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

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

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

Advice given between between 1 October 2009 and 14 April 2015 has been archived.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

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

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

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

31 August 2022
Ecotricity - anon.
Heckington Fen Solar Park
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Morning, Will we be automatically notified of the 30 day registration period? Do we need to register & do we need to submit a skeleton of our argument at this stage? I want to understand when you will request information from us to enable us to factor in Committees and notify staff who will be working on the response.
Thanks for your email. The proposed development falls partly within your council’s jurisdiction. This means that you do not have to register, as you are automatically included within the process. However, you may wish to outline your arguments at an early stage, if so, then you would use the registration form. The registration form will be available on our website around the end of September, unfortunately we can’t give a specific date as it is generated by the Applicant when they issue their notifications. The best way to find out when registration is open is to sign up to receive email updates, you might want to add shared mailboxes or colleagues. [attachment 1];email= [attachment 2] Once we have the list of people or organisations who have registered to take part we will send out the draft timetable. This is likely to be in November. The letter will also include an invitation to the Preliminary Meeting where the draft timetable, and other elements laid out in the letter, will be discussed. That meeting is approximately six weeks after the letter is sent, so in December or January. After that the Examination will begin. As a local authority you also have the opportunity to set out your arguments in a Local Impact Report, the deadline is usually a few weeks after examination starts. I hope this is helpful. If you would like to read more about the process please refer to Advice Note two: The role of local authorities in the development consent process. [attachment 3]

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

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

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

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

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

19 August 2022
Rt Hon Stephen Barclay MP
Medworth Energy from Waste Combined Heat and Power Facility
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Section 51 Advice.
Please see attached.

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

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

18 August 2022
Borough Council of King’s Lynn and West Norfolk and West Norfolk
Medworth Energy from Waste Combined Heat and Power Facility
Enquiry received via phone
response has attachments
phone enquiry
Thank you for your phone enquiry on 15 August. Please note that we will publish the dates within which you can register and submit your comments on our website (likely to start on 30 August). Registration is open for a minimum of 30 days. You may find it helpful to subscribe to receive email updates on the project website. For further guidance on how to register to participate in an Examination please see [attachment 1] I hope you find the above information useful.

16 August 2022
WisWIN - Wisbech Without Incineration - Virginia Bucknor
Medworth Energy from Waste Combined Heat and Power Facility
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Comments on the draft Statement of Community Consultation
Please see attached

15 August 2022
Total Energies and Corio Generation - anon.
Outer Dowsing Offshore Wind (Generating Station)
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
BDB Pitmans contacted the Planning Inspectorate (on 21st June and 12th July): to explain that they are acting for DFDS and that DFDS object to the project and are concerned that this wasn’t reflected in the recent note published on the project webpage from a meeting held between the Planning Inspectorate and the Applicant. They confirmed that DFDS has contacted the Applicant with their comments on the proposal. (Please find their statutory consultation response attached.)
The Planning Inspectorate advised that DFDS should continue to engage directly with the Applicant at the pre-application stage, to ensure the Applicant is fully aware of their views and to enable the Applicant to have regard to their comments when finalising their proposal and application.

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

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

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

09 August 2022
Local Authorities - anon.
A66 Northern Trans-Pennine Project
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Dear Planning Inspector, I am writing to submit comments on the Medworth Energy from Waste Project. They are as follows: As the Member of Parliament for South West Norfolk, a constituency bordering the proposed Medworth Energy from Waste project in Wisbech, my constituents have expressed concerns over the consultation conducted by the company. Specifically, constituents feel limited notice was provided and that with the consultation undertaken during a period of closure due to the Covid-19 pandemic, no serious public discussion was able to take place. I therefore encourage the planning inspectorate, on behalf of the Secretary of State, to consider these concerns before accepting the application. Liz Truss MP Good afternoon, I am emailing today regarding the submission of comments for the planning inspectorate regarding the Medworth Waste Site in Wisbech. We are unsure where we need to place these comments, and consequently we are emailing Liz’s comments to this email address. If this is not the protocol, can you please send us the link where we can do this? Please get back to us to confirm whether we are doing the right thing in emailing you to get Liz’s comments forward and public, or if we must seek another route. Best wishes, Jacob Reeder - Constituency Assistant Office of the Rt. Hon Elizabeth Truss MP
Dear Ms Truss and Mr Reeder (Office of the Rt. Hon Elizabeth Truss MP) Thank you for your enquiry of 3 August requesting information on the process of submitting documents relating to applications for Development Consent Orders, and on 4 August commenting on the Applicant’s pre-application consultation. The Medworth Energy from Waste Combined Heat and Power Facility application was accepted for Examination on 2 August 2022. You will find the acceptance letter on the project website. [attachment 1] You will be able to comment on the application once the Applicant has notified the public, either in writing or as a published notice, of the accepted application. We will publish the dates within which you can register and submit your comments on our website. Registration is open for a minimum of 28 days. You may find it helpful to subscribe to receive email updates. You may wish to see further guidance on how to register to participate in an Examination. [attachment 2] I hope you find the above information useful.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

12 July 2022
Associated British Ports (ABP) - anon.
Immingham Green Energy Terminal
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Thank you for your email and attachments. The proposed application above is currently at the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 process. Further information about the process can be found in the link below to the National Infrastructure Planning website: [attachment 1] The Planning Inspectorate is unable to consider representations about the merits of any application until it has been submitted and accepted for Examination. As the application has not yet been formally submitted to the Planning Inspectorate your first point of contact should be the developer and we would encourage you to contact National Highways directly: Email: [email protected] Telephone: 0300 123 5000 It is important that the developer is made aware of your comments at the Pre-application stage to enable them to consider the points raised before finalising their proposals and submitting the application. The developer’s consultation period was from 23 January 2017 to December 2021 however we would still encourage you to contact National Highways directly Should the application be accepted for Examination you will be able to register as an Interested Party by submitting a relevant representation. This must be submitted on the ‘Registration and Relevant Representation form’ which will be made available on the project webpage of the National Infrastructure Planning website at the appropriate time. Further information about registering as an Interested Party can be found in the Planning Inspectorate’s ‘Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination’ which can be found here: [attachment 2]
Attached to this email you will find a series of reports, (listed below). These reports have been commissioned by The Messing and Inworth Action Group to detail the issues associated with National Highways Plan for Junction 24 feeder roads, and the Main Alternative (to that plan). As you should be aware, the Main Alternative is fully supported by MIAG, the Parish Council, Essex County Council (at all levels), and our Parliamentary representative, Ms Priti Patel. We are providing these reports now, as early as it has been practical to do so, so that NH may consider all the relevant material before submitting a Development Consent Order to the Planning Inspectorate. You are urged to read them carefully. We then expect NH to fully engage, as has been repeatedly promised but not arranged, with the primary stakeholders, including MIAG, on all matters related to Junction 24, including the Main Alternative. This must be ahead of any DCO submission. We continue to seek a solution to the Junction 24 plans, and the Main Alternative is now demonstrably that. The full list of reports attached hereto is: Report on Technical Aspects of Junction 24; Report on Alternative Route - The Main Alternative; Inworth Roundabout Design Check; In accordance with your own guidelines we look forward to hearing from you within ten days.

11 July 2022
Messing and Inworth Action Group Limited - Andrew Harding
A12 Chelmsford to A120 Widening Scheme
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Report on the condition of surrounding roads.
Please see attached.

