would be most grateful if you could please add Kent Wildlife Trust to your list of consultees for Manston Airport. I attach our recent letter to RiverOak for your information.

I would also like to know if it is possible for Kent Wildlife Trust to be added to the Planning Inspectorate’s list for early engagement at the Scoping stage of projects? Whilst I understand that we are not statutory consultees as listed in your guidance, it is very difficult if we are not made aware of major projects until after the Scoping Opinion has been issued. This has happened more than once recently, with this project and also Vattenfall Thanet Extension. Is there anything at all that can be done about this despite being non-statutory? I would be most grateful for a response on this request, although I appreciate that you may need to refer my request to another colleague
As you correctly state the Kent Wildlife Trust is not a prescribed consultation body for the purposes of EIA scoping under the Planning Act 2008. Applicants can carry out wider scoping consultation (ie with non-prescribed bodies) but their approach in this regard is discretionary.

The Planning Inspectorate does not compile a list of non-statutory consultees to send updates to during the Pre-application stage of the process; for example to notify of the publication of a scoping report. There is functionality on the project-specific webpage for each project for anybody to sign-up for email updates, but those updates are not activated until an application is formally submitted to the Planning Inspectorate at the Acceptance stage.

The onus is on applicants to keep their stakeholders informed about a project at the Pre-application stage of the process. To that end we can only also advise for you to engage proactively with relevant applicants and monitor their, and our, websites for any updates.

22 August 2017
Kent Wildlife Trust - Vanessa Evans
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
When National Grid submit their DCO and the LA provide their adequacy of consultation report, please could you outline the metrics you will look at and what form of communication is accepted

Specifically, are the following viewed as acceptable forms of communication about the project:

Letters
Phone calls
Public conversations
Email
Facebook posts
Tweets
Petitions
Other social media
Filled in template forms on paper
Ditto online

It would help me prepare for the DCO response.
In section 37(7) of the Planning Act 2008 it states that ‘“the consultation report” means a report giving details of-

(a) what has been done in compliance with sections 42, 47 and 48 in relation to a proposed application that has become the application,
(b) any relevant responses, and
(c) the account taken of any relevant responses.’

Once the application is submitted, and as part of our Acceptance check we will look at how the Applicant said they were going to consult the local community (which is set out in their Statement of Community Consultation (SoCC)), and what the Applicant describes what they did do.

We will be looking for evidence in the Applicant’s Consultation Report to demonstrate what they did. It is up to the Applicant to decide how to present any feedback they may have received via the methods you have listed below.

At Acceptance stage we must also have regard to any representations received from any local authority consultees about how the Applicant carried out consultation in the pre-application stage. We look at these responses to confirm whether the consultation has been carried out in accordance with the SoCC.

For further information you may wish to look at the Department for Communities and Local Government’s guidance on the pre-application process:

[attachment 1]

15 August 2017
Jonathan Dean
North Wales Connection
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
See attached meeting note

11 August 2017
Vattenfall - Ruari Lean
Norfolk Vanguard
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Comments regarding the Norfolk Boreas project from the following:
Tina Hicks received on 3 August 2017
Jenny Smedley 4 August 2017
Margaret Woodall 4 August 2017
As the project has not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate (the Inspectorate), we have no formal powers to intervene on consultees behalf. I would therefore encourage you to contact the developer directly to make your concerns heard as the Applicant has a statutory duty to take your views into account. However, if you feel your comments are not being taken into account, I would advise you to write to your local authority and set out why you think the Applicant is failing to conduct its consultation properly. Your comments should be taken into account when the local authority sends the Inspectorate its comments on whether the Applicant has fulfilled its consultation duties. The local authority’s comments on the Applicant’s consultation will be taken into account when the Acceptance Inspector makes their decision whether to accept the application for Examination.

A copy of your correspondence has been placed on our records and will be presented to the Inspector at Acceptance, together with the application documents and local authorities’ comments on the Applicant’s consultation.

After the decision has been made regarding whether to accept the application for Examination all documents used to inform the decision will be published on our website.

If the application for development consent is formally accepted you will be able to submit your views in relation to the project which will be considered by the Examining Authority during the Examination.

The Inspectorate has published a series of advice notes which explain the Examination process, including information on how to get involved; of particular interest are advice notes 8.1 to 8.5. These are available at: [attachment 1].

09 August 2017
See below
Norfolk Boreas
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Comments regarding the Norfolk Vanguard project from the following:
Sue Allen received on 14 July 2017
Wendy Englestone 19 July 2017
Peter Woodings and Paula Woodings 21 July 2017
Wendy Englestone 2 and 3 August 2017
Tina Hicks 3 August 2017
Jenny Smedley 4 August 2017
Margaret Woodall 4 August 2017
As the project has not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate (the Inspectorate), we have no formal powers to intervene on consultees behalf. I would therefore encourage you to contact the developer directly to make your concerns heard as the Applicant has a statutory duty to take your views into account. However, if you feel your comments are not being taken into account, I would advise you to write to your local authority and set out why you think the Applicant is failing to conduct its consultation properly. Your comments should be taken into account when the local authority sends the Inspectorate its comments on whether the Applicant has fulfilled its consultation duties. The local authority’s comments on the Applicant’s consultation will be taken into account when the Acceptance Inspector makes their decision whether to accept the application for Examination.

A copy of your correspondence has been placed on our records and will be presented to the Inspector at Acceptance, together with the application documents and local authorities’ comments on the Applicant’s consultation.

After the decision has been made regarding whether to accept the application for Examination all documents used to inform the decision will be published on our website.

If the application for development consent is formally accepted you will be able to submit your views in relation to the project which will be considered by the Examining Authority during the Examination.

The Inspectorate has published a series of advice notes which explain the Examination process, including information on how to get involved; of particular interest are advice notes 8.1 to 8.5. These are available at: [attachment 1].

09 August 2017
See below
Norfolk Vanguard
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
A meeting between Highways England and the Planning Inspectorate to discuss the A1 Morpeth to Felton proposals
A note of the meeting is attached

09 August 2017
Highways England - anon.
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
See attached meeting note

09 August 2017
Port of Tilbury London Limited - anon.
Tilbury2
Enquiry received via phone
response has attachments
Project update telecon meeting
Please see the attached meeting note

08 August 2017
National Grid - anon.
North Wales Connection
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached meeting note

08 August 2017
DONG Energy - Stuart Livesey
Hornsea Project Three Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Has the Inspectorate, at any time to date, advised the Developer to consider any potential for transboundary impacts of the Developers’ proposal for the construction and operation of a new nuclear power station (Wylfa Newydd) on Anglesey? Please identify as well justification and reasoning.
I can confirm that the Planning Inspectorate has discussed transboundary impacts with Horizon Nuclear Power on a number of occasions. In particular, please see the note of a meeting held specifically to discuss their approach to transboundary consultation, which is available here: [attachment 1].

I have also provided below a number of links to further meeting notes where transboundary issues have been discussed.
• [attachment 2]
• [attachment 3]
• [attachment 4]
• [attachment 5]
• [attachment 6]
• [attachment 7]
• [attachment 1]

In addition to meetings, transboundary impacts are considered within the EIA Scoping Opinion’s produced by the Planning Inspectorate on behalf of the Secretary of State. These are available on our website at the following links:
• April 2016 [attachment 9]
• June 2017 [attachment 10] .

07 August 2017
J Chanay
Wylfa Newydd Nuclear Power Station
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Presumably if we feel they have made no effort to engage with PMG, we can submit a summary case during the initial 28 day period as to why we believe the Application shouldn't be accepted? If it is accepted, then we can register as witnesses to present evidence and speak against it.
We have recently published a set of Frequently Asked Questions which contains information about what to do if you are not satisfied with a developer’s pre-application consultation - [attachment 1] . If an application were to be accepted, you would be able to register and become an “interested party”. Advice Note 8.3 - [attachment 2] - contains more information about that process.

07 August 2017
Bramwell Associates - Dan Bramwell
The London Resort
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project meeting
Please see the attached meeting note

07 August 2017
AES Electric Ltd - anon.
General
Enquiry received via email
I am writing to seek clarification regarding the environmental impact assessment (EIA) in respect of the examination of the application for an order granting development consent for a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP) for the Wylfa Newydd project. I seek clarification specifically in reference to paragraph 3.26 of the Scoping Opinion.

As you will be aware, NRW is considering applying an exception to the requirement for it to carry out EIA in respect of a marine licence application for marine works associated with the proposed Wyfla Newydd project pursuant to regulation 10(1)(b) of the Marine Works (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2007 (the 2007 Regulations). In order to apply regulation 10(1)(b) of the 2007 Regulations, NRW has to be satisfied that the assessment of any effects on the environment of the project in question has already been, is being or is to be carried out by another consenting authority; and, that such assessment is (or will be) sufficient to meet the requirements of the EIA Directive in relation to that project.

Therefore, please can PINs confirm that the examination of the DCO application will consider whether the applicant’s Environmental Statement adequately assesses the likely significant effects of the development on the environment from the project as a whole, and not just those activities that would be authorised by the DCO?

We are aware that it is the role of the marine licensing process to identify and secure any appropriate mitigation for marine works, and are only seeking clarification on the consideration of the assessment of potential environmental effects.
Your letter requests confirmation from the Planning Inspectorate with regards to
matters in respect of the examination process. As previously advised, the Planning
Inspectorate confirms that it will be for the Examining Authority to decide how to
examine the application (Section 87(1) of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended));
however, this must be done in accordance with relevant legislation and policy. As I am
sure you will appreciate, the decision to apply the exception in accordance with
Regulation 10(1)(b) of the 2007 Regulations is a matter for NRW.

Paragraph 3.26 of the Secretary of State’s Scoping Opinion (June 2017) is consistent
with the responsibilities of the Secretary of State for projects located within Wales.
These responsibilities do not extend to consenting licensed marine works, which are
the responsibility of NRW. The Planning Inspectorate can confirm that ES adequacy
and the examination of environmental information will be undertaken by the
Examining Authority. The examination will be primarily concerned with the works that
the DCO, if granted, would authorise.

04 August 2017
Natural Resources Wales - Adam Cooper
Wylfa Newydd Nuclear Power Station
Enquiry received via email
Can you say confirm that there were Meetings between PINS and LRCH on the following dates: -

22-Mar-17, 4-July-17 and 21-July-17 and Notes will be issued?

Shouldn’t LRCH re-apply for NSIP approval as the scheme now departs from the attached 9-May-14 Direction Letter?

Among changes to matters considered since it was issued are: -

The Direction describes the project as “LONDON PARAMOUNT”;
The license agreement between LRCH and Paramount ended 21-Jun-17. The project appears without International Media support.

The extent in the Direction is given as “SWANSCOMBE PENINSULAR AND LAND SOUTHWARDS TOWARDS EBBSFLEET STATION”
In March 2015 Ardent and now Savills, told occupants in 300 acres of Green Belt south of A296/A2 that LRCH want CA Powers.
The 10-Nov-15 Site Visit Notes show that the itinerary excluded viewing this land.

The Direction states that the development does not include the construction of any dwellings.
The 19-May-17 Meeting Notes say, “The Applicant is currently considering whether to include operational housing in the DCO …”.
This could impact on Green Belt land in Bean & Southfleet Parishes, enclosed in a red-line without any previously stated plans.
The 7-Oct-16 Notes say LRCH hope to “pull back” the red line boundary. Savills haven’t been told, as they continue cause stress.

The Direction says, “The Secretary of State also considers the substantial physical size of the proposal is relevant to his decision ….”
However, the 19-May-17 Notes of the “London Paramount project update meeting” show that everything is under review.
It is noted that there were no attendees from EDC, KCC, DBC or GBC.
I can confirm that there were meetings between The Planning Inspectorate and London Resort Company Holdings on 22 March 2017, 4 July 2017 and 21 July 2017. The meeting note for the 22 March 2017 meeting has now been published and I apologise for the delay in publication. The remaining notes will be published shortly.

At this stage, it is a matter for the developer to be satisfied that the project they intend to submit to the Planning Inspectorate is covered by the S35 direction and needs development consent.

One of the questions that The Planning Inspectorate has to consider at the acceptance stage is whether a proposed development is a nationally significant infrastructure project as defined in the Planning Act 2008 and this would include a consideration of the terms of any direction under s35 that an applicant is relying on.

02 August 2017
Bean Residents Association - Linda Collins
The London Resort
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Compilation of advice to local communities about the Pre-application procedure and community consultation.
Please see attached Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) document.

02 August 2017
General - anon.
General
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Good afternoon, I would note from the minutes of the June 2017 meeting you are the case officer for PINS for the Wylfa Newydd NSIP Case. Please find attached the response from National Trust to Pre application 3 for the project, in which National Trust expresses concern about the nature of pre application taken forward by Horizon, and the timeline currently being proposed for submission of the Development Consent Order. A2.1 in our response to PAC3 makes reference to PINS Guidance on Effective Pre application advice. We would wish to discuss this matter further.

Could you confirm acknowledgement of this communication and also confirm a contact at PINS for the project if this is possible at this stage.

We met previously with PINS to discuss matters of interest between National Trust and PINS in relation to NSIP Projects, and we were encouraged to provide copies of pre application commentary, hence my email.
Please see attached

28 July 2017
Ymddiriedolaeth Genedlaethol / National Trust - John Pearson
Wylfa Newydd Nuclear Power Station
Enquiry received via email
Gowling WLG submitted correspondence to the Planning Inspectorate after the statutory six month examination deadline of 2 June 2017.
Because your submission was received after the statutory six month deadline of 2 June 2017, the Examining Authority (ExA) will be unable to consider it as part of his recommendation to the Secretary of State for Transport (SoST).

However, your submission will be forwarded to the SoST alongside the ExA’s recommendation report on or before 2 September 2017. It will be for the SoST to decide whether to consider the content of your submission in making his final decision.

28 July 2017
Gowling WLG for Friends Life Ltd - Vicky Fowler
M20 Junction 10A
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached meeting note

26 July 2017
Horizon Nuclear Power
Wylfa Newydd Nuclear Power Station
Enquiry received via
response has attachments
Mr Miller wrote to ask about the proposed Upper Orwell Crossings scheme. He asked that we clarify its current status and what happens next.
The proposed Upper Orwell Crossings project has been identified as being of national significance and the Secretary of State has directed that it requires Development Consent. Therefore, it will follow the process set out in the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) for such schemes, rather than being the subject of an application for planning permission, for example.

The PA2008 process requires consultation with the public before an application can be made, and applications are subject to an examination, which the public can participate in. This application is currently in the Pre-Application stage of the PA2008 process. During this stage, the Planning Inspectorate does not have any influence over the consultation activities undertaken by the developer, who will be consulting as required by the PA2008 process. You can find more information about the PA2008 process on our website, here; [attachment 1], and also in our advice notes which can be found on the website under the heading ‘legislation and advice’.

If you have views on the proposal, this is an important opportunity to participate in the process. During the Pre-Application stage the developer will be preparing their application documents to be submitted to us. At this stage the application has not been finalised, and as such we advise for any concerns related to the project or any of the developer’s consultation activities to be submitted directly to the developer, in order for your views to inform the application before it is finalised and submitted to us for consideration.

Once an application has been submitted, the Planning Inspectorate will scrutinise all of the application documents, including the evidence provided in the Consultation Report, applying the statutory tests set out in s55 of the PA2008. By the end of the Acceptance period the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) must decide, in accordance with the tests in s55 of the PA2008, whether or not an application is of a satisfactory standard to be examined. If it is, there will be an opportunity to register to participate in the examination.

Because the scheme is at a relatively early stage, there is no page on our website specific to it.

25 July 2017
Peter Miller
General
Enquiry received via phone
Can section 53 (s53) of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) authorise the pumping of water?
The Inspectorate cannot provide legal advice on the scope of activities that s53 of the PA2008 can authorise, which will ultimately be decided by the courts. However, I hope the following comments are helpful, which are provided under section 51 PA2008.

As highlighted in our Advice Note 5: Section 53 – Rights of Entry, a person(s) may apply for authorisation from the Secretary of State for a right to enter land owned by third parties, in order to carry out surveys and take levels and/or in order to facilitate compliance with statutory provisions implementing the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive or Habitats Directive, under s53 of the PA2008.

The power of entry for those purposes includes the power to search and bore for limited reasons, i.e. to ascertain the nature of the subsoil or the presence of minerals or other matter in it and/or to take and process samples. Under section 53(3A) this includes “power to take, and process, samples of or from any of the following found on, in or over the land—
(a) water,
(b) air,
(c) soil or rock,
(d) its flora,
(e) bodily excretions, or dead bodies, of non-human creatures, or
(f) any non-living thing present as a result of human action.”

The Inspectorate notes that the powers to enter land under s53 are only available for the particular purposes set out in that section, and that whilst the drainage of boreholes made for those purposes is not precluded, this does not negate the need to obtain any relevant permits or licences that would otherwise be required for such an activity.

25 July 2017
NFU - Louise Staples
General
Enquiry received via post
response has attachments
JLL have been instructed by AES Electric Ltd to provide planning strategy advice regarding developing and operating a grid scale battery storage project located at the Culham Science Centre, Abingdon.

AES Electrical Ltd intend to construct and operate a battery storage facility in excess of 50 MW at the Culham Science Centre.

You will be aware that South Oxfordshire District Council granted planning permission for a grid scale battery storage project, with a 250MW transformer, in November of 2016 at the Culham Science Centre (Ref: P16/S2368/FUL) .

You will also be aware that in response to a pre-application Inquiry, on 4th January 2017 the Planning Inspectorate (PINS) issued advice regarding the planning permission granted by South Oxfordshire District in that the project likely requires to have a development consent order under the terms of section 31 of the Planning Act 2008. However, there remains some uncertainty regarding whether a grid scale battery storage facility should be treated as a ‘generating station’ and accordingly whether a Development Consent Order should be required.

There is uncertainty due to it being unclear whether a rechargeable battery can be considered as resulting in the generation of electricity on its discharge cycle and accordingly it is unclear whether it should be treated as a ‘generating station’ (See: R. on the application of Redcar and Cleveland BC) v Secretary of State for Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform [2008] EWHC 1847 (Admin)). The call for evidence document ‘A smart, flexible energy system (2016)’, which is cited in the PINS advice that is referred to above, sets out the Governments position on battery storage, in that it is considered as generation “for the time being”. This implies the matter is under consideration, the document remains in draft form and the position set out within it is by no means definitive in terms of the legal definition of a ‘generating station’.

On this basis, this letter constitutes a formal request under the terms of section 51 of the Planning Act 2008, for PINS to advise whether a grid scale battery storage facility of over 50 MW in installed capacity will be treated as a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project under the terms of the 2008 Act.
The Planning Inspectorate (the Inspectorate) recognises that battery storage is a new and novel form of energy infrastructure and further consideration and work is ongoing to understand the technology better and the regulatory framework it will operate in. The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) issued a call for evidence regarding energy storage on 10 November 2016. The call for evidence closed on 12 January 2017: [attachment 1]. Paragraph 22 of the call for evidence document states that, "For the time being BEIS, the Scottish Government and the Welsh Government agree that a storage facility is a form of electricity generating station. This means that a storage facility with a capacity of >50MW in England and Wales will need development consent as required by sections 15 and 31 of the Planning Act 2008 or Scottish Ministers’ consent under section 36 of the Electricity Act. We believe further clarity is needed within the planning framework about how to classify and treat storage projects, given the emerging nature of the market and new technologies." BEIS are currently reviewing the responses received from the call for evidence and considering how battery storage fits into the wider energy infrastructure landscape.

The Inspectorate does not have the power to give a legally binding interpretation on whether the potential battery storage proposal to which you refer would be classed as a National Significant Infrastructure Project. Only the Courts can ultimately determine the interpretation of legislation, and to date there has been no case law on this point under the PA 2008 regime. It will of course be for the developer who wants to construct the generating station to decide whether or not to apply for development consent taking their own legal advice which they can rely on.

Within the context of the PA 2008, it is an offence under section 160 if a “person carries out, or causes to be carried out, development for which development consent is required at a time when no development consent is in force in respect of the development.” It should also be noted that the Planning Inspectorate, on behalf of the Secretary of State, is only able to decide whether development consent is required for a project, under section 44 of PA 2008, once an application has been formally submitted. Please note that the Inspectorate has a statutory duty under section 51 of PA2008 to record any advice given in relationship to an application or potential application and make it publicly available.

24 July 2017
JLL - Stuart Winter
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see the attached meeting note

24 July 2017
anon.
Lake Lothing Third Crossing
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see the attached meeting note

21 July 2017
Savills - Chris Potts
The London Resort
Enquiry received via email
It is hoped that considerable thought is given to the development of a cargo hub airport on the current brown field site, previously the war time airport for Manston. If allowed, such a development would fracture the fragile nature of Thanet. This area is one of deprivation which has occurred over many years but, now with the development of the high speed railway and low cost housing, is becoming a desirable destination for those who wish to escape city life but still enjoy employment in the capital.
You will have received, by other concerned residents of Thanet, many arguments both technical and emotional. There is no need for me to reiterate same but I would ask you and your team to allow their comments to be put forward and given very, very serious consideration.
The decision of the Inspectorate could give prosperity to this area or destroy all that has been achieved over the past twenty years.
I sincerely hope that the application to site a cargo hub airport at Manston is denied.
Currently this proposed development is in the Pre-Application stage of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) planning process for nationally significant infrastructure projects (NSIPs), and there is no mechanism through which the Planning Inspectorate can influence a developer’s consultation during this stage.

During the Pre-Application stage the developer will be preparing their application documents to be submitted to us, as well as consulting with the local community on their proposals. At this stage the application has not been finalised, and as such we advise for any concerns related to the project or any of the developer’s consultation activities to be submitted directly to the developer, in order for your views to inform the application before it is finalised and submitted to us for consideration.

You have also copied in Thanet Borough Council to your email. Once an application has been submitted, the Planning Inspectorate will scrutinise all of the application documents, including the evidence provided in the Consultation Report, applying the statutory tests set out in s55 of the PA2008. By the end of the Acceptance period the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) must decide, in accordance with the tests in s55 of the PA2008, whether or not an application is of a satisfactory standard to be examined.

In reaching the above decision, s55(4) makes explicit that the Planning Inspectorate must have regard to the Consultation Report and any Adequacy of Consultation Representations made by local authority consultees. Adequacy of Consultation Representations are defined by s55(5) of the PA2008 as representations about whether the applicant complied with its duties under sections 42, 47 and 48. They are requested from all relevant local authorities on receipt of an application for development consent.

To that end, in providing your comments to your local authority they may be considered in the Council’s preparation of its Adequacy of Consultation Representation; if an application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate.

We are in the process of preparing a Frequently Asked Questions document to assist local communities in respect of Pre-application community consultation. It will be published to our website shortly.

If you have any queries regarding the PA2008 process in relation to this project please do not hesitate to contact us.

20 July 2017
Anne Peers
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
• "Your proposals will ruin this area and I object to your proposal”
• “I strongly object to the noise pollution, air pollution and road congestion that your project will bring to this area”
• “No night flights. Absolutely none”
• “All the research says that living near an airport is bad for residents’ health and that it holds back children at school. I object to your proposals”,
• I didn't hear about RSP's consultation from RSP but a neighbour told me!
Thank you for your email which outlined your opposition to the proposed Manston Airport project.

The proposed Manston Airport project us currently in the Pre-Application stage of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) process. There is no mechanism through which the Planning Inspectorate can influence an Applicant’s consultation at this stage.

We advise that you submit your concerns directly to the developer for this project at manston@communityrelations.co.uk. At this stage the application documents for the proposed project will still be in development, and by providing your views directly to the developer they may inform the application before it is finalised and submitted to the Planning Inspectorate.

If you are not satisfied that the developer has or will take your comments into account, we advise that you submit your concerns regarding the developer’s consultation to the relevant local authority, Thanet District Council. The Planning Inspectorate when considering whether or not to accept an application, must have regard to the Consultation Report and any Adequacy of Consultation representations made by local authority consultees. Adequacy of Consultation Representations are defined by s55(5) of the PA2008 as representations about whether the applicant complied with its duties under sections 42, 47 and 48. They are requested from all relevant local authorities on receipt of an application for development consent. In providing your comments to your local authority they may be considered in the Council’s preparation of its Adequacy of Consultation Representation, if an application is subsequently submitted to the Planning Inspectorate.

Please note we are in the process of preparing a Frequently Asked Questions document to assist local communities in respect of Pre-application community consultation. It will be published to our website shortly.

If you have any queries regarding the PA2008 process in relation to this project please do not hesitate to contact us.

20 July 2017
Phil Hutt
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
I am emailing you, because to my horror, I have just found out that Riveroak stategic partners has and have constructed a consultation document on the reopening of Manston Airport. I have heard it is to be developed as a cargo hub, with many flights, including night time flying very low above our houses. My neighbours and I have experienced this in the past when the noise has been deafening and frightening and there were no night flights then. I know that I and many of my neighbours would like the opportunity to raise objections to the reopening of the airport and because of the noise and pollution over the densely populated area of Herne Bay. So, therefore am requesting that the consultation period be extended.

None of my neighbours or I have been informed by letter, nor leaflets about this, and none of the leaflets during the general election that was put through our letter box's stated anything about reopening Manston. Obviously, if we heard sooner, there would have been a lot more objections from the residents under the flight path in Swalecliffe, Herne Bay, Beltinge, St Nicholas at Wade and Ramsgate. I do feel that more time should be made avilable for Riveroak and the local authority to authorise a postal survey, which is limited to near or under the flight path.

People living in unaffected areas, should not be included. The survey should be accompanied by information from Riveroak which reveals their intensions and need to have 12 or more night flights 7 days a week.
The proposed Manston Airport project is currently in the Pre-Application stage of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) process. During this stage, the Planning Inspectorate does not have any influence over the non-statutory consultation activities undertaken by the developer.

I note that you copied the developer for the proposed development in to your email. During the Pre-Application stage the developer will be preparing their application documents to be submitted to us. At this stage the application has not been finalised, and as such we advise for any concerns related to the project or any of the developer’s consultation activities to be submitted directly to the developer, in order for your views to inform the application before it is finalised and submitted to us for consideration.

If you are not satisfied that the developer has or will take account of your comments, we would advise you to submit your concerns regarding the developer’s consultation activities to the relevant local planning authority, which in this case is Thanet Borough Council. Once an application has been submitted, the Planning Inspectorate will scrutinise all of the application documents, including the evidence provided in the Consultation Report, applying the statutory tests set out in s55 of the PA2008. By the end of the Acceptance period the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) must decide, in accordance with the tests in s55 of the PA2008, whether or not an application is of a satisfactory standard to be examined.

In reaching the above decision, s55(4) makes explicit that the Planning Inspectorate must have regard to the Consultation Report and any Adequacy of Consultation Representations made by local authority consultees. Adequacy of Consultation Representations are defined by s55(5) of the PA2008 as representations about whether the applicant complied with its duties under sections 42, 47 and 48. They are requested from all relevant local authorities on receipt of an application for development consent. As such, by providing your comments to your local authority they may be considered in the Council’s preparation of its Adequacy of Consultation Representation; if an application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate.

In respect of night flights, the Planning Inspectorate has access to the same information as the local community and statutory consultees ie the Applicant’s Scoping Report states at paragraph 11.6.10 that “The airport will be operational during the day and may be operational to some extent at night. The noise generated due to this activity may give rise to potentially significant effects”. If night flights are proposed for the airport, the likely significant effects will need to be assessed by the Applicant as part of its Environmental Impact Assessment and presented in the Environmental Statement.

Please note we are in the process of preparing a Frequently Asked Questions document to assist local communities in respect of Pre-application community consultation. It will be published to our website shortly.

20 July 2017
Gillian Archer
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Having just completed a thorough reading of all plans put forward by RiverOak for the development of Manston Airport I have the following observations to make:

1) Unless some massive seismic meteorological change has taken place in East Kent's topography in the last three years, the suggested flight paths are wrong. The last time Manston was operating as a commercial airport I regularly could not maintain a conversation in my own home due to low-flying commercial aircraft passing over my house. This occurred several times a day when the wind was blowing in the "wrong" direction, which happened at least twice a week and on many occasions much more often. I live in Herne Bay. Goodness only knows what aircraft noise will be like for those even closer to the airport, who will be subject to this noice each and every day.

2)On those occasions that the wind was blowing in the "wrong" direction I was woken several times a night by low-flying aircraft passing over my house. This proposal suggests "no more than" 14 aircraft movements per night. If one sleeps from 11 to 7 this number is the average equivalent of being awoken every 34 minutes. That will be the case for people much closer to the airport each and every night.This is clearly unacceptable and absurd.

3)And finally, and in my opinion, most seriously - despite their proclamations RoverOak made no attempt whatsoever to properly communicate with people in my area about their proposals AND their consultation period - obviously that had the effect that they probably received very few complaints during the correct time frame.

I am an active and engaged member of my community. I knew absolutely nothing about this until a group to which I subscribe (No Night Flights) sent me an email at the beginning of July. I live under this proposed flight path - contrary to their very inaccurate map. I received no leaflet. Neither did others I know living here in Herne Bay who are concerned about this matter. As soon as I had read that notification, I went and registered my displeasure at the RoverOak website.

This must be seen as a classic case of a greedy and dishonest company using any possible loophole to get their own way. It is not acceptable. Thanet Council must not cave in to an alluring commercial temptation which bribes them into ignoring this blatant lack of regard for fair process.

If this company is producing erroneous information in their so-calle4d "information pack" and deliberately attempting to avoid informing all who may be affected of their right to be consulted, then it is quite plain that many of their "proposals" are also liable to be dishonest or misrepresented isn't it?

This is unacceptable. Please ensure due process is applied, at the very least.
Thank you for your email.

The proposed Manston Airport project us currently in the Pre-Application stage of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) process. There is no mechanism through which the Planning Inspectorate can influence an Applicant’s consultation at this stage.

In accordance with the PA2008 process, you have correctly sent your comments about the statutory consultation to the local authority Thanet District Council, as well as the Applicant, RiverOak Strategic Partners. Section 55(4) states that in making its decision about whether an application is of a satisfactory standard to be examined the Planning Inspectorate must have regard to the Consultation Report and any Adequacy of Consultation Representations made by local authority consultees. Adequacy of Consultation Representations are defined by s55(5) of the PA2008 as representations about whether the applicant complied with its duties under sections 42, 47 and 48. They are requested from all relevant local authorities on receipt of an application for development consent and considered in a statutory 28 day ‘Acceptance’ period. In providing your comments to your local authority they may be considered in the Council’s preparation of its Adequacy of Consultation Representation; if an application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate.

I have attached the following Advice Notes which I hope you will find helpful:

Advice Note 8.0 Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public
Advice Note 8.1 Responding to the developer’s pre-application consultation
Advice Note 8.2 How to register to participate in an Examination
Advice Note 8.3 Influencing how an application is Examined
Advice Note 2 The role of local authorities in the development consent process

Our full suite of Advice Notes and legislation/guidance related to NSIPs can be found at the following link:
[attachment 1]

If the application is submitted and subsequently accepted for examination, you will also have the opportunity to register to participate in that examination and make submissions on whether or not the form of the proposal that is described in the application is acceptable, and whether development consent should be granted. You can register for automatic email updates on the progress of this project on our webpage.

Please note that we are in the process of preparing a Frequently Asked Questions document to assist local communities in respect of Pre-application community consultation. It will be published to our website shortly.

If you have any queries regarding the PA2008 process in relation to this project please do not hesitate to contact us.