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

07 July 2022
Mary Lindsay
A12 Chelmsford to A120 Widening Scheme
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Thank you for your response in May. MVV have since advised our Councils that they would be submitting their proposal today - Monday 6th July. All councils have formally objected to their proposal - Cambridgeshire County Council and Norfolk County Council, Fenland District Council and King's Lynn Borough Council. Nothing has yet been published either on MVV's website or yours. When will their submission be available to review by the public? Also during the 30 day consideration period by the Planning Inspectorate, will you be visiting Wisbech? Your advice appreciated.
Thank you for your enquiry in regard to the Medworth Energy from Waste Combined Heat and Power Facility Nationally Significant Infrastructure project. Please be informed that the Applicant has indicated that it will be submitting the Application later this week. The Planning Inspectorate aims to publish the NSIP Application for development consent with all its associated documentation on the National Infrastructure website as soon as practicable after its receipt (including the Consultation Report). However, please note that it is the Applicant’s decision whether they agree to this, so they may decide to have the Application documents published only if the Application is accepted for Examination. In this instance, the Applicant has not agreed to publishing the Application documents during the Acceptance period. The statutory timetable for the Acceptance of an application is 28 days, beginning with the day after the date of receipt of the application. The Inspectorate must consider whether the Application and its supporting documents are satisfactory and capable of being examined within the statutory timescale. During Pre-examination and/or the Examination period the Examining Authority will carry out a site inspection. This can be Unaccompanied and/or Accompanied, and is up to the discretion of the Examining Authority. You may wish to read more about the Examination of an application, the hearings and site inspections in Advice Note 8.5 The Examination: hearings and site inspections. [attachment 1] I hope you find the above information useful.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

28 June 2022
Tritax Symmetry (Hinckley) Limited - anon.
Hinckley National Rail Freight Interchange
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Advice following issue of decision to accept the application for examination
Please see attached

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

23 June 2022
David Jarvis Associates, OCO Technology Limited and SECNewgate
Larkshall Mill Aggregate Manufacturing and Carbon Capture Facility
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Please see attached.
Please see attached.

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

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

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

20 June 2022
National Grid Ventures (NGV) - anon.
Nautilus Interconnector
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Adolygiad o'r ddogfennau ddrafft a chyfarfod diweddaru'r prosiect – Draft documents review and project update meeting
Gweler yr atodiad - Please see attached

17 June 2022
Liverpool Bay CCS Limited - anon.
HyNet Carbon Dioxide Pipeline
Enquiry received via phone
General discussion of the application and re-submission

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

08 June 2022
Ecotricity - anon.
Heckington Fen Solar Park
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Update Meeting on Costs Applications.
Please see Attached.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

24 May 2022
Gravesham Borough Council - anon.
Lower Thames Crossing
Enquiry received via email
I refer to your letter dated 12th May 2022 regarding the above. Providing that the application is submitted by 7th June 2022, we will be taking an urgent item to Planning Committee on 15th June. I will need to explain to Members why the Consultation Report may not be in the public domain and must not be shared with Third Parties. Please can you advise the reasoning behind that approach?
Thank you for providing the contact details for your Local Authority in regard to the Medworth Energy from Waste Combined Heat and Power Facility Nationally Significant Infrastructure project (NSIP). In response to your query, as to why the Consultation Report may not be in the public domain and must not be shared with Third Parties, please note the following information. As you are aware our letter sent to you on the 12 May 2022 states that ‘the Consultation Report may not be in the public domain so please do not share the version that we send to you with any third parties’. I can provide an explanation for the reasoning behind this. As indicated in paragraph 15 of the Planning Inspectorate’s Advice Note Two: the role of local authorities in the development consent process, with the agreement of the Applicant, the Planning Inspectorate will publish the NSIP application for development consent with all its associated documentation on the National Infrastructure website as soon as practicable after its receipt (including the Consultation Report). However, it is the Applicant’s decision on whether they agree to this, so they may decide to have the application documents published only if the Application is accepted for Examination. You may wish to explain to your council members that the ‘Acceptance stage’ for NSIP applications is similar to the checking and validation process that a local authority would carry out in respect of a planning application. Given the statutory status of the pre-application stage in the NSIP process, the Planning Inspectorate also has a role to check that the pre-application consultation undertaken by the Applicant was in accordance with the Planning Act 2008 (PA 2008), including the Statement of Community Consultation (SoCC). The Inspectorate must also consider whether the application and its supporting documents are satisfactory and capable of being examined within the statutory timescale. The statutory timetable for the acceptance of an application is 28 days, beginning with the day after the date of receipt of the application. As soon as possible after receipt of the application, the Planning Inspectorate will invite the host and neighbouring local authorities to submit an adequacy of consultation representation (AoC). The Planning Inspectorate must have regard to any comments it receives from host and neighbouring authorities in deciding whether or not to accept an application The Inspectorate will be seeking the adequacy of consultation representation from the relevant local authorities, including the Borough Council of King’s Lynn and West Norfolk within 14 calendar days of the request. Please note that a local authorities positive view about compliance with these statutory duties will not prejudice a local authority’s objection in principle to the application or any part of it. As at this stage the local authorities are not being asked for views on the merits of the application. For further information on the NSIP process your council members may wish to view our suite of Advice Notes and Frequently Asked Questions I hope you find the above information helpful to explain to your council’s members.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

06 May 2022
O.C.O Technology Limited - anon.
Larkshall Mill Aggregate Manufacturing and Carbon Capture Facility
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please see attached from Essex County Council, Braintree District Council and Chelmsford City Council.
Please see attached.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

21 April 2022
Anglian Water - anon.
Cambridge Waste Water Treatment Plant Relocation
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
With regard to your response regarding the submission from MVV Medworth, whilst the company have amended the date when they propose to submit their application several times, I understand this has now moved from the “1st quarter 2022” to Easter. Given that the Planning Inspectorate are required to respond within 28 days, I suspect that MVV may submit to you on the 14th April, ie, just before Good Friday and the Easter Holidays for many families and your response time will therefore be squeezed (as MVV did during their submission in December 2019). Can you please advise whether, during that 28 day period, (whenever the submission occurs), you be visiting Wisbech to see for yourselves the impact this will have on the area? Your advice appreciated. 09/01/2022 May I have your advice please. MVV-Medworth plan to submit their application to you in this first quarter 2022. On your site, link below, it shows the current status and of the approximately 200 objections sent to MVV and copied to yourselves, only a few are shown. [attachment 1] Can you clarify please as your stated link in July (8.1) is not currently working. Any further advice would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you for your emails. I apologise for the delay in responding. Firstly, please note that we only reply to correspondence that is sent direct ‘to’ us. Correspondence that is copied (‘cc’) to us we keep on file. When we reply to correspondence sent directly to us there is a statutory duty, under section 51 of the Planning Act 2008, to record the advice that is given in relation to an application or a potential application, including the name of the person who requested the advice, and to make this publicly available on the relevant project page of the National Infrastructure Planning website. As you are aware the proposed Medworth Energy from Waste Combined Heat and Power Facility application is currently at the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 process. Further information about the process can be found in the link below to the National Infrastructure Planning website: [attachment 2] For your information, the Application is due to be submitted towards the end of May 2022. The process consists of six stages: Pre-application, Acceptance, Pre-examination, Examination, Recommendation and Decision and Post-decision. Upon receipt of an application for development consent, the Planning Inspectorate has 28 days to decide whether or not to accept it for Examination. Should the application be accepted for Examination you will be able to register as an Interested Party by submitting a relevant representation. This must be submitted on the ‘Registration and Relevant Representation form’ which will be made available on the project webpage of the National Infrastructure Planning website at the appropriate time.? If an application is accepted, there is a flexible period, the Pre-examination stage, which usually lasting about three months. All parties should use this stage to prepare for the Examination stage. An Examining Authority then has up to six months to examine an application and three months to make their recommendation to the relevant Secretary of State. During Pre-examination and/or the Examination period the Examining Authority will carry out a site inspection. This can be Unaccompanied and/or Accompanied, and is up to the discretion of the Examining Authority. You may wish to read more about the Examination of an application, the hearings and site inspections in Advice Note 8.5 The Examination: hearings and site inspections. [attachment 3] I hope you find the above information useful.

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

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

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

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

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

12 April 2022
National Grid - anon.
Yorkshire GREEN
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please see attached.
Please see attached

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

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

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

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

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

05 April 2022
London Resort Company Holdings
The London Resort
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Inception meeting note
Please see attached

05 April 2022
BP/ EnBW - anon.
Morgan Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Chyfarfod diweddaru'r prosiect - Project update meeting
Gweler yr atodiad - Please see attached

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

18 March 2022
National Highways - anon.
A27 Arundel Bypass
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please See Attached.
Good afternoon, Thank you for your letter of 2 March 2022, regarding A358 Taunton to Southfields scheme. The Planning Inspectorate has not yet received an application from National Highways regarding the scheme. We have been notified by the applicant that they are intending to submit an application in summer 2022. Please see our website for information received about the project. [attachment 1] The Planning Inspectorate is unable to consider representations about the merits of any application until the application has been submitted and accepted for Examination, therefore, you may wish to address your concerns to your local authority or National Highways directly. If the application is accepted to be examined, you will be able to register as an Interested Party by submitting a relevant representation. This must be submitted on the ‘Registration and Relevant Representation form’ which will be made available on the project webpage of the National Infrastructure Planning website if the application is accepted. Further information about registering as an Interested Party can be found in the Planning Inspectorate’s ‘Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination’ [attachment 2] Information about the process is also available on our website: [attachment 3] You may find it helpful to subscribe to receive email notifications for key events that occur after an application has been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate. You can find a link to this on our website. Please contact us if you need any further information, an email does reach us more quickly than a letter particularly now we are in the office less frequently as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic. Yours sincerely, Deborah Allen Case Manager

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

17 February 2022
O.C.O Technology Limited - anon.
Larkshall Mill Aggregate Manufacturing and Carbon Capture Facility
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Please see attached.
Please see attached.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

24 January 2022
London Luton Airport Limited
Expansion of London Luton Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please see attached.
Dear Mr Morgan, Thank you for your recent e-mail in relation to the proposed Bramford to Twinstead project, which is currently in the pre-Application stage. An Application is expected to be submitted to the Planning Inspectorate in Quarter 4, 2022. Please note that the Pre-Application consultation process is led by the developer, and the Planning Inspectorate’s role is to provide procedural advice, which we publish. The developer is responsible for ensuring that it complies with the legislative requirements surrounding consultation, which are set out in the Planning Act 2008. This includes a legal requirement for the developer to consult with Statutory Bodies, affected communities and persons with an interest in the land. Your e-mails provide your comments on the merits of the Proposed Development, which the developer is seeking during its consultation. As such, if you have not already done so, it is important that you make these comments directly to the developer. For further information, please see our advice note 8.1 on Responding to the developers pre-application consultation. We understand that the Applicant’s statutory consultation is due to launch later in January and advise you to monitor the developer’s website for the consultation documents and information on how the consultation is going to be carried out. You can make general enquiries about this with the developer or register for their project updates via the following contact details: Phone: 0808 196 1515 Opening hours: 9:00am – 5:30pm Freepost: B TO T REINFORCEMENT Landowner contact: Email or call 01452 889000. Information about the Planning Inspectorate’s remit once the Application is submitted When an application is formally submitted to the Planning Inspectorate for Examination, an assessment is made on whether it is of a satisfactory standard to proceed to an Examination. One key element of this assessment is to check whether the Applicant has fulfilled its statutory consultation duties. In order to help make an informed decision on this matter the Inspectorate writes to all host and neighbouring Local Authorities for their views on the adequacy of the consultation. The Applicant is also statutorily required to demonstrate in its submitted application where they have shown regard to responses received during their period of statutory consultation. If the Application has been accepted for Examination, you will be able to register as an Interested Party and make Relevant Representation; Please read our advice note on How to Register to participate in an Examination for further information. Once an Examining Authority is appointed, it will make an initial assessment of the issues arising from the submitted application as well as from the Relevant Representations, which will contribute to their Examination of the proposed development. In order to assist parties in understanding the Planning Act 2008 process, the Planning Inspectorate has prepared a suite of Advice Notes, which are available on our website. The Advice Note 8 series provide an overview of the examination of Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects for members of the public. Hopefully you will find these of assistance. You may wish to note that the Planning Inspectorate has set up a project page for the Bramford to Twinstead scheme where documents received and issued during the course of the Examination will be published to this page. Hopefully this e-mail is of assistance but if you require any further information please do not hesitate to contact us.

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

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

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

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

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

20 January 2022
Cobra Instalaciones Servicios, S.A. and Flotation - anon.
Morgan Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via email
Dear Sir/Madam I’m extremely disappointed that I feel the need to contact you at such an early stage in this project because I’ve never felt the need on previous major east coast projects. I wish to raise the following points after their recent survey has concluded. Ive waited quite some time before sending our complaint as I hoped there may be some improvement in communication but sadly that hasn't happened. The developer representatives decided early on not to go down the route of a commercial fishing working group as all other well managed projects have done, which in our members opinion has created major communication issues and put the local fishing community at a unfair disadvantage. Our concern is that all the limited discussion has implied a negative direction which may be continued during the future planning process and the duration of the project, if approved??? The very short notice of the project and lack of information has put quite a lot of pressure on the local fishing fleet. Prime fishing area and vital time of the year seemed to be disregarded by their main representative/FLO and the apparent lack of empathy of impact of their project on our members. Since the start the survey project is has been one of limited information and total inconsistencies, some of our selected members received reasonable communication, some very little and some nothing at all leaving the fisher in a limbo, “do I fish there or not”. This is totally unacceptable and the poor communication need to be recorded in the planning process and considered by the planners. One members stated he just wanted to continue fishing as he has for previous years and was threatening with a high court injunction, “if you get in the way of their survey vessel” there is a word for that but I’ll leave my thoughts as my thoughts. I have personally been involved in numerous other major off shore projects on the east coast and I have never experienced such poor performance from the developers RWE, SSE and their FLO and I am fearful for the future co existence if the project get approval. The establishment and existence of a productive CFWG must be a part of the planning application, with the developers agreeing to fully engage with. No CFWG no approval! This is not about money and we as our association will be objecting to the project but we are realists and know its probably going ahead because sustainable energy is vital for all our future, but it shouldn’t be for the benefit of multi million pound organisation and detrimental to the small self employed person trying to pay his mortgage in some difficult financial times and additional regulation. I will be registering as an interested person as soon as the planning process is instigated and will welcome the opportunity to speak at the forthcoming hearings. As you can see I’ve copied in the relative government marine agencies and CEOs of the developers and I welcome their comments on this issue, after all they control the finances, future earning potential, regulate and enforcement the local off shore area and our members legal commercial activities. Yours sincerely Trevor Armstrong Secretary Harwich Harbour Fishermen’s Association
Dear Mr Armstrong, Thank you for your recent e-mail in relation to the proposed North Falls Offshore Wind Farm project, which is currently in the Pre-Application stage. An Application is expected to be submitted to the Planning Inspectorate during the Summer of 2023. Please note that the Pre-Application consultation process is led by the developer, and the Planning Inspectorate’s role is to provide procedural advice, which we publish. The developer is responsible for ensuring that it complies with the legislative requirements surrounding consultation, which are set out in the Planning Act 2008. This includes a legal requirement for the developer to consult with Statutory Bodies, affected communities and persons with an interest in the land. Your e-mail provides your comments on the merits of the Proposed Development and adequacy of its consultation. As such, if you have not already done so, it is important that you make these comments directly to the developer. If you are not satisfied that the developer is taking these into account, you should raise this with the Local Authority also. For further information, please see our Advice Note 8.1 on Responding to the developers pre-application consultation. In particular, paragraph 7.4 which explains how you can raise any concerns about the developer’s pre application consultation. According to the developer's website, an informal community consultation was completed in 2021 and there will be an opportunity to provide further feedback during its statutory consultation, which is due to take place later this year. You can make general enquiries about this with the developer or register for their project updates via the following contact details: Phone: 0800 254 5340 Email: [email protected] Web enquiry form Information about the Planning Inspectorate’s remit once the Application is submitted: When an application is formally submitted to the Planning Inspectorate for Examination, an assessment is made on whether it is of a satisfactory standard to proceed to an Examination. One key element of this assessment is to check whether the Applicant has fulfilled its statutory consultation duties. In order to help make an informed decision on this matter the Inspectorate writes to all host and neighbouring Local Authorities for their views on the adequacy of the consultation. The Applicant is also statutorily required to demonstrate in its submitted application where they have shown regard to responses received during their period of statutory consultation. If the Application has been accepted for Examination, you will be able to register as an Interested Party and make Relevant Representation; and I note your email advises of your intention to register, and engage with the Examination. Please read our Advice Note on How to Register to participate in an Examination for further information. Once an Examining Authority is appointed, it will make an initial assessment of the issues arising from the submitted application as well as from the Relevant Representations, which will contribute to their Examination of the proposed development. In order to assist parties in understanding the Planning Act 2008 process, the Planning Inspectorate has prepared a suite of Advice Notes, which are available on our website. The Advice Note 8 series provide an overview of the examination of Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects for members of the public. Hopefully you will find these of assistance. You may wish to note that the Planning Inspectorate has set up a project page for the North Falls scheme where documents received and issued during the course of the Examination will be published. In advance of the application being submitted you can register for updates by entering your email address in the "Email updates" section of the project page. You will then receive an email notification when any new information is published on the project page. Such as notes of meetings we have with the Applicant at pre-application stage; any procedural advice we issue; and notification when the Application is submitted, along with the application documents and information about submitting a relevant representation if the Application is accepted for examination. Hopefully this e-mail is of assistance but if you require any further information please do not hesitate to contact us.