20 July 2017
Jan Shepherd
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via phone
response has attachments
Query regarding the role of local authorities in NSIP applications
As discussed here is a link to our Advice Note 2 concerning the role of local authorities in the development consent process: [attachment 1]

19 July 2017
Katie Taylor
Norfolk Vanguard
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting 19 July 2017
See attached meeting note

19 July 2017
National Grid
North Wales Connection
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I live at Fox Hill Ruston Norwich Norfolk. I recently learned that a proposed cable relay station may be built very close to where I live. Please could you give me as much information as possible! On how this is possible that a company can propose to do this , this sight is so beautiful! Or is this a case of it will happen any way because the alternative is too expensive, eating into profit. I am all for greener energy! Wind solar ! But I do not want to see this beautiful part of Norfolk trashed !
Your comments may relate to the proposals for the Norfolk Vanguard offshore wind farm project. Once the project has been accepted by the Planning Inspectorate (the Inspectorate) you will have an opportunity to register your interest in the application and make representations to us. However the project has not yet been submitted to the Inspectorate and therefore I would encourage you to contact the developer directly to make your concerns heard as the Applicant has a statutory duty to take your views into account.

Advice about responding to the developer's pre-application consultation can be found here: [attachment 1]

Information about the project can be found on our website: [attachment 2] and the developer's website: [attachment 3]

The developer, Vattenfall, can be contacted by email info@norfolkvanguard.co.uk or phone 01603 567995.

18 July 2017
Wendy Englestone
Norfolk Vanguard
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I am writing to you in relation to your proposed DCO of the land presently owned by Stone Hill Park (previously Manston Airport), which aims to establish a Cargo Hub and smaller passenger service with night flights included.
I live on the Nethercourt Estate in Ramsgate, which lies under the direct flight path of the former Manston Airport.
I attended the RSP consultation meeting recently.
My concerns are the amount of flights that are being proposed, both day and night, would have a devastating effect on both Ramsgate and the local area.
The consultation was very poorly executed, when we asked about night flights we were given contradictory answers.
We had a letter from RSP about the consultation, only to find that this was not distributed to the whole area that would be affected by the re-opening of the Manston airport and the noise and pollution that would be generated.
The time given to the meeting in Ramsgate was 4 hours, but in the surrounding villages and towns it was 6 hours. Seems that they didn’t want many people to attend the Ramsgate meeting.
The estimation on the jobs that will be created seems to be greatly exaggerated.
The area has greatly improved since the closure of the former airport. Tourism has improved and many businesses have invested money in the area.
Our quality of life has improved since the airport closed. We are once again able to enjoy the outside world without being deafened by the noise of aeroplanes. My health has improved with the improvement of air quality.
If passed, this would be a disaster for the area with the noise and pollution.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider objections to a proposal at the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) process. For information about when and how to register as an Interested Party in the Examination (if an application is submitted and the Secretary of State decides that it is of a satisfactory standard to be examined), please see Advice Note Eight here: [attachment 1]

There is also no mechanism through which the Planning Inspectorate can influence an Applicant’s consultation at the Pre-application stage of the PA2008 process.

If you have not done so already, please provide your comments to the Applicant and your local authority. Local authorities have a special role in the PA2008 process, which I explain in the content of this advice.

The PA2008 places a number of duties on Applicants in respect of Pre-application consultation and all applications for development consent must be accompanied by a ‘Consultation Report’. The Consultation Report is prepared under section 37 of the PA2008 and must give details of:

a) what has been done in compliance with sections 42, 47 and 48 of the PA2008 in relation to an application;
b) any relevant responses; and
c) the account taken of any relevant responses.

In the Acceptance period (ie the 28 days following the formal submission of an application) the Planning Inspectorate will scrutinise all of the application documents, including the evidence provided in the Consultation Report, applying the statutory tests set out in s55 of the PA2008. By the end of the Acceptance period the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) must decide, in accordance with the tests in s55 of the PA2008, whether or not an application is of a satisfactory standard to be examined.

In reaching the above decision, s55(4) makes explicit that the Planning Inspectorate must have regard to the Consultation Report and any Adequacy of Consultation Representations made by local authority consultees. Adequacy of Consultation Representations are defined by s55(5) of the PA2008 as representations about whether the applicant complied with its duties under sections 42, 47 and 48. They are requested from all relevant local authorities on receipt of an application for development consent.

To that end, in providing your comments to your local authority they may be considered in the Council’s preparation of its Adequacy of Consultation Representation; if an application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate.

In respect of night flights, the Planning Inspectorate has access to the same information as the local community and statutory consultees ie the Applicant’s Scoping Report states at paragraph 11.6.10 that “The airport will be operational during the day and may be operational to some extent at night. The noise generated due to this activity may give rise to potentially significant effects”. If night flights are proposed for the airport, the likely significant effects will need to be assessed by the Applicant as part of its Environmental Impact Assessment and presented in the Environmental Statement

Please send any future email correspondence about the Proposed Development to manstonairport@pins.gsi.gov.uk

17 July 2017
Thomas Norton
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Further to my earlier e-mail, I am contacting you in respect to the American Hedge Fund company, Riveroak, who are trying to force the owners of the old Manston airport about 2 miles away from the centre of Ramsgate, which has a history of failure for use as a passenger air carrier, into re-opening it for cargo use only, 24 hours a day via a Compulsory Purchase/Development Consent Order! The present owners want to build much needed affordable housing, Hi and Lo tech facilities (which they have plenty of experience of!) and park and recreation land on it. The two local MP's Craig Mackinlay, and Sir Roger Gale, neither of whom live in Thanet, are promoting Riveroak, mainly because they think its popular with the local population, to garner votes! It is a popular proposition, until people learn that NO passenger aircraft are planned, as all previous passenger carriers have failed! Below is a copy of my submission to the ongoing Riveroak public Consultation, and I would welcome your comments. Best Regards Dennis Franklin.


From: Dennis Franklin, address withheld for security reasons!

Submission for the "Riveroak Strategic Partners" Consultation to re-open Manston Airport, for consideration in their Development Consent Application to the Planning Inspector this year.

INTRODUCTION:

I am retired, and a former member of the Chartered Institute of Building, and was once Assistant Property Manager at Worsfolds Estate Agents & Chartered Surveyors. Worsfolds no longer exists, but they had 15 offices from Herne Bay to Ashford. I was also a Building Surveyor with Smith, Woolly, & Perry, Estate Agents & Chartered Surveyors. I worked mainly in Estate Management, and as a mortgage/building surveyor in South East Kent. I must make it clear I have no business interests inThanet at all!

FINDINGS:

1) It is my understanding a Development Consent Order can only be made providing the application relates to a strategic necessity in the national interest. It is my contention as the RAF found Manston airport surplus to requirements decades ago, it is no longer required for the nations defence. Also, as far as I am aware no aircraft has ever had to make use of the airfield in an emergency since it was relinquished by the RAF. Several commercial air carriers have failed to make the airport viable since the RAF disposed of it, largely due to lack of demand, and poor rail availability to London.

2) I further contend there is no commercial future for the airport, even for cargo carriers, should it re-open for this purpose, as is proposed, and would be doomed to fail on the grounds it is in the wrong location, and the lack of transport infrastructure to support it.

3) In my submission I would like to draw attention to the damaging affect of aircraft noise, and air pollution, that will seriously harm the tourist industry, and the devaluing of property that would occur to the towns of Thanet, and elsewhere that lie under the flight paths.

4) I have an interest in animal welfare, and stood outside the Wilko store in Ramsgate every Saturday morning for two years, from 2012 to 2014, collecting for an animal charity. During this period Manston was once again closed, but was used for cargo planes to practice take off, and landing Saturday mornings. These aircraft would fly low over Ramsgate Harbour, and up Ramsgate High Street as they are directly under the flight path, drowning out any attempt at conversation, and causing much alarm, and distress amongst shoppers, and tourists, many of which come down to Ramsgate from London at weekends.

5) Ramsgate is now a bustling town enjoying a renaissance, and is attracting new businesses mainly for the tourists who visit during the week, and at weekends. The Harbour also attracts tourists with its many Hotels, pubs, and restaurants, and can be said to be thriving.

6) Ramsgate property seems to be attracting people who commute to London to work, and prices, and demand appears to be on the up!

7) Many local residents like myself choose to retire to Thanet, so there is a large elderly population, many of which like myself are not in the best of health!

CONCLUSION:

1) As a former building valuation, and mortgage surveyor, I can say should Manston re-open, especially on the scale proposed, it will have a serious detrimental affect on property values, and health in Ramsgate especially, and in the surrounding areas.

2) It is a well researched medical fact aircraft noise induces early deaths of people due to stress. The airport runway is less than two miles from the centre of Ramsgate town, and the flight paths will cover a large part of the Ramsgate housing area, including St Lawrence. These aircraft as I have seen, and from what is proposed, will approach the runway over the Harbour at virtually chimney pot level, screaming low overhead day and night, perhaps upwards of one every 20 minutes as has been reported!

3) In addition to the harmful affects from low flying aircraft, there is the question of air pollution. These aircraft will be dumping large quantities of air pollution on the people of Thanet, and especially Ramsgate, as they approach over the Harbour, up the High Street, and on towards St Lawrence at almost zero height, before landing!

4) Air pollution according to the Royal College of Physicians in a recent report, causes upwards of 40,000 deaths a year in Britain. Low flying aircraft approaching, and taking off from Manston will obviously pollute the air, and contribute to the early deaths of the local poplulation!

5) Aircraft noise day and night, and dangerously poor air quality will cause a massive devaluation of property prices, and conveyancing solicitors will be professionally bound to make prospective house buyers aware of houses that lay under a flight path, or is otherwise affected by aircraft noise, and pollution.

6) As a mortgage building surveyor in the past, I have seen large areas which had a Red Line drawn through them, indicating the properties in these area were considered un-mortgagable due to detrimental environmental problems. This will occur in Thanet, and especially to property directly under flight paths!

7) The affect of low flying aircraft over densely populated areas such as Ramsgate, and the other towns in Thanet/Herne Bay, day and night will devalue thousands of properties, perhaps by as much 25% to 50%, and make many unsalable in my opinion!

8) Many tourists, and locals enjoy eating/drinking al fresco around Ramsgate Harbour, but low flying aircraft approaching over the Harbour several times an hour, will devastate the tourist industry here! No one will want to stay at a Hotel twice, if they can't get a good nights sleep!

SUMMING UP:

1) A Development Consent Order should fail as Manston airport can never be considered as vital to the National interest, or even as an air cargo hub, when other airports north of London have spare capacity!

2) Manston airport is in the wrong location! It is too close to a large population, and does not have the transport infrastructure to move large quantities of cargo, except by road!

3) Should Manston ever re-open as an airport as proposed, it will cause serious health risks, and early deaths due to air, and noise pollution!

4) The proposed low flying aircraft over Ramsgate Harbour, town, and other populated areas will seriously devalue thousands of properties, and devastate the tourist industry!

5) The proposed development by Stone Hill Park, the owners of Manston must be encouraged, as it will provide much needed low cost housing, Hi & Lo Tech jobs, and recreational space, all of which are preferable to a company who will only pollute Thanet, devalue property, and devastate a flourishing tourist industry!

I look forward to your comments with anticipation.
There is no mechanism through which the Planning Inspectorate can influence an Applicant’s consultation at the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) process.

In accordance with the PA2008 process, you have correctly sent your comments about the statutory consultation to the Applicant, RiverOak Strategic Partners.

If you have not already done so, please also provide your comments to your local authority. Local authorities have a special role in the PA2008 process, which I explain in the content of this advice.

The PA2008 places a number of duties on Applicants in respect of Pre-application consultation and all applications for development consent must be accompanied by a ‘Consultation Report’. The Consultation Report is prepared under section 37 of the PA2008 and must give details of:

a) what has been done in compliance with sections 42, 47 and 48 of the PA2008 in relation to an application;
b) any relevant responses; and
c) the account taken of any relevant responses.

In the Acceptance period (ie the 28 days following the formal submission of an application) the Planning Inspectorate will scrutinise all of the application documents, including the evidence provided in the Consultation Report, applying the statutory tests set out in s55 of the PA2008. By the end of the Acceptance period the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) must decide, in accordance with the tests in s55 of the PA2008, whether or not an application is of a satisfactory standard to be examined.

In reaching the above decision, s55(4) makes explicit that the Planning Inspectorate must have regard to the Consultation Report and any Adequacy of Consultation Representations made by local authority consultees. Adequacy of Consultation Representations are defined by s55(5) of the PA2008 as representations about whether the applicant complied with its duties under sections 42, 47 and 48. They are requested from all relevant local authorities on receipt of an application for development consent.

To that end, in providing your comments to your local authority they may be considered in the Council’s preparation of its Adequacy of Consultation Representation; if an application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate.

For information about when and how to register as an Interested Party in the Examination (if an application is submitted and the Secretary of State decides that it is of a satisfactory standard to be examined), please see Advice Note Eight here: [attachment 1]

Please send any future email correspondence about the Proposed Development to manstonairport@pins.gsi.gov.uk

17 July 2017
Dennis Franklin
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I am contacting you to express our complete disapproval of the plans to reopen Manston Airport.

We, like most of Ramsgate, live on the flight path of aircraft landing at Manston airport from the east.

The planes will pass over us at about 1,000 feet and with the quantity of proposed flights the noise and disruption to us will be totally unacceptable.

Night flights can never be accepted.

As residents of Ramsgate we are totally opposed to these plans.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider objections to a proposal at the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 process. For information about when and how to register as an Interested Party in the Examination (if an application is submitted and the Secretary of State decides that it is of a satisfactory standard to be examined), please see Advice Note Eight here: [attachment 1]

Please send any future email correspondence about the Proposed Development to manstonairport@pins.gsi.gov.uk

17 July 2017
Mr and Mrs Williamson
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I have not been informed of any official consultation into running the site at Manston as an airport. And yet I have found out that there is such a consultation.
I live in the village of Herne and would be under the flight path of any flights day or night into Manston. I am totally object to any such use of the Manston sight.
Your proposals will ruin this area. The roads into and out of the county of Kent and Thanet cannot cope as it is with the volume of traffic, this idea will only make this situation far worse.
I strongly object to the noise pollution, road congestion and air pollution that your project will bring to this area.
All the research is such that living near an airport is bad for residents health and that it holds back children at school.
I have a young family and I object totally to your proposals.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider objections to a proposal at the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) process. For information about when and how to register as an Interested Party in the Examination (if an application is submitted and the Secretary of State decides that it is of a satisfactory standard to be examined), please see Advice Note Eight here: [attachment 1]

There is also no mechanism through which the Planning Inspectorate can influence an Applicant’s consultation at the Pre-application stage of the PA2008 process.

In accordance with the PA2008 process, you have correctly sent your comments about the statutory consultation to the Applicant, RiverOak Strategic Partners, and to your local authority.

Local authorities have a special role in the PA2008 process, which I explain in the content of this advice.

The PA2008 places a number of duties on Applicants in respect of Pre-application consultation and all applications for development consent must be accompanied by a ‘Consultation Report’. The Consultation Report is prepared under section 37 of the PA2008 and must give details of:

a) what has been done in compliance with sections 42, 47 and 48 of the PA2008 in relation to an application;
b) any relevant responses; and
c) the account taken of any relevant responses.

In the Acceptance period (ie the 28 days following the formal submission of an application) the Planning Inspectorate will scrutinise all of the application documents, including the evidence provided in the Consultation Report, applying the statutory tests set out in s55 of the PA2008. By the end of the Acceptance period the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) must decide, in accordance with the tests in s55 of the PA2008, whether or not an application is of a satisfactory standard to be examined.

In reaching the above decision, s55(4) makes explicit that the Planning Inspectorate must have regard to the Consultation Report and any Adequacy of Consultation Representations made by local authority consultees. Adequacy of Consultation Representations are defined by s55(5) of the PA2008 as representations about whether the applicant complied with its duties under sections 42, 47 and 48. They are requested from all relevant local authorities on receipt of an application for development consent.

To that end, in providing your comments to your local authority they may be considered in the Council’s preparation of its Adequacy of Consultation Representation; if an application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate.

Please send any future email correspondence about the Proposed Development to manstonairport@pins.gsi.gov.uk

17 July 2017
Fred Skinner
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Query regarding targeted consultation
As the project has not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate (the Inspectorate), we have no formal powers to intervene on consultees behalf. I would therefore encourage you to contact the developer directly to make your concerns heard as the Applicant has a statutory duty to take your views into account. However, if you feel your comments are not being taken into account, I would advise you to write to your local authority and set out why you think the Applicant is failing to conduct its consultation properly. Your comments should be taken into account when the local authority sends the Inspectorate its comments on whether the Applicant has fulfilled its consultation duties. The local authority’s comments on the Applicant’s consultation will be taken into account when the Acceptance Inspector makes their decision whether to accept the application for Examination.

A copy of your correspondence has been placed on our records and will be presented to the Inspector at Acceptance, together with the application documents and local authorities’ comments on the Applicant’s consultation.

After the decision has been made regarding whether to accept the application for Examination all documents used to inform the decision will be published on our website.

If the application for development consent is formally accepted you will be able to submit your views in relation to the project which will be considered by the Examining Authority during the Examination.

The Inspectorate has published a series of advice notes which explain the Examination process, including information on how to get involved; of particular interest are advice notes 8.1 to 8.5. These are available at: [attachment 1].

17 July 2017
Jonathan Dean
North Wales Connection
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Query regarding targeted consultation
As the project has not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate (the Inspectorate), we have no formal powers to intervene on consultees behalf. I would therefore encourage you to contact the developer directly to make your concerns heard as the Applicant has a statutory duty to take your views into account. However, if you feel your comments are not being taken into account, I would advise you to write to your local authority and set out why you think the Applicant is failing to conduct its consultation properly. Your comments should be taken into account when the local authority sends the Inspectorate its comments on whether the Applicant has fulfilled its consultation duties. The local authority’s comments on the Applicant’s consultation will be taken into account when the Acceptance Inspector makes their decision whether to accept the application for Examination.

A copy of your correspondence has been placed on our records and will be presented to the Inspector at Acceptance, together with the application documents and local authorities’ comments on the Applicant’s consultation.

After the decision has been made regarding whether to accept the application for Examination all documents used to inform the decision will be published on our website.

If the application for development consent is formally accepted you will be able to submit your views in relation to the project which will be considered by the Examining Authority during the Examination.

The Inspectorate has published a series of advice notes which explain the Examination process, including information on how to get involved; of particular interest are advice notes 8.1 to 8.5. These are available at: [attachment 1].

17 July 2017
Pam Roberts
North Wales Connection
Enquiry received via
Recent decisions by the Secretary of State (e.g. Radlett) have contained an opinion as to whether the proposed development will work as an SRFI. I am therefore writing to ask what tests would be applied by the Planning Inspectorate to establish this.

The term Strategic Rail Freight Interchange does not appear within the Planning Act 2008 (PA08). PA08 considers all such sites to be Rail Freight Interchanges (RFI), making a distinction in terms of scale and capacity to classify the larger sites as Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects, thereby altering the approval process through the transfer of responsibility to the Planning Inspectorate.

NPSNN distinguishes between SRFI and RFI as follows:
Section 2.43 states that “Rail Freight Interchanges (RFI) enable freight to be transferred between transport modes, thus allowing rail to be used to best effect to undertake the long-haul primary trunk journey, with other modes (usually road) providing the secondary (final delivery) leg of the journey.”

Section 2.44 states that “The aim of a strategic rail freight interchange (SRFI) is to optimise the use of rail in the freight journey by maximising rail trunk haul and minimising some elements of the secondary distribution leg by road, through the co-location of other distribution and freight activities. SRFIs are a key element in reducing the cost to users of moving freight by rail and are important in facilitating the transfer of freight from road to rail, thereby reducing trip mileage of freight movements on both the national and local freight networks.”

I suggest that the differences between the two paragraphs above provide for a series of critical tests as to whether any of the four proposals will indeed function as an SRFI, viz:
• Is the use of rail freight optimised?
• Has rail trunk haul been maximised, e.g. in comparison to alternative sites?
• What elements of secondary distribution have been minimised?
• Is the proposal likely to reduce the cost to users of moving freight by rail?
• Will trip mileage of freight movements on both the national and local freight networks be reduced by the proposal?

I would further contend that the Developer should provide evidence, based on a full analysis of current and future freight flows, of the effect that the proposal would have towards meeting the stated aim of SRFI, as stated in the NPSNN.

In my view, the Developer’s analysis of Needs and Alternatives should also assess each alternative site against the site’s ability to meet the aims of SRFI policy, as set out in the NPSNN.
However, this is merely my view. Can you therefore please clarify the standard tests that the Planning Inspectorate would apply? Is there, perhaps, a need to issue a formal guidance note on this matter?
As you note, s26 of the Planning Act 2008 sets at number of conditions which must be met for a rail freight interchange threshold to be a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project for the purposes of that Act. Assessment principles are set out in the National Networks National Policy Statement (NPSNN) but there is no standard test which The Planning Inspectorate applies as to whether a proposed development would function as a strategic rail freight interchange. The Planning Inspectorate does not have any plans to produce guidance on this matter.

Paragraphs 2.43 and 2.44 of NPSNN have not been considered by the Courts and there is no authoritative legal interpretation of this on which one can rely. Clarification/ interpretation of Government policy does not fall within the remit of the Planning Inspectorate and therefore we are unable to advise you in this matter further, however if you wish to pursue the matter further we would advise you to contact the Department for Transport (DfT) with your query.

14 July 2017
Andrew Gough
General
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Compilation of advice relating to section 53 of the Planning Act 2008.
Please see attached Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) document.

13 July 2017
General - anon.
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached meeting note

13 July 2017
Scottish Power Renewables - anon.
East Anglia ONE North Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached meeting note

13 July 2017
Scottish Power Renewables - anon.
East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
(In your previous response) you refer to my local council. To date, having emailed Mr Richard Price (N Norfolk District Council) I have received no reply. I wish to register the ambivalence shown by the local council and the ambivalence of Norman Lamb MP who wrote a general letter taking no position on the issues other than platitudes. To whom does one now refer my concerns as a citizen?
As the project has not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate (the Inspectorate), we have no formal powers to intervene on consultees behalf. I would therefore encourage you to contact the developer directly to make your concerns heard as the Applicant has a statutory duty to take your views into account. I note that you have already contacted your local authority however, if you feel your views are not being taken into account by the developer I would advise you to write to your local authority again and set out why you think the Applicant is failing to conduct its consultation properly. Your comments should be taken into account when the local authority sends the Inspectorate its comments on whether the Applicant has fulfilled its consultation duties. The local authority’s comments on the Applicant’s consultation will be taken into account when the Acceptance Inspector makes their decision whether to accept the application for Examination.

A copy of your correspondence has been placed on our records and will be presented to the Inspector at Acceptance, together with the application documents and local authorities’ comments on the Applicant’s consultation.

After the decision has been made regarding whether to accept the application for Examination, your email will be published on our website together with all documents used to inform the decision.

If the application for development consent is formally accepted you will be able to submit your views in relation to the project which will be considered by the Examining Authority during the Examination.

The Inspectorate has published a series of advice notes which explain the Examination process, including information on how to get involved; of particular interest are advice notes 8.1 to 8.5. These are available at: [attachment 1].

12 July 2017
Katie Taylor
Norfolk Vanguard
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I am writing to let you know that I am most unhappy regarding the resent Consultations regarding the re-opening of the former Manston Airport - I strongly object on the grounds of noise and /or air pollution.

I have lived in my present home for over 30 years and I am under the flight path - when the airport was previously used there were very few flights and night flights were very few and far between but they did wake me up. I am extremely concerned that were the airport to re-open my health and well being will be compromised. Not to mention the value of my property would fall which would mean I would be unable to move should I wish to do so - which I do not.

I also feel that the manner in which some of the consultations have been conducted have been less than professional.

At these Consultations it would appear that:

1. No-one could tell what the procedure for compensation to residents for loss of value to homes would be.

2. My understanding is that additional presentations were added to the timetable of RSP events, yet when RSP were requested to have an additional event in Ramsgate they refused. Ramsgate was one of the areas where the Consultation was 2 hours shorter then many other areas.

3. Contradictory advice given during the consultations regarding the need for night flights.

4. RSP's failure to describe the proposal accurately.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider objections to a proposal at the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) process. For information about when and how to register as an Interested Party in the Examination (if an application is submitted and the Secretary of State decides that it is of a satisfactory standard to be examined), please see Advice Note Eight here: [attachment 1]

There is also no mechanism through which the Planning Inspectorate can influence an Applicant’s consultation at the Pre-application stage of the PA2008 process.

If you have not done so already, please provide your comments to the Applicant and your local authority. Local authorities have a special role in the PA2008 process, which I explain in the content of this advice.

The PA2008 places a number of duties on Applicants in respect of Pre-application consultation and all applications for development consent must be accompanied by a ‘Consultation Report’. The Consultation Report is prepared under section 37 of the PA2008 and must give details of:

a) what has been done in compliance with sections 42, 47 and 48 of the PA2008 in relation to an application;
b) any relevant responses; and
c) the account taken of any relevant responses.

In the Acceptance period (ie the 28 days following the formal submission of an application) the Planning Inspectorate will scrutinise all of the application documents, including the evidence provided in the Consultation Report, applying the statutory tests set out in s55 of the PA2008. By the end of the Acceptance period the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) must decide, in accordance with the tests in s55 of the PA2008, whether or not an application is of a satisfactory standard to be examined.

In reaching the above decision, s55(4) makes explicit that the Planning Inspectorate must have regard to the Consultation Report and any Adequacy of Consultation Representations made by local authority consultees. Adequacy of Consultation Representations are defined by s55(5) of the PA2008 as representations about whether the applicant complied with its duties under sections 42, 47 and 48. They are requested from all relevant local authorities on receipt of an application for development consent.

To that end, in providing your comments to your local authority they may be considered in the Council’s preparation of its Adequacy of Consultation Representation; if an application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate.

In respect of night flights, the Planning Inspectorate has access to the same information as the local community and statutory consultees ie the Applicant’s Scoping Report states at paragraph 11.6.10 that “The airport will be operational during the day and may be operational to some extent at night. The noise generated due to this activity may give rise to potentially significant effects”. If night flights are proposed for the airport, the likely significant effects will need to be assessed by the Applicant as part of its Environmental Impact Assessment and presented in the Environmental Statement.

In respect of compensation claims, please refer to extant advice available here: [attachment 2];ipcadvice=ca9c9502cf

The Planning Inspectorate's Scoping Opinion at paragraphs 2.34 through 2.51 provided advice to the Applicant in respect of the description of the proposed development: [attachment 3]

12 July 2017
Rita Burns
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
The enquirer expressed concern about the Applicant's Pre-application community consultation. The Applicant had provided contradictory information about the potential for night flights.
There is also no mechanism through which the Planning Inspectorate can influence an Applicant’s consultation at the Pre-application stage of the PA2008 process.

I note that you have copied your comments to the Applicant and your local authority. These are the correct channels for making comments about an application at the Pre-application stage of the process.

Local authorities have a special role in the PA2008 process, which I explain in the content of this advice.

The PA2008 places a number of duties on Applicants in respect of Pre-application consultation and all applications for development consent must be accompanied by a ‘Consultation Report’. The Consultation Report is prepared under section 37 of the PA2008 and must give details of:

a) what has been done in compliance with sections 42, 47 and 48 of the PA2008 in relation to an application;
b) any relevant responses; and
c) the account taken of any relevant responses.

In the Acceptance period (ie the 28 days following the formal submission of an application) the Planning Inspectorate will scrutinise all of the application documents, including the evidence provided in the Consultation Report, applying the statutory tests set out in s55 of the PA2008. By the end of the Acceptance period the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) must decide, in accordance with the tests in s55 of the PA2008, whether or not an application is of a satisfactory standard to be examined.

In reaching the above decision, s55(4) makes explicit that the Planning Inspectorate must have regard to the Consultation Report and any Adequacy of Consultation Representations made by local authority consultees. Adequacy of Consultation Representations are defined by s55(5) of the PA2008 as representations about whether the applicant complied with its duties under sections 42, 47 and 48. They are requested from all relevant local authorities on receipt of an application for development consent.

To that end, in providing your comments to your local authority they may be considered in the Council’s preparation of its Adequacy of Consultation Representation; if an application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate.

In respect of night flights, the Planning Inspectorate has access to the same information as the local community and statutory consultees ie the Applicant’s Scoping Report states at paragraph 11.6.10 that “The airport will be operational during the day and may be operational to some extent at night. The noise generated due to this activity may give rise to potentially significant effects”. If night flights are proposed for the airport, the likely significant effects will need to be assessed by the Applicant as part of its Environmental Impact Assessment and presented in the Environmental Statement.

12 July 2017
Jane Hetherington
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Do PINS hold a breakdown of approximate required compensation amounts and is this in the public domain?

At what point in the DCO application does the applicant have to show pins evidence of funding adequacy?

What form would this evidence need to take?

Would this evidence be presented to the public in a transparent way?
As explained in my previous response to you, claims and any associated amount of compensation would be something for the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) to consider. It is not within the remit of the Planning Inspectorate to comment in this regard.

The Department for Communities and Local Government has published guidance on the procedures for Compulsory Acquisition (CA): [attachment 1]

In respect of the resource implications for a Proposed Development, the requirements placed on Applicants are explained in paragraphs 17 and 18 of that guidance. In short an Application for a DCO that would authorise CA must be accompanied by a Funding Statement which should demonstrate that adequate funding is likely to be available to enable the CA within the statutory period following the DCO being made, and that the resource implications of a possible acquisition resulting from a blight notice have been taken account of. The Funding Statement would be published to the Planning Inspectorate’s website alongside the rest of the application documentation.

There are many examples of Funding Statements associated with other submitted applications available to view on the Planning Inspectorate’s website: [attachment 2]

12 July 2017
Michael Child
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Mr Owen expressed a number of concerns in respect of the Applicant's Pre-application community consultation and stated his objection to the Proposed Development.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider objections to a proposal at the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) process. For information about when and how to register as an Interested Party in the Examination (if an application is submitted and the Secretary of State decides that it is of a satisfactory standard to be examined), please see Advice Note Eight here: [attachment 1]

There is also no mechanism through which the Planning Inspectorate can influence an Applicant’s consultation at the Pre-application stage of the PA2008 process.

I note that you have copied your comments to the Applicant and your local authority. These are the correct channels for making comments about an application at the Pre-application stage of the process.

Local authorities have a special role in the PA2008 process, which I explain in the content of this advice.

The PA2008 places a number of duties on Applicants in respect of Pre-application consultation and all applications for development consent must be accompanied by a ‘Consultation Report’. The Consultation Report is prepared under section 37 of the PA2008 and must give details of:

a) what has been done in compliance with sections 42, 47 and 48 of the PA2008 in relation to an application;
b) any relevant responses; and
c) the account taken of any relevant responses.

In the Acceptance period (ie the 28 days following the formal submission of an application) the Planning Inspectorate will scrutinise all of the application documents, including the evidence provided in the Consultation Report, applying the statutory tests set out in s55 of the PA2008. By the end of the Acceptance period the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) must decide, in accordance with the tests in s55 of the PA2008, whether or not an application is of a satisfactory standard to be examined.

In reaching the above decision, s55(4) makes explicit that the Planning Inspectorate must have regard to the Consultation Report and any Adequacy of Consultation Representations made by local authority consultees. Adequacy of Consultation Representations are defined by s55(5) of the PA2008 as representations about whether the applicant complied with its duties under sections 42, 47 and 48. They are requested from all relevant local authorities on receipt of an application for development consent.

To that end, in providing your comments to your local authority they may be considered in the Council’s preparation of its Adequacy of Consultation Representation; if an application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate.

In respect of night flights, the Planning Inspectorate has access to the same information as the local community and statutory consultees ie the Applicant’s Scoping Report states at paragraph 11.6.10 that “The airport will be operational during the day and may be operational to some extent at night. The noise generated due to this activity may give rise to potentially significant effects”. If night flights are proposed for the airport, the likely significant effects will need to be assessed by the Applicant as part of its Environmental Impact Assessment and presented in the Environmental Statement.