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

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

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

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

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

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

21 December 2021
Offshore Wind - anon.
General
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
1. As the County Councillor for King’s Lynn South, I wish to reiterate my concern that MVV Energie did not consult with residents in my Division, whose health and wellbeing would be greatly affected by their facility and so MVV’s consultation is therefore invalid. I submitted a response in the consultation period, via the Borough Council. during the statutory consultation period 28 June- 13 August. 2. The study spatial domain is 15 km from stack emissions but MVV only consulted within a 2-mile radius, missing out thousands of human receptors in King’s Lynn, the third largest urban area in Norfolk, and an area of considerable deprivation. 3. As the prevailing wind is towards Lynn, with winds around the Rive Ouse to the North Sea being particularly tempestuous, turbulence could carry the plume from MVV’s incinerator down to ground level in King’s Lynn. 4. But MVV “ scoped out” the need to assess the impact on air quality in Lynn. This was a glaring and negligent omission. 5. MVV’s statutory consultation is therefore invalid and HM Planning Inspectorate cannot reasonably allow MVV to proceed to a planning application. 6. There is a national oversupply of incinerators. The Secretary of State and the High Court recently refused permission for an incinerator in Kent, on the grounds there is no need for it, the energy generated is partially renewable at best, and would lead to the burning of resources that should be recycled. 7. There is no need for an incinerator in the Fens, a key farming area. MVV’s facility would put at risk the fertility of the soil, through acidification. 8. MVV plan to deliver waste from a 2hr travelling radius, which would include London, is clearly against the proximity principle.
Thank you for your email of 28 November 2021 expressing concerns about the proposed Medworth Energy from Waste Combined Heat and Power Facility. The proposed application by Medworth CHP Ltd (the Applicant) is at the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) process. Therefore, the Planning Inspectorate is unable to consider representations about the merits of any application until it is accepted for Examination. The Planning Inspectorate also does not have the power to intervene in an Applicant’s pre-application programme. The process for applying for a Development Consent Order (DCO) is set out in the PA2008. The timing of the application’s programme is at the discretion of the Applicant. The Applicant has a statutory duty to have regard to all consultation responses received and this should be demonstrated in the Consultation Report which will form part of its DCO application. As soon as possible after receipt of the application, the Planning Inspectorate will invite the host and neighbouring local authorities to submit an adequacy of consultation representation. The Planning Inspectorate must have regard to any comments it receives from host and neighbouring authorities in deciding whether or not to accept an application for Examination. Further details can be found in Advice Note two: The role of local authorities in the development consent process Should the DCO application be accepted by the Inspectorate for examination, the applicant has a duty to notify the local community when providing information on how to register as an Interested Party for the purpose of the process. The process under the PA2008 has been designed to allow members of the public and statutory stakeholders to participate in examination of all DCO applications so that anyone interested in the proposed developments, their potential impacts and any relevant matters can be fully engaged in the examination process. Once the examination begins, the Examining Authority will assess all information submitted in the application documents and will consider whether the Applicant has provided the necessary level of information. The Planning Inspectorate has produced several Advice Notes to help provide an overview of the PA2008 process and the opportunities to get involved. They are available at the following link: [attachment 1] The following are particularly relevant: Advice Note 8: ‘Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others’. Advice Note 8.1: ‘Responding to the developer’s pre-application consultation’ Advice Note 8.2: ‘How to register to participate in an Examination’. Please be assured that anyone interested in the proposed developments, their potential impacts and any planning matters can be fully engaged in the examination process. A copy of your correspondence has been placed on our records and will be presented to the Inspector at acceptance together with the application documents and Local Authorities’ comments on the Applicant’s consultation. We have also published a Frequently Asked Questions document regarding Pre-application consultation and this can be viewed on our website here: [attachment 2]

21 December 2021
Clenchwarton and King’s Lynn South - Cllr Alexandra Kemp
Medworth Energy from Waste Combined Heat and Power Facility
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
We are writing to you on behalf of a Community of Parishes that encompasses 13 Parish Councils and Ilminster Town Council. We represent local communities through which the A358 scheme passes. The Minutes of a project update meeting held on 29th September between National Highways and the Planning Inspectorate grossly misrepresents our efforts in providing proposals to mitigate the adverse impacts the scheme will have on our communities. This is one example of how our participation is being suppressed in order to avoid proper scrutiny of the scheme. The attached letter A358 Scheme_Suppression of Concerns describes our concerns and details our engagement with National Highways and local authorities. We ask that you take appropriate measures to ensure that National Highways is honest and transparent in its development and presentation of the scheme, and the Community of Parishes is fully involved throughout the DCO process. Please acknowledge receipt. Yours sincerely Robert Burrough and Peter Gregory On behalf of: Stoke St Mary Parish Council West Hatch Parish Council Hatch Beauchamp Parish Council Beercrocombe Parish Council Curry Mallet Parish Council Ashill Parish Council Broadway Parish Council Ilton Parish Council Horton Parish Council Donyatt Parish Council Pitminster Parish Council Combe St. Nicholas Parish Council Corfe Parish Council Ilminster Town Council
Thank you for your email and attachment. You may be aware that the proposed application above is currently at the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 process. Further information about the process can be found in the link below to the National Infrastructure Planning website: [attachment 1] In respect of your concerns about the developer’s pre-application consultation you should contact National Highways in the first instance to enable them to address the issues. In respect of your concerns about the about the merits of the application, The Planning Inspectorate is unable to consider representations until it is accepted for Examination. Further information about the process can be found in the link below to the National Infrastructure Planning website: [attachment 1] It is important that the developer is made aware of your comments at the Pre-application stage to enable them to consider the points raised before finalising their proposals and submitting the application. As you have contacted the developer but you are not satisfied that they have, or will, take account of your comments you can make your comments to the relevant local authority. The Planning Inspectorate will request the relevant local authorities’ view on the adequacy of the developer’s consultation when the application is submitted. Further information about the pre-application consultation process can be found here: [attachment 3] The Planning Inspectorate has published a series of Advice Notes about the Planning Act 2008 process. ‘Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others’ can be found here: [attachment 4] You may find it helpful to subscribe to receive email notifications for key events that occur after an application has been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate. I hope this helps.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

08 November 2021
Awel y Môr Offshore Wind Farm Limited - anon.
Awel y Môr Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project progress update meeting for the Hinkley Point C material change application.
Please see attached.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

04 October 2021
Mona Offshore Wind Limited - anon.
Mona Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
S51 Meeting Note - 4 October 2021
Please see attached