12 July 2017
Keith Owen
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I am writing in response to RSP’s recent Consultation event held in Ramsgate

I was dismayed that people in Ramsgate were not contacted by RSP informing them of the consultation taking despite living directly under the flightpath. Whereas for example people in Chislet and Birchington (neither nowhere as close to the flightpath as central Ramsgate) received personal letters inviting them to attend a presentation/consultation. Was this a ploy to limit the number of objectors I wonder? Instead, Ramsgate residents were left to find out by either the local paper or social media.

During the consultation taking place in Ramsgate I was given conflicting answers as to whether night flights were happening. One consultant said they were not, and had only been included in the report because PINS demanded it. However another consultant said that they might be necessary and a third one said that the flightpath would be altered so that most planes coming in at night would come in from the west (not possible as this would fly in the face of the conventional practice of flying into prevailing winds). The lack of noise contours for Ramsgate worried me a great deal. It appears no consideration has been given to the impact of noise on Ramsgate residents.

No-one could tell what the procedure for compensation to residents for loss of value to homes would be.

Job claims of 30000 jobs in the East Kent economy are laughable and when I challenged a consultant, they admitted the figure was untrue.

What I am trying to convey to you is that the proposal appears to be vague, or else downright untrue and lacking precise information what the impact of a cargo hub would mean for myself and local residents.
Please refer to extant advice about how the Applicant’s Pre-application consultation will be tested if an application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate: [attachment 1];ipcadvice=29f763ff4a

In respect of night flights, the Planning Inspectorate has access to the same information as the local community and statutory consultees ie the Applicant’s Scoping Report states at paragraph 11.6.10 that “The airport will be operational during the day and may be operational to some extent at night. The noise generated due to this activity may give rise to potentially significant effects”. If night flights are proposed for the airport, the likely significant effects will need to be assessed by the Applicant as part of its Environmental Impact Assessment and presented in the Environmental Statement.

In respect of claims for compensation, this is a matter dealt with outside of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) process. Matters of financial compensation do not fall to be considered during the scope of the Examination which is limited to the consideration of whether the proposed Compulsory Acquisition powers meet the tests set out in the PA2008. Broadly such claims can be made by persons or organisations whose land or whose rights in land could be affected by a Proposed Development. Their land or rights may not be subject to Compulsory Acquisition powers sought in an application or indeed be within the land to which an application relates, but they may have a right to compensation under either Part 1 of the Land Compensation Act 1973, s10 of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 or s152 of the PA2008, if their land or interest is affected by the development.

The issue of compensation could arise in the event that development consent is granted, and the Applicant implements the Development Consent Order (DCO). As these matters are governed by the relevant compulsory purchase legislation (see above), the claim and any associated amount of compensation may be something for the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) to consider. However, the adequacy of funding to meet any likely future compensation liabilities arising from the implementation of a DCO, and any mechanisms proposed by the applicant to secure the funding, are issues which would be considered by the Examining Authority as part of an Examination.

11 July 2017
H Frencken
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I have several specific concerns about the hopelessly inadequate consultation process conducted by the RSP company in relation to their attempt to submit a DCO for the site of the former airport at Manston in East Kent. I have noted that the Planning Inspectorate has directed others with serious concerns to address those concerns to the local Council. This seems somewhat bizarre as the purpose of the DCO is to bypass the local Council. They have not been involved in the process at all and the pro-airport campaign groups have been keen to tell everyone that the Council has no role.

I have tried to contact the Leader of the Council to ask him whether the Council will be collating and reporting complaints about the consultation process but he has not responded to me. Can the Planning Inspectorate confirm that the Council is under a statutory duty to collate people's complaints and to report them back to the Planning Inspectorate?
The purpose of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) process is not to ‘bypass local authorities’. Local authorities have a special role which is summarised in a video at the bottom of the following page on our website: [attachment 1]

Our ‘Advice note two: The role of local authorities in the development consent process’ provides more detail in this regard: [attachment 2]

The Planning Inspectorate has advised you previously about how it will test whether an Applicant has satisfied its Pre-application duties. That advice introduced the role of Adequacy of Consultation Representations from local authorities: [attachment 3];ipcadvice=db5e2f7e0d

There is no statutory duty under the PA2008 for relevant local authorities to ‘collate and report complaints’ to the Planning Inspectorate; but where an Adequacy of Consultation Representation is received the Planning Inspectorate must have regard to it (or them) in making its decision about whether an application is of a satisfactory standard to proceed to be examined.

11 July 2017
Peter Binding
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I recently attended the RSP’S consultation in Ramsgate, and am now asking you, if it could be re-held. And this time in a more professional manner.

I was expecting a presentation, and then an opportunity for the audience to ask questions and get real answers.

Instead we were confronted with a farce:

A room full of RSP representatives, who had clearly not all been briefed on what the answers to key questions should be, prior to the meeting. Therefore on the question of Night Flights, the answers were conflicting.

No information on the noise levels over Ramsgate, was available, as apparently It is not ready yet. Surely this should be a key content of the presentation.

The main wall had a large map of Manston, and its surrounding area, but did not include most of Ramsgate. Yet the maps showing the planned flight paths over Ramsgate and Herne Bay, (attached) were A3 sheets tucked way in a corner. These should have been at the centre of the consultation.

Apparently all the documents available for inspecting, on one side of the room, were still only drafts. So still 'work in progress', and therefore changeable.

By the time I heard from one visitor, that the runway on the architectural model at the centre of the room, could be facing the wrong way – I was not surprised.

I and many others, live directly under the proposed flight path, and our life's and the value of our properties, will be seriously blighted if this proposed airport happens. Which raises the issue of compensation.

Therefore the fact that I (and many others) received no invitation, and only found out about the meeting, from the local paper, might be due to incompetence, but could also be seen as corrupt.

RSP need to treat the residents of Ramsgate with respect, and re visit the consultation process in a truly transparent and professional manner.
There is no mechanism through which the Planning Inspectorate can influence an Applicant’s consultation at the Pre-application stage of the PA2008 process. The Planning Inspectorate therefore cannot compel an Applicant to re-hold a consultation event.

If you have not done so already, please provide your comments to the Applicant and your local authority. Local authorities have a special role in the PA2008 process, which I explain in the content of this advice.

The PA2008 places a number of duties on Applicants in respect of Pre-application consultation and all applications for development consent must be accompanied by a ‘Consultation Report’. The Consultation Report is prepared under section 37 of the PA2008 and must give details of:

a) what has been done in compliance with sections 42, 47 and 48 of the PA2008 in relation to an application;
b) any relevant responses; and
c) the account taken of any relevant responses.

In the Acceptance period (ie the 28 days following the formal submission of an application) the Planning Inspectorate will scrutinise all of the application documents, including the evidence provided in the Consultation Report, applying the statutory tests set out in s55 of the PA2008. By the end of the Acceptance period the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) must decide, in accordance with the tests in s55 of the PA2008, whether or not an application is of a satisfactory standard to be examined.

In reaching the above decision, s55(4) makes explicit that the Planning Inspectorate must have regard to the Consultation Report and any Adequacy of Consultation Representations made by local authority consultees. Adequacy of Consultation Representations are defined by s55(5) of the PA2008 as representations about whether the applicant complied with its duties under sections 42, 47 and 48. They are requested from all relevant local authorities on receipt of an application for development consent.

To that end, in providing your comments to your local authority they may be considered in the Council’s preparation of its Adequacy of Consultation Representation; if an application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate.

I suspect that the documents made available for inspection by the Applicant at the consultation event comprised its Preliminary Environmental Information (PEI). For Environmental Impact Assessment development (EIA), Applicants are required to consult with the local community about their PEI. Advice about the content of an Applicant’s PEI is provided in our ‘Advice note seven: Preliminary Environmental Information, Screening and Scoping’, available here: [attachment 1]

In respect of night flights, the Planning Inspectorate has access to the same information as the local community and statutory consultees ie the Applicant’s Scoping Report states at paragraph 11.6.10 that “The airport will be operational during the day and may be operational to some extent at night. The noise generated due to this activity may give rise to potentially significant effects”. If night flights are proposed for the airport, the likely significant effects will need to be assessed by the Applicant as part of its EIA and presented in the Environmental Statement.

In respect of compensation claims, please refer to extant advice available here: [attachment 2];ipcadvice=ca9c9502cf

11 July 2017
Judith Castle
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I am a resident of Broadstairs, within the area of Thanet District Council (TDC). I have today learnt that TDC have restricted the consultation with RiverOak to a closed meeting with the Cabinet. The Monitoring Officer has justified this as follows:

"RSP has been undertaking public consultation at various meetings throughout the district as part of the pre-application steps in support of its DCO process. As part of that process, RSP is obliged to consult with Thanet District Council who are the ‘host’ authority for this DCO application. The council welcomes this engagement by RSP as it is something that we initially requested in October 2016. DCO matters (under parts 4 to 8 of the Planning Act 2008) are what is known as ‘executive functions’ which means that the legal authority to deal with these matters rests with the executive and not with Full Council. That is why RSP are being asked to undertake their consultation with the Leader and his Cabinet together with senior council officers and not at a Full Council meeting. Indeed, it would be unlawful for Full Council to deal with this matter, since under the Local Government Act 2000, any function which is the responsibility of an executive of a local authority, may not be discharged by the Full Council, In dealing with this DCO, Thanet District Council is acting in accordance with the Planning Inspectorate guidance. The Planning Inspectorate expect us to ensure delegations are in place and explains that it won’t be possible for the DCO process to be structured around the council’s committee cycles. At Dover District Council for example they delegated all their functions in relation to DCOs to a senior officer in order to enable the council’s functions in relation to Development Consent for Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects to be discharged quickly, effectively and efficiently. Similar arrangements are in place for those local authorities dealing with DCOs in relation to nuclear power generation. Other authorities may be dealing with the matter slightly differently because they are not the ‘host authority’. As ‘host authority’ Thanet District Council are (if the DCO is successful) likely to become responsible for discharging many of the requirements (akin to planning conditions) associated with the project. The council are also likely to have a role in monitoring and enforcing many of the DCO provisions and requirements."

I would be grateful for your guidance in this matter since it does seem to be somewhat at odds with the whole ethos of the consultation process.
It is not within the remit of the Planning Inspectorate to comment on operational aspects of a local authority’s functions.

In respect of the Planning Act 2008 process, local authorities have a special role which is summarised in a video at the bottom of the following page on our website: [attachment 1]

Our ‘Advice note two: The role of local authorities in the development consent process’ provides more detail in this regard: [attachment 2]

The PA2008 sets out the statutory consultation duties place on Applicants, and I refer you to Chapter 2 of the PA2008 in this regard: [attachment 3]

The Department for Communities and Local Government has also published guidance on the Pre-application process: [attachment 4]

For the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) to find that an application is of a satisfactory standard to be examined, it must be satisfied that an Applicant has carried out its Pre-application consultation duties in accordance with the statutory requirements in the PA2008. The tests in this regard are applied in a statutory 28 day ‘Acceptance’ period. More information about the process is available via the first link provided in this response.

11 July 2017
Andrew McCulloch
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
It is being reported on social media that RiverOak Strategic Partners' DCO for the site of the former airport at Manston is guaranteed to succeed because it is being backed by a local MP. Can you confirm this?
If an application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, and if it is subsequently found to be of a satisfactory standard to be examined, an independent and impartial Examining Authority will be appointed to gather evidence and test information during the six month Examination of the application. A recommendation will then be made to the Secretary of State for Transport who must make his/ her decision in accordance with Chapter 5 of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008). More information about the process is available on our website here: [attachment 1]

Anybody can register their interest in an Examination and become an Interested Party (at the appropriate time in the process), and all Interested Parties have the same status in accordance with s102 of the PA2008.

The PA2008 establishes that no individual or organisation (ie Interested Party), politically affiliated or otherwise, is afforded the potential to have more influence over the Examination of an application than another.

11 July 2017
Peter Binding
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
Would an individual homeowner or business proprietor have to claim compensation within specific time scales related to the progress of the DCO application?

Are there other instances of busy airports with a significant airfreight component where the runway approach makes overlying an architectural conservation area unavoidable and if so how was the issue resolved?
In respect of claims for compensation, this is a matter dealt with outside of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) process. Matters of financial compensation do not fall to be considered during the scope of the Examination which is limited to the consideration of whether the proposed Compulsory Acquisition powers meet the tests set out in the PA2008. Broadly such claims can be made by persons or organisations whose land or whose rights in land could be affected by a Proposed Development. Their land or rights may not be subject to Compulsory Acquisition powers sought in an application or indeed be within the land to which an application relates, but they may have a right to compensation under either Part 1 of the Land Compensation Act 1973, s10 of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 or s152 of the PA2008, if their land or interest is affected by the development.

The issue of compensation could arise in the event that development consent is granted, and the Applicant implements the Development Consent Order (DCO). As these matters are governed by the relevant compulsory purchase legislation (see above), the claim and any associated amount of compensation may be something for the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) to consider. However, the adequacy of funding to meet any likely future compensation liabilities arising from the implementation of a DCO, and any mechanisms proposed by the applicant to secure the funding, are issues which would be considered by the Examining Authority as part of an Examination.

There are no precedents for development under s23 of the PA2008, and it is not within the remit of the Planning Inspectorate to comment on the operations of existing airports.

11 July 2017
Michael Child
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
RSP who wish to reopen Manston airport have published a glossy 48 page brochure laying out all their plans for the future development of the site. I believe that RSP have deliberately ignored Ramsgate, the town most affected by their plans. Ramsgate is mentioned only 5 times in the RSP brochure without once addressing the concerns of the population most affected by the flight path.

It appears that RSP have decided that as they cannot explain away the problems that will befall Ramsgate once their airport is running, it is simpler to ignore the people of Ramsgate.

We have not been informed by door to door leafleting, we have not been consulted by holding a public meeting, as held by RSP in Westgate on Sea (a suburb of Margate, not under any flight path). I have no doubt that for these reasons the RSP consultation is greatly flawed and should be rejected as unprofessional.
Please provide your comments to the Applicant and to your local authority. Local authorities have a special role in the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) process, which I explain in the content of this letter.

The PA2008 places a number of duties on Applicants in respect of Pre-application consultation and all applications for development consent must be accompanied by a ‘Consultation Report’. The Consultation Report is prepared under section 37 of the PA2008 and must give details of:

a) what has been done in compliance with sections 42, 47 and 48 of the PA2008 in relation to an application;
b) any relevant responses; and
c) the account taken of any relevant responses.

In the Acceptance period (ie the 28 days following the formal submission of an application) the Planning Inspectorate will scrutinise all of the application documents, including the evidence provided in the Consultation Report, applying the statutory tests set out in s55 of the PA2008. By the end of the Acceptance period the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) must decide, in accordance with the tests in s55 of the PA2008, whether or not an application is of a satisfactory standard to be examined.

In reaching the above decision, s55(4) makes explicit that the Planning Inspectorate must have regard to the Consultation Report and any Adequacy of Consultation Representations made by local authority consultees. Adequacy of Consultation Representations are defined by s55(5) of the PA2008 as representations about whether the applicant complied with its duties under sections 42, 47 and 48. They are requested from all relevant local authorities on receipt of an application for development consent.

To that end, in providing your comments to your local authority they may be considered in the Council’s preparation of its Adequacy of Consultation Representation; if an application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate.

11 July 2017
Col Longmore
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I have several concerns re the recent presentations / consultations mainly that when approached about particulates none of your so called experts appeared to know what they were nor how dangerous and what levels fuel is burnt at when air craft are landing and taking off. Nor could the tell anyone the amount of lorries etc burning diesel so the whole air pollution issue both aircraft and ground based is left unanswered and I understand from different locations different answers were given on the issue.
Compensation about air pollution because it will be an ongoing issue I myself suffer from respiratory problems am in Margate but people directly under the airpath will suffer far more. Noise pollution levels still not covered and as these jets will be far from new they will be more prone to noise pollution. The fleet mentioned in one article I read about were all in excess of twenty year old planes so not only will the be noisier they will bun more aviation fuel levels of which are around one ton per landing and take off. Particulate levels for diesel are strictly measured and these planes if they are that age will be banned from some airports because of air pollution levels, why are they being allowed to land at Manston surely we in Thanet deserve to be on the best level of pollutants not the worst? are we second class citizens?

Other issues are:

- Additional presentations were added to the timetable of RSP events, yet when RSP were requested to have an additional event in Ramsgate they refused.
- Most residents apart from those within the contour map around the airport did not know that a consultation was going to take place. As a result, most residents in Ramsgate who live directly under the flight path and will suffer the most were ignorant of the consultation taking place.
* Residents of Birchington received personal letters from RSP yet people in Ramsgate and Herne Bay did not.
- Contradictory advice given during the consultations regarding the need for night flights.
In copying your comments to the Applicant and local authority, you have pre-empted my advice.

Local authorities have a special role in the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) process, which I explain in the content of this email.

The PA2008 places a number of duties on Applicants in respect of Pre-application consultation and all applications for development consent must be accompanied by a ‘Consultation Report’. The Consultation Report is prepared under section 37 of the PA2008 and must give details of:

a) what has been done in compliance with sections 42, 47 and 48 of the PA2008 in relation to an application;
b) any relevant responses; and
c) the account taken of any relevant responses.

In the Acceptance period (ie the 28 days following the formal submission of an application) the Planning Inspectorate will scrutinise all of the application documents, including the evidence provided in the Consultation Report, applying the statutory tests set out in s55 of the PA2008. By the end of the Acceptance period the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) must decide, in accordance with the tests in s55 of the PA2008, whether or not an application is of a satisfactory standard to be examined.

In reaching the above decision, s55(4) makes explicit that the Planning Inspectorate must have regard to the Consultation Report and any Adequacy of Consultation Representations made by local authority consultees. Adequacy of Consultation Representations are defined by s55(5) of the PA2008 as representations about whether the applicant complied with its duties under sections 42, 47 and 48. They are requested from all relevant local authorities on receipt of an application for development consent.

To that end, in providing your comments to your local authority they may be considered in the Council’s preparation of its Adequacy of Consultation Representation; if an application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate.

In respect of compensation claims, please refer to extant advice available here: [attachment 1];ipcadvice=ca9c9502cf

In respect of night flights, the Planning Inspectorate has access to the same information as the local community and statutory consultees ie the Applicant’s Scoping Report states at paragraph 11.6.10 that “The airport will be operational during the day and may be operational to some extent at night. The noise generated due to this activity may give rise to potentially significant effects”. If night flights are proposed for the airport, the likely significant effects will need to be assessed by the Applicant as part of its EIA and presented in the Environmental Statement.

11 July 2017
Don Wood
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
River Oak Strategic Partnership recently held a consultation in Ramsgate regarding the re-opening of Manston as an airport. The online consultation finishes on 23rd July.

I wish to register a complaint about both the offline and online consultation. The process is flawed.

1. Failure to Notify Affected Residents of the Consultation in Ramsgate - When the airport was operational, planes used to line up at 300 metres over the clock tower in the harbour and descend across the town to runway 28. Those of us living under this flight path should have received written notification from River Oak Strategic Partnership that a consultation was taking place in Ramsgate. We received no notification whatsoever from River Oak of this consultation or the online version. I understand though cannot confirm, that River Oak were advised by Thanet District Council that they needed to notify us of the consultation.

2. Failure to Supply Relevant Information for the Online Consultation - The Master Plan from River Oak does not include any information about Public Safety Zones despite the predicted levels of air traffic showing that they would be necessary. Infratil, the previous owners of the airport, acknowledged that they should have been done in 2006. A PSZ covers the 1 in 100,000 risk area. It is estimated that there are 4,500 homes in Ramsgate that are within this risk contour and three schools - Clarendon Grammar, Christ Church Primary School and Ellington Infant School. They would all suffer planning blight as there is 'a general presumption against new or replacement development or changes of use of existing buildings within a Public Safety Zone' (DfT Circular 1/2010). Some properties will fall within the 1 in 10,000 contour. 'The Secretary of State wishes to see the emptying of all occupied residential properties, and of all commercial and industrial properties occupied as normal all-day workplaces, within the 1 in 10,000 individual risk contour' (DfT Circular 1/2010) This contour would include the residential streets - Kirkstone, Whinfell, Drybeck, Kentmere and part of Windemere Avenue. These residents would need to be moved out of their homes.
There is no mechanism through which the Planning Inspectorate can influence an Applicant’s consultation at the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) process.

Please provide your comments to the Applicant and to your local authority. Local authorities have a special role in the PA2008 process, which I explain in the content of this advice.

The PA2008 places a number of duties on Applicants in respect of Pre-application consultation and all applications for development consent must be accompanied by a ‘Consultation Report’. The Consultation Report is prepared under section 37 of the PA2008 and must give details of:

a) what has been done in compliance with sections 42, 47 and 48 of the PA2008 in relation to an application;
b) any relevant responses; and
c) the account taken of any relevant responses.

In the Acceptance period (ie the 28 days following the formal submission of an application) the Planning Inspectorate will scrutinise all of the application documents, including the evidence provided in the Consultation Report, applying the statutory tests set out in s55 of the PA2008. By the end of the Acceptance period the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) must decide, in accordance with the tests in s55 of the PA2008, whether or not an application is of a satisfactory standard to be examined.

In reaching the above decision, s55(4) makes explicit that the Planning Inspectorate must have regard to the Consultation Report and any Adequacy of Consultation Representations made by local authority consultees. Adequacy of Consultation Representations are defined by s55(5) of the PA2008 as representations about whether the applicant complied with its duties under sections 42, 47 and 48. They are requested from all relevant local authorities on receipt of an application for development consent.

To that end, in providing your comments to your local authority they may be considered in the Council’s preparation of its Adequacy of Consultation Representation; if an application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate.

10 July 2017
Janet Davies
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer expressed a number of concerns in respect of RSP's Pre-application community consultation.
There is no mechanism through which the Planning Inspectorate can influence an Applicant’s consultation at the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) process.

To that end it is appropriate that you to have sent your comments to the Applicant and to the host local authority. Local authorities have a special role in the PA2008 process, which I explain in the content of this advice.

The PA2008 places a number of duties on Applicants in respect of Pre-application consultation and all applications for development consent must be accompanied by a ‘Consultation Report’. The Consultation Report is prepared under section 37 of the PA2008 and must give details of:

a) what has been done in compliance with sections 42, 47 and 48 of the PA2008 in relation to an application;
b) any relevant responses; and
c) the account taken of any relevant responses.

In the Acceptance period (ie the 28 days following the formal submission of an application) the Planning Inspectorate will scrutinise all of the application documents, including the evidence provided in the Consultation Report, applying the statutory tests set out in s55 of the PA2008. By the end of the Acceptance period the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) must decide, in accordance with the tests in s55 of the PA2008, whether or not an application is of a satisfactory standard to be examined.

In reaching the above decision, s55(4) makes explicit that the Planning Inspectorate must have regard to the Consultation Report and any Adequacy of Consultation Representations made by local authority consultees. Adequacy of Consultation Representations are defined by s55(5) of the PA2008 as representations about whether the applicant complied with its duties under sections 42, 47 and 48. They are requested from all relevant local authorities on receipt of an application for development consent.

To that end, in providing your comments to your local authority they may be considered in the Council’s preparation of its Adequacy of Consultation Representation; if an application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate.

If an application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate and subsequently found to be of a satisfactory standard, the merits of the Proposed Development will be tested by an appointed Examining Authority in accordance with s104 or s105 of the PA2008. The Planning Inspectorate’s Advice Note Eight explains the Examination process and how to have your say: [attachment 1]

10 July 2017
Diane Cleak
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
As a long time resident of the town of Ramsgate and having lived under the flight path of the previous commercial airport at Manston I would like to register my objection to any plan to reopen the airport as I believe it will affect both my health and my wealth. Health through lack of sleep and air pollution. My wealth through the damage it will do to the value of my home.

RSP who wish to reopen the airport have published a glossy 48 page brochure laying out all their plans for the future development. This brochure, which was made available only to those who knew of or could attend one of their consultation meeting, makes very interesting reading not for what it says but for what it does not say.

• The population of Ramsgate is 40,000.
• The flight path is directly over Ramsgate.
• The end of the runway is half a mile from the edge of Ramsgate.
• The RSP brochure mentions Ramsgate 5 times in 48 pages.

Now you may think there is nothing strange there but let me assure you that under any other planning application of this significance the town and population of Ramsgate by the simple fact of their location would be the only matter under discussion. It appears that RSP have decided that as they cannot explain away the problems that will befall Ramsgate once their airport is running, they are simply pretending that Ramsgate does not exist!

We have not been informed by door to door leafleting, we have not been consulted by holding a public meeting, as held by RSP in Westgate on Sea (a suburb of Margate, not under any flight path). There is in my mind a high degree of deceitfulness by RSP here and it should not be tolerated for a moment.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider objections to a proposal at the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) process. For information about when and how to register as an Interested Party in the Examination (if an application is submitted and the Secretary of State decides that it is of a satisfactory standard to be examined), please see Advice Note Eight here: [attachment 1]

There is also no mechanism through which the Planning Inspectorate can influence an Applicant’s consultation at the Pre-application stage of the PA2008 process.

Please provide your comments to the Applicant and to your local authority. Local authorities have a special role in the PA2008 process, which I explain in the content of this advice.

The PA2008 places a number of duties on Applicants in respect of Pre-application consultation and all applications for development consent must be accompanied by a ‘Consultation Report’. The Consultation Report is prepared under section 37 of the PA2008 and must give details of:

a) what has been done in compliance with sections 42, 47 and 48 of the PA2008 in relation to an application;
b) any relevant responses; and
c) the account taken of any relevant responses.

In the Acceptance period (ie the 28 days following the formal submission of an application) the Planning Inspectorate will scrutinise all of the application documents, including the evidence provided in the Consultation Report, applying the statutory tests set out in s55 of the PA2008. By the end of the Acceptance period the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) must decide, in accordance with the tests in s55 of the PA2008, whether or not an application is of a satisfactory standard to be examined.

In reaching the above decision, s55(4) makes explicit that the Planning Inspectorate must have regard to the Consultation Report and any Adequacy of Consultation Representations made by local authority consultees. Adequacy of Consultation Representations are defined by s55(5) of the PA2008 as representations about whether the applicant complied with its duties under sections 42, 47 and 48. They are requested from all relevant local authorities on receipt of an application for development consent.

To that end, in providing your comments to your local authority they may be considered in the Council’s preparation of its Adequacy of Consultation Representation; if an application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate.

10 July 2017
Col Longmore
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
1. RSP have not followed the legislation laid down in the Planning Act 2008 and that because the document fails to identify the flight path and as a consequence which areas will be affected directly by in-coming and out going aircraft, it has attempted to mislead and avoid informing those residents that would have their lives seriously blighted and property drastically devalued. I am one of those residents and have received no information, other than by word of mouth.

2.The Consultation Overview Report relies on a 'desk study' which has restricted the impact of an airport and associated activities, primary to the site and does not seriously explore the impact of aircraft along any flight path including the land below and airspace. The report in my opinion is seriously flawed and as you can see I have requested additional information in relation to details within the report which do not seem to have been appropriately evidence based or referenced. In short, there is too much opinion and not enough fact.

As a result, I do not feel they have appropriately applied the Planning Act 2008 or the Land Compensation Act 1973 and would therefor request that the planning inspectorate takes a 'long hard look' at the RSP DCO application.
There is no mechanism through which the Planning Inspectorate can influence an Applicant’s consultation at the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) process.

To that end it is appropriate that you to have sent your comments to the Applicant and to the host local authorities. Local authorities have a special role in the PA2008 process, which I explain in the content of this advice.

The PA2008 places a number of duties on Applicants in respect of Pre-application consultation and all applications for development consent must be accompanied by a ‘Consultation Report’. The Consultation Report is prepared under section 37 of the PA2008 and must give details of:

a) what has been done in compliance with sections 42, 47 and 48 of the PA2008 in relation to an application;
b) any relevant responses; and
c) the account taken of any relevant responses.

In the Acceptance period (ie the 28 days following the formal submission of an application) the Planning Inspectorate will scrutinise all of the application documents, including the evidence provided in the Consultation Report, applying the statutory tests set out in s55 of the PA2008. By the end of the Acceptance period the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) must decide, in accordance with the tests in s55 of the PA2008, whether or not an application is of a satisfactory standard to be examined.

In reaching the above decision, s55(4) makes explicit that the Planning Inspectorate must have regard to the Consultation Report and any Adequacy of Consultation Representations made by local authority consultees. Adequacy of Consultation Representations are defined by s55(5) of the PA2008 as representations about whether the applicant complied with its duties under sections 42, 47 and 48. They are requested from all relevant local authorities on receipt of an application for development consent.

To that end, in providing your comments to your local authority they may be considered in the Council’s preparation of its Adequacy of Consultation Representation; if an application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate.

If an application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate and subsequently found to be of a satisfactory standard, the merits of the Proposed Development will be tested by an appointed Examining Authority in accordance with s104 or s105 of the PA2008. Advice Note Eight, and link to which was provided previously, explains the Examination process and how to have your say.

10 July 2017
Becky Wing
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer expressed concern about the lack of consultation events offered in Ramsgate about the proposed reopening of Manston Airport.

1. Failure to notify affected residents:

During the time that the airport was operational, cargo planes would line up over Ramsgate Harbour and descend over the town towards the runway. We who live under this flight path should have received written notification that River Oak Strategic Partnership were planning to hold a consultation event in Ramsgate. A very few people in this area, mainly those who live within a short distance of the perimeter of the airport, were sent leaflets about this consultation. The residents of Birchington also received personal letters from RSP, yet the populations of Herne Bay and Ramsgate, who will live directly under the flight path, were not. We only found out from the local paper (which has a low circulation) or from Facebook.

2. Failure to supply relevant information:

The RSP plan does not include any information regarding Public Safety Zones. I understand there are some 4-5,000 homes in Ramsgate and 3 schools situated within the risk area, as well as Pegwell Bay and Sandwich Bay National Nature Reserves. Different consultants at the Ramsgate consultation offered different advice as to flight paths, number of flights, etc. One said the flight paths were not decided - however, unless RSP plan to turn the runway around, I cannot see how the flight path would not pass directly over Ramsgate, at an admitted height of around 600 feet. Another consultant claimed night flights "were only included in the documentation because the CAA require it" and that they had no intention of having night flights. I have no idea how a freight-based airport could possibly be successful unless it offered night flights, particularly one stuck in the south-easternmost corner of England. The last time the airport was operational and Thanet District Council conducted a survey about potential night flights, 73% of Ramsgate residents were opposed to them. The claims as to the number of jobs created are also farcical.

Please be aware that I am strongly opposed to this proposed scheme.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider objections to a proposal at the Pre-application stage of the PA2008 process. For information about when and how to register as an Interested Party in the Examination (if an application is submitted and the Secretary of State decides that it is of a satisfactory standard to be examined), please see Advice Note Eight here: [attachment 1]

There is also no mechanism through which the Planning Inspectorate can influence an Applicant’s consultation at the Pre-application stage of the PA2008 process.

Please provide your comments to the Applicant if you have not done so already. I note you have copied-in Thanet District Council. Local authorities have a special role in the PA2008 process, which I explain in the content of this advice.

The PA2008 places a number of duties on Applicants in respect of Pre-application consultation and all applications for development consent must be accompanied by a ‘Consultation Report’. The Consultation Report is prepared under section 37 of the PA2008 and must give details of:

a) what has been done in compliance with sections 42, 47 and 48 of the PA2008 in relation to an application;
b) any relevant responses; and
c) the account taken of any relevant responses.

In the Acceptance period (ie the 28 days following the formal submission of an application) the Planning Inspectorate will scrutinise all of the application documents, including the evidence provided in the Consultation Report, applying the statutory tests set out in s55 of the PA2008. By the end of the Acceptance period the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) must decide, in accordance with the tests in s55 of the PA2008, whether or not an application is of a satisfactory standard to be examined.

In reaching the above decision, s55(4) makes explicit that the Planning Inspectorate must have regard to the Consultation Report and any Adequacy of Consultation Representations made by local authority consultees. Adequacy of Consultation Representations are defined by s55(5) of the PA2008 as representations about whether the applicant complied with its duties under sections 42, 47 and 48. They are requested from all relevant local authorities on receipt of an application for development consent.

To that end, in providing your comments to your local authority they may be considered in the Council’s preparation of its Adequacy of Consultation Representation; if an application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate.

10 July 2017
Jane Roberts
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
Para 4.27 states that “All projects should be subject to an options appraisal” but then goes on to say that the appraisal “should consider viable modal alternatives”. The remainder of the paragraph cross refers to paragraphs 3.23 and 3.27 which deal with road and rail schemes and then contains further text which also is only referable to road and rail schemes.

Given that the whole purpose of the SRFI scheme is to provide a modal alternative, and given the exclusive application of the majority of the text in paragraph 4.27 to road and rail schemes (not RFI) we have come to the conclusion that this paragraph is not aimed at schemes such as ours. Accordingly we do not propose to include an options appraisal considering viable modal alternatives in our application documentation.

I would be grateful if you could indicate any disagreement with the above as soon as possible.
It will be for the Secretary of State to decide on basis of the facts of any application in respect of the proposed Northampton Gateway SRFI whether and, if so, to what extent, the appraisal required by paragraph 4.27 of the National Networks NPS is required in respect of that scheme or part of that scheme. If the applicant considers that it does not apply in the case of that scheme then it should set out its reasoning clearly in its consideration of the policy context of the scheme. You will no doubt be aware of how the Secretary of State considered para. 4.27 in the case of the East Midlands Gateway Rail Freight Interchange but will understand that that reasoning was based on the specific facts of that application.

Paragraph 4.27 of NPSNN has not been considered by the Courts and there is no authoritative legal interpretation of this on which one can rely. Clarification/ interpretation of Government policy does not fall within the remit of the Planning Inspectorate and therefore we are unable to advise you in this matter further, however if you wish to pursue the matter further we would advise you to contact the Department for Transport (DfT) with your query.

10 July 2017
Eversheds Sutherland - Morag Thomson
Northampton Gateway Rail Freight Interchange
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Please see attached meeting note
Please see attached meeting note

10 July 2017
SP Manweb - Steven Edwards
Reinforcement to North Shropshire Electricity Distribution Network
Enquiry received via email
I would like to express my concern regarding the lack of information provided to Ramsgate residents regarding the consultations. It was only by chance that my husband and I became aware of the consultation event at The Comfort Inn. Surely this cannot be following guidelines?

At the event itself, although there were several River Oak staff present, responses to questions were poor and the attitude of one member of staff that I spoke to could only be described as aggressive and very over-bearing. At a consultation event surely residents are expected to ask questions and query information provided – sadly, rather than getting clear answers, my questions were often deflected by further statements or I was simply referred to various documents.

I also wonder about the lack of information in the consultation about Public Safety Zones (PSZ)? As you will be aware, a PSZ covers the 1 in 100,000 risk area; I believe it is estimated that there are 4,500 homes in Ramsgate that are within this risk area and three schools. As the Secretary of State wishes to see the emptying of all occupied residential properties, and of all commercial and industrial properties occupied as normal all-day workplaces, within the 1 in 10,000 individual risk contour, this has significant implications including for the occupants of the residential streets - Kirkstone, Whinfell, Drybeck, Kentmere and part of Windemere Avenue; these residents could be required to vacate their homes. Given the requirements relating to PSZs, it is particularly alarming that Ramsgate residents were not alerted by mail regarding the consultation and that more information is not available to the general public regarding the implications of the re-opening of the airport at Manston. If people are not fully informed how can they take part appropriately in the consultation process? How and what arrangements can be put in place to ensure the community is in receipt of all the information required?

I shall also be raising my concerns with the Council so that these can be considered in the Council’s preparation of its Adequacy of Consultation Representation.

The redevelopment of an airport at Manston will not only have a detrimental impact for local residents but it is also contrary to the economic regeneration of a tourist area with significant architectural, historic and cultural significance. Alarmingly, there also seems to be little evidence that there is a proper business case establishing the need or the financial viability of such a scheme.
You have pre-empted my advice as you intend to send your written comments to the local authority. If you have not done so already, you should also send them directly to the Applicant.

The Planning Act 2008 places a number of duties on Applicants in respect of Pre-application consultation.

All applications for development consent must be accompanied by a ‘Consultation Report’. The Consultation Report is prepared under section 37 of the Planning Act 2008 and must give details of:

a) what has been done in compliance with sections 42, 47 and 48 of the Planning Act 2008 in relation to a proposed application that has become the application;
b) any relevant responses; and
c) the account taken of any relevant responses.
In the Acceptance period (ie the 28 days following the formal submission of an application) the Planning Inspectorate will scrutinise all of the application documents, including the evidence provided in the Consultation Report, applying the statutory tests set out in s55 of the Planning Act 2008. By the end of the Acceptance period the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) must decide, in accordance with the tests in s55 of the Planning Act 2008, whether or not an application is of a satisfactory standard to be examined. In reaching this decision, s55(4) makes explicit that the Planning Inspectorate must have regard to the Consultation Report and any Adequacy of Consultation Representations made by local authority consultees.

07 July 2017
Lesley Chater
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I am writing a legal dissertation focusing on nationally significant infrastructure projects including related housing developments, under s160 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016.

I was just wondering if there are any applications for NSIPs with related housing currently in existence?

If you have any other information you could offer me about the potential effects of including housing provision within the NSIP planning process, that would be brilliant.
Thank you for your query regarding inclusion of housing in a National Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP) application. There is currently no NSIP application submitted to the Planning Inspectorate that has included housing as a part of the application. Nor are there any projects in the pre-application stage that has included housing as part of the project.

In regards of your second query, the Department for Communities and Local Government issued in March 2017 guidance on including housing in an NSIP application which might be of interest to you.

[attachment 1]

Further information about how many NSIP application the Planning Inspectorate has received and which of those has been approved can be found on the National Infrastructure Planning website under the tab Projects

[attachment 2]

07 July 2017
Katie Excell
General
Enquiry received via post
The enquirer raised concerns about the Applicant's Pre-application community consultation.
In the first instance, I advise for you to provide your comments to the Applicant and to your local authority. Local authorities have a special role in the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) process, which I explain in the content of this letter.

The PA2008 places a number of duties on Applicants in respect of Pre-application consultation and all applications for development consent must be accompanied by a ‘Consultation Report’. The Consultation Report is prepared under section 37 of the PA2008 and must give details of:

a) what has been done in compliance with sections 42, 47 and 48 of the PA2008 in relation to an application;
b) any relevant responses; and
c) the account taken of any relevant responses.

In the Acceptance period (ie the 28 days following the formal submission of an application) the Planning Inspectorate will scrutinise all of the application documents, including the evidence provided in the Consultation Report, applying the statutory tests set out in s55 of the PA2008. By the end of the Acceptance period the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) must decide, in accordance with the tests in s55 of the PA2008, whether or not an application is of a satisfactory standard to be examined.

In reaching the above decision, s55(4) makes explicit that the Planning Inspectorate must have regard to the Consultation Report and any Adequacy of Consultation Representations made by local authority consultees. Adequacy of Consultation Representations are defined by s55(5) of the PA2008 as representations about whether the applicant complied with its duties under sections 42, 47 and 48. They are requested from all relevant local authorities on receipt of an application for development consent.

To that end, in providing your comments to your local authority they may be considered in the Council’s preparation of its Adequacy of Consultation Representation; if an application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate.

07 July 2017
Rupert Allason
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I am writing in response to RSP’s recent Consultation event held in Ramsgate.

Firstly, I’m disappointed in the lack of opportunity presented to the 40000 people in Ramsgate to participate in the Consultation. Although RSP saw fit to directly mail and or leaflet people living within a few hundred yards of the site, such an outreach was not offered to Ramsgate’s population. They were expected to find out by reading a local paper (very poor circulation) or by word of mouth via social media. When I contacted RSP to find out why some dwellings near the site had been contacted directly, I was told:

“With regards to your second point, in order to prepare for our application for a Development Consent Order to rebuild and reopen Manston Airport we are legally required to make a ‘diligent inquiry’ to establish who owns and occupies the land that will be affected by the project.”

The implication is that people who live in Ramsgate, under the flight path, won’t be (in RSP’s) view, affected by the Development.

So the likely impact on Ramsgate and its residents was uppermost on my mind when I visited the Ramsgate Consultation. Which brings me to my second point: I managed to talk to one of the Consultants about the anticipated noise levels over Ramsgate. First, he said that it was not possible to give an answer, because the flight paths were not decided. I pointed out that the map he was standing in front of clearly showed several flight paths, both approaching and departing Ramsgate. I pointed out that there were no noise contours on the map. He explained that because the DCO was in respect of the infrastructure alone, then noise didn’t matter.

Is this in fact the case? That the Consultation is only about the bricks, mortar and concrete, and nothing about the environmental impacts of the operation?

My third point concerns the issue of Night Flights. I managed to talk with [a member of the RSP team]. She assured me that Night Flights were only included in the documentation because the CAA required it. There was no intention to have night flights per se, she said.

This appears to be at odds with Q6 of RSP Consultation Feedback form, which says:

“As part of the development of the project, RiverOak have been exploring the potential impacts and benefits of limited night flights at Manston Airport. Night flights will make Manston Airport even more attractive for air freight and will allow us to explore more opportunities for benefits in the region but come with additional impacts. We have assessed for up to eight flights a night but we have not made a decision about whether to include night flights (or how many) in our application” [[attachment 1]]

So, no night flights or an indeterminate number depending on business opportunities?

I understand that the Consultation is being held under the auspices of the Rochdale Envelope. I looked up a Guidance Note and two things struck me.

“.. taken with those defined parameters of the project, the level of detail of the proposals must be such as to enable a proper assessment of the likely environmental effects, and necessary mitigation - if necessary considering a range of possibilities”

and

“This does not give developers an excuse to provide inadequate descriptions of their projects. It will be for the authority responsible for issuing the development consent to decide whether it is satisfied, given the nature of the project in question, that it has ‘full knowledge’ of its likely significant effects on the environment. If it considers that an unnecessary degree of flexibility, and hence uncertainty as to the likely significant environmental effects, has been incorporated into the description of the development, then it can require more detail, or refuse consent’ (para.95 of the Judgment[sic])” [[attachment 2]]

This is a most unsatisfactory state of affairs. It seems that RSP has written off Ramsgate. They - it can be concluded from their own words - do not consider the town to be affected by the project.
The Consultation was a farce. One consultant was most unsure as to what he was talking about, and, indeed, seemed to be making it up as he went along. [Another consultant's] assertions were at odds with RSP’s own documentation. And Rochdale Envelope or not, how is it possible to make a meaningful response to a consultation when crucially important information on noise impact and night flights is either missing or contradictory?
I respond to your points under three headings.

Land referencing and diligent inquiry (heading)

In respect of land referencing, please refer to previous advice issued in April 2017: [attachment 3];ipcadvice=9fdd259ce9

The process of due diligence also applies to an Applicant’s identification of persons who it thinks, if a DCO was made, would or might be entitled to make a relevant claim under the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965; Part 1 of the Land Compensation Act 1973; or s152(3) of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008). Such persons are referred to as ‘category 3’ interests.

Where a person is not identified by an Applicant to be a category 3 interest who could make a relevant claim, that person is not precluded from making a relevant claim, or from applying to an appointed Examining Authority to become an Interested Party for the purposes of the examination of an application (under s102(A) of the PA2008).

Environmental Impacts Assessment (EIA) methodology (heading)

The Proposed Development is EIA development, and Chapter 11 of the Applicant’s Scoping Report identifies the potential for significant noise effects to arise during construction and operation of the proposed airport. It is available to view here: [attachment 4] In its Scoping Opinion, the Planning Inspectorate stated that noise and vibration effects are a potential main issue and should be included in the Environmental Statement (ES) for the Proposed Development. The Scoping Opinion is available to view here: [attachment 5]

The ES will be a material consideration in the Examination of any application that is made.

In respect of the Applicant’s proposed assessment methodology, the Rochdale Envelope principle is an accepted way of dealing with uncertainty in preparing applications for development consent. The Applicant should make every attempt to narrow the range of options and explain clearly in the ES which elements of the Proposed Development have yet to be finalised and provide the reasons. Where some flexibility is sought and the precise details are not known (eg specific flight paths), the Applicant should assess a worst case scenario based on the maximum likely envelope of potential adverse impacts that the Proposed Development could have. This is to ensure that the full effects of a development as it may be constructed have been properly assessed.

In respect of the Proposed Development, we understand that the Applicant intends to represent the maximum potential adverse impacts through assessing route swathes (see next section).

In respect of night flights, the Planning Inspectorate has access to the same information as the local community and statutory consultees. Together with the excerpt from the feedback form which you provide, the Applicant’s Scoping Report states at paragraph 11.6.10 that “The airport will be operational during the day and may be operational to some extent at night. The noise generated due to this activity may give rise to potentially significant effects”. If night flights are proposed for the airport, the likely significant effects will need to be assessed by the Applicant as part of its EIA and presented in the ES.

We note that Chapter 12 of the Applicant’s Preliminary Environmental Information Report sets out its current understanding of noise effects arising from the Proposed Development and also considers matters such as mitigation and compensation for noise impacts.

The Airspace Change Process (heading)

The Planning Inspectorate attended a process evaluation workshop with the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) and the Applicant on 12 June 2017. The note of the meeting is in the process of being finalised and will published to our website shortly. Appended to it are the slides from a presentation delivered by the Applicant.

The Applicant would be required to redesign the airspace around the airfield in order to make an operational cargo airport viable. Airspace redesign is subject to a separate ‘Airspace Change Process’ (ACP) which is owned by the CAA. From the Applicant’s presentation we understand that the ACP is subject to its own technical environmental assessment requirements (including specific requirements in respect of noise) and consultation processes. We understand that the ACP will require for precise flight paths to be provided to the CAA. These flight paths would be required to fall within the route swathes assessed by the Applicant as part of the EIA associated with the preparation of the application for development consent.

For advice about the ACP and how to make comments on an airspace change proposal, please contact the CAA directly using the appropriate channels.

06 July 2017
James Chappell
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
The enquirer, a local councillor, set out a number of concerns in respect of RiverOak Strategic Partner's community consultation.
Section 47 of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) sets out an applicant’s duties in respect of consulting the local community. Section 47(2) states that before preparing the Statement of Community Consultation (SoCC), the Applicant must consult each host authority about what is to be in the SoCC. Section 47(5) states that in preparing the SoCC, the Applicant must have regard to any responses to consultation under s47(2).

Subsequently, upon the submission of an application the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) has a statutory duty to invite comments from all s43 authorities about whether an Applicant has complied with its duties under ss42, 47 and 48 of the PA2008. Comments received in response are “Adequacy of Consultation Representations”, as defined in s55 of the PA2008. The Planning Inspectorate must have regard to any Adequacy of Consultation Representations in making its decision about whether an application is of a satisfactory standard to be examined.

If you have not already, I would advise for you to share your concerns with the appropriate technical department within Thanet District Council in order that they may be considered in the Council’s preparation of its Adequacy of Consultation Representation; if an application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate.

06 July 2017
Susan Kennedy
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
As I understand all statutory consultees must be informed by the project leaders about the plans.
In the event the statutory consultees refuses to engage, where does this leave the DCO prospects?
The Planning Inspectorate’s Advice Note Eleven explains the framework which governs the involvement of relevant consultees and consenting bodies at each stage in the process and sets out the key principles which the Planning Inspectorate hopes will underpin working arrangements. It is available to view here: [attachment 1]

Different statutory consultees are bound by different obligations in respect of how and when they may respond to the Planning Inspectorate on specific issues. The Planning Inspectorate also has certain powers to compel statutory bodies to provide advice or evidence to it at specific stages of the process.

06 July 2017
Kirrien Wilson
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
I am writing with regards to the recent consultations about a potential cargo hub at the former Manston airport, Kent, and my concerns over the consultation process.

I bought my house two years ago and live at XXXXXXX, which is directly in line with the runway. As the airport was closed, at the time I bought my house, it was not an issue that I live less than 2 miles as the crow flies from the end of the runway, but I was surprised to find out, through a friend, that there were consultations in Thanet about a DCO to create a cargo hub, yet I, as a resident that will be effected greatly, was not notified of this.

I work 6 days a week and could not get to the Ramsgate meeting, instead I went to the Herne Bay one. There I asked several questions. Firstly, why my house / street / ward were not notified that there were consultations about this proposal? I was told, 'I found out anyway, and no one else had complained, it had been on the RSP website'. I didn't find that to be a satisfactory reply to my concerns.

I then asked why the Ramsgate meeting was shorter than the others, and why not the evening? I was informed that they thought that at the weekend most people could make it during the day and that they couldn't book the venue for longer. again, I find that answer wholly unsatisfactory. I have later found out that various areas in Thanet have been added onto the list of venues, and residents written to that do not live under the flight path, how is this deemed as fair?

I then asked about night flights, as cargo generally needs night flights. Two different people answered this question, both with different answers. A gentleman introduced as the business expert explained to me that they had assessed for night flights, but were not sure of they would be needed. When I questioned him further, he explained, that they might be needed as in his research companies wanted to bring in freight at night and that most of the companies that he knew used night flights. Again, pressed on this point, he said that RSP had no cargo companied lined up yet, so this was all in the future and they couldn't comment on it now. Yet, there was no information as to the potential impact on night time flying, the noise it would cause, health problems or so on. I was left with the knowledge that when the companies come and they want night flights, that is the problem that would be sorted out then. At another time, I causally asked another RSP employee about night flights, and was told 'Oh yes, we need them, but only want them to be for passengers', completely at odds with what I was originally told.

I asked about the information being in different languages for other people to access if need be and was told this wasn't necessary.

To not make this proposal accessible, to not notify people in the direct flight path, especially when night flights are a possibility and to give insufficient information at a presentation doesn't seem to me to be adequate as a robust consultation. At one point I was asked if I had been to their earlier consultation, to which I pointed out that I had indeed been to Riveroak's preliminary meeting, but as the company was now RSP, and no longer affiliated with that company I did not see how those two meetings could be linked.

I will be writing this to RSP directly, and I would like to send it to my council too, although I am unsure as to where to email it to. But firstly, as the potential to be the first DCO of an airport in the country I wanted to ask you about this as I feel that RSP have been wholly unprofessional with their format and making the game up as they go along. At the end of the day, this effects people at both ends of the runway and has great implications for schools, residents and so on, so think that a far more thorough process be put in place.
If/ when an application is submitted, the Planning Inspectorate, on behalf of the Secretary of State, has a statutory duty to invite comments from all relevant local authorities (see s43 of the Planning Act 2008) about whether an Applicant has complied with its statutory Pre-application consultation duties (see s42, s47 and s48 of the Planning Act 2008). Responses received are ‘Adequacy of Consultation Representations’.
All applications for development consent must also be accompanied by a ‘Consultation Report’. The Consultation Report is prepared under section 37 of the Planning Act 2008 and must give details of:

a) what has been done in compliance with sections 42, 47 and 48 of the Planning Act 2008 in relation to a proposed application that has become the application;
b) any relevant responses; and
c) the account taken of any relevant responses.

In the Acceptance period (ie the 28 days following the formal submission of an application) the Planning Inspectorate will scrutinise all of the application documents, including the evidence provided in the Consultation Report, applying the statutory tests set out in s55 of the Planning Act 2008. By the end of the Acceptance period the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) must decide, in accordance with the tests in s55 of the Planning Act 2008, whether or not to accept an application for examination. In reaching this decision, s55(4) makes explicit that the Planning Inspectorate must have regard to the Consultation Report and any Adequacy of Consultation Representations made by local authority consultees.

On the basis of the above, I would advise for you to provide your comments to your local authority, copying-in the Applicant. This will enable your local authority to consider your comments in the preparation of its Adequacy of Consultation Representation; if/ when an application for development consent is submitted.

06 July 2017
Ann-Marie Nixey
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
I'm writing with regard to my grave concerns about the consultation process being conducted by River Oak Strategic Partners, or RSP as part of their plans to develop the former Manston airport.

I am a local Ramsgate resident and live directly under what is most likely to be the flightpath. I am absolutely opposed to RSPs plans to re-open Manston airport as a cargo hub, which they have said themselves in their proposal documents may involve night flights - up to eight every night. The noise from these flights would radically disrupt the peace and quiet, and more importantly the sleep of our entire town.

Like most of our 40,000 residents I was not directly consulted about this plan. I received no letter, or indeed any information by post, not even a leaflet containing the most basic information. The first I heard about it was around a week ago when I came across a flyer in a local restaurant by a group opposed to the plans.

By the time I looked into the issue I realised it was too late to attend any of the Ramsgate consultations. I am extremely disappointed at not being given any decent warning about this issue.

Extra meeting dates at other locations were added to the calendar, but when RSP were asked to host another one for Ramsgate they refused.

Residents in Birchington - not directly under the flight path - got personal letters, but Ramsgate resident received nothing. This seems blatantly unfair, and tactical on RSP's part. Clearly Ramsgate residents are being deliberately ignored.

I am a relatively young resident, mobile and connected in terms of media and the web so I hate to think of how in the dark more hard to reach residents - especially older folks, or those with mobility issues - are. I imagine thousands of Ramsgate residents will be poorly informed about RSPs plans and unable to engage with the consultation process. This is totally unacceptable.

I hope this matter will be looked into more. RSP clearly have a very blunt corporate agenda and is deliberately not involving the entire town of Ramsgate in this process because they know that Ramsgate is the largest town within close range of the operations and pose a threat to their plans.

This consultation process should be transparent, open to all and conducted over a reasonable period of time,. So far it has been none of these things. Our town is being ignored in a rush to get the consultation process over and done with, with as little resistance as possible.
If/ when an application is submitted, the Planning Inspectorate, on behalf of the Secretary of State, has a statutory duty to invite comments from all relevant local authorities (see s43 of the Planning Act 2008) about whether an Applicant has complied with its statutory Pre-application consultation duties (see s42, s47 and s48 of the Planning Act 2008). Responses received are ‘Adequacy of Consultation Representations’.

All applications for development consent must be accompanied by a ‘Consultation Report’. The Consultation Report is prepared under section 37 of the Planning Act 2008 and must give details of:

a) what has been done in compliance with sections 42, 47 and 48 of the Planning Act 2008 in relation to a proposed application that has become the application;
b) any relevant responses; and
c) the account taken of any relevant responses.

In the Acceptance period (ie the 28 days following the formal submission of an application) the Planning Inspectorate will scrutinise all of the application documents, including the evidence provided in the Consultation Report, applying the statutory tests set out in s55 of the Planning Act 2008. By the end of the Acceptance period the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) must decide, in accordance with the tests in s55 of the Planning Act 2008, whether or not to accept an application for examination. In reaching this decision, s55(4) makes explicit that the Planning Inspectorate must have regard to the Consultation Report and any Adequacy of Consultation Representations made by local authority consultees.

On the basis of the above, I would advise for you to provide your comments to your local authority, copying-in the Applicant. This will enable your local authority to consider your comments in the preparation of its Adequacy of Consultation Representation; if/ when an application for development consent is submitted.

In respect of the duration of the consultation period, section 45 of the Planning Act 2008 prescribes that an Applicant’s statutory Pre-application consultation must run for a minimum of 28 days. RiverOak Strategic Partners Ltd opened its statutory consultation period on 12 June 2017. The consultation period will close on 23 July 2017, having run for 42 days.

06 July 2017
Whetham Allpress
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
See attached letter dated 6 April 2017
See attached letter dated 6 July 2017

06 July 2017
The Wildlife Trusts - anon.
General
Enquiry received via email
Do you advise that I endeavour to complete the consultation trying to use the existing website or to wait and see if I get some reply from the Applicant or Thanet District Council that results in a website that is navigable, shows whole images and text in the browser and is generally fit for purpose?
I was copied in to this afternoon’s response from Thanet District Council. I hope this provides you with some reassurance about the local authority’s role in considering and making representations about the adequacy of the Applicant’s Pre-application consultation.

Without deflecting from the website problems that you report, the Statement of Community Consultation does include details of other means by which the consultation documentation may be accessed. I understand that these means may not be convenient to you (or other members of the community), but they do provide a channel for you to access the full suite of documents and make a fully informed response to them. Alternatively it may be worth contacting the Applicant to ask for a copy of the consultation documents on CD or USB drive.

05 July 2017
Michael Child
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Observations on
Wylfa Newydd DCO PAC 3, Exhibition Events and Consultation Bus, May/June 2017


1. Potentially material flaws in the Public Notice published 19.05.2017

1.1.1 Horizon Nuclear Power and Hitachi Limited published a Public Notice in The Guardian newspaper on 19th May 2017, regarding their Proposed Application for a Development Consent Order (DCO) for Wylfa Newydd. The Notice stated, in numbered paragraph 3, an intention to submit a DCO Application for a new nuclear power station on Anglesey in the third quarter of 2017. Hitachi intend to install two newly modified UK Advanced Boiling Water Reactor (UK ABWR) design nuclear reactors at Wylfa. It would be the first ever deployment of this reactor design in the UK.

1.1.2 Potentially material flaws may exist in that Public Notice. Six notable flaws are explored below, under numbered subsections and relevant headings.


1.2 Interim storage buildings for radioactive waste and spent fuel

1.2.1 In the first instance, at numbered paragraph 4(a)(ii)(A) of the Public Notice, Horizon-Hitachi have indiscriminately lumped together materially discrete elements of the buildings (purposed with distinctly differing functions) proposed for the storage of nuclear waste at the Wylfa Newydd site.

a. Indecipherable amalgamation of discrete elements in a Public Notice has the effect of obscuring matters of significant public interest, which should otherwise be readily identifiable by the wider public. The Applicants propose the construction of essentially two different types of nuclear waste storage buildings, for distinctly different purposes. In the interest of convenience, the following extracts summarise chapter B14 in PAC 2 Preliminary Environmental Information (dated August 2016).

(i) A primary radioactive waste building, located in or adjacent to the main reactor island, which would be designed to house:

? buffer storage tanks, plus packaging facility for wet-solid Intermediate Level Waste (ILW: Table B14.3);

? spent fuel pool for dry solid High Level Waste (HLW: Table B14.4), and for the spent fuel assemblies periodically discharged from each reactor (Table B14.5);

? facility for packaging HLW into stainless steel canisters, after cooling for 10 years (Table B14.4); and,

? facility for packaging spent fuel assemblies into spent fuel casks, after cooling for 10 years (Table B14.5).

The radioactive waste building would be constructed at the same time as the main reactor island. The radioactive waste building would be emptied following permanent reactor shutdown at the end of planned 60-year reactor operating life span, and decommissioned alongside the twin reactors within 20 years of end of electricity generation by Wylfa Newydd (paragraph B14.70).

(ii) Separately, possibly two interim waste storage buildings, located elsewhere on the Wylfa Newydd site, which would be designed to house:

? ILW storage facility, to receive and hold packaged ILW (Table B14.3);

? HLW decay storage facility, to receive and hold HLW steel canisters (Table B14.4); and,

? spent fuel storage facility, to receive and hold spent fuel casks (Table B14.5).

The construction of interim waste storage buildings would commence after the reactors have started operating, and are expected to become available for use within 5 to 10 years of the twin UK ABWRs starting up at Wylfa Newydd. The interim waste storage buildings would be designed accommodate the entire lifetime inventories of packaged radioactive wastes. The buildings would be designed to be safely operated and maintained for appropriate management of the accumulated radioactive waste and spent fuel inventories for an interim period, while awaiting final removal to a geological disposal facility elsewhere (as and when available). The Applicants envisage interim storage for a further period of up to 140 years, following the end of electricity generation by Wylfa Newydd, until a geological disposal facility becomes available and ready to accept the accumulated radioactive waste inventories. The interim waste storage buildings would be decommissioned only when eventually emptied, in around two centuries’ time.

b. Plainly, on the face of it, lack of clarity on materially discrete significant development elements in a Public Notice risks confusing and misleading the wider public. Clarity and transparency should be paramount in a Public Notice, not something deducible only by the reasonably informed or upon reading through highly complex supporting documents.

c. Considering the circumstance and context in this instance, confusing or misleading information is arguably capable of rendering the Public Notice flawed.

1.2.2 In the second instance, there arises a question over inclusion of interim waste storage facilities in the proposed DCO Application.

a. Given the obvious direct and intimate connection with the main reactor island NSIP, it is plain why the radioactive waste building (paragraph 1.2.1(a)(i) hereof, referring) could be treated as part of a generating station NSIP, and could therefore be included in the proposed DCO Application.

b. However, Horizon-Hitachi would not appear to have identified (in the supporting documents) direct instruction in Government policy, or express requirement under relevant statutory measure, commanding the inclusion of interim waste storage buildings/facilities (paragraph 1.2.1(a)(ii) hereof, referring) in a DCO Application for a nationally significant electricity generating project, the location of facilities in question not withstanding (whether on- or off-site).


1.3 Marine works (cooling water system, marine off-loading facility and breakwater structures)

Numbered paragraph 4(a)(ii)(C) in the Public Notice states categorically that Horizon-Hitachi intend to seek consents for marine works under a DCO. The assertion is repeated at paragraph 1.6.5 in the PAC 3 Main Consultation Document (dated May 2017).

a. On the face of it, the Notice risks misleading the public as to appropriate consents jurisdiction for the marine components. All proposed marine works, including a marine off-loading facility (MOLF), would be situated in tidal waters, demarcated on the landward side by the Mean High Water Spring Tides.

b. Moreover, it is confounding to discover the Applicants’ submission on page 14 of the Overview Document in contradiction of the Public Notice. Namely, these works require separate marine licences from Natural Resources Wales.

c. Apparent failure to distinguish appropriate jurisdictions gives rise to manifest confusion in the public mind and, as such, is capable of rendering the Public Notice flawed.


1.4 Environmental Statement

In numbered paragraph 7, the Public Notice admits environmental impact assessments have still not been completed.

a. Consequently, even at PAC Stage 3, the public are left uninformed as to the full implication of all significant environmental effects, not withstanding Notice paragraph 8 regarding the Preliminary Environmental Information (published during PAC Stage 2).

b. It flouts the fairness principle for it to be acceptable for Horizon-Hitachi to magic final environmental impact assessment reports at the last minute (say, at the time of its formal DCO Application). And, it affronts legitimate public interest expectation. These assessments ought to be fully available amply in advance of a DCO Application. Otherwise, the public are deliberately denied sufficiency of time for proper consideration of complex assessments, at the same time as labouring under the constraints of DCO Examination time limits. While doubtless to the advantage of the Applicants, a drip-drip tactic comprises manifest disservice to the public.

c. In essence, paragraph 7 constitutes little more than a promissory note. It fails to confirm contemporary availability of the environmental statement. At the very least, such failure renders the Public Notice premature. And, may be said capable of tainting the Notice as potentially flawed.


1.5 Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and the designated North Anglesey Heritage Coast: the shoreline at Porth-y-pistyll

Horizon-Hitachi remain conspicuously silent in the Public Notice on direct physical damage, under the proposed DCO Application, to the shoreline sections of the AONB and the associated Heritage Coast designation at Porth-y-pistyll.

a. Given public sensitivity on such impacts, it is puzzling Horizon-Hitachi could not countenance bringing this expressly to public attention in their Public Notice.

b. By virtue of salient omission, the Public Notice may be rendered materially flawed.