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

16 August 2021
Ørsted Hornsea Project Four Limited - anon.
Hornsea Project Four Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Various Enquiries by Tom Howlett; Jude Sutton; Jonathan Thompson; Alan James ; Vall Webb; Leigh Howley; Thelma Kensley; Amanda Bliss; Charlotte Crozier; G. Else; Lee Cook
Thank you for your correspondence regarding the proposed Medworth Energy from Waste Combined Heat and Power Facility. The proposed application by Medworth CHP Limited is at the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) process and an application for Development Consent has not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate. An application is expected to be submitted in Quarter 1 2022. As you may be aware, the Applicant has recently carried out its statutory consultation period; the deadline for consultation responses was 13 August 2021. However, you can make general enquiries about this project directly with the Applicant via the following contact details: email - [email protected] Telephone - 01945 232 231 Freepost address: "Freepost MVV" Please note that the Pre-Application consultation process is entirely led by the Applicant, who are responsible for ensuring that they comply with the legislative requirements surrounding consultation which are set out in PA2008. Your correspondence provides your comments on the merits of the Proposed Development, which the Applicant sought during its consultation. We can see from your email that you have made these comments directly to the Applicant. If you are not satisfied that the Applicant is taking your comments into account, you should raise this with the Local Authority. Information about the Planning Inspectorate’s remit once an Application is submitted When an application is formally submitted to the Planning Inspectorate for Examination, an assessment is made on whether it is of a satisfactory standard to proceed to an Examination. One key element of this assessment is to check whether the Applicant has fulfilled its statutory consultation duties. In order to help make an informed decision on this matter the Planning Inspectorate writes to all relevant Local Authorities for their views on the adequacy of the consultation. The Applicant is also statutorily required to demonstrate in its submitted application where they have shown regard to responses received during their period of statutory consultation. If the application is subsequently accepted for Examination, parties are able to register as an Interested Party by making a Relevant Representation for the appointed Examining Authority to consider. Further information can be found in the Planning Inspectorate’s Advice Note 8.2 How to register to participate in an Examination. The appointed Examining Authority will make an initial assessment of the issues arising from the submitted application as well as from the Relevant Representations received, which will inform its Examination of the proposed development. In order to assist parties in understanding the Planning Act 2008 process, the Planning Inspectorate has prepared a suite of Advice Notes. In particular the Advice Note 8 series provides an overview for members of the public of the planning process for Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects. These Advice Notes are available to view on the National Infrastructure Planning website: [attachment 1] I hope this information is of assistance.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

15 July 2021
Ørsted Hornsea Project Four Limited - anon.
Hornsea Project Four Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via email
Dear Sirs, Thank you for your reply, normally when considering planning applications for establishments regulated by the COMAH regulations the Local Planning Authority under the guise of the Hazardous Substance Authority are required to assess the residual risk presented, the COMAH regulations clearly state that any development that leads to greater human activity adds to the residual risk and should therefore be refused, this application confirms the employment of 10 additional on site personnel which leads to greater human activity. As the Planning Inspectorate on behalf of the Secretary of State are deciding on this application they must now also accept responsibility for assessing residual risk, this is not the responsibility of The COMAH Competent Authority or any other statutory authority nor can this be negated by a Development Consent Order. It is unthinkable that the residual risk aspect of this application which affects circa 40,000 nearby inhabitants should not be properly considered because the development falls under the umbrella of the Nationally Significant Infrastructure Planning Regime. Regards Neil Scarff
Dear Mr Scarff, Thank you for your email dated 29 June 2021. The proposed Oikos Marine and South Side Development project is currently at Pre-Application stage and application for development consent has not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate for consideration. An application is expected to be submitted to the Planning Inspectorate in Quarter 3, 2021. Please note that the Pre-Application consultation process is entirely led by the Applicant, who are responsible for ensuring that they comply with the legislative requirements surrounding consultation, which are set out in the Planning Act 2008. This includes a legal requirement for the Applicant to consult with Statutory Bodies such as the Health and Safety Executive (HSE). Although the Applicants statutory consultation has now closed, the Planning Inspectorate would advise you to raise your concerns with the Applicant at this stage. If you are not satisfied that the Applicant is taking them into account you should raise this with the Local Authority also. You can of course contact the Health and Safety Executive / the Environment Agency for further information in relation to the COMAH Regulations. You can make general enquiries about this project with the developer or register for their project updates via the following contact details: • Email: [email protected] • Phone: 0800 206 2583 • Post: OIKOS FREEPOST Further information on the project, including their consultation activities and documents are still available on the OMSSD website at www.oikos.co.uk/omssd/consultation Information about the Planning Inspectorate’s remit once the Application is submitted If the Application has been submitted, and subsequently accepted for Examination, you will be able to register as an Interested Party and make Relevant Representations for the Examining Authority to consider. If you wish to register as an Interested Party, you may wish to make the points you have raised in your emails below as part of your Relevant Representation. The Examining Authority will make an initial assessment of the issues arising from the submitted application as well as from the Relevant Representations, which will inform their Examination of the proposed development. Once registered you can submit further evidence or raise concerns for consideration during the Examination. Please read the Planning Inspectorate’s advice note on How to Register to participate in an Examination for further information. In order to assist parties in understanding the Planning Act 2008 process, the Planning Inspectorate has prepared a suite of Advice Notes, which are available on our website. The Advice Note 8 series provide an overview of the examination of Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects for members of the public. Hopefully you will find these of assistance. You may wish to note that the Planning Inspectorate has set up a project page for the Oikos scheme. You can register for updates on the project by entering an email address in the “Email Updates” section on the right hand side of the project page. This will then alert you as to when the Application has been received, and the period for registering and making Relevant Representations has opened. All documents received and issued during the course of the Examination will be published to this page. For clarification, the Planning Inspectorate will not be deciding the application (if submitted and accepted to proceed to examination), it will be for the Secretary of State for Transport to decide the Development Consent Order. I hope you find this information useful. Kind regards

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

04 June 2021
Medworth CHP Limited
Medworth Energy from Waste Combined Heat and Power Facility
Enquiry received via email
Dear Rt Hon Grant Shapps MP I am writing with regards to the proposed expansion of the Oikos facility located in Canvey Island to express my concerns and state my objection to it. As a resident of Canvey, I have serious concerns over our safety should an event like Buncefield repeat itself. During an online Q&A session that I joined I asked if they can guarantee our safety – and Oikos said they cannot. They can make it “as safe as possible” which isn’t good enough given the amount of hazardous materials they are planning on storing (they want to double the storage). There are all types of issues that could arise from a huge explosion – including its proximity to the sea (and the risk of causing a flood) to the fact there is a Calor Gas facility right next door to Oikos! I also asked about an evacuation plan in the event of an “accident” and they said they do not have one and it’s down to the local council. I find that response astounding and there does not appear to be a plan in place from the council either. I asked what would happen if one of their HGVs/tankers was to have an accident in Canvey, and the response was the same – it’s the council’s responsibility. So they are basically passing the buck and anything outside of their fence is not their problem! The site as it is shouldn’t be where it is in such close proximity to residents and to the sea, let alone doubling the size of it! It’s all about money and greed and Canvey is the cheapest option because of the existing facility. Well Canvey residents do not want to be sitting ducks. Would you be comfortable with it on your doorstep? As well as human error and technical error, there is also the threat of terrorism – how would they stop a drone flying over and dropping something – they simply cannot. It’s no good to learn from something after the event of a catastrophe – lives should not be put at risk for the purposes of greed. As well as safety, traffic is another major concern. There are only two roads on/off Canvey to service nearly 40,000 residents and both meet at the same roundabout. Not only will Oikos’ projected extra 480 vehicle movements PER DAY add to our already huge traffic problems, in the event of a major incident, Canvey residents have no chance of getting off the Island quickly when we all have to meet at that one roundabout. Oikos’ response was that they do not envisage causing further traffic issues – they really do not care. They said that HGV timings will be timetabled or words to that effect – they clearly have never been on Canvey when there has been an accident on Somnes Avenue – the whole island comes to a standstill – their HGVs will be backed up with tonnes of hazardous materials on board. Many Canvey residents turned out yesterday for a protest against the expansion – that was just the start, we are going to fight this all the way to protect where we live for us and for future generations. I hope you will take a very close look at this and reach the conclusion that this is a ludicrous and more importantly, deadly proposal that should not be passed. Surely it also goes against the government’s green policy to reduce the use of fossil fuels? I look forward to your response.
Thank you for your recent e-mail in relation to the proposed Oikos Marine and South Side Development project, which is currently in the Pre-Application stage and for which an application for development consent has not yet been submitted. An application is expected to be submitted to the Planning Inspectorate in Quarter 3, 2021. As you are aware, the developer has recently carried out its statutory consultation period. It is understood, from the developer’s website, that the deadline for consultation responses was 18 May 2021. However you can make general enquiries about this project with the developer or register for their project updates via the following contact details: • Email: [email protected] • Phone: 0800 206 2583 • Post: OIKOS FREEPOST Further information on the project, including their consultation activities and documents are still available on the OMSSD website at www.oikos.co.uk/omssd/consultation Please note that the Pre-Application consultation process is entirely led by the Applicant, who are responsible for ensuring that they comply with the legislative requirements surrounding consultation, which are set out in the Planning Act 2008. This includes a legal requirement for the Applicant to consult with Statutory Bodies such as the Health and Safety Executive (HSE). Your e-mail provides your comments on the merits of the Proposed Development, which the Applicant sought during its consultation. Your email indicates you have already made these comments directly to the Applicant during the consultation, as the Planning Inspectorate would advise you to do. If you are not satisfied that the Applicant is taking them into account you should raise this with the Local Authority also. Information about the Planning Inspectorate’s remit once the Application is submitted When an application is formally submitted to the Planning Inspectorate for Examination, an assessment is made on whether it is of a satisfactory standard to proceed to an Examination. One key element of this assessment is to check whether the Applicant has fulfilled its statutory consultation duties. In order to help make an informed decision on this matter the Planning Inspectorate writes to all host and neighbouring Local Authorities for their views on the adequacy of the consultation. The Applicant is also statutorily required to demonstrate in its submitted application where they have shown regard to responses received during their period of statutory consultation. If the Application has been accepted for Examination, you will be able to register as an Interested Party and make Relevant Representations for the Examining Authority to consider. Please read the Planning Inspectorate’s advice note on How to Register to participate in an Examination for further information. The Examining Authority will make an initial assessment of the issues arising from the submitted application as well as from the Relevant Representations, which will inform their Examination of the proposed development. In order to assist parties in understanding the Planning Act 2008 process, the Planning Inspectorate has prepared a suite of Advice Notes, which are available on our website. The Advice Note 8 series provide an overview of the examination of Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects for members of the public. Hopefully you will find these of assistance. You may wish to note that the Planning Inspectorate has set up a project page for the Oikos scheme. All documents received and issued during the course of the Examination will be published to this page. I hope this e-mail is of assistance. Kind regards