1.6 Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI): Tre’r Gof

Horizon-Hitachi have also omitted from the Public Notice reference to risk of long term deterioration, and even complete loss, of the Tre’r Gof SSSI as a result of residual impact of the proposed DCO Application.

a. Information on this potential outcome lies buried in a pithy sentence on page 107 of the Stage 3 Main Consultation Document.

b. Such explicit omission of potentially severe direct risk to the integrity and sustainability of a protected site may be capable of rendering the Public Notice materially flawed.


2. Other deficiency

2.1 Stage 3 Exhibition Events: location, duration and content

2.1.1 There were no events arranged in towns and villages beyond North West Wales, despite numerous invocations of North Wales as a whole in the Overview Document (pages 7, 20, 21, 35, 36 and 39, referring). Horizon-Hitachi restricted all six venues to Anglesey (albeit, appearing twice in Cemaes). Even so, on the day of each event, additional publicity sign posts within reasonable vicinity of the venue were nowhere to be seen, to catch the public’s attention.

2.1.2 With the seven one off events lasting six hours each, is it any wonder Horizon-Hitachi’s enthusiasm for venturing into wide public spaces should seemingly resemble a fly-by-night sales pitch? The Applicants failed yet again to arrange prolonged displays of exhibition panels in prominent public places, in all the principal towns and villages across North Wales, presenting the full scope of information highlighted at paragraph 1.4 in the previous Comment (submitted in response to PAC 2 Community Exhibition Events, dated 13.10.2016).

Having attended one PAC 3 Exhibition Event, Horizon-Hitachi’s Events further warrant inclusion of the following additional display boards, presenting clear information on:

• radioactive waste production, storage packages, storage structures, on-site storage duration, storage risk, and the history of Wales/UK search for a final geological disposal facility;

• major nuclear incident emergency preparedness measures; seasonal wind directions and speeds; and, marine currents around Anglesey and the North Wales coast;

• truncation of an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and the North Anglesey Heritage Coast at Porth-y-pistyll; and,

• the precarious status of the Tre’r Gof Site of Special Scientific Interest, at Wylfa Head on Anglesey.

2.1.3 Anyone visiting the PAC 3 Exhibition Events would have witnessed excessively narrow selective information on large display boards, table maps and schematic landscape graphics on proposed alterations to roadways, the proposed workforce campus, site layout, and the like; as well as a 3-D bird’s eye view flight animation over the A5025 alterations, the proposed Nuclear Power Station layout, and the Wylfa Newydd Development Site.

Horizon-Hitachi did not display any large information boards for the visiting public, showing:

• the sections of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and the North Anglesey Heritage Coast impacted directly by the proposed marine off-loading facility at Porth-y-pistyll;

• modelled degradation states of the Tre’r Gof Site of Special Scientific Interest at Wylfa Head;

• site/area seismology, incidence history, event projections, and outcomes/implications;

• historical extreme weather events at the site, and outcomes;

• extreme weather event projections modelled for the site between the years 2025 and 2225 (based on a 60-year reactor life span, followed by a 140-year on-site radioactive waste storage period), and implications;

• meteorological and marine currents charts modelling footprints of radiation plumes in the event of serious breach in reactor containment, or serious incident in the interim storage facilities for the accumulated inventories of high level radioactive waste and spent fuel discharged from the twin reactors;

• emergency preparedness and public protection measures in the event of serious nuclear incident at Wylfa Newydd;

• indicative site appearance at various stages of reactor decommissioning;

• post construction photomontages of Porth-y-pistyll viewed from the sea; the site viewed from the Porth-y-pistyll coastal footpath; views from Tre’r Gof site; and the like;

• the identity of lead investor and status of any co-investors in the Wylfa Newydd project; the primary reason for reactor choice; the level of guaranteed capital finance currently in hand, and the amount of current shortfall; the status of proposals and certainty of timescales for bridging the shortfall;

• the identity of lead operator and any operating partner(s); the status of arrangements for any proposed operating consortium; and,

• Horizon’s business experience to date in reliably, safely and successfully managing and running any trade or enterprise (small or large), anywhere.


2.2 Stage 3 Consultation Bus and locations

2.2.1 Horizon-Hitachi have resorted to an ice-cream van sized “Consultation” Bus, featuring a customer service style counter on one side of the van, for face time with visitors. The Bus schedule totalled six locations in Anglesey, stopping for three hours each time, save for a five hour stop in Menai Bridge (at the Anglesey Farmers’ Market). The Bus also put in a three-hour appearance each in Bangor (out of town centre Tesco Extra Car Park), Caernarfon (town centre Castle Square) and the Conwy Quay.

a. Other than a novel Consultation stunt, does the duration and number of stops echo anything more than another fly-by-night sales pitch?

b. In any case, the nature and extent of information omission, highlighted in paragraph 2.1.3 hereof, is rendered even more acute in an ice-cream van sized Bus.


2.3 Stage 3 Consultation Overview Document (undated)

2.3.1 Horizon-Hitachi have distributed the Overview Document to public libraries in Anglesey, Conwy and Gwynedd, as well as respective Council Offices in Llangefni, Conwy and Caernarfon, and the Anglesey Business Centre in Llangefni. It was also available at Exhibition Events and from the Consultation Bus. Yet this key document stands out as excessively selective in the information communicated to the public. It omits a number of issues of significance and wide public interest, concerning the Horizon-Hitachi proposal for a new nuclear power station at Wylfa, as illustrated below.

2.3.2 It is disingenuous of Horizon-Hitachi to capitalise selectively on a single waste product from electricity generation. On pages 1 and 7 of the Overview Document, the Applicants boast low carbon electricity generation while patently refusing to headline simultaneously a corollary: high nuclear waste electricity generation by Wylfa Newydd. Horizon-Hitachi appear welded to perpetuating a false comforting headline message: the Hitachi nuclear reactors are low carbon – perfect! No worries!

2.3.3 Not a single structure is identified in the schematic graphic spread across pages 1 and 2.

2.3.4 No depiction whatever of removal of sections of the shoreline AONB and the North Anglesey Heritage Coast in the following graphics:

• the indicative power station site layout, on page 9;

• the existing baseline, on page 42;

• completion of earthworks for unit 2, on page 43; and

• permanent landscape setting, on page 44.

2.3.5 No information is provided on where the pre-constructed modular components for the entire Wylfa Newydd build will be sourced, pre-assembled, or built from scratch (page 10).

2.3.6 No information provided on expected date of application for a marine licence for the MOLF (page 14), or the expected MOLF construction commencement date (page 27).

2.3.7 There is no mention whatever of erasure of the shoreline AONB and the associated North Anglesey Heritage Coast, in the section headlined “Marine Works” on page 14. No sea views either of Porth-y-pistyll, pre- and post- MOLF and other structures.

2.3.8 No indicative illustration (aerial and side elevations) of the decommissioned site after 2085, on page 16. This was curiously also missing from the 3-D animation video! The omission contrasts with a Site Campus image produced on page 24.

2.3.9 No schematic graphics illustrating the interior of proposed radioactive waste and spent fuel storage facilities, on page 16, complementing the reactor building graphic on page15.

2.3.10 No accompanying illustrations of the packaged ILW, HLW canisters and spent fuel casks, on page 15.

2.3.11 No disclosure on page 15 of explicit instruction from the Government, or express statutory measure, commanding Horizon-Hitachi to install interim nuclear waste storage facilities on-site in Anglesey, for the purpose of holding 60 years’ accumulated output of spent nuclear fuel, intermediate level waste and dry high level radioactive waste, for up to a further 140 years after the Wylfa Newydd nuclear power station permanently stops generating electricity.

2.3.12 No information disclosed on page 15 on all the alternatives to on-site interim storage of nuclear waste (up until the year 2225), examined by Horizon-Hitachi to any extent. Nor is there disclosure of reasons for rejecting all other specific options.

2.3.13 No explanation provided on signal inconsistency between the duration of the Wylfa Newydd site nuclear licence persisting up to the year 2225 (60-year reactor life span, followed by 140-year on-site nuclear waste storage: pages 15-16), and an absolute assurance on page 2 of the Community Update Issue 19. Namely, that Horizon banks on leaving Anglesey by the year 2117: “We are proposing to be part of the community for around the next 100 years, …”


2.4 Stage 3 Main Consultation Document (dated May 2017)

2.4.1 Not in a position to comment. Lack the time commitments warranted for consideration.


3. Conclusions

3.1 An occurrence of potentially material multiple flaws in the Horizon-Hitachi Public Notice on their proposed DCO Application is one too many to be lightly dismissed. Individually arguable, collectively the flaws appear disquieting, the validity of the Public Notice notwithstanding.

3.2 Significant further apparent deficiency in documentation and relevant information arguably begs the acceptability of Horizon-Hitachi’s deliberate, and excessively, narrow consultation exercise. To what extent would a reasonably informed fair minded bystander expect the Infrastructure Planning Inspectorate to tolerate this state of affairs, at Stage 3?
See attached reply

05 July 2017
J Channay
Wylfa Newydd Nuclear Power Station
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Discussion of generic planning issues
Please see the attached meeting note

05 July 2017
Mace - Martin Clarke
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached meeting note

05 July 2017
Sembcorp Utilities (UK) Limited - Scott Taylor
Tees CCPP
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Mr Child expressed a number of concerns about the accessibility of consultation documents on RiverOak Strategic Partner's website.
In respect of your concerns about the Applicant’s website, I would refer you to the principles in the latter half of the advice that I issued to you on 2 March 2017: [attachment 1];ipcadvice=f1bb3f4c9c

For convenience, my advice states that if/ when an application is submitted, the Planning Inspectorate, on behalf of the Secretary of State, has a statutory duty to invite comments from all s43 authorities about whether an Applicant has complied with its duties under ss42, 47 and 48 of the Planning Act 2008. The Planning Inspectorate must then have regard to any ‘Adequacy of Consultation Representations’ received in taking its decision about whether an application should be accepted for examination.

With that in mind, if you have concerns about the Applicant’s Pre-application consultation I would advise for you to provide your comments to the local authority(ies) (copying in the Applicant).

04 July 2017
Michael Child
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I am writing after reading the minutes of a meeting which took place between the Planning Inspectorate and RiverOak Strategic Partners (RSP) on the 12th May 2017. The meeting related to a potential DCO application to reopen the airport at Manston and the minutes have been published on the planning inspectorate web-site.

According to the minutes, the planning inspectorate has agreed to a tripartite meeting between themselves, RSP and the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) to discuss the licencing of the airfield. The planning inspectorate agreed to this meeting once the consultation process had taken place.

You may, or may not, be aware that the CAA will not accept an application for a licence unless the applicant owns the land or has specific permission from the owners of the land. This being the case I have to ask what purpose is served by holding this meeting?

I have two concerns. Firstly, RSP intend to use this meeting to persuade the CAA that they have a realistic prospect of acquiring the land and, by so doing, would be able to press the CAA to commence the process of licensing before they have acquired the land. Secondly, the Planning Inspectorate would be then be portrayed as having given some kind of assurance to the CAA that the DCO would be accepted and would be successful. In other words, the Planning Inspectorate would be guilty of pre-determination.

I would like to suggest that the Planning Inspectorate should resist any attempt to meet with the CAA in relation to Manston. No DCO application has been submitted and, even if such an application is made, it would not be sensible for the Planning Inspectorate to meet with the CAA in advance of the application being determined.

Unfortunately, there is an aggressive campaign group (SMA) which is hell-bent on seeing Manston reopened. This group is highly active on social media with a mailing list running into thousands. This doesn't mean that thousands of people support the campaign. It just means that they have been able to add people to the mailing list. Over the course of the last year, this group has repeatedly bombarded people with misinformation about the DCO application. People have been told that this is a National Infrastructure Project whereas, in truth, this decision has not been made. People have been led to believe that the DCO is bound to succeed and that the Planning Inspectorate is helping to ensure that the application succeeds. The Planning Inspectorate has held regular meetings with the potential applicant but has not met with the local council or with any of the many thousands of people who would be badly affected by this ridiculous proposal. I trust that nothing is further from the truth and that the Planning Inspectorate has confined itself to assisting RSP with the mechanics of the application. Nevertheless, an impression has been created that the Planning Inspectorate is not acting impartially. If the Planning Inspectorate goes ahead and meets with the CAA, this will do nothing to allay fears that this DCO application is a done deal and that the Planning Inspectorate has not acted as an independent arbiter.
I respond to your substantive points under the following three headings.

Process evaluation workshop (heading)

Where the need arises, the Planning Inspectorate can offer a facilitation role by participating in round table meetings for example, between an Applicant, local authority and statutory consultees. The purpose of such meetings is explained in our Pre-application Prospectus: [attachment 1]

A process evaluation workshop was held on 12 June 2017. It was attended by the Planning Inspectorate, the Civil Aviation Authority (a statutory consultee) and RiverOak Strategic Partners (RSP, the Applicant). The note of the meeting is being prepared and will be published to the Planning Inspectorate’s website in due course.

By way of summary, the meeting included:

• A presentation by RSP on its Pre-application programme;
• Consideration of how the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) process and Airspace Change Process (ACP) interact;
• Consideration of RSP’s preferred timescale in respect of initiation of the ACP; and
• Consideration of complexities associated with assessing noise impacts between Environmental Impact Assessment and the requirements of the ACP.

No project-specific advice was issued by the Planning Inspectorate in the course of the meeting.

The PA2008 process and the ACP (heading)

Inevitably the PA2008 process and the ACP will be concerned with similar issues, but procedurally the processes are entirely distinct. The Planning Inspectorate will administer and examine any forthcoming land-use application which includes a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP), and the CAA will administer and consider any forthcoming application to redesign airspace. In respect of the latter, it is not for the Planning Inspectorate to decide when the CAA will be prepared to accept and consider an application for airspace change, or to consider any perquisites for any such application. This is a matter for the CAA to provide advice about. Therefore if you have any further queries about the ACP you should contact the CAA directly using the appropriate channels.

The fundamental values of the Planning Inspectorate are its commitment to openness, transparency and impartiality in the conduct of its business. Absolutely no assurances have been provided to the CAA or RSP in respect of the outcome of any application for development consent. Indeed, you are correct that a decision will not be made about whether the proposed development includes an NSIP until such time as an application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate and the suite of statutory Acceptance tests are applied.

Pre-application meetings with RSP (heading)

In respect of the Planning Inspectorate’s meetings with RSP, the advice issued at each of them has been recorded and published to our website in line with the requirements of the PA2008.

There are various benefits to the Planning Inspectorate to be kept up to date with an applicant’s Pre-application programme, not least in respect of our own resourcing, and regular meetings are helpful to this end. Notwithstanding this, the Planning Inspectorate is responsive to meetings requested by any of the PA2008’s stakeholders; including outreach events in local communities. The holding of any such meetings or events would be considered by the Planning Inspectorate wherever it thought there would be value in the meeting or event taking place, and where the meeting or event was proposed to be held at an appropriate time in the PA2008 process. As you are aware, there are also other channels through which anybody can request and receive procedural advice from the Planning Inspectorate, including by phone; email; or letter.

04 July 2017
Peter Binding
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached meeting note

04 July 2017
EDF Energy – Carly Vince
West Burton C power station
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see the attached meeting note

04 July 2017
Savills - Chris Potts
The London Resort
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Mr Kirkaldie expressed concerns in respect of the Planning Inspectorate's handling of three planning appeals at the site of the former Manston Airport in conjunction with RiverOak Strategic Partner's emerging application for development consent.
The planning appeal process under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (TCPA) is different to the decision-making process for Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects under the separate Planning Act 2008 (PA2008). The handling of these processes is distinct.

The Public Inquiry into the four planning appeals at the site of the former Manston Airport sat in March 2017, the Inquiry has concluded and the Inspector is writing the decision on these appeals. Having consulted with colleagues, I understand that the decision in respect of these appeals is expected to be issued soon.

The PA2008 process places specific duties on prospective NSIP applicants in respect of how they must consult with statutory consultees (s42 PA2008) and local communities (s47 PA2008) at the Pre-application stage, that is, before an application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate. In the Pre-application stage, it is entirely for the applicant to decide when they carry out their statutory consultation exercises. We understand that RiverOak Strategic Partners Ltd (RSP) opened its statutory consultation period for its development proposals on 12 June 2017. The consultation period will close on 23 July 2017, having run for 42 days.

I can assure you that the Planning Inspectorate has no influence as to the timing of RSP’s consultation. I can also assure you that there is no question of the Inspectorate having any regard to the prospective applicant’s statutory consultation in respect of the timing of the determination of the four planning appeals. Decisions will be issued when the Inspector is ready to issue them.

If an application for development consent is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate by RSP it will be subject to rigorous testing in the 28-day Acceptance period before a decision is made about whether it is of a satisfactory standard to be examined. These tests include detailed scrutiny as to whether the applicant has satisfied its consultation duties under s42 and s47 of the PA2008, referred to above.

All of the legislation and statutory guidance that governs the PA2008 process is accessible on the Planning Inspectorate’s website, together with our own suite of non-statutory advice notes: [attachment 1]

30 June 2017
Malcolm Kirkaldie
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
1. Is the submission of one WFD Compliance Assessment to cover the DCO, environmental permit and marine licence applications acceptable to PINS?

2. If a case is to be made under Article 4(7) of the WFD, can the preparation of the Article 4(7) case can made post-submission?

3. If the WFD Compliance Assessment concludes that an Article 4.7 case will need to be made, please could you advise what the regulatory relationship is between NRW and PINS? Who will the ‘competent authority’ preparing the case for the DCO?

4. When will the WFD guidance note is likely to be published?
1. The Secretary of State (SoS) is the decision maker for determining any DCO application and as such would be the appropriate authority in respect of the WFD. The SoS has an obligation to ensure that the requirements of the WFD are met and Applicant’s need to provide suitable information to support the appropriate authority in meeting this requirement. If it is possible to do this through the submission of a single WFD compliance assessment then there is no obvious reason to prevent this from taking place. However, as with all other application documents, it will be important that the document is clear in describing the likely significant effects applicable to each consent sought. This is particularly important as the assessment undertaken by relevant appropriate authorities needs to be certain where necessary mitigation is required and how this will be appropriately secured.

2. The Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009 (as amended), require Applicants to submit ‘where applicable, a plan with accompanying information identifying… water bodies in a river basin management plan…together with an assessment of any effects on such sites, features, habitats or bodies likely to be caused by the proposed development’. There is therefore no specific requirement for an Applicant to submit supporting information to an Article 4(7) derogation with an application. However, the Planning Inspectorate is aware that a derogation in accordance with Article 4.7 requires significant and often complex evidence to be made available and assessed. The Planning Inspectorate considers that it is critical that the potential requirement for Article 4.7 derogation is considered as early as possible in the pre-application stage of the PA2008 process. Applicants should engage early with the appropriate agencies for WFD, NRW in respect of Wylfa. NRW should be able to provide advice on the necessary information that is required to inform the Article 4.7 derogation tests. The Inspectorate also strongly encourages Applicants to seek the comments of the appropriate agencies on draft documents where Article 4.7 tests are to be engaged during the pre-application process.

3. NRW is a statutory consultee under the DCO process and an appropriate agency in respect of WFD, they will no doubt provide their expert opinion to an examining authority during an examination. The examining authority will make a recommendation and it is ultimately for the SoS to make the decision on whether to grant development consent.

4. The advice note has been published today at the following link [attachment 1].

29 June 2017
(Atkins, on behalf of Horizon Nuclear Power) - Stuart Smith
Wylfa Newydd Nuclear Power Station
Enquiry received via email
Mrs Swandale submitted a suite of photographs in support of her 31 May 2017 submission.
Because your submission was received after the statutory six month deadline of 2 June 2017, the Examining Authority (ExA) will be unable to consider it as part of his recommendation to the Secretary of State for Transport (SoST).

However, your submission will be forwarded to the SoST alongside the ExA’s recommendation report on or before 2 September 2017. It will be for the SoST to decide whether to consider the content of your submission in making his final decision.

28 June 2017
Sharon Swandale
M20 Junction 10A
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Meeting regarding proposed non-material change application
Please see attached meeting note

28 June 2017
EDF Energy - Carly Vince
Hinkley Point C New Nuclear Power Station
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting.
See attached meeting note.

26 June 2017
Heathrow Airport Ltd - anon.
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting.
See attached meeting note.

This meeting note was originally published (and remains published) on the general register of advice: [attachment 1]

26 June 2017
Heathrow Airport Ltd - anon.
Expansion of Heathrow Airport (Third Runway)
Enquiry received via
response has attachments
The Planning Inspectorate met with the developer for the Hinckley National Rail Freight Interchange proposal on 26 June 2017
Please see note of the meeting below

26 June 2017
Framptons and db symmetry - anon.
Hinckley National Rail Freight Interchange
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The Health and Safety Executive has received a concern regarding the design of Swansea Bay Tidal Lagoon’s impounding wall, specifically it’s rock armour/concrete composition. I am the Construction Inspector who is dealing with the matter.

I would be grateful if you could provide me with a steer as to where in the planning process design issues such as the efficacy, and stability of the lagoon wall structure would be considered.

This will enable me to contact the relevant persons to discuss this matter further.
Statutory parties including the Health and Safety Executive were consulted amongst others, before the application was submitted to the Planning Inspectorate and given the opportunity to influence the design and the many other aspects of the project.

During the pre-examination stage of the process the opportunity was provided for anyone who wished to register by way of making a Relevant Representation to put their case on the Tidal Lagoon Swansea Bay application. These representations assisted the Examining Authority in identifying the Principal Issues to be examined. Following a six month examination of the Tidal Lagoon Swansea Bay project which concluded on 10 December 2014, a recommendation was submitted to the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change. The Secretary of State made the decision to grant the Development Consent Order on 9 June 2015.

Design issues would have been considered by the Applicant and evidence supplied in the application documents, which would have subsequently been examined by the Examining Authority during the examination stage of the process. I have included for your information a link to the Recommendation Report and a link to the Development Consent Order which you may find useful:

Recommendation Report
[attachment 1]

Development Consent Order
[attachment 2]

All application documents; including the Design and Access Statement and Environmental Statement which may be of interest and documents submitted by interested parties and statutory parties during examination are published on the project specific webpage under the ‘Documents’ tab and can be found at the following link:
[attachment 3]

With regards to the detail you require you may wish to consider contacting Natural Resources Wales as they would be the licensing authority. The certified documents which may also be of interest can be inspected free of charge at the offices of the City and County of Swansea Council, Civic Centre, Oystermouth Road, Swansea SA1 3SN.

23 June 2017
Health and Safety Executive - Phil Nicolle
Tidal Lagoon Swansea Bay
Enquiry received via
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached meeting note

22 June 2017
Horizon Nuclear Power - anon.
Wylfa Newydd Nuclear Power Station
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
What steps will the Planning Inspectorate take to ensure there is a proper and unencumbered consultation?
Following a suite of non-statutory consultation events held in 2016, the Planning Inspectorate issued the following advice to the Applicant:
[attachment 1];ipcadvice=c62405190b

This advice was issued by the Inspectorate proactively, and was in part driven by communicated concerns analogous to those set out in your email.

All applications for development consent must be accompanied by a ‘Consultation Report’. The Consultation Report is prepared under section 37 of the Planning Act 2008 (the PA2008) and must give details of:

a) what has been done in compliance with sections 42, 47 and 48 of the PA2008 in relation to a proposed application that has become the application;
b) any relevant responses; and
c) the account taken of any relevant responses.

In the Acceptance period (ie the 28 days following the formal submission of an application) the Planning Inspectorate will scrutinise all of the application documents, including the evidence provided in the Consultation Report, applying the statutory tests set out in s55 of the PA2008.

By the end of the Acceptance period the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) must decide, in accordance with the tests in s55 of the PA2008, whether or not to accept an application for examination. In reaching this decision, s55(4) makes explicit that the Planning Inspectorate must have regard to the Consultation Report and any adequacy of consultation representations made by local authority consultees.

21 June 2017
Andrew Hollins
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
I do understand that every situation is unique and the appointed Planning Inspector has to use his own judgement in making his recommendations to the Secretary of State. Section 5.184 of the NPSNN states that consideration needs to be given to the use, character, attractiveness and convenience of the right of way. To a lay person this would appear to have very similar meaning to the wording in the 1980 Highways Act. in that a diverted path should not be substantially less convenient to the public [in terms of being less scenic and less convenient in terms of distance and accessibility].

My question is - am I missing something or would the above considerations be the things that a Planning Inspector would take into account when making a recommendation?
An appointed Examining Authority would be required to have regard to the content of the National Policy Statement for National Networks (NPSNN) in making its recommendations to the Secretary of State (eg the mitigation considerations in paras 5.184 and 5.185). Moreover, the Secretary of State must make its decision in accordance with the NPSNN.

21 June 2017
Brian Sumpton
General
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
In respect of his experience at a recent consultation event, Mr de Pulford expressed concern that the Applicant "could not answer basic questions about the impact of their development on local residents".
The Applicant’s Preliminary Environment Impact Report (PEIR) has been published to its website: [attachment 1] The PEIR presents the preliminary findings of the Environmental Impact Assessment being undertaken for the proposed development. In the context of your enquiry, Chapter 3 of the PEIR describes the proposed development and makes reference to night flights. Chapter 11 deals with landscape and visual impacts.

Applicants can assess the likely significant impacts of a proposed development using the ‘Rochdale Envelope’ (RE) approach; this is used to assess a likely or reasonable ‘worst case scenario’. This approach is consistent with the objective of the EIA Directive, and the Planning Inspectorate acknowledges the Rochdale approach is a way of dealing with an application comprising EIA development where details of a project have not been resolved at the time when an application is submitted. The Planning Inspectorate’s Advice note 9 explains how Applicants can use the Rochdale approach where a degree of flexibility is stated to be required within the consent sought: [attachment 2]

In the context of your concerns therefore, the Planning Inspectorate would anticipate that during statutory consultation at the Pre-application stage of the process an Applicant may be cautious about giving, or unable to give, detailed and precise advice in respect of the likely impacts on a specific receptor(s).

If an application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, and if that application is found to be of a satisfactory standard to be examined, you will have the opportunity to register your interest in the Examination and make representations to the appointed Examining Authority about the merits of the proposed development. Details about how to engage with an Examination and have your say, at the appropriate time, are set out in the suite of Advice notes forming the Planning Inspectorate’s Advice note 8: [attachment 3]

In the meantime if you wish to make any comments about the Applicant’s Pre-application consultation exercise please do so to the relevant local authority, in this case Thanet District Council; and to the Applicant itself.

21 June 2017
Mark de Pulford
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Highways England submitted a draft Consultation Report and draft Planning Statement for comment
Please see the attached feedback summaries

21 June 2017
Highways England - Helen Apps
A19 / A184 Testos Junction Improvement
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached meeting note

21 June 2017
DONG Energy - Stuart Livesey
Hornsea Project Three Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Meeting to discuss implications for Heathrow Immigration Removal Centre.
See attached meeting note.

21 June 2017
The Home Office - anon.
Expansion of Heathrow Airport (Third Runway)
Enquiry received via email
I am a member of the community affected by the onshore part of this project. I am involved in a local group which has serious concerns about the project and in particular about the informal consultation process now underway.
If you have concerns about the consultation I would advise, in the first instance, you speak to your local council. I understand that they will shortly/ are currently reviewing the draft Statement of Community Consultation which sets out how the applicant intends to undertake their statutory consultation. Any concerns you may have may then be fed back, via your local council, to the applicant.

20 June 2017
Katie Taylor
Norfolk Vanguard
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached meeting note and Applicant's presentation

15 June 2017
D S Smith
Kemsley Paper Mill (K4) CHP Plant
Enquiry received via email
As I understand the process, in order for a NSIP to proceed, a DCO application must be made to the Planning Inspectorate.

What if a relatively small infrastructure project (a railway re-opening) fails to meet all of the legal criteria for being classed as a NSIP?

Can a DCO application for a non-NSIP infrastructure project still be submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, later to be signed by the Secretary of State (or delegate)?

Or must a non-NSIP infrastructure project use some other process, such as a TWAct Order?
Development consent (ie consent in the form of a Development Consent Order) is required for development to the extent that the development is or forms part of a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP). NSIPs are defined in ss14 through s30A of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended) (the PA2008).

Section 35 of the PA2008 though states that the Secretary of State may give a direction for development to be treated as development for which development consent is required. A ‘s35 direction’ is the only mechanism through which development which is not an NSIP (or part of an NSIP) can be caused to require development consent.

14 June 2017
Dave Chillistone
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Inception Meeting to discuss the A30 Chiverton to Carland Cross scheme
Please see the attached meeting note

14 June 2017
Highways England - Josh Hodder
A30 Chiverton to Carland Cross Scheme
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached meeting note

13 June 2017
Vattenfall - Helen Jameson
Thanet Extension Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see the attached meeting note

13 June 2017
Highways England - Helen Apps
A19 / A184 Testos Junction Improvement
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update meeting
Please see the attached meeting note and annex

13 June 2017
Ashfield Land - David Diggle
Rail Central (Strategic Rail Freight Interchange)
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Process evaluation presentation by RiverOak Strategic Partners.
See attached meeting note.

12 June 2017
anon.
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
See attached meeting note

07 June 2017
Sembcorp Utilities (UK) Limited - anon.
Tees CCPP
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached meeting note

07 June 2017
Horizon Nuclear Power
Wylfa Newydd Nuclear Power Station
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Could you please help clarify the legal position regarding proposed diversions to public rights of way.

The Highways Act 1980 section 119 suggests that the SoS can not confirm a diversion order if the proposed diversion is substantially less convenient to the public.

The PINS Advice note no.9 confirms the above and gives some definition of the word 'convenient'. eg the length of the diversion, accessibility and scenic value.

However when looking at the Planning Act 2008 section 136 says the decision maker may grant a development consent order if he is satisfied that an alternative right of way has been or will be provided. In this case no conditions regarding 'convenience' are attached.

My question is in the case of a DCO application under the NSIP process do the requirements of the Highways Act still apply?
The Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) establishes a distinct regime for decision-making in respect of Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIPs). Provisions of the Highways Act 1980 do not generally apply to an NSIP development unless expressly caused to do so in the relevant Development Consent Order.

The suite of National Policy Statements have primacy in the decision-making process under the PA2008 and these establish the Secretary of State’s considerations in respect of mitigation where public rights of way would be affected by a proposed development (see for example para 5.184 and 5.185 of the National Policy Statement for National Networks, available here: [attachment 1].

06 June 2017
Brian Sumpton
General
Enquiry received via
response has attachments
It has come to my notice that the deadline for Consultation Bodies to respond to the above is 6th June.

What constitutes a Consultation Body?

We are a new action group set up to campaign against cable relay stations in unspoilt countryside. Since Vattenfall’s public consultation so far has been flawed, in terms of reach and transparency, we are playing ‘catch up’ with the planning process. It is not yet clear how we can make our voice be properly heard and I’m not sure whether this imminent deadline should have applied to us.

Please could you advise whether we should be consulting with you and if so on what basis?
A consultation body (‘consultation body’) is defined under The Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2009 (as amended) as:

• a body prescribed under s.42(a) and listed in column 1 of the table set out in Schedule 1 of the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedures) Regulations 2009 (‘the APFP Regulations’) as amended, where the circumstances set out in column 2 are satisfied in respect of that body
• each authority that is within s.43 (‘local authorities’); and
• if the land to which the application, or proposed application, relates or any part of that land is in Greater London, the Greater London Authority.

The Planning Inspectorate’s interpretation of this is explained in our Advice note three and its associated annexe which is available at the following link: [attachment 1]

The action group you describe below would not be considered by the Planning Inspectorate to be a consultation body for the purposes of scoping. At the pre-application stage, we would therefore encourage you to contact the developer directly should you have any comments to make on the proposed development. Information on how you can be involved in the Planning Act 2008 process is contained within our Advice note 8 series which is also available at the link above.

05 June 2017
Beverley Wigg
Norfolk Boreas
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
It has come to my notice that the deadline for Consultation Bodies to respond to the above is 6th June.

What constitutes a Consultation Body?

We are a new action group set up to campaign against cable relay stations in unspoilt countryside. Since Vattenfall’s public consultation so far has been flawed, in terms of reach and transparency, we are playing ‘catch up’ with the planning process. It is not yet clear how we can make our voice be properly heard and I’m not sure whether this imminent deadline should have applied to us.

Please could you advise whether we should be consulting with you and if so on what basis?
A consultation body (‘consultation body’) is defined under The Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2009 (as amended) as:

• a body prescribed under s.42(a) and listed in column 1 of the table set out in Schedule 1 of the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedures) Regulations 2009 (‘the APFP Regulations’) as amended, where the circumstances set out in column 2 are satisfied in respect of that body
• each authority that is within s.43 (‘local authorities’); and
• if the land to which the application, or proposed application, relates or any part of that land is in Greater London, the Greater London Authority.

The Planning Inspectorate’s interpretation of this is explained in our Advice note three and its associated annexe which is available at the following link: [attachment 1]

The action group you describe below would not be considered by the Planning Inspectorate to be a consultation body for the purposes of scoping. At the pre-application stage, we would therefore encourage you to contact the developer directly should you have any comments to make on the proposed development. Information on how you can be involved in the Planning Act 2008 process is contained within our Advice note 8 series which is also available at the link above.

05 June 2017
Beverley Wigg
Norfolk Vanguard
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
SMAa have compared the final version of the RiverOak SoCC (May 2017) with the earlier draft version (Feb 2017), and noted where some changes have occurred, with particular reference to the responses by Thanet District Council and the No Night Flights group. Please see attached.
It is not within the remit of the Planning Inspectorate to consider submissions of this type at the Pre-application stage the process.

Please make any comments about the Applicant’s Pre-application consultation duties to the relevant local authority.

01 June 2017
Save Manston Airport Association - Dr Beau Webber
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Inception meeting
Please see attached meeting note.

25 May 2017
RWE - Matthew Trigg
Tilbury Energy Centre
Enquiry received via
response has attachments
Pins Teleconference with Isle of Anglesey County Council
See attached meeting note

24 May 2017
Isle of Anglesey County Council - anon.
North Wales Connection
Enquiry received via
response has attachments
Pins Teleconference with Isle of Anglesey County Council
See attached meeting note

24 May 2017
Isle of Anglesey County Council - anon.
Wylfa Newydd Nuclear Power Station
Enquiry received via email
I would like to know whether any DCO has been subject to longer examination/determination timescales than those outlined in the Planning Act 2008 (i.e. 6 months for examination, 3 months for the panel to write their report, and 3 months for the SoS to make their decision)?
For the 65 applications decided to date, the statutory time-limit for examination (6 months) and reporting (3 months) has not been exceeded.

In a very limited number of cases, and for important and justified reasons, the Secretary of State has taken longer than 3 months to make his/ her decision.

23 May 2017
David Hoare
General
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Can you please explain how RiverOak Strategic Partners Ltd will ensure that, during the formal consultation period, the public's expressed views will be properly recognised, recorded and taken into account? We need assurance that the public interest is safeguarded.
All applications for development consent must be accompanied by a ‘Consultation Report’. The Consultation Report is prepared under section 37 of the Planning Act 2008 (the PA2008) and must give details of:

a) what has been done in compliance with sections 42, 47 and 48 of the PA2008 in relation to a proposed application that has become the application,
b) any relevant responses, and
c) the account taken of any relevant responses.

In the Acceptance period (ie the 28 days following the formal submission of an application) the Planning Inspectorate will scrutinise all of the application documents, including the evidence provided in the Consultation Report, applying the statutory tests set out in s55 of the PA2008.

By the end of the Acceptance period the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) must decide, in accordance with the tests in s55 of the PA2008, whether or not to accept an application for examination. In reaching this decision, s55(4) makes explicit that the Planning Inspectorate must have regard to the Consultation Report and any adequacy of consultation representations made by local authority consultees.

The Department for Communities and Local Government has published guidance about the Pre-application process. Pages 5 through 20 of this document deal with the Pre-application consultation process and should help to contextualise the tests described above: [attachment 1]

This Guidance is statutory and the Planning Inspectorate must therefore in making its Acceptance decision have regard to the extent to which an applicant has followed its content.

The Planning Inspectorate’s Advice Note 14, which sets out the expected format and content of Consultation Reports, may also be of interest to you: [attachment 2]

23 May 2017
Simon Crow
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I would like to speak to someone regarding the recent changes (March 2017) to the Planning Act 2008 to allow 500 houses to be included within a DCO application. I am keen to understand who or what prompted this change and what organisations have been involved in such a policy change. It is a concerning turn of events for those communities already facing extreme disruption so I would like to understand more about the logic behind it.
The Planning Inspectorate is impartial and does not comment on Government policy.

Our parent ministerial department, and owner of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) regime, is the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG). DCLG may be able to assist with your enquiry, and details about how to contact the department are available on its website here: [attachment 1]

For information, I am providing a link to DCLG’s guidance which has been published in conjunction to the changes to section 160 of the PA2008: [attachment 2]

22 May 2017
Mark Redding
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Site visit 22 May 2017 meeting note
Please see attached meeting note

22 May 2017
EDF Energy - Carly Vince
West Burton C power station
Enquiry received via
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached meeting note

19 May 2017
Savills for London Resort Company Holdings - Chris Potts
The London Resort
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached meeting note

19 May 2017
Bond Dickinson LLP - Richard Guyatt
Portishead Branch Line - MetroWest Phase 1
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached meeting note.

18 May 2017
DONG Energy - Stuart Livesey
Hornsea Project Three Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached meeting note

17 May 2017
Vattenfall - anon.
Norfolk Vanguard
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Meeting to discuss project update and the Secretary of State's scoping opinion
See attached

17 May 2017
Port of Tilbury London Ltd
Tilbury2
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
To discuss the process for applying for an application under section 53 of the Planning Act to access land for the purposes of environmental surveys and to provide a brief project update for the A303 Amesbury to Berwick Down application.
Please see the attached meeting note

17 May 2017
Highways England - Will Spencer
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting.
See attached meeting note.

12 May 2017
RiverOak Strategic Partners - anon.
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see the attached meeting note

12 May 2017
National Grid - Eloise Frank
North Wales Connection
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project inception meeting
Please see attached meeting note

12 May 2017
Highways England - Tim Wright
Lower Thames Crossing
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Draft document review meeting
Please see attached meeting note and the draft application documents feedback summary.

11 May 2017
Highways England - Helen Apps
A19 / A184 Testos Junction Improvement
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached meeting note

10 May 2017
Sembcorp Utilities (UK) Limited - Scott Taylor
Tees CCPP
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Inception meeting
Please see attached meeting note

10 May 2017
Highways England - Jonathan Pizzey
M42 Junction 6 Improvement
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I would like to register my disgust in this proposal. There is already a site near by which is not fully developed at Daventry so what is the logic for this proposal. This is not an environmentally friendly propsAl and does not fit with the government's proposal to reduce emissions. At the moment the uk fails to meet EU directives reference clean air and this proposal will not help this situation. This proposal does not make any sense at any level. The government want decisions to be made at a local level yet here this is denied? This gives me no confidence in any government or developer who says they can justify this.
Currently this proposed development is in the Pre-Application stage of the planning process for nationally significant infrastructure projects (NSIPs); during this stage the developer will be preparing their application documents to be submitted to us, as well as consulting with the local community on their proposals. At this stage the application has not been finalised, and as such we advise for any concerns related to the project to be submitted directly to the applicant, in order for your views to inform the application before it is finalised and submitted to us for consideration.

railcentral@camargue.uk
Telephone: 0845 543 8967 Monday to Friday, 9am to 5.30pm (calls are charged at local rates)
Post: FREEPOST Rail Central
Website: www.railcentral.com

The developer’s second round of Pre-Application consultation is due to take place in September 2017, the details of which are set out in the developer’s recently issued Community Newsletter which I have attached for your information along with the following Advice Notes which provide further information on the planning process for NSIPs:

Advice Note 8.0 Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public
Advice Note 8.1 Responding to the developer’s pre-application consultation
Advice Note 8.2 How to register to participate in an Examination
Advice Note 8.3 Influencing how an application is Examined
Advice Note 2 The role of local authorities in the development consent process

Our full suite of Advice Notes and legislation/guidance related to NSIPs can be found at the following link:

[attachment 1]


If you have any issues with the consultation carried out by the developer, we would advise you to highlight these concerns to the relevant local authority, as they will be required to submit an Adequacy of Consultation report to us, once the application for this project has been submitted. We will have regard to any comments received from the relevant host or neighbouring authorities when making the decision whether or not to accept the application for Examination.


If the application is submitted and subsequently accepted for examination, you will also have the opportunity to register to participate in that examination and make submissions on whether or not the form of the proposal that is described in the application is acceptable, and whether development consent should be granted. You can register for automatic email updates on the progress of this project on our webpage:

[attachment 2]

09 May 2017
N Henry
Rail Central (Strategic Rail Freight Interchange)
Enquiry received via email
Query regarding the EIA regulations applicable to the project.
Please note that the Planning Inspectorate does not provide legal advice; it is the applicant’s responsibility to seek legal opinions from their own advisers. However I can confirm that the Planning Inspectorate will apply the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2009 to nationally significant infrastructure projects which have requested a scoping opinion in relation to those projects before the 2017 regulations come into force.

09 May 2017
London Resort Holdings - Karl Cradick
The London Resort
Enquiry received via email
What are your organisations concerns if you were to receive a digital, web based, versus a paper based Environmental Statement?

Do you think your organisation would accept a digital ES (assuming it contains the correct information you would expect from an ES)?

Do you foresee any legal or regulatory reasons why your organisation would not accept a digital Environmental Statement?
Dear Rufus,

Many thanks for your patience in waiting for our response to the questions you asked in your email 21st April 2017. My assumption based on earlier correspondence is that the questions below relate primarily to applications prepared in respect of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended). For ease of reading I have duplicated your questions (in blue text) and then follow with my response. I hope these points will provide you with the information that you require.

What are your organisations concerns if you were to receive a digital, web based, versus a paper based Environmental Statement?

The Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2009 (2009 EIA Regulations) includes a definition of Environmental Statement (ES) and states that:

“environmental statement” means a statement—
(a) that includes such of the information referred to in Part 1 of Schedule 4 as is reasonably required to assess the environmental effects of the development and of any associated development and which the applicant can, having regard in particular to current knowledge and methods of assessment, reasonably be required to compile; but
(b) that includes at least the information referred to in Part 2 of Schedule 4;

Accordingly it is apparent that the 2009 EIA Regulations do not explicitly define the ES as being (or needing to be) a paper based document. However, the 2009 EIA Regulations do frequently refer to ‘copies’ in respect of the ES, which may imply that the Regulations envisage the ES is a physical entity rather than a digital only document. Nonetheless this is not explicitly stated in the 2009 EIA Regulations.

The Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) 2017 Regulations (2017 EIA Regulations) which have now been made and will come into force on 16th May 2017 includes provision requiring that the ES is available on a website maintained by or on behalf of the Secretary of State. As with the existing 2009 EIA Regulations the 2017 EIA Regulations do not explicitly state that the ES should be a paper based document.

The Infrastructure Planning (Applications Prescribed Forms and Procedures) Regulations 2009 (as amended) state that if requested by the Planning Inspectorate the Applicant should provide three paper copies of the application form and other supporting documents and plans. This would include paper copies of the ES as a supporting document. Further to this the Planning Inspectorate Advice Note 6: Preparation and submission of application documents includes advice that states:

The applicant is required to submit its full application in both electronic and hard copy format. Whilst the Planning Inspectorate encourages electronic working, the submission of hard copy documents and plans is required in order to ensure the smooth running of the examination process.

Applicants should agree with the case manager how many paper and electronic copies of the application should be submitted as this depends on the scale and complexity of the project. Usually two paper copies of the full application submission are required along with three electronic (eg DVD, memory stick) copies. Following the acceptance of an application, further paper and/or electronic copies of the application may be requested depending on the number of Inspectors, assessors or legal advisors that are appointed to the case. The applicant may also be requested to provide further copies of the entire application or copies of particular individual documents at any point throughout the pre-examination and examination stages.

Therefore, it is clear that at this present time the Planning Inspectorate considers that paper copies of the application documents are necessary for the smooth running of the examination process.

Do you think your organisation would accept a digital ES (assuming it contains the correct information you would expect from an ES)?

As the advice states above the submission of the application should include electronic versions of the application documents (eg DVD or memory stick).

Do you foresee any legal or regulatory reasons why your organisation would not accept a digital Environmental Statement?

The Planning Inspectorate is unable to provide legal advice and so is unable to answer this question comprehensively; however, the advice contained above provides examples of the legislative requirements regarding the preparation of an application including any ES necessary. The current advice prepared by the Planning Inspectorate requires that paper copies of the application documents are necessary for the smooth running of the examination process.

Kind regards

David


David Price
EIA and Land Rights Manager
Major Applications and Plans
The Planning Inspectorate
Temple Quay House
Temple Quay
Bristol
BS1 6PN
Direct Line: 0303 444 5055
Helpline: 0303 444 5000
Email:david.price@pins.gsi.gov.uk
Web: infrastructure.planninginspectorate.gov.uk (National Infrastructure Planning)
Web: www.gov.uk/government/organisations/planning-inspectorate (The Planning Inspectorate)
Twitter: @PINSgov

This communication does not constitute legal advice.
Please view our Information Charter before sending information to the Planning Inspectorate.

05 May 2017
Royal Haskoning DHV - Rufus Howard
General
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The Hornsea Project Three Offshore Wind Farm is currently at the pre-application stage, the first of the six stages of the national infrastructure planning process and having read Advice notes 8.1 – 8.5 on your website I am fully aware that at the pre-application stage concerns of local residents should be addressed to the developer DONG Energy. This I have done by making representations under the Phase 1.b Community Consultation to DONG Energy as a 26 page report entitled: ‘HORNSEA PROJECT THREE OFFSHORE WIND FARM, REPORT REGARDING POTENTIAL CANDIDATE SITE FOR HVAC BOOSTER STATION AT POND HILLS, NORFOLK – OPTION A’, dated March 2017.

I understand that after the Planning Inspectorate has accepted the application I will be able to register as an interested party at the pre-examination stage and make representations to you at the examination stage. This I intend to do when I will forward you a copy of the above report.

Advice note 8.1 advises “it is not normally possible for substantial changes to be made to an application once it has been submitted. So, if you want to influence the project, you should take part in the developer’s pre-application consultation process”.

It is on the basis of this advice that I reproduce below for your attention an extract from my report to DONG Energy regarding their site search and selection methodology for the HVAC booster station:

“18. Methodology Used to Identify Potential Sites for the HVAC Booster Station
Section 9.3 of Hornsea Project Three Offshore Wind Farm, Phase 1.b Consultation Event Overview, Spring 2017 (available at [attachment 1] ) states that the three potential sites for locating the HVAC booster station were determined by Dong Energy’s constraint mapping exercise and initial feedback from informal consultation. The lighter the segment the less constrained the area is and the more suitable it is considered to be. The heatmap for the onshore HVAC booster station (available at [attachment 2] ) shows the most and least constrained areas within the onshore HVAC booster station search based upon overlaying maps of areas of outstanding natural beauty, historic parks and gardens, listed buildings and scheduled monuments, distance to residential properties, woodland (including ancient woodland), county wildlife sites, watercourses, Ramsar/SSSIs/ SACs/SPAs.

This exercise is flawed in that it does not recognise locations of high landscape value, conservation areas, locations where visual intrusion would be unacceptable, locations where a HVAC booster station would be totally out of character with the environmental setting, locations of high tranquillity, and remote areas renowned for their beauty and special character such as Pond Hills. Identifying the least constrained areas using Dong Energy’s heat map is a desk-top study that has resulted in identifying remote rural areas, many of which may well need protecting to preserve their remote rural character, and suffers from a lack of local knowledge.”

Using Dong's search methodology would mean that no large electrical sub-station would ever be sited within towns and cities, when this is clearly not the case.

As a substantial industrial development the booster station would be alien to the proposed setting at Pond Hills and be in highly discordant contrast to its surroundings.
I note that the Triton Knoll Offshore Wind Farm development identified 29 sites for the Intermediate Electrical Compound that were shortlisted to 3 sites, and 19 sites for the new substation that were shortlisted to 4 sites. Did DONG Energy look at more than the 3 sites put forward?

Whilst I appreciate that now is not the time for me to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, given that this is such a fundamental issue, I just wish to ensure that DONG Energy’s site search and selection methodology for the location of the HVAC booster station is acceptable to the Planning Inspectorate at this stage of the process in assessing alternatives.
Please see attached letter

04 May 2017
Dr. William Brian Ankers
Hornsea Project Three Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached meeting note

04 May 2017
Scottish Power Renewables
East Anglia ONE North Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached meeting note

04 May 2017
Scottish Power Renewables
East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting and approach to the Rochdale envelope
Please see attached meeting note

03 May 2017
Horizon Nuclear Power
Wylfa Newydd Nuclear Power Station
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Inception meeting
Please see the attached meeting

03 May 2017
Cleve Hill Solar Park - Mike Brid
Cleve Hill Solar Park
Enquiry received via post
As you may be aware, the Isle of Anglesey County Council is the host authority for two NSIP applications which are both due for submission later this year. It is expected that the examinations for these applications will overlap and as a result, the impacts of these examinations on the Planning Inspectorate and the Council will need careful planning, not least in terms of resources. I hope that by raising these issues now, both examinations will run smoothly.

1) I cannot overemphasise the importance of ensuring that suitable measures are in place to encourage and allow all Interested Parties to participate fully in the examination. Welsh is the first language for residents of Anglesey and Gwynedd and many relevant representations will be submitted in Welsh. Interested Parties will also wish to participate in the Preliminary Meeting and Open Floor Hearings in their own language.

2) In order to assist you in the organisation of the Examination hearings, it would be useful to understand the Planning Inspectorate’s requirements for access etc so that we may suggest the most suitable locations.

3) The timing of the two examinations will be crucial as many of my colleagues are working on both NSIPs and responding to two Examining Authorities and, for example, differing rounds of questions at the same time, will need extremely careful forward planning in order to avoid undue pressure on Council, and presumably Inspectorate, staff.
It would be helpful to discuss these points with you as soon as possible and understand how the Inspectorate is planning to manage both examinations.
The Planning Inspectorate appreciates your concerns and I can assure you that we are making all necessary preparations to ensure that the two NSIPs can be conducted within the statutory timetable whilst keeping this manageable for all parties involved.

As you will appreciate, it is for an applicant to decide when to submit an application. The Inspectorate has, therefore, only limited influence over this key ‘trigger date’. However, setting the examination timetable including determining when to start the 6 months’ examination (within reasonable parameters set out in guidance) is within the power of the Examining Authority employed by the Planning Inspectorate. We will ensure that the Examining Authorities for both Wylfa Newydd and the North Wales Connection projects are informed by and take each other’s emerging timetables into consideration to avoid any timetable conflicts as far as possible.

To explore the above and any other relevant points more fully as you suggest in your letter, I propose a telephone conference between key personnel involved in the preparations for the two NSIPs from both our organisations. I would be grateful if you could liaise with Chris White, the infrastructure planning lead responsible for both these projects, about setting this up. His contact details are: Chris.White@pins.gsi.gov.uk or telephone 0303 444 5107.

I am grateful for the support and advice you are offering to and seeking from us.

28 April 2017
Isle of Anglesey County Council - Dylan Williams
Wylfa Newydd Nuclear Power Station
Enquiry received via email
Can I ask you to ensure that [RiverOak Strategic Partners] RSP make a public statement clarifying that compensation is not dependent on completion of the land referencing survey, as the Save Manston Airport Association [SMAa] campaign group is making this case to anyone and everyone, and I am aware that many people are providing information in fear of losing their right to compensation.

Can you ask RSP to clarify the relationship between the two parties, as Beau Webber, SMAa chair, has the appearance of acting as a RiverOak spokesman. Without clarification, this further adds to the ambiguity surrounding RSP's communications and plans for Manston.

It would also be beneficial if RSP could confirm whether they have provided funding to SMAa, either directly from RSP, or via one of the Company's directors or other employee.
The Planning Inspectorate has recently issued clear advice to a number of individuals in relation to the land referencing exercise being undertaken by RiverOak Strategic Partners (RSP). This advice has been published on our website and is available for the public to inspect.

If you have not already, please make your views about the Save Manston Airport Association's (SMAa) recent statements known to RSP. It will be for RSP to decide whether making a clarificatory public statement would be an appropriate and proportionate response to the concerns raised.

I would reiterate that the Planning Inspectorate has not been informed about any relationship between the applicant, RSP, and the SMAa.

28 April 2017
Robert Bird
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Note of presentation to the Civil Aviation Authority and airlines, airport tour and project update meeting
Please see attached

27 April 2017
Heathrow Airport Ltd
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Note of presentation to the Civil Aviation Authority and airlines, airport tour and project update meeting.
See attached meeting note.

This meeting note was originally published (and remains published) on the general register of advice: [attachment 1]

27 April 2017
Heathrow Airport Ltd - anon.
Expansion of Heathrow Airport (Third Runway)
Enquiry received via email
Is “Land referencing [...] a key part of the DCO process and [...] strictly governed by statute and regulation”?
Where a Development Consent Order (DCO) would seek powers of Compulsory Acquisition and/ or Temporary Possession, sections 44, 57 and 59 of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) establish that in seeking to identify all land interests and persons who may be entitled to make a relevant claim an applicant must make diligent inquiry. Paragraph 50 of the Department for Communities and Local Government’s Planning Act 2008: Guidance on the pre-application process explains:

“It is the applicant’s responsibility to demonstrate at submission of the application that due diligence has been undertaken in identifying all land interests and applicants should make every reasonable effort to ensure that the Book of Reference (which records and categorises those land interests) is up to date at the time of submission.”

Issuing land referencing questionnaires in the format provided by RiverOak Strategic Partners is one of a number of approaches routinely applied by DCO applicants in seeking to identify all land interests and therefore satisfy the due diligence test set out in the PA2008. In consideration of this test, the land referencing process, from an applicant’s perspective, has an important role in the preparation of an application for a DCO which would seek powers of Compulsory Acquisition and/ or Temporary Possession. From the perspective of a person with an interest in the land, volunteering details about their interest(s) in land to a DCO applicant will help to ensure that their interest(s) are reflected accurately in any application, and ensure that their ability to engage in the examination of that application is not compromised.

Notwithstanding this, questionnaire recipients are not mandated to volunteer information about their interest(s) in land to a DCO applicant, if they do not wish to do so. Importantly choosing not to volunteer land interest information to a DCO applicant would have no implications for a person’s status and ability to take part in the examination of an application for a DCO, or for any future claims by a person for compensation under the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965; the Land Compensation Act 1973; and/ or s152 of the PA2008.

26 April 2017
Save Manston Airport Association - Beau Webber
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
Further to our previous correspondence regarding the proposed Manston Airport DCO, I'd like to bring to your attention a letter published in this week's Kent on Sunday.

The letter is written by Dr Beau Webber, chair of the Save Manston Airport Association, and he appears to be speaking on behalf of the DCO applicant, RiverOak Strategic Partners. He refers to current activity, apparently being carried out by Mouchel on behalf of RSP, where I understand that Mouchel are asking for detailed information on property ownership without explaining clearly why they are requesting the information. I also understand that they are inappropriately assertive in these requests.

The inappropriateness of Mouchel's actions aside, can you please clarify two things :

1. Is Dr Webber correct in his assertion that if people refuse to provide information to Mouchel's doorstep requests that they will not qualify for compensation should the DCO proceed?
2. Can you confirm whether the Save Manston Airport Association have been formally engaged by RiverOak Strategic Partners to act on their behalf?

Further information which is pertinent to item 2 is the distribution by SMAa of roughly 40,000 leaflets in the locality, with these leaflets heavily promoting RiverOak's DCO attempt. Should these communications be captured in RSP's Statement of Community Consultation, as they are directly associated with their DCO?
1. Is Dr Webber correct in his assertion that if people refuse to provide information to Mouchel's doorstep requests that they will not qualify for compensation should the DCO proceed?

By way of background, where a Development Consent Order (DCO) would seek powers of Compulsory Acquisition and/ or Temporary Possession, sections 44, 57 and 59 of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) establish that in seeking to identify all land interests and persons who may be entitled to make a relevant claim an applicant must make diligent inquiry. Paragraph 50 of the Department for Communities and Local Government’s Planning Act 2008: Guidance on the pre-application process explains:

“It is the applicant’s responsibility to demonstrate at submission of the application that due diligence has been undertaken in identifying all land interests and applicants should make every reasonable effort to ensure that the Book of Reference (which records and categorises those land interests) is up to date at the time of submission.”

Issuing land referencing questionnaires in the format provided by RiverOak Strategic Partners is one of a number of approaches routinely applied by DCO applicants in seeking to identify all land interests and therefore satisfy the due diligence test set out in the PA2008. In consideration of this test, the land referencing process, from an applicant’s perspective, has an important role in the preparation of an application for a DCO which would seek powers of Compulsory Acquisition and/ or Temporary Possession. From the perspective of a person with an interest in the land, volunteering details about their interest(s) in land to a DCO applicant will help to ensure that their interest(s) are reflected accurately in any application, and ensure that their ability to engage in the examination of that application is not compromised.

Notwithstanding this, questionnaire recipients are not mandated to volunteer information about their interest(s) in land to a DCO applicant, if they do not wish to do so. Importantly choosing not to volunteer land interest information to a DCO applicant would have no implications for a person’s status and ability to take part in the examination of an application for a DCO, or for any future claims by a person for compensation under the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965; the Land Compensation Act 1973; and/ or s152 of the PA2008.

2. Can you confirm whether the Save Manston Airport Association (SMA) have been formally engaged by RiverOak Strategic Partners (RSP) to act on their behalf?

The Planning Inspectorate has not been informed about any relationship between the DCO applicant, RSP, and the SMA.

3. Should [circa 40,000 leaflets dropped by the SMA in the locality] be captured in RSP's Statement of Community Consultation (SoCC), as they are directly associated with their DCO?

If RSP submits an application for development consent to the Planning Inspectorate, it will be required to demonstrate in the application that its Pre-application consultation with the local community (under s47 of the PA2008) has been carried out in accordance with the SoCC. If any actions by any person or group are relied upon by an applicant to demonstrate compliance with the tests in s47 of the PA2008, the Planning Inspectorate would expect for those actions to have been scheduled in the SoCC or, where they had not been, explained and justified in an appropriate location within the submitted application(ie the Consultation Report). In this context however I would reemphasise that the Planning Inspectorate has not been informed about any relationship between RSP and the SMA.

26 April 2017
Robert Bird
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
Can you tell me if the attached questionnaire is pertinent to the DCO process as RiverOak Strategic Partners are claiming they are acting on your behalf?
By way of background, where a Development Consent Order (DCO) would seek powers of Compulsory Acquisition and/ or Temporary Possession, sections 44, 57 and 59 of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) establish that in seeking to identify all land interests and persons who may be entitled to make a relevant claim an applicant must make diligent inquiry. Paragraph 50 of the Department for Communities and Local Government’s Planning Act 2008: Guidance on the pre-application process explains:

“It is the applicant’s responsibility to demonstrate at submission of the application that due diligence has been undertaken in identifying all land interests and applicants should make every reasonable effort to ensure that the Book of Reference (which records and categorises those land interests) is up to date at the time of submission.”

Issuing land referencing questionnaires in the format provided by RiverOak Strategic Partners is one of a number of approaches routinely applied by DCO applicants in seeking to identify all land interests and therefore satisfy the due diligence test set out in the PA2008.

In issuing the attached questionnaire RiverOak Strategic Partners (RSP) is not acting on behalf of the Planning Inspectorate. RSP is seeking to identify persons with an interest in the lands which would be affected by the DCO in order that it may provide the requisite information, and satisfy the due diligence tests, in any forthcoming application made to the Planning Inspectorate.

26 April 2017
Save Manston Airport Group - Keith Churcher
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached meeting note

26 April 2017
DONG Energy - Stuart Livesey
Hornsea Project Three Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via email
I hope you can assist me with the following question regarding a potential project my company is considering. The project is the design & construction of a combined heat & power (CHP) project that will primarily provide electricity & steam to an existing industrial site who will use this electricity & steam for their current process requirements. The proposed CHP plant will provide the following electricity & steam to the existing industrial site;

• ~50MWe
• ~153MWth

The proposed CHP plant will replace in its entirety a similar existing CHP plant that currently provides electricity & steam to the existing industrial site as the existing CHP plant has been in operation for ~20 years & may not meet emissions limits going forward & which is located within the industrial sites boundary. Finally, the proposed CHP plant will be built on “brownfield” land within the existing industrial sites boundary directly adjacent to the current CHP plant. I would therefore like to know the following;

I understand a threshold between local planning & NSIP consenting is 50MWe however, can you advise if the value of 50MWe is associated with power plant that exports the power to the local electricity network or grid rather than CHP plant where the majority of power generated is used by an industrial user?
The Planning Act 2008 (as amended) (‘the Act’) governs the development consent process for dealing with ‘nationally significant infrastructure projects (‘NSIPs’).

The National Policy Statements (‘NPSs’) set out national policy for NSIPs. There are six NPSs for energy infrastructure which have effect on the recommendations and decisions on applications for energy developments that fall within their scope.

Under Section 14(1)(a) of the Act the construction or extension of a generating station is defined as an NSIP. Section 15 of the Act clarifies that the construction or extension of a generating station is within section 14(1)(a) only if the generating station is or (when constructed or extended) is expected to be, amongst other things, a generating station that is in England or Wales, not an offshore generating station, and its capacity is more than 50 megawatts.

Section 31 makes clear that consent under the Act is required for development that is or forms part of an NSIP. There is no mechanism under the Act to exempt projects from the NSIP process if they meet the relevant thresholds. The Planning Act 2008 uses the term ‘generating station’, which does not distinguish between combined heat and power (‘CHP’) generating stations and other generating stations. Nonetheless, the energy NPSs EN-1 and EN-2 make clear that CHP development does fall under the NSIP regime.

In your email of 21 April you outline “The proposed CHP plant will provide the following electricity & steam to the existing industrial site [50MWe (153MWth)]… if the value of 50MWe is associated with power plant that exports the power to the local electricity network or grid rather than CHP plant where the majority of power generated is used by an industrial user?”

As noted above, the construction/extension of a generating station is an NSIP if, its capacity is more than 50 megawatts. The current practice is to use ‘total installed capacity’ as the PA2008 does not define “capacity”. The Renewable Order 2009 defines ‘total installed capacity’ in relation to a generating station as the maximum capacity at which the station could be operated for a sustained period without causing damage to it (assuming the source of power used by it to generate electricity was available to it without interruption).

As the anticipated generation of the plant is 50MWe and not above the threshold, the development would not fall under the NSIP regime.

We trust you find this information satisfactory, however if you have any further queries please do not hesitate to contact our office.

25 April 2017
Martyn Thompson
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached meeting note

25 April 2017
Tidal Lagoon Power - Alex Herbert
Tidal Lagoon Cardiff
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please find attached a copy of a letter from No Night Flights to Thanet District Council. The letter is No Night Flights’ comment on a document issued by RSP (RiverOak Strategic Partners). The RSP document is apparently RSP’s draft Statement of Community Consultation (dSoCC). We came across it by chance.

The dSoCC is inadequate in a number of ways. The main issue is that it sets out a programme of consultation activities that avoids making sure that residents under the flight path of the proposed new cargo airport would be told that the consultation exercise is happening.

The attached letter demonstrates the significant difference between the area that RSP claims might be affected by a new cargo hub and the area that residents know from past experience is affected by cargo flights going into and out of the old airport.