03 June 2021
Rt Hon Grant Shapps MP - anon.
Oikos Marine & South Side Development
Enquiry received via email
NatGrid are being duplicitous, as my understanding following the last consultations, in which I played a part as a representative for Lamarsh, was that the line would be undergrounded across the valley in Lamarsh. The AONB is due to be extended as far as Little Henny, but is awaiting approval from Natural England where there is a backlog of applications to protect the countryside. A recent planning proposal for houses in Bures was turned down on the basis that the development would be in the extended AONB which went down the valley to Little Henny. The area of the proposed extension of the AONB has been visited by Lord Gardiner, who is Secretary of State for Rural Affairs and Biosecurity, and he supports the application to extend the AONB. At the last consultation my understanding was that NatGrid would underground the line across the valley if the AONB was extended. NatGrid cannot now try and rush this proposal through to avoid having to underground the line. They should also underground the existing line when working on the undergrounding of the new line. This was something that I believed they would do. It is about time NatGrid laid a transmission line along the seabed around most of the UK to avoid above ground pylons blighting our green and pleasant land. Mark Dawson [Redacted]
Dear Mr Dawson, Thank you for your e-mail in relation to the proposed Bramford to Twinstead project earlier this month. Please accept my apologies for the delayed response to your email, unfortunately it was filtered into our spam folder rather than our main inbox. The Bramford to Twinstead project is currently in the Pre-Application stage. The developer has indicated that an application is expected to be submitted to the Planning Inspectorate in Quarter 4, 2022. Please note that the Pre-Application consultation process is led by the developer, and the Planning Inspectorate’s role is to provide procedural advice, which we publish. The Inspectorate has no power to require a developer to pause or stop their pre application consultation. The developer is responsible for ensuring that it complies with the legislative requirements surrounding consultation, which are set out in the Planning Act 2008. This includes a legal requirement for the developer to consult with Statutory Bodies, affected communities and persons with an interest in the land. Your e-mails provide your comments on the merits of the Proposed Development, which the developer is seeking during its consultation. As such, if you have not already done so, it is important that you make these comments directly to the developer. For further information, please see our advice note 8.1 on Responding to the developers pre-application consultation. In particular, paragraph 7.4 which explains how you can raise any concerns about the developer’s pre application consultation. As you are aware, the developer has recently carried out its non - statutory consultation. It is understood, from the developer’s website, that the deadline for consultation responses was 6 May 2021 and there will be an opportunity to provide further feedback during its statutory consultation, which is due to take place later this year. You can make general enquiries about this with the developer or register for their project updates via the following contact details: Phone: 0808 196 1515 Opening hours: 9:00am – 5:30pm Freepost: B TO T REINFORCEMENT Landowner contact: Email or call 01452 889000. Information about the Planning Inspectorate’s remit once the Application is submitted When an application is formally submitted to the Planning Inspectorate for Examination, an assessment is made on whether it is of a satisfactory standard to proceed to an Examination. One key element of this assessment is to check whether the Applicant has fulfilled its statutory consultation duties. In order to help make an informed decision on this matter the Inspectorate writes to all host and neighbouring Local Authorities for their views on the adequacy of the consultation. The Applicant is also statutorily required to demonstrate in its submitted application where they have shown regard to responses received during their period of statutory consultation. If the Application has been accepted for Examination, you will be able to register as an Interested Party and make Relevant Representation; Please read our Advice Note no.8 on How to Register to participate in an Examination for further information. Once an Examining Authority is appointed, it will make an initial assessment of the issues arising from the submitted application as well as from the Relevant Representations received, which will contribute to their Examination of the proposed development. In order to assist parties in understanding the Planning Act 2008 process, the Planning Inspectorate has prepared a suite of Advice Notes, which are available on our website. The Advice Note 8 series provide an overview of the examination of Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects for members of the public. Hopefully you will find these of assistance. You may wish to note that the Planning Inspectorate has set up a project page for the Bramford to Twinstead scheme where documents received and issued during the course of the Examination will be published to this page. Hopefully this e-mail is of assistance but if you require any further information please do not hesitate to contact us. Kind regards Caroline Caroline Hopewell NSIP Officer The Planning Inspectorate Temple Quay House, 2 The Square, Temple Quay, Bristol, BS1 6PN

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

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

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

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

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

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

27 May 2021
Highways England - anon.
Lower Thames Crossing
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Please see attached meeting note.
Please see attached meeting note.

26 May 2021
Anglian Water
Cambridge Waste Water Treatment Plant Relocation
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Meeting with the Applicant – Highways England
Please see attached.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