As PINS has regular meetings with RSP, we would be grateful if you would bring our grave concerns about RSP’s dSoCC to RSP’s attention.
By way of clarification, applicants are required by s47 of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) to consult each host local authority about the content of a draft Statement of Community Consultation (dSoCC) and must, in preparing the final statement, have regard to any responses provided.

For information, in conjunction with this consultation the Planning Inspectorate was also asked to provide comments on the content of the dSoCC. Our response is published on our website, here: [attachment 1];ipcadvice=5f16d75fa1. To clarify, the request for the Planning Inspectorate to provide comments on the dSoCC was wholly discretionary. There are no provisions within the PA2008 which require the Planning Inspectorate to provide feedback on a dSoCC in this way, or for an applicant to have regard to the feedback that the Planning Inspectorate provides.

In publishing your request for advice, and the Planning Inspectorate’s response to it, the concerns set out in your letter Thanet District Council will be brought to the attention of RSP.

21 April 2017
No Night Flights - Ros McIntyre
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
I fully appreciate that, under under s53 of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended) (the PA2008), the Planning Inspectorate will be assessing any application against whether "... (a) the proposed applicant is considering a distinct project of real substance genuinely requiring entry onto the land." That I am not questioning.

Surely the Planning Inspectorate must also be considering the suitability and the credibility of the applicant, as well as whether it can meet the 'project of real substance' test? I would suggest that the Planning Inspectorate should be carefully assessing the suitability and credibility of any applicant, both for an S53 access application and, in this case, any possible later application for a Development Consent Order.

Given the evidence in my email of 13th April, I am suggesting that the Planning Inspectorate must scrutinize and carefully question the suitability and credibility of RiverOak Strategic Partners should you receive from it any applications for S53 access or for a Development Consent Order.
All applications for authorisation to enter land under s53 of the Planning Act 2008 (the PA2008) will be considered and decided against the statutory tests.

Any subsequent application for a Development Consent Order will be considered for acceptance against the statutory tests in s55 of the PA2008. The Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulation 2009 require applicants to submit a Funding Statement, if the proposed Development Consent Order would authorise the Compulsory Acquisition of land, indicating how the Compulsory Acquisition is proposed to be funded. Concurrently, the Department for Communities and Local Governments’ ‘Planning Act 2008: Guidance related to procedures for the compulsory acquisition of land’ states that the Funding Statement should “demonstrate that adequate funding is likely to be available to enable the Compulsory Acquisition within the statutory period following the order being made, and that the resource implications of a possible acquisition resulting from a blight notice have been taken account of.”

If an application for a Development Consent Order is accepted for examination matters of funding may be examined by the appointed Examining Authority.

21 April 2017
James Baldry
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
1. Please can PINS confirm that RiverOak Strategic Partner’s new application [for s53 authorisation] will be treated as an application by an entirely new and separate commercial entity?

2. Please can PINS clarify at what stage in proceedings the credibility or otherwise of the applicant will be assessed, and how PINS assesses whether or not it has an applicant that is in a credible and sound position to consider: “a distinct project of real substance genuinely requiring entry onto the land”?
1. The Planning Inspectorate can confirm that the new application for authorisation under s53 of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) will be decided on the basis of the information provided by the applicant, RiverOak Strategic Partners Ltd, and in the consideration of any comments made to the Planning Inspectorate by the relevant landowner.

2. The Planning Inspectorate’s Advice note 5: Rights of entry explains how decisions are made in respect of applications for authorisation to enter land under s53 of the PA2008. All of the Planning Inspectorate’s advice notes are available to view on its website, here: [attachment 1]

Section 53(1) of the PA2008 permits the Secretary of State to authorise entry for the purpose of surveying and taking levels or to facilitate compliance with the provisions in subsection 53(1A) in connection with an application for an order granting development consent, a proposed application for an order granting development consent, or an order granting development consent that includes provision authorising the compulsory acquisition of that land or of an interest in it or right over it.

If authorisation is sought in relation to a proposed application for an order granting development consent (subsection 1(b)) section 53(2) of the PA2008 states that:

(2) Authorisation may be given by the Secretary of State under subsection (1)(b) in relation to any land only if it appears to the Secretary of State that—
(a) the proposed applicant is considering a distinct project of real substance genuinely requiring entry onto the land

Any application(s) for authorisation to enter land at the former Manston Airport under s53 of the PA2008 will be considered and decided against the statutory tests set out in the legislation in consideration of the Department for Communities and Local Government’s ‘Planning Act 2008: The Infrastructure Planning (Fees) Regulations 2010 - Guidance’ (March 2017) and in accordance with the Planning Inspectorate’s advice notes.

Any subsequent application for a Development Consent Order will be considered for acceptance against the statutory tests in s55 of the PA2008. The Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulation 2009 require applicants to submit a Funding Statement, if the proposed Development Consent Order would authorise the Compulsory Acquisition of land, indicating how the Compulsory Acquisition is proposed to be funded. Concurrently, the Department for Communities and Local Governments’ ‘Planning Act 2008: Guidance related to procedures for the compulsory acquisition of land’ states that the Funding Statement should “demonstrate that adequate funding is likely to be available to enable the Compulsory Acquisition within the statutory period following the order being made, and that the resource implications of a possible acquisition resulting from a blight notice have been taken account of.”

If an application for a Development Consent Order is accepted for examination matters of funding may be examined by the appointed Examining Authority.

21 April 2017
No Night Flights - Phil Rose
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Update meeting on approach to Development Consent Order (DCO), Cumulative Effects Assessment (CEA), and Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)
See attached meeting note and presentation

21 April 2017
Horizon Nuclear Power
Wylfa Newydd Nuclear Power Station
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Please see meeting note attached
Please see meeting note attached

20 April 2017
Vattenfall
Norfolk Boreas
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
See attached meeting note

20 April 2017
Vattenfall - anon.
Thanet Extension Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
1. Would a battery storage project with a capacity of more than 50 MW be classified as an NSIP?

2. If a site already has consent for a 40MW Gas fired electricity peaking plant and either the same or a new developer wanted to develop another project of between 10MW and 40MW on a directly adjacent site, is there a potential that the 2nd application would be classed as a NSIP/DCO project (because the two projects somehow become aggregated)?
1. The Planning Inspectorate (PINS) recognises that battery storage is a new and novel form of energy infrastructure and further consideration and work is ongoing to understand the technology better and the regulatory framework it will operate in.

The Department of Business Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) issued a consultation and call for evidence regarding energy storage on 10 November 2016. The consultation closed on 12 January 2017: [attachment 1]

Paragraph 22 of the consultation document states that, "For the time being BEIS, the Scottish Government and the Welsh Government agree that a storage facility is a form of electricity generating station. This means that a storage facility with a capacity of >50MW in England and Wales will need development consent as required by sections 15 and 31 of the Planning Act 2008 or Scottish Ministers’ consent under section 36 of the Electricity Act. We believe further clarity is needed within the planning framework about how to classify and treat storage projects, given the emerging nature of the market and new technologies."

BEIS are currently reviewing the responses received from the consultation and considering how battery storage fits into the wider energy infrastructure landscape and the policy position will be clarified in due course.

2. Firstly, may I explain that PINS does not have the power to give a legally binding interpretation on whether the potential generating station proposal to which you refer (40MW Gas fired electricity peaking plant by either the same or a new developer of a generating capacity of between 10MW and 40MW on a directly adjacent site) would be classed as a NSIP/DCO project. Only the Courts can ultimately determine the interpretation of legislation, and to date there has been no case law on this point under the PA 2008 regime. It will of course be for the developer who wants to construct the generating station to decide whether or not to apply for development consent taking their own legal advice which they can rely on.
However, may I refer you to the legislation below which should help advise you.
Under section 14(1)(a) of the Planning Act, as amended, PA 2008, the construction or extension of a generating station is defined as a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (‘NSIP’). Section 15 of PA 2008 clarifies that the construction or an extension of a generating station is within section 14(1)(a) only if the generating station is or (when constructed or extended) is expected to be, amongst other things, a generating station that is in England or Wales, not an offshore generating station, and its capacity is more than 50 megawatts.
It may also be helpful to look at the definition of extension as set out in section 235(1) of PA 2008 which states that it has the meaning given by section 36(9) of the Electricity Act 1989. This states that: ' “extension”, in relation to a generating station, includes the use by the person operating the station of any land (wherever situated) for a purpose directly related to the generation of electricity by that station'.
Within the context of the PA 2008, it is an offence under section 160 if a “person carries out, or causes to be carried out, development for which development consent is required at a time when no development consent is in force in respect of the development.” Whether or not development consent is required does not depend on legal ownership but on whether the capacity of the generating station as constructed or extended would exceed 50 megawatts.
It should also be noted that the Planning Inspectorate, on behalf of the Secretary of State, is only able to decide whether development consent is required for a project, under section 44 of PA 2008, once an application has been formally submitted.
Please note that the Inspectorate has a statutory duty under section 51 of PA2008 to record any advice given in relationship to an application or potential application and make it publicly available.

19 April 2017
Stor Power Ltd - Jenka Kaslik
General
Enquiry received via email
We understand that you have received, or are about to receive, a Section 53 application from a company called RiverOak Strategic Partners (RSP) for access to a privately owned site in the UK belonging to Stone Hill Park. It appears RSP is a newly registered company with absolutely no previous experience in airport operations, yet it is proposing to apply for a Development Consent Order (DCO) to build a huge air cargo hub in the South East of England at the former Manston airfield. Further, by its own admission, RSP is not affiliated to a similarly named company, RiverOak Investment Corporation of Stamford, USA, which company previously had discussions with yourselves for such a project. Furthermore, it now appears that 90% of RSP ownership is held by another recently formed company, M.I.O. Investments, registered in Belize. I’m sure I do not need to remind you that:

• Belize is a tax-free, secret and secure Tax Haven –
“Privacy barriers have progressively weakened in traditional tax havens such as Switzerland and Luxembourg, opening the door for countries like Belize to establish their status as the next generation of tax havens.” (1)
“To extend confidentiality for account holders, Belize places no restrictions on currency movements in and out of the country.” ….. “Belize also has no tax treaties with other governments, which have been used to weaken financial privacy protections, particularly in Europe.” (1)

• Belize is a centre for money laundering –
“There are strong indications that laundered proceeds are increasingly related to organized criminal groups involved in the trafficking of illegal narcotics, psychotropic substances, and chemical precursors. The government of Belize continues to encourage offshore financial activities that are vulnerable to money laundering and terrorist financing, including offshore banks, insurance companies, trust service providers, mutual fund companies, and international business companies,” (2)

• Belize attracts drug trafficking –
“But Belize remains a pushover for the powerful drug barons. The country does not have a radar system that can track unauthorized flights. Its military lacks helicopters, let alone other basic hardware. Belizean police don’t even have the ability to intercept cell phone communications.” (3)

• “Belize is vulnerable to money laundering due to the lack of enforcement of its laws and regulations, strong bank secrecy protections, geographic location, and weak investigatory and prosecutorial capacity. The sources of money laundering in Belize are drug trafficking, tax evasion, securities fraud, and conventional structuring schemes.” (4)
Whilst not suggesting that RSP might be involved in money laundering or drug trafficking, nonetheless the Belize connection must raise significant questions about the propriety of these arrangements.

Sources:
(1) Investopedia
(2) 2016 International Narcotics Control Strategy Report (INCSR) published by the US State Department
(3) The Washington Post
(4) United States Department of State Bureau for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs ‘International Narcotics Control Strategy Report: Volume II’

My question is:
Can the Planning Inspectorate consider this a sensible, serious and credible application for an s53 access to privately owned land in the UK, let alone, maybe later, to be considered for a Development Consent Order?
Through functions delegated by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the Planning Inspectorate is the decision-maker in respect of applications for authorisation to access private land under s53 of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended) (the PA2008).

Section 53(1) of the PA2008 permits the Secretary of State to authorise entry for the purpose of surveying and taking levels or to facilitate compliance with the provisions in subsection 53(1A) in connection with an application for an order granting development consent, a proposed application for an order granting development consent, or an order granting development consent that includes provision authorising the compulsory acquisition of that land or of an interest in it or right over it.

If authorisation is sought in relation to a proposed application for an order granting development consent (subsection 1(b)) section 53(2) of the PA2008 states that:

(2) Authorisation may be given by the Secretary of State under subsection (1)(b) in relation to any land only if it appears to the Secretary of State that—
(a) the proposed applicant is considering a distinct project of real substance genuinely requiring entry onto the land

In granting authorisation under s53 of the PA2008 on 16 December 2016 for entry onto land in connection with a proposed application for an order granting development consent for Manston Airport, the Secretary of State found that the proposed applicant was considering a distinct project of real substance genuinely requiring entry onto the land for the purposes of the s53 authorisation.

Any subsequent application(s) for authorisation to enter land at the former Manston Airport will be considered and decided against the same statutory tests as the 2016 application.

Any subsequent application for a development consent order will be considered for acceptance against the statutory tests in s55 of the PA2008.

19 April 2017
James Baldry
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via
response has attachments
Query regarding s44 notification
May I refer you to the following sections of the PA 2008 that clarify that you need to notify everyone that has an interest in the land.

Under s42(d) of the PA 2008 the Applicant has a duty to consult, ‘Each person who is within one or more categories set out in section 44’.

Under s44 there are 3 Categories of Affected persons that need to be notified. These are;

Category 1- owner, lessee, tenant, occupier
Category 2- have other legal interest in the land
Category 3- No legal interest in the land but may be affected by the construction or use of the works.

With regard to Category 3, SPEN would need to notify anyone that you have identified that would or might be able to make a claim for compensation due to the construction or use of the works. If you haven’t identified anyone then there is no one to notify however, as we have previously discussed, it would be very unusual for no Category 3 persons to be identified and you would need to justify that when submitting your application.

Please also refer back to advice we gave you at our last project meeting in January.

[attachment 1]

18 April 2017
SP Energy Networks - Steven Edwards - anon.
Reinforcement to North Shropshire Electricity Distribution Network
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Dear Sirs,

On your advice notes page: [attachment 1]

Advice note 5 on rights of entry refer to S53 of the Planning Act 2008, setting out in great detail the basis of entry and process. However we note that since this advice was last updated in 2015, the Housing and Planning Act 2016 has come into force and it appears that under S172 (etc) there are new powers of entry which are considerably different to the advice given.

Can you comment whether you intend to update the advice in note 5, or whether you feel the advice is still valid and current (ie that S172 rights of entry do not apply to a national Infrastructure project (applying for an intended DCO).

Thanks

Kind Regards

Fraser

Fraser Paskell
Senior Solicitor
For Churchgate Accountants Limited
18 Langton Place, Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk, IP33 1NE
T: 01284 701271, T (direct): 01284 718555 F: 01284 762760
W: churchgates.co.uk
Dear Mr Paskell,

Thank you for your enquiry regarding the status of Planning Inspectorate’s Advice Note 5 and the relationship between s53 of the Planning Act 2008 and s172 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016. I can confirm that the Planning Inspectorate’s Advice Note 5 has very recently been updated, but not in relation to s172 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016 to which you refer.

In the case of a prospective development consent order (DCO), the policy intention is that the power of entry in s53 of the Planning Act 2008 should be used.

Where an existing specific power of entry has not been limited in scope by Schedule 14 to the Housing and Planning Act 2016, the policy intention is for this existing power to continue to be used in the same way. We note the principle of statutory interpretation that where a general enactment covers a situation for which specific provision is made by another enactment contained in an earlier Act, it is presumed that the situation is intended to continue to be dealt with by the specific provision rather than the later general one.

Therefore, while the Neighbourhood Planning Bill amends the definition of “acquiring authority” in s172 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016 to remove the link to the definition of “compulsory purchase” in the Acquisition of Land Act 1981, in the case of a prospective DCO, the policy intention is that the more specific power in s53 of the Planning Act 2008 should remain in use.

As I am sure you will appreciate, any advice given by the Planning Inspectorate does not constitute legal advice upon which applicants (or others) can rely and we cannot provide a definitive interpretation of law.

Kind regards

David

David Price
EIA and Land Rights Manager
Major Applications and Plans
The Planning Inspectorate
Temple Quay House
Temple Quay
Bristol
BS1 6PN
Direct Line: 0303 444 5055
Helpline: 0303 444 5000
Email:david.price@pins.gsi.gov.uk
Web: infrastructure.planninginspectorate.gov.uk (National Infrastructure Planning)
Web: www.gov.uk/government/organisations/planning-inspectorate (The Planning Inspectorate)
Twitter: @PINSgov

This communication does not constitute legal advice.
Please view our Information Charter before sending information to the Planning Inspectorate.

12 April 2017
Churchgate Accountants Limited - Fraser Paskell
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see the attached meeting note

07 April 2017
National Grid - Eloise Frank
North Wales Connection
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached meeting note

06 April 2017
Horizon Nuclear Energy - David Palmer
Wylfa Newydd Nuclear Power Station
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see the attached advise on the draft application documents

05 April 2017
Eggborough Power Limited - James Crankshaw
Eggborough CCGT
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Questions Raised by the Parish Council Coordination Group for consideration by the Planning Inspectorate
See attached response

04 April 2017
Parish Council Coordination Group - David Savage
North West Coast Connections Project - N Grid
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
The Planning Inspectorate presented to local authorities and other statutory consultees about the Planning Act 2008 process.
See attached note and presentation.

04 April 2017
Port of Tilbury London Ltd - anon.
Tilbury2
Enquiry received via email
Para 5.4 of page 15 of your April 2015 Guidance Note states that the Planning Inspectorate is not responsible for compliance with any Section 53 Authorisations granted by the Secretary of State. As the party that manages the process under which parties apply for S53 Authorisation, please confirm the following:

Who is responsible for compliance?

If there is a breach of any conditions set by the Secretary of State (B4 of your guidance note) what happens to the authorisation if there is a provision in the condition that states the authorisation ceases immediately?

If where should any breaches of the conditions, which party requires to be notified to ensure that the correct action is taken?
If an authorisation is given under s53 of the Planning Act 2008 it may be exercised by the person or persons to whom it gives authority to enter land, for the purposes specified within it, subject to such person or persons complying with any conditions subject to which it is given.

If an owner or occupier of that land considered there to be a failure to comply with any such conditions or that the person or persons purporting to exercise the authority is or are not authorised to do so, then the owner or occupier would need to seek his or her own legal advice as to what action he or she may be able to take in relation to such matters. We are not able to provide you with legal advice in relation to such matters.

30 March 2017
Laurence Maccali
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached note

30 March 2017
Abergelli Power Ltd - Kirstin Gardner
Abergelli Power
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached meeting ntoe

30 March 2017
Millbrook Power Ltd - Nick Johnson
Millbrook Power
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Would the Planning Inspectorate have recommended to the Secretary of State that s53 Authorisation be granted to RiverOak Investment Corporation LLP (ROIC), if it had been aware that ROIC had no continuing interest in the DCO process?

Would it have been ultra vires for the Secretary of State to have granted the s53 Authorisation if aware that the Applicant had no continuing interest in the scheme?
See attached letter.

27 March 2017
Herbert Smith Freehills - anon.
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Meeting between PINS and NRW to discuss the Wylfa Newydd Generating Station project
See attached meeting note

27 March 2017
Natural Resources Wales (NRW)
Wylfa Newydd Nuclear Power Station
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see the attached meeting note

23 March 2017
Four Ashes Ltd - anon.
West Midlands Interchange
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see the attached meeting note

23 March 2017
anon.
Northampton Gateway Rail Freight Interchange
Enquiry received via
response has attachments
Please see meeting note attached
Please see meeting note attached

22 March 2017
Scottish Power Renewable
East Anglia ONE North Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via
response has attachments
Please see attached meeting note
Please see attached meeting note

22 March 2017
Scottish Power Renewable
East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see the attached meeting note

22 March 2017
London Resort Company Holdings - Chris Potts
The London Resort
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I have recently become aware that an amendment, allowing houses to be included in a DCO application, has been made to the Planning Act 2008 via a section contained in the Housing and Planning Act 2016. (See below)

[attachment 1]

Can you please confirm whether it is still possible to include housing as part of the Manston Airport DCO application, using this amendment to the PA2008, as there has not yet been a formal application for this scheme?

If this is possible, can you please advise whether there will be any requirements for how the housing element fits into the overall project phasing, especially with regards as to whether it can be implemented in advance of the NSIP elements of the overall scheme?
A developer can amend a proposed development at any point during the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) process. The evolution/ refinement of a proposed development is a dynamic process, and the process allows for the design of a proposed development to be responsive through the stages of consultation up to the point of the formal submission of an application. However, where any change(s) would give rise to a materially different proposed development, there are certain statutory provisions which require for the description of a proposed development to be reflected accurately and consistently.

If a developer decided to include in a proposed application any related housing development as defined in s115(4B) of the PA2008, it would be required to reflect that element in its description of the proposed development. The developer would need to demonstrate that it had fulfilled its statutory Pre-application consultation requirements regarding the related housing development.

The Environmental Statement submitted with an application for development consent will report on the likely significant environmental effects arising from a proposed development, and will be informed by the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) undertaken. The scope of a developer's EIA must therefore be sufficient to encompass the breadth of development proposed. In the context of your enquiry, the Planning Inspectorate advises in its Scoping Opinions that they can only reflect the proposals as described by the developer at the point the Scoping Request is made. If the description of a proposed development changes substantially during the EIA process, prior to the submission of an application developers may wish to consider the need to request a new Scoping Opinion.

In respect of phasing, this can only be proposed by a developer within an application for development consent. The sequence for delivery of a proposed development is subject to the examination of an appointed Examining Authority. It is not a matter about which the Planning Inspectorate can provide procedural advice. It is noted that there are no specific provisions regarding the phasing of development either within the PA2008 or in associated guidance.

20 March 2017
Robert Bird
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
Query regarding alternatives
Many of the points in your email are addressed by [advice given in response of 6 February 2017], although I appreciate that you have identified certain specific pieces of information that you would like National Grid to provide. I have notified National Grid of the concerns you raised in your response.

As I explained, Applicants should provide enough information to allow members of the public to participate in their consultation activities, but are not required to provide or produce information purely because other parties have requested it to support their submissions. As previously noted, further policy on the consideration of alternatives can be found in National Policy Statement EN-1, Section 4.4.

I do not know if National Grid hold the information that you have requested, and since we have received no application as yet, I cannot say if that information will be submitted at the examination. However once an application has been made and if it is accepted for examination, it is open to you raise issues regarding this with the Examining Authority.

Before accepting an application, the Planning Act 2008 requires that the Secretary of State must be satisfied that the Applicant’s pre-application consultation has complied with the provisions in the Act and that the application is of a satisfactory standard to be examined. As part of this we will consult local authorities and consider any representations received by those authorities as to whether the applicant has complied with sections 42, 47 and 48 of the Planning Act 2008.

20 March 2017
Power Without Pylons - Graham Barron
North West Coast Connections Project - N Grid
Enquiry received via email
What are the rules governing applicants in DCO processes in the following specific circumstances;
· Application is at pre-application stage (Scoping Report submitted) and is currently progressing towards full submission of the application.
· The Applicant decides that it no longer wishes to pursue the application itself – this may be either as a result of (i) it no longer believing in, or wishing to fund the progress of, the DCO process itself or (ii) it having received an attractive financial offer from an unrelated party to acquire its interests in the process). It is assumed that the Applicant does not hold/own the land interests to which the DCO process relates, therefore the acquiring party is just taking over the Applicant’s interests in the DCO application process

Apologies but there are a couple of parts to my query;
• Is the application personal to the legal entity that is noted as the Applicant?
• Is the Applicant able to transfer its position or rights as Applicant to another legal entity? If so;
o are there are any provisions that restrict the ability of the Applicant to transfer freely (e.g. are transfers restricted to Group companies only, is PINS consent required, and if so what is the basis for PINS agreeing to grant consent?)
o can the new Applicant step into the shoes of the original Applicant and benefit from documentation that had previously been submitted by, and on behalf of, the original Applicant (e.g. Scoping Report)
o do authorisations granted by PINS to the Original Applicant still apply.
· If the Applicant is not able to transfer its position in the DCO process, is a new application required?
I will deal with each query in turn, however please note this email does not constitute legal advice which you or others can rely on. I would advise you to seek your own legal advice.
• During the pre-application stage of the process, the application is not personal to the legal entity that is noted as the Applicant.
• The Applicant may decide to continue with its proposed application, or not to progress it as it sees fit. It is a matter for the respective Applicant, not for the Inspectorate. However, the Inspectorate should be informed of any change of Applicant.
• The new Applicant may be able to step into the shoes of the original Applicant and benefit from documentation; such as a Scoping Report that had previously been submitted by, and on behalf of, the original Applicant. However, it depends on the stage of the process a proposed application has reached and if the proposed application is the same as the original. Documentation relating to funding etc would need to be Applicant specific.
• Authorisations granted by the Planning Inspectorate on behalf of the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to the original Applicant, would not be transferable to a new Applicant as they are Applicant, not project specific.
• The new Applicant may be able to continue with the original application, this will depend on the circumstances.

16 March 2017
Jamie Macnamara
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
See attached meeting note
See attached meeting note

15 March 2017
Indigo Power - Alison Hastings
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Update in relation to the North West Coast Connections Project
See attached meeting note

14 March 2017
National Grid
North West Coast Connections Project - N Grid
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see the attached meeting note

14 March 2017
Highways England - Hugh Coakley
General
Enquiry received via email
With regards to the s.53 access request, as the applicant was the US RiverOak entity, and 'authorised persons' are defined as the applicant and other person's authorised by the applicant, can you advise whether the permission remains extant now that the US entity no longer appear to have a connection with the DCO application.

If the permission does remain in force, presumably any person wishing to access the site under the permission will need to be formally authorised by the US RiverOak entity rather than the UK RSP Ltd?
The s53 authorisation remains extant subject to the definition of "authorised persons" in Annex 1 of the authorisation.

Any person wishing to access the site under the terms of the authorisation will need to be authorised to do so by RiverOak Investment Corporation.

10 March 2017
Robert Bird
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I note from recent correspondence on your website, and documents published by RiverOak, that the US part of RiverOak is apparently no longer connected to the application for a DCO for the former Manston airport.

However, RiverOak's online presence directs people to the website of their US operation, including a US phone number (See [attachment 1]).

In addition, the PINS webpage for the project also indicates that the applicant is River Investment Corporation LLC although the address links to BDB-Law. The developer website (shown as [attachment 1]) clearly indicates that the developer is the US operation.

There is no longer any reference to either aviation projects, or any of the RiverOak personnel involved in the Manston project, on the US website (though historically there has been content regarding aviation, and bio material on Tony Freudmann, Niall Lawlor and George Yerrall), indicating that the US entity has washed it's hands of the project.

As the US entity is apparently no longer involved in the application I have concerns that as RiverOak approach their formal consultations their online presence is misleading, as it presents a formal business link to an established investment firm, when this appears not to be the case.

I would appreciate it if you could contact the developer and ask them to resolve this issue. I would contact them directly, however they do not respond to email correspondence, and it is no longer clear who should be contacted.

Could you also clarify whether the apparent change in legal entity has any impact on the work carried out on the DCO application so far, or whether the limited progress made to date remain a valid in the overall project.
The Planning Inspectorate has not been notified about any change to the Applicant's name.

In the period before an Applicant formally notifies the Secretary of State of a proposed application (s46 of the Planning Act 2008), any change to an Applicant's name or the legal entity associated with it would not have implications for any Pre-application work predating that change.

In the case of the proposed Manston Airport, the Applicant has undertaken non-statutory consultation under the name RiverOak Investment Corp LLC. An Applicant may choose to report on elements of any non-statutory consultation that it undertook in the Consultation Report submitted with its application, although the PA2008 is not binding in this respect. If the Applicant for Manston Airport chooses to report on its non-statutory consultation in the CR submitted with an application, it would be reasonable to expect any change in name to be explained and for the steps the Applicant took to clarify the change to consultees to be summarised.

08 March 2017
Robert Bird
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
Sorry to bother you again, as a resident of Leiston -cum - Sizewell, you will understand I have a great deal of concern about my local patch.
I have therefore taken a great deal of interest in the Statutory Bodies Responses to the SZC 2nd Consultation, I assume these responses are available to members of the public on request as they are a part of the pre-application process. I have been pleased to received several including Suffolk County Council and Suffolk Coastal District Council.

However are there any circumstances in which a Public Body as a Statutory Consultee may with hold their response to EDFE when it is requested by a member of the public ?
Thank you for your email regarding EDFE’s pre-application consultation for the proposed Sizewell C New Nuclear Power Station.

There is no provision in the 2008 Planning Act (as amended) (PA2008) that states that the Applicant must publish any responses from a statutory body it has consulted with before submitting the application to the Planning Inspectorate (the Inspectorate). The responses will however be summarised and included as part of the Applicant’s consultation report when the application is submitted to the Inspectorate to show how the consultation has informed the application.

If you wish to read the statutory bodies’ responses before the application is submitted to the Inspectorate, I would recommend you contact the Applicant directly to request copies of the responses. If the Applicant is unable to supply you with copies of the responses, the relevant statutory bodies might be able to send you copies of their responses.

Please be aware that should there be any sensitive material contained in the correspondence, the Applicant and/or statutory bodies may be unable to release the information to you.

Please also note we have now set up a project mailbox: Sizewellc@pins.gsi.gov.uk which I have copied into this response. This will be monitored regularly by the project team should you need any further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact us.

08 March 2017
Joan Girling
Sizewell C New Nuclear Power Station
Enquiry received via email
Bircham Dyson Bell, on behalf of the Applicant, invited comments from the Planning Inspectorate about the draft Statement of Community Consultation (dSoCC).
• Re. the document cover and para 3.1 (etc), I note that the name of the Applicant is different to the name on the Planning Inspectorate’s website. Should the details on our website be updated to reflect the dSoCC? Is RiverOak Strategic Partners the same legal entity as RiverOak Investment Corp. LLC? The Applicant will have noted from our website that this point has generated requests for advice from members of the local community. In the interests of transparency, it may be useful to provide a short explanation in the dSoCC explaining the change to the Applicant’s name.
• In para 1.2, and again in para 11.5, it may assist the reader to distinguish the roles of the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (SoSCLG) and the Secretary of State for Transport (SoST) ie the application will be made to the Planning Inspectorate and decided through functions delegated from the SoSCLG, and SoST is the decision maker. This could help to establish the separate functions within government.
• Re. para 2.5 and para 4.4, the statements separating the Development Consent Order consultation from the Civil Aviation Authority licence application/ draft Airports National Policy Statement consultation (and consultation on the airspace change process?) could usefully appear under a separate subheading explaining what the SoCC ‘isn’t’.
• In para 4.1 the Applicant may wish to reiterate that s47 consultation constitutes consultation with the local community.
• In para 4.5, the Applicant may wish to state explicitly that the Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project is ‘EIA development’.
• In the final bullet at para 6.1, the Applicant may wish to reiterate that the ‘first stage’ of consultation was non-statutory.
• Re. para 7.2, in the interest of consistency with the notice under s48 of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008), it would be advisable for the Applicant to make clear whether or not a charge will apply to hard copies of the Preliminary Environmental Information Report, and the amount of any charge.
• Re. the text after the table in para 8.1, how would residents know that these ‘individual presentations’ were taking place?
• Re. para 9.2, what is the exceptional circumstances test? The Applicant may wish to give examples, or consider deleting this caveat.
• In para 11.1, the Applicant may wish to insert ‘legal’ before ‘interest’. The Planning Inspectorate is regularly tasked with explaining to members of the public the distinction between persons with an interest in the proposed development and those with a legal interest in the Order lands.
• Re. para 11.3, what are the consultation principles set out in the dSoCC? Which specific principles would apply to any further consultation?
• Re. Appendix 1, is the Applicant confident that none of the parish/ town councils listed here are statutory consultees?
• Re. Appendix 2, the Applicant may wish to consider whether the map provides sufficient detail to enable members of local community to ascertain whether they should expect to receive notification of the consultation by post.
• As you will be aware from the published advice on our website, one of the key concerns expressed by members of the public about the non-statutory consultation was the perceived handling of consultation responses by non-RiverOak staff. Whilst not technically required by the PA2008, it might be useful for the Applicant to include a sentence about the handling of representations/ The Data Protection Act and to clarify, if applicable, that the statutory consultation events will be organised and managed solely by the Applicant’s appointed persons.

08 March 2017
Bircham Dyson Bell - Alex Hallatt
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
Thank you for your recent reply. However your answer suggests that the proposers letters are a benign request for information and outside of the scope set out in the Planning Act 2008.

Remember that we only sent you the covering letter not the seventeen pages of details and questions.
Those documents revealed extensive research into property and land ownership has already taken place. The tables they included detailed exactly who owns the land, including tenancies or mortgagors – together with details of what neighbours owned.
It would therefore be naïve to think that the letters are just for double checking their data at this pre-application stage; they are part of a slick strategy of applying pressure by suggestion that the project is a done deal – particularly to older or more vulnerable members of the community.
In fact the agency used by the proposer, TerraQuest, hosted a forum in London in February on how to get major infrastructure projects passed the planning inspectorate.
TerraQuest also operate the Planning Portal – possibly running PINS Portal as well?

If you have elderly parents, consider the effect of a seventeen page package arriving full of personal information and unexplained data, highlighted in red as affecting your retirement property - maybe even shaded in pink on the plans to suggest demolition.
That is not the intention of pre-application legislation.

Last week the House of Lords debated community interests in Strategic Planning matters: (Quoting from Hansard) “…. applicants are required to engage and consult local communities and local authorities from the outset, with local authorities having a role in assessing the adequacy of that consultation”.


c.29 Part 5 Chapter 2 of the 2008 Act stipulates:

42 Duty to consult those persons specified and the Local Authority for that same consultation - which was not done.

45 (2) States pre-application consultations requesting answers, to give not less than 28 days - which they did not.

46 (1) Notification to the Commission of the same information on or before commencing pre- consultation under section 42 – which was not?

47 (1) The applicant must prepare a statement detailing how to consult people living in the vicinity, in conjunction with the local authority – which it has not.
We assume that the timetable for this should have been after first consultation with PINS and taxpayer expenditure commences. Given that the pre-application stage is already in progress and that PINS have had a number of meetings and a site visit, at what stage would you expect to a Statement of Community Consultation?

52. Obtaining information about interests in land.
For a compulsory reply to property information it would require the commission to authorise it. That should have been stated - rather than to construct letters which imply it.
Currently there is no legal requirement to provide private information – including the telephone numbers and emails that were requested. A strategy to isolate and pressure individuals.

55 (3) The commission may only accept the application if the applicant has complied with Chapter 2: Pre-application procedure. By which means can the Commission know this if there is no Statement prepared?

We look forward to your response.

We hope the Planning Inspectorate will apply neutrality, fairness and rigid compliance to these proceedings. Do not forget that with a major proposal such as this (where the sole purpose of the project is to make money); the advice of influencing it in the pre-application stage is somewhat moot. This proposal is the evolution of several earlier commercial, industrial and logistics applications thrown out by local government - that have now found the magic key of parking it next to a railway. Clever and well funded developers will exploit every trick to make a project appear to save the planet and employ most of England.
For us it is not a question of objecting to minor aspects; if we don’t prevail over this application our community will cease to be.


You requested our South Staffs District Council contact: David Pattison, Director of Legal and Public Health Protection. D.Pattison@sstaffs.gov.uk

We also requested clarification of registering as the group representing local community opposition to the proposal. Can this be entered now - if not when?
The covering letters you have provided to us do not appear to be statutory consultation under either Section (s)42 or s47 of the Act (the latter of which would have to be informed by a Statement of Community Consultation (SoCC)) or a statutory request for information under s52. They appear to be non-statutory requests for information.

How the applicant chooses to conduct their non-statutory, pre-application public engagement activities is not something that we control. The Secretary of State has provided advice on the pre-application process, including consultation, that can be found here. I have also attached the following Advice Notes which explain in detail the planning process for nationally significant infrastructure projects, which may be helpful to you:

Advice Note 8: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public
Advice Note 8.1: Responding to the developer’s pre-application consultation
Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination
Advice Note 8.3: Influencing how an application is Examined: the Preliminary Meeting
Advice Note 8.4: The Examination

Our full series of Advice Notes can be found here.

You have also correctly identified those sections of the Act that set out statutory pre-application consultation duties, and in addition there is s49, where the applicant has a duty to have regard to statutory responses received. If an application is submitted, the applicant will have to show, among other things, that all of the requirements in Part 2 of the Act have been met (including that a SoCC has been produced and followed) before we can consider accepting it for examination. We will invite the host and neighbouring local authorities to comment on whether or not consultation has been adequate before making that determination, and so you may wish to make your concerns known to them as well.

The best opportunity to influence the form of, or likelihood of an application is at this pre-application stage. I note your view that the applicant may not be engaging in good faith. I encourage you to respond to the applicant’s pre-application consultation, even if you have concerns about whether or not your views will be considered. One of the duties in Part 2 of the Act (s49) requires that the applicant have regard to responses to their statutory pre-application consultation.

If an application is submitted, and if one is accepted for examination, you will have the opportunity to register to participate in that examination and make submissions on whether or not the form of the proposal that is described in the application is acceptable, and whether Development Consent should be granted. The period for registering as an Interested Party to the proposed development will be at least 28 days, and the deadline for responses will be advertised by the developer in their publicity notices, as well as by ourselves on our webpage for this project, where you can also register for updates via email on key events.

07 March 2017
Stop the Gailey Freight Hub - Maurice Cotton
West Midlands Interchange
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I see that Michael CHILD has emailed you usefully re a Riveroak consultative document and its status.

I have emailed their solicitor with my precautionary principle concerns a number of times. No acknowledgement no reply.

I have emailed Thanet District Council numerous times re their failure to comply with Aarhus Convention. No acknowledgement no reply.

I have pursued FOI with Thanet Clinical Commissioning Group (A party I think you added to the consukltation list ?) and found that TDC have never told them about Thor and Sericol remediations IE the body responsible for health care planning has never been told about decades of contamination of water supply and its possible link to Thanet having highest COPD rate in UK. And aberrant high rates of other disease such as polycystic ovary and ectopic pregnancy and cancers. Keeping Thanet Clinical Commissioning Group in the dark is in spite of a former Labour leader of TDC sitting on the group !!

What is the Riveroak email address or postal address to respond to formal consultation ?
The Planning Inspectorate understands that the Applicant is in the process of consulting on the content of its draft Statement of Community Consultation with the s43 local authorities. Once finalised, a final Statement of Community Consultation (SoCC) will be made available for inspection and published in the prescribed manner. The final SoCC must include details about how the local community can respond to this statutory consultation.

Section 47 of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended) sets out in the statutory duties placed on Applicants in respect of the preparation of a SoCC. For more information please see section 5 of our ‘Advice Note 2: The role of local authorities in the development consent process’: [attachment 1]

At the time of writing the means by which the Applicant can be contacted is explained on its website, here: [attachment 2]

03 March 2017
Richard Card
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
To provide an overview of the Planning Act 2008 process to the A47 Alliance Steering Group Meeting
Please see the attached meeting note and presentation.

03 March 2017
Norfolk County Council - Hannah Grimes
General
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Hi with reference to the Manston DCO pre application [attachment 1] a draft consultation document has appeared on the Support Manston Airport website at [attachment 1] I am uncertain whether this website is partly or wholly run and or financed by the applicant.
I can’t find this document the National Infrastructure Planning website or either of the applicant’s previous websites [attachment 3] or [attachment 4]

It appears that the applicant has now changed from an American company RiverOak Investment
Corp., LLC One Atlantic Street, Suite 703 Stamford, CT 06901 U.S.A. to a UK company RiverOak Strategic Partners, 50 Broadway Westminster, London, United Kingdom, SW1H 0BL which doesn’t appear to have a website. Can you kindly confirm that this is correct.

I am assuming that as this draft consultation document has appeared in the public domain that this part of the process of determining the scope of the consultation and that eventually a formal consultation document will appear.

I am concerned that the scope of the proposed formal consultation is too narrow particularly with respect to the area within which residential and business addresses will be sent notification of the consultation by post.

I assumed that this type of notification would be sent to all those addresses under the low flying airport approach and takeoff flight path within the previously identified aircraft noise envelope.
Could you kindly clarify these issues and tell me how or if I can communicate input relating to the scope of the consultation based on having read the draft document.
The first two links that you have provided are both associated with the Planning Inspectorate’s website. Notwithstanding this, the source(s) of funding for any lobby/ campaign group is not a matter about which the Planning Inspectorate can advise. In this respect, the Planning Inspectorate has access to the same information that is available to the public. If you seek details about the funding status of any lobby/ campaign group, I would advise you to contact the group directly.

The Planning Inspectorate is aware that the Applicant is in the process of consulting with relevant local authorities on the content of its Draft Statement of Community Consultation (dSoCC); as required by s47(2) of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008). The Applicant is not obligated to share its dSoCC with any persons other than the local authorities identified under s43(1) of the PA2008. In the same respect the dSoCC is not a document that an Applicant is required to submit to the Planning Inspectorate for publication on our website.

In respect of the apparent change in the name of the Applicant, to date the Planning Inspectorate has not been notified of any such change.

Sections 47(5), (6) and (7) of the PA2008 explain the duties placed on an Applicant following its consultation on a dSoCC. To paraphrase, Applicants are required to have regard to any consultation responses received under s47(2) and must prepare a final Statement of Community Consultation (SoCC) for inspection/ publication in the prescribed manner. An Applicant’s statutory community consultation must be carried in accordance with the final SoCC.

Note that if/ when an application is submitted, the Planning Inspectorate, on behalf of the Secretary of State, has a statutory duty to invite comments from all s43 authorities about whether an Applicant has complied with its duties under ss42, 47 and 48 of the PA2008. The Planning Inspectorate must then have regard to any ‘Adequacy of Consultation Representations’ received in taking its decision about whether an application can be accepted for examination.

If you have concerns about the scope of the community consultation proposed by the Applicant in its dSoCC, I would advise for you to provide your comments to the local authority(ies) (copying in the Applicant). Note however that the consideration of any such commentary by a s43(1) local authority in forming a view about the content of a dSoCC would be at its own discretion.

02 March 2017
Michael Child
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
RiverOak has recently published a Draft Statement of Community Consultation (dSoCC) in connection with its proposals for the former Manston airport site. The draft SoCC, copy attached, raises some particular concerns about which I would welcome your comments.

Firstly, at Section 1.2, the dSoCC implies that the project is classified as a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project. Yet the advice given by the Planning Inspectorate, 10 February 2017, states that is not the case.

Secondly, the dSoCC, unhelpfully, fails to give any dates for its intended consultations.

Thirdly, at Section 5.1, the dSoCC announces it will be "sending our Consultation Leaflet to all residential and business addresses within a consultation boundary that includes those who either live within one kilometre of the airport, or one kilometre of those who may be significantly affected by noise, .....". Further, the document includes a map, at Appendix 2, showing the relevant area for leaflet distribution.

This seems to imply that RiverOak has predetermined the areas which it believes will be affected by noise from its proposed 24/7 air freight hub. In RiverOak's Scoping Report, not only was it trying to avoid addressing matters to do with air quality*, and subsequently counselled otherwise by the Planning Inspectorate's Scoping Opinion**, but it clearly wishes to ignore the potential noise impact on local communities***.

Should RiverOak's plans come to fruition, there is no doubt that the lives of all those people living and working under the flight path will be seriously affected. For example, the map suggests that only residents of the Nethercourt district will be impacted, whereas in reality most people in Ramsgate will suffer serious noise and air pollution from RiverOak's proposals. Accordingly, by its actions from the Scoping Report and from this dSoCC, RiverOak is attempting to avoid its responsibility to fully consult on these matters with the local communities.

Finally, as there are alternative proposals for the site, and in particular from the current owners, during consultations RiverOak should make it clear that these exist. In this way the public can truly make a determination as to the relative impacts and benefits of the alternative schemes. This point is also well made in the Scoping Opinion****.

* RiverOak Scoping Report (30 June 2016) - Sections 5.1.2 to 5.1.5, 5.6.16 and 5.6.19
** Planning Inspectorate Scoping Opinion (August 2016) - Sections 3.31 to 3.33
*** Scoping Report - Sections 11.5 et al
**** Scoping Opinion - Sections 2.22, 2.56 and Appendix 1 (Page 9 - Alternatives).
By way of clarification, section 47 of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended) (PA2008) places the following duties on applicants in respect of community consultation:

47 Duty to consult local community

(1) The applicant must prepare a statement setting out how the applicant proposes to consult, about the proposed application, people living in the vicinity of the land.
(2) Before preparing the statement, the applicant must consult each local authority that is within section 43(1) about what is to be in the statement.

To that end, the PA2008 does not require for Applicants to consult with any parties other than the local authorities within which a proposed development (‘s43(1) authorities’) about the content of a dSoCC. That does not preclude any other parties from making comments directly to a s43(1) authority about the content of a dSoCC. However, the consideration of any such commentary by a s43(1) in forming a view about the content of a dSoCC would be at its own discretion. If a party were to choose to provide comments to a s43(1) authority in this way, the Planning Inspectorate would advise for those comments to be copied to the Applicant.

Note that upon the submission of an application the Planning Inspectorate, on behalf of the Secretary of State, has a statutory duty to invite comments from all s43 authorities about whether an Applicant has complied with its duties under ss42, 47 and 48 of the PA2008. The Planning Inspectorate must then have regard to any ‘Adequacy of Consultation Representations’ received in taking its decision about whether an application can be accepted for examination.

You have asked for the Planning Inspectorate’s comments in respect of three discreet observations about the dSoCC, and I will respond to those points in order.

1. “[…] at Section 1.2, the dSoCC implies that the project is classified as a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project. Yet the advice given by the Planning Inspectorate, 10 February 2017, states that is not the case.”

The Planning Inspectorate’s advice dated 10 February 2017 explains that the term ‘asset of national significance’ has no status under the PA2008. The term ‘Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project’ (NSIP) is defined by the PA2008, and the corresponding thresholds for airport development are set out in s23. At the Pre-application stage of the process it is for an Applicant to take a judgement-based view about whether the development it is proposing qualifies as an NSIP and would require development consent under the PA2008. On submission of an application, the Planning Inspectorate tests whether the development proposed includes an NSIP. The Planning Inspectorate is not required to apply this test when an Applicant makes a request under s52 or s53 of the PA2008.

2. “[…] the dSoCC, unhelpfully, fails to give any dates for its intended consultations.”

The dates for the consultation events must be included in the final Statement of Community Consultation.

3. “[…] at Section 5.1, the dSoCC announces it will be "sending our Consultation Leaflet to all residential and business addresses within a consultation boundary that includes those who either live within one kilometre of the airport, or one kilometre of those who may be significantly affected by noise, .....". Further, the document includes a map, at Appendix 2, showing the relevant area for leaflet distribution. This seems to imply that RiverOak has predetermined the areas which it believes will be affected by noise from its proposed 24/7 air freight hub. In RiverOak's Scoping Report, not only was it trying to avoid addressing matters to do with air quality*, and subsequently counselled otherwise by the Planning Inspectorate's Scoping Opinion**, but it clearly wishes to ignore the potential noise impact on local communities***. Should RiverOak's plans come to fruition, there is no doubt that the lives of all those people living and working under the flight path will be seriously affected. For example, the map suggests that only residents of the Nethercourt district will be impacted, whereas in reality most people in Ramsgate will suffer serious noise and air pollution from RiverOak's proposals. Accordingly, by its actions from the Scoping Report and from this dSoCC, RiverOak is attempting to avoid its responsibility to fully consult on these matters with the local communities.”

The Planning Inspectorate has considered the Applicant’s Scoping Report, and the responses received from statutory consultees, and provided its Scoping Opinion in August 2016. The extent to which an Applicant’s chosen assessment methodology has informed the scope of any consultation exercise is not a matter about which the Planning Inspectorate can comment at this stage. As set out at the beginning of this email, the extent to which the Applicant has satisfied its Pre-application consultation duties will be tested thoroughly if/ when an Application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, and will draw on any Adequacy of Consultation Representations received. You may wish to forward your comments to the s43(1) authorities, who will also make formal comments on the dSoCC.

If an application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, and it is subsequently decided that that application is of a satisfactory standard to be examined, the appointed Examining Authority will take account of all relevant legislation, guidance and policy in its consideration of the accompanying Environmental Statement.

4. “[…] as there are alternative proposals for the site, and in particular from the current owners, during consultations RiverOak should make it clear that these exist. In this way the public can truly make a determination as to the relative impacts and benefits of the alternative schemes. This point is also well made in the Scoping Opinion****.”

The Planning Inspectorate set out the expectations of the Secretary of State in relation to alternatives at paragraph 2.56 of the Scoping Opinion. The Environmental Statement provided with any application for development consent will be examined as described previously.

02 March 2017
Simon Crow
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Site Visit and round table meeting
Please see attached meeting note

02 March 2017
Scott Taylor
Tees CCPP
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see the attached meeting note.

01 March 2017
Highways England - Anne-Marie Rogers
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
An inception meeting was held in respect of the Tilbury2 project.
See attached meeting note.

28 February 2017
Port of Tilbury London Ltd - anon.
Tilbury2
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see the attached note

24 February 2017
Highways England - Karen Molloy
A38 Derby Junctions highway improvement scheme
Enquiry received via
response has attachments
Email 1: With the Developer’s Stage 2 Pre-Application Consultation drawing to a close I have a general question around the status of the current National Policy Statements for Energy, in particular the Policy Statement for Nuclear Power Generation EN6.

I have been informed that the Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy are or are just about to review these statements. Is this correct?

If so what will the situation be if the Policy Statements are revised post consultation but prior to submission of the DCO application? Will there have to be a further consultation phase to accommodate any change in policy between the two versions?

Email 2: Many thanks for your response and time. I will take up your suggestion of contacting BEIS to see if the NPS are being reviewed and will copy the response on for your information.

Your response was fairly comprehensive but unfortunately doesn’t appear to have covered the main and final aspect I posed, that being if the National Policy Statements were to change in terms of requirements during the consultation stage of a project or more critical between the final public consultation and the submission of an DCO application would the Planning Inspector expect or request the applicant to openly re-consult on the basis of any revised policy?

Email 3: I am very gratefully for both of your informative responses which nicely closes this uncertainty I had.

As you suggested I have also enquired of BEIS and they have confirmed that there are no immediate plans to review the policies. I attach their response for your information.

Just so you are aware my original concern arose from some comments made by two officers from a significant non-departmental public body at a meeting with a statutory consultee for the project that I attend.
Response 1: Thank you for your email in relation to the Nuclear National Policy Statement (NPS).

Whilst NPSs provide the framework within which Inspectors make their recommendations to the Secretary of State, the Planning Inspectorate is impartial and is not able to comment on Government policy. I would therefore advise you to contact the Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy as the government department responsible for that policy area: [attachment 1]

All NPSs, or material amendments to NPSs, are subject to public consultation and Parliamentary scrutiny before being designated (i.e. published) and the Secretary of State must have regard to the outcome of public consultation and Parliamentary scrutiny when deciding whether or not to proceed to designate the NPS.

The Secretary of State must also have regard to any matter that the Secretary of State thinks is important and relevant to the Secretary of State’s decision. This could include a draft NPS if one exists and if the relevant NPS has not yet been formally designated.

Response 2:
Thank you for your email and apologies for not getting back to you sooner.

If the Secretary of State (SoS) decides to review the NPS under s6 of the 2008 Planning Act (as amended) (PA2008), the SoS may suspend an examination under s108 until the review process has been completed. The review process does not impact on applications that have yet to be submitted to the Planning Inspectorate nor does it apply to examinations that have already closed.

When deciding whether to grant an applicant a DCO, the SoS has to have regard to the relevant NPS(s). If a new NPS is published after the applicant’s statutory consultation has ended but before the submission has been submitted, it is for the applicant to seek its own legal advice whether further consultation is needed to comply with the revised NPS.

We have recently set up a mailbox for Sizewell C (sizewellc@pins.gsi.gov.uk) which is monitored by the team in my absence and is copied into this response for your information.

Should you have any further queries please do not hesitate to contact us.

Response 3: Many thanks for your email and for attaching the response from BEIS, a copy has been placed on our records for information.

22 February 2017
Phil Butler
Sizewell C New Nuclear Power Station
Enquiry received via email
Please find attached Friends of the Lake District's consultation response to the recent National Grid consultation on its PEIR for the North West Coast Connections Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project.

I would draw your attention to the significant failures in the consultation. These are due to
A: National Grid’s apparent misinterpretation of the EIA regulations and national planning policy on the setting of the Lake District National park; and

B: on restricting mitigation only to those areas of landscape and visual impact receptors which would suffer “Particularly significant effects” rather than “significant effect” as laid out in the EIA (Infrastructure) Regulations 2009.

C: Not enough ecological information provided to undertake a Habitats Regulations Assessment and the possibility that because there are alternative solutions (e.g. offshore), that the IROPI test would not be met under Article 6.4 of the Habitats Directive 1994.

We are also concerned that the costings for alternative route options which would avoid the issues raised above are not adequately described and evaluated in the consultation. Our concerns align with those of Ofgem whose current consultation on “North West Coast Connections – Consultation on the project’s Initial Needs Case and suitability for tendering” also raises these concerns when it states

However, we consider that the decision between NGET’s favoured use of a tunnel under Morecambe Bay and an alternative approach of using subsea cables around the bay is relatively finely balanced. We have concerns that significant changes in the cost of the tunnel, or additional work identified through the planning process [e.g. having to mitigate for impact on the National Park setting] could indicate in the future that the subsea cable option could be better value for consumers.

I would like to know what role PINS has in raising these issues with National Grid and whether they would prevent an application to PINS from “meeting the required standards to proceed to examination, including whether the developers consultation has been adequate” (PINS Advice note 8.1)
Thank you for your enquiry regarding National Grid’s recent consultation on the proposed North West Coast Connections Project.

Prior to commencing consultation, the Applicant is required to under section 47 of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008); prepare a consultation strategy known as the Statement of Community Consultation (SoCC) and to seek agreement on their strategy with the relevant local authorities (i.e. those authorities whose administrative areas the route alignment would pass through). The Applicant has a duty under Section 49 of the PA2008 to take account of responses to consultation. All applications must be accompanied by a Consultation Report. In this document the Applicant must show that they have complied with the statutory pre-application consultation requirements, and that they have had regard to the responses.

The duty to consult on preliminary environmental information (PEI) derives from Regulation 10 of the Infrastructure Planning Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Regulations 2009 (as amended)(the ‘EIA Regulations’). Regulation 2 of the ‘EIA Regulations’ defines PEI as “information referred to in Part 1 of Schedule 4 which—
(a) has been compiled by the applicant; and
(b) is reasonably required to assess the environmental effects of the development (and of any associated development)”

The Planning Inspectorate’s Advice Note 7 “Preliminary Environmental Information, Screening and Scoping” states that “PEI is not expected to replicate or be a draft of the ES. However, if the applicant considers this to be appropriate (and more cost-effective) it can be presented in this way. A good PEI document is one that enables consultees (both specialist and non-specialist) to understand the likely environmental effects of the proposed development and helps to inform their consultation responses on the proposed development.”

Upon submission of an application the Planning Inspectorate will write to relevant local authorities and ask for their views on whether or not the consultation has been adequate, if you have concerns regarding the adequacy of the consultation process in your area, you may therefore wish to contact the relevant local authorities, highlighting your concerns, so as to inform their adequacy of consultation response. At acceptance, the Planning Inspectorate will consider the Consultation Report, alongside any adequacy of consultation representation made by a local authority and the other application documents, before deciding whether or not to accept the application for examination in line with Section 55 of the PA2008. Appendix 3 of the Planning Inspectorate’s Advice Note 6: “Preparation and submission of application documents” sets out the information considered prior to accepting an application, which includes in section 3.3(a) “where applicable, the environmental statement required under the EIA Regulations and any scoping or screening opinions or directions” therefore the adequacy of any environmental impact assessment is a consideration for acceptance.

Until an Application is submitted to the Secretary of State for consideration, the Planning Inspectorate would not comment on whether an Applicant has met the required standards to proceed to examination, including whether the Applicant’s consultation has been adequate. We would strongly encourage you to continue to engage with the Applicant, feeding any concerns that you may have with either the assessment process or the consultation process to them and with the relevant local authority.

22 February 2017
Friends of the Lake District - Kate Willshaw
North West Coast Connections Project - N Grid
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Concerns raised about the impact of the proposed railway line and the impact on property prices
Dear Mrs Lightfoot

Thank you for your email raising concerns regarding the pre-application consultation process for the proposed Sizewell C New Nuclear Power Station, a copy has been placed on our records.

As the application has not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate (the Inspectorate), the Inspectorate has no formal powers to intercede on behalf of interested parties. I would therefore encourage you to contact the Applicant directly to make your concerns heard as the applicant has a statutory duty to take your views into account.

However, if you feel that your comments are not being taken into account by the Applicant, I would advise you to write to your local authority and set out why you think the Applicant is failing to conduct its consultation properly. As part of the process for when the Inspectorate assesses whether an application can be accepted for examination, we seek adequacy of consultation responses from the local authority that in turn sends the Inspectorate its comments on whether the applicant has fulfilled its consultation duties.

If the application for development consent is formally accepted by the Inspectorate, you will be able to submit your views in relation to the project which will be considered by the Examining Authority during the examination.

The Inspectorate has published a series of advice notes which explain the examination process, including information on how to get involved; of particular interest are advice notes 8.1 to 8.5. These are available at:

[attachment 1]

We have recently set up a mailbox for Sizewell C (sizewellc@pins.gsi.gov.uk) which is monitored by the team in my absence and is copied into this response for your information.

Should you have any further queries please do not hesitate to contact us.

21 February 2017
Pam Lightfoot
Sizewell C New Nuclear Power Station
Enquiry received via email
We write regarding above concurrent schemes for two proposed SRFIs,in Milton Northants both of the schemes intend making rail connections on the same section of the Northampton Loop of the West Coast Mainline, this same loop line also serves Daventry Dirft 1,2 and Dirft 3 a recently approved SRFI presently under construction, and Northampton Castle stations passenger and freight services approx. 3 miles north of the PDA also use this limited two line loop section of the WCML.

Given the proximity of both Dirft 3 and Northampton Castle station, we have serious concerns regarding the feasibility, practicality and ability of the Rail network to accommodate either, let alone both, of these proposals, whilst we fully appreciate that this issue is dealt with via Network Rails GRIP PROCESS,(Governance for Railway Investment Projects),we would wish to seek clarification on the following points,

>Does rail connectivity via the GRIP PROCESS have to be firmly established in the” pre application” period

>and if so what level in that process actually has to be established at this pre application stage, Grip 1,2 3…?


Finally we would also question whether either of the applicants have made any approaches to PINS to potentially arrange any joint site viewings or meeting between Network Rail/and yourselves to address this issue, you will be aware that Network Rails initial response to both applicants at the scoping opinion stage was “Given the location of the proposal is predicated on rail connectivity and the primary aim of the proposal(and Government Policy)is modal shift, detailed assessment of the impact(both individual and cumulative)at this early stage is CRUCIAL.
The GRIP process is an internal process used by Network Rail which sets out scheme definition, feasibility, option selection, detailed design and construction in stages. The process is entirely separate to the formal planning stages used by the Planning Inspectorate (PINS) for nationally significant infrastructure projects (NSIPs), and therefore there are no rules that define what stage in the GRIP process a developer needs to have achieved before submitting an application. Ultimately it is for developers to work with Network Rail to develop proposals in line with the GRIP approach.

With the above in mind, the critical consideration for a developer is to seek to provide an Examining Authority (ExA) with sufficient information and detail for them to be able to understand and assess the impacts of a scheme; if an ExA was unable to do this there would be a high risk that they could not recommend that consent be granted for that scheme. GRIP stage 3 relates to option selection, and GRIP stage 4 relates to single option development. If a developer had not reached a conclusion with Network Rail on a single option development (GRIP stage 4) this could present a greater high risk approach, as it could complicate the ExA’s ability to assess the potential impacts of the scheme.

As part our regular meetings with applicants, we ask about on-going engagement with parties such as Network Rail. Notes of these meetings are published on the Planning Inspectorate’s NSIP project webpage (Northampton Gateway Rail Freight Interchange and Rail Central) . Neither of the applicants for the two projects has asked for a joint meeting with Network Rail so far. PINS Environmental Services Team held a site visit to Northampton Gateway in order to inform a recent scoping request. At present there has been no site visit to Rail Central.

21 February 2017
Stop Rail Central - Alan Hargreaves
Rail Central (Strategic Rail Freight Interchange)
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached meeting note

21 February 2017
Eggborough Power Limited - James Crankshaw
Eggborough CCGT
Enquiry received via email
This is a matter of serious concern regarding a Nationally Significant project that you have commenced giving advice on. Ref: TR050005 West Midlands Interchange

I am writing on behalf of the group representing local community opposition to the proposal.
As a group, we will register as interested parties when the application is formally lodged (September?) – or earlier if that is permitted.
The proposers, the Staffordshire County Council, the South Staffordshire District Council, all local Parish Councils, and our two MPs are already aware of our representation.

However, many of the community have, in the last few days, been harassed by some very intrusive recorded delivery envelopes stamped in red “The Content of this Letter may affect your property” and containing a letter headed “IMPORTANT: THIS COMMUNICATION MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY” - giving an ultimatum of 15 days to return an EIGHT page questionaire requesting personal property and mortgage details whilst not giving any adequate explanation of the suspicious mapped areas and schedules also included.

To all of us, this appears arrogant and intrusive; but to our older and more vulnerable neighbours it is very intimidating - even threatening in one instance.
Our understanding is that the proposers (and there is no application due to be lodged until next September) are supposed to agree a Statement of Community Communication (SOCC) with the Planning Inspectorate and/or District Council and to publish that .... before making any contact, never mind intrusive requests.
As the Promoters have stated, if this proposal is a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP) it must follow the process as set out in the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008).

The PA2008 sets out the legislation and regulations that guides a developer on who and how to consult during the Pre-Application stage - the stage at which the West Midlands interchange project is currently in.

The legislation identifies different groups that a developer must consult with being, in headline terms, relevant local authorities, prescribed bodies, people with an interest in the land and the local community. PA2008 then sets out some requirements about how those consultation should take place (for example giving minimum deadlines for responses to be received).

In consulting with the local community, you are right that a developer needs to have published a Statement of Community Consultation (SoCC) before they can commence statutory consultation with local communities. It is our understanding that the Promoter is in the process of preparing that document. This does not mean that a developer is prohibited from engaging with the local community in the absence of a SoCC, just that they would need to have published a SoCC and undertaken the consultation outlined in that document before they could submit an application.

However, the SoCC only relates to consultation with the local community and does not cover how a Promoter establishes who are the relevant people with an interest in the land, and having established who they are, how to consult with them. From the information you attached to your email, this looks like a letter from the Promoter seeking to understand whether people have a (legal) interest in the land. To that end, it is not actually part of a statutory consultation and is therefore not specifically covered by the legislation and regulations.

I would strongly urge you to use the contact details on the letters you have received to discuss the matter directly with the Promoter and request further information or explanation about the process and set out your concerns on how the letters have been received.

You note that the District Council have confirmed that a SoCC should have been in place – do you have the contact details for the Officer that you spoke to, as it would be helpful for us to make contact with them to discuss this matter further.