07 May 2021
North Falls Offshore Wind Farm Ltd - anon.
North Falls Offshore Wind Farm
As a resident of Lower Layham, I write to strongly object to the proposed increase in the number of power lines passing overhead between Layham and Hadleigh and to express my concern regarding an inadequate consultation. I argue that a priority aim of industry and government, in the long term, should be to decrease the number of visible power lines passing through our countryside, not increase them. Layham is not quite an area of outstanding beauty, but what chance will this beautiful rural area of Suffolk have of being classified as AOB in the future with rows of huge pylons adding to the scene? I urge you to extend the period of consultation bearing in mind that 'lockdown' has significantly limited community discussions of the issues and options. I also request that the consultation provide more information about alternative choices in the short term and possible developments in the future as more electricity is transferred from an increasing number of North Sea turbines. If more power needs to be transferred in the future will we have additional overhead power lines and larger pylons? Will there be a third set of pylons passing between Layham and Hadleigh? What will be the cost implications of moving the planned overhead power lines underground or under the sea at a later date? Is it short sited in terms of cost not to be ambitious in terms of maintaining our beautiful views? What are the implications for future generations? To make informed decisions we need to know how the increased cost of burying power lines could be spread across households and organisations. I note that members of government, support and argue for putting the power lines under the sea along the coast and up the Thames towards the areas that are using this additional electricity. Consultation should openly explore this option and consultation papers should give us an opportunity to vote on this. The affect on the residents of Hadleigh and Layham will not only include a detrimental affect on views, but the lines will add to noise pollution. Static electricity in humid air generates electric shocks - I have experienced them under power lines, they may not be fatal, but they are unpleasant. Can we have up to date outcomes into the research of the effect on health of living in an electromagnetic field? The proposed 'corridor' of huge pylons and many power lines is going to create a very strong electromagnetic field. Can you guarantee health will not be affected? Who will be liable when there is evidence that it has, affected the health of members of our community. Has there been any consideration taken into the effect on wildlife or domestic animals? S.M. Roberts 6th May 2021
Dear Ms Roberts, Thank you for your recent e-mail in relation to the proposed Bramford to Twinstead project, which is currently in the pre-Application stage. An Application is expected to be submitted to the Planning Inspectorate in Quarter 4, 2022. Please note that the Pre-Application consultation process is led by the developer, and the Planning Inspectorate’s role is to provide procedural advice, which we publish. The Inspectorate has no power to require a developer to pause or stop their pre application consultation. The developer is responsible for ensuring that it complies with the legislative requirements surrounding consultation, which are set out in the Planning Act 2008. This includes a legal requirement for the developer to consult with Statutory Bodies, affected communities and persons with an interest in the land. Your e-mails provide your comments on the merits of the Proposed Development, which the developer is seeking during its consultation. As such, if you have not already done so, it is important that you make these comments directly to the developer. For further information, please see our advice note 8.1 on Responding to the developers pre-application consultation. In particular, paragraph 7.4 which explains how you can raise any concerns about the developer’s pre application consultation. As you are aware, the developer has recently carried out its non - statutory consultation. It is understood, from the developer’s website, that the deadline for consultation responses was 6 May 2021 and there will be an opportunity to provide further feedback during its statutory consultation, which is due to take place later this year. You can make general enquiries about this with the developer or register for their project updates via the following contact details: Phone: 0808 196 1515 Opening hours: 9:00am – 5:30pm Freepost: B TO T REINFORCEMENT Landowner contact: Email or call 01452 889000. Information about the Planning Inspectorate’s remit once the Application is submitted When an application is formally submitted to the Planning Inspectorate for Examination, an assessment is made on whether it is of a satisfactory standard to proceed to an Examination. One key element of this assessment is to check whether the Applicant has fulfilled its statutory consultation duties. In order to help make an informed decision on this matter the Inspectorate writes to all host and neighbouring Local Authorities for their views on the adequacy of the consultation. The Applicant is also statutorily required to demonstrate in its submitted application where they have shown regard to responses received during their period of statutory consultation. If the Application has been accepted for Examination, you will be able to register as an Interested Party and make Relevant Representation; Please read our advice note on How to Register to participate in an Examination for further information. Once an Examining Authority is appointed, it will make an initial assessment of the issues arising from the submitted application as well as from the Relevant Representations, which will contribute to their Examination of the proposed development. Please note that it is not within the Planning Inspectorate’s remit to comment on the policy you refer to, or how/what the Applicant considers as relevant to their considerations. However, the Examining Authority will make its recommendations within the framework provided by the National Policy Statement for Ports, as required by the Planning Act 2008 and will also take into account matters it considers relevant and important to its recommendation including relevant policy/local plan. However please be aware there would not be any scope to dispute the contents of such policy frameworks during the Examination. In order to assist parties in understanding the Planning Act 2008 process, the Planning Inspectorate has prepared a suite of Advice Notes, which are available on our website. The Advice Note 8 series provide an overview of the examination of Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects for members of the public. Hopefully you will find these of assistance. You may wish to note that the Planning Inspectorate has set up a project page for the Bramford to Twinstead scheme where documents received and issued during the course of the Examination will be published to this page. Hopefully this e-mail is of assistance but if you require any further information please do not hesitate to contact us. Kind regards Caroline

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

19 March 2021
Longfield Solar Energy Farm Limited - anon.
Longfield Solar Farm
Enquiry received via post
response has attachments
Review of draft Statement of Community Consultation
Please see attached.

18 March 2021
Anglian Water Service Limited
Cambridge Waste Water Treatment Plant Relocation
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached meeting note and appended comments in respect of the Applicant's outline Landscape and Environmental Management Plan (oLEMP), Chapter 12 of the Applicant’s document ”1.3 Introduction to the Application” dated October 2020, and Highways England's Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) standards.

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

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

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

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

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

09 March 2021
Tritax Symmetry (Hinckley) Limited - anon.
Hinckley National Rail Freight Interchange
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
We are writing to you to ask for the Government to look into the failure in the adequacy of the EWR Consultation in the selection of Route E, Bedford to Cambridge and also the very dubious costings that have so far been produced. Originally Route E was the most expensive of the routes but somehow it has now become the cheapest option. How did that happen? There must be transparency of all the costings but these have still not been shared although have been requested. The latest costings we have seen show a dramatic increase to the figures for Routes A,B,C and D whereas Route E has been reduced. The new costings for Route E seem unbelievable as it must include redesign of Bedfordshire Midland Station and a longer route with more difficult topography. EWR quote that the consultation only had 7,204 responses across the wider Oxford to Cambridge region. Apparently 120,000 postcards were sent out to residents that would be affected but they do not appear to have been received by the North Bedfordshire villages. We, and other residents in Wilden, did not receive the cards. We believe that most of the consultation meetings happened south of Bedford and therefore there would be an unequal response to a selection of the preferred route. Route E is less direct and given it will be used for diesel freight trains running through Bedford town centre will significantly increase the carbon footprint. EWR when referring to Route B said that it would conflict with the Guided busway between Cambourne and Cambridge whereas EWR say that for Route E it will integrate with the Guided Busway. Surely Route E will be duplication not integration. Route E coming north out of Bedford Midland Station is cutting through unspoilt countryside and tranquil North Bedfordshire villages but this area will have no benefit for this route being chosen as no new station is proposed. Referring back to the costs we believe Route E with its difficult terrain , redevelopment of Bedford Midland Station and crossing a flood plain will eventually become the most costly option. We do not believe that this consultation by EWR has been conducted in a fair , transparent and legal way and therefore we are asking you to review the decision for choosing Route E. Thank you for reading this email and we look forward to your support.
Thank you for your e-mails of 1 March 2021 in relation to the proposed East West Rail project. An application for this project has not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate (the Inspectorate). With regards to the proposed Bedford to Cambridge route, the Inspectorate understands that the Applicant ‘East West Railway Company’ (EWR), is currently undertaking detailed design work to define the preferred alignment of the tracks, following a non-statutory consultation in 2019. The Inspectorate also understands that EWR will be holding a further non-statutory consultation exercise in 2021. EWR will then conduct a statutory pre-application consultation in advance of submitting their application to the Inspectorate. The purpose of the statutory pre-application stage is to allow the developer to consult on their proposals so that they can be shaped with the input of communities and others before being finalised and submitted as an application. As the project is still at the pre-application stage, I would strongly encourage you to contact the Applicant directly with regard to your concerns, as they have a statutory duty to have regard to all consultation responses, which should be demonstrated in the Consultation Report as part of their DCO application. If you feel your comments are not being taken into account, I would advise you to also write to your local authority and set out why you think the Applicant is failing to conduct its consultation properly. Your comments will be considered by the local authority when sending the Inspectorate its representations on whether the Applicant has fulfilled its consultation duties which will be taken into account when deciding whether the application can be accepted for Examination. The Applicant can be reached in the following ways: By email: [email protected] By phone: 0330 1340067 By post: FREEPOST East West Rail The Planning Inspectorate has produced several Advice Notes to help provide an overview of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) process and the opportunities to get involved. They are available at the following link: [attachment 1] The following are particularly relevant: Advice Note 8: ‘Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others’. Advice Note 8.1: ‘Responding to the developer’s pre-application consultation’ Advice Note 8.2: ‘How to register to participate in an Examination’. Please be assured that anyone interested in the proposed developments, their potential impacts and any planning matters can be fully engaged in the examination process. Please note, in accordance with Section 51 of the PA2008, a summary of your query and our advice will be published on the project’s webpage of the National Infrastructure Website. I hope you find the above information useful.

09 March 2021
Kathleen Hayhoe Derek Hayhoe
East West Rail - Bedford to Cambridge and Western improvements
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I would like to make a complaint regarding the Pre-Application stage and the way EWR handled their consultation. They claim to have sent out 120000 postcards to local residents that were affected by the routes. I did not receive any communication and I cannot recall seeing any publication about the consultation being held. As a born and bred Bedfordian I have been aware of the EWR for over thirty years, but always understood the favoured route was South. I was completely unaware of the Bedfords Borough Council paying consultants to strengthen their lobby position for Route E (northern) in March 2019 and then the impact of this on the decision taken by ERW and Secretary of State for Transport in January 2020. The route will significantly affect the countryside area where I live a few minutes walk from and have enjoyed for many years, also it will pass by very close to Brickhill where many of my family members live. I feel this decision has been made without proper consultation and engagement of the most affected people. The Borough Council Lib have cleverly disguised their favoured route by announcing they have always supported a route `through` Bedford but did not expand on this to say this would mean a northern route. If this had been made clearer then I would have made a stern objection, as this route takes the line through green space, in fact the green space that the very same Council designated as protected area in its Green Infrastructure plan in 2009. I would like to ask that a new consultation is undertaken, ensuring all residents of Bedford are made aware of, focusing on the 5 proposed routes and then decision be taken on a fair and full consultation. This is very disappointing to hear and I would suggest the methodology you applied to the pre consultation was flawed. If you had engaged in more initial research you would of found that historically the EWR route has been publicised as a southern route, this is certainly the understanding I have had as a Bedford resident for 45 years. If there had been any communication from my Borough Council that they had changed their mind on the preferred route then this would of been useful to know. As I was not aware of the consultation I did not get an opportunity to air my views and now I understand as the route as been chosen I have will no way to readdress this. I would ask that you stop the process where it is and re-open your pre-application consultation and let all the residents of Bedford have an equal chance to be heard on all the 5 options that were proposed. I await to hear your response. Further to my email a couple of days ago I would like to inform you about the response I have had from EWR which shows the methodology they applied to conduct their pre-application was flawed and resulted in an unfair consultation. I would like to ask that the process on the EWR is stopped and all Bedford residents get an opportunity to have their voices heard on the 5 route options, by reopening the initial consultation.
Thank you for your e-mails of 28 February and 2 March 2021 in relation to the proposed East West Rail project. An application for this project has not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate (the Inspectorate). With regards to the proposed Bedford to Cambridge route, the Inspectorate understands that the Applicant ‘East West Railway Company’ (EWR), is currently undertaking detailed design work to define the preferred alignment of the tracks, following a non-statutory consultation in 2019. The Inspectorate also understands that EWR will be holding a further non-statutory consultation exercise in 2021. EWR will then conduct a statutory pre-application consultation in advance of submitting their application to the Inspectorate. The purpose of the statutory pre-application stage is to allow the developer to consult on their proposals so that they can be shaped with the input of communities and others before being finalised and submitted as an application. As the project is still at the pre-application stage, I would strongly encourage you to continue to contact the Applicant directly with regard to your concerns, as they have a statutory duty to have regard to all consultation responses, which should be demonstrated in the Consultation Report as part of their DCO application. If you feel your comments are not being taken into account, I would advise you to also write to your local authority and set out why you think the Applicant is failing to conduct its consultation properly. Your comments will be considered by the local authority when sending the Inspectorate its representations on whether the Applicant has fulfilled its consultation duties which will be taken into account when deciding whether the application can be accepted for Examination. The Applicant can be reached in the following ways: By email: [email protected] By phone: 0330 1340067 By post: FREEPOST East West Rail The Planning Inspectorate has produced several Advice Notes to help provide an overview of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) process and the opportunities to get involved. They are available at the following link: [attachment 1] The following are particularly relevant: Advice Note 8: ‘Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others’. Advice Note 8.1: ‘Responding to the developer’s pre-application consultation’ Advice Note 8.2: ‘How to register to participate in an Examination’. Please be assured that anyone interested in the proposed developments, their potential impacts and any planning matters can be fully engaged in the examination process. Please note, in accordance with Section 51 of the PA2008, a summary of your query and our advice will be published on the project’s webpage of the National Infrastructure Website. I hope you find the above information useful.

09 March 2021
Ms Evans
East West Rail - Bedford to Cambridge and Western improvements
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I would like to comment on the proposed route through Bedford for the East – West Rail Link. Recently, I took part in a Zoom meeting to discuss this issue with other interested parties and Richard Fuller, MP. The majority of those involved were not against the proposed link but were deeply unhappy with the chosen route. It transpired that when consultation for the proposed route through Bedford was initiated, five possible choices were suggested. Route E was deemed to be the most expensive and, to those of us who have lived in Bedford for many years, the idea that a route east would come north-west up a hill through unspoilt rural countryside appeared nonsensical if not ludicrous! As such, it came as a surprise that, after the consultation period, as if by magic, Route E was suddenly the cheapest and preferred option. Of course this preference was made during the early period of the first lockdown when other issues were to the fore. Now that Bedford lacks any local newspapers the decision was largely overlooked by many. I do not propose to detail all the objections I and many others have to the choice of Route E, as these will already be well-documented and obvious. A southern route, using much of the existing track from pre-Beeching days, would appear to be clear-cut and unambiguous. I travelled on this line in the early 60s and it was perfectly functional. I realize that not all of the route is available today but the part into and out of Bedford certainly is. The choice of a southern route would mean freight could move directly east to west (and vice versa) without the need to enter Bedford station. Passenger trains could divert briefly north to Bedford and then back out to rejoin the southern line. To conclude, I wish to protest at the way the decision was made would like there to be a more public, honest and open revisiting of the consultation procedure.
Thank you for your e-mails with a word document attached on the 1 March 2021 in relation to the proposed East West Rail project. An application for this project has not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate (the Inspectorate). With regards to the proposed Bedford to Cambridge route, the Inspectorate understands that the Applicant ‘East West Railway Company’ (EWR), is currently undertaking detailed design work to define the preferred alignment of the tracks, following a non-statutory consultation in 2019. The Inspectorate also understands that EWR will be holding a further non-statutory consultation exercise in 2021. EWR will then conduct a statutory pre-application consultation in advance of submitting their application to the Inspectorate. The purpose of the statutory pre-application stage is to allow the developer to consult on their proposals so that they can be shaped with the input of communities and others before being finalised and submitted as an application. As the project is still at the pre-application stage, I would strongly encourage you to contact the Applicant directly with regard to your concerns, as they have a statutory duty to have regard to all consultation responses, which should be demonstrated in the Consultation Report as part of their DCO application. If you feel your comments are not being taken into account, I would advise you to also write to your local authority and set out why you think the Applicant is failing to conduct its consultation properly. Your comments will be considered by the local authority when sending the Inspectorate its representations on whether the Applicant has fulfilled its consultation duties which will be taken into account when deciding whether the application can be accepted for Examination. The Applicant can be reached in the following ways: By email: [email protected] By phone: 0330 1340067 By post: FREEPOST East West Rail The Planning Inspectorate has produced several Advice Notes to help provide an overview of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) process and the opportunities to get involved. They are available at the following link: [attachment 1] The following are particularly relevant: Advice Note 8: ‘Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others’. Advice Note 8.1: ‘Responding to the developer’s pre-application consultation’ Advice Note 8.2: ‘How to register to participate in an Examination’. Please be assured that anyone interested in the proposed developments, their potential impacts and any planning matters can be fully engaged in the examination process. Please note, in accordance with Section 51 of the PA2008, a summary of your query and our advice will be published on the project’s webpage of the National Infrastructure Website. I hope you find the above information useful.

09 March 2021
Ian Coyne
East West Rail - Bedford to Cambridge and Western improvements
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I am writing to raise my concerns about the proposed route E going north of Bedford. The issues are almost to plentiful to go into in one email, however, in short SOME of the issues I have as a resident who will be affected by this route (along with my young family and countless other people) are as follows- 1) The consultation process has been HEAVILY flawed and the results have been heavily twisted in order to suit the purpose of route E being favoured. The meetings, supposed postcards, and any other communication have ‘conveniently’ missed the majority of the residents that this route will have an impact on, and therefore was not where near fit for purpose and should be repeated. 2) The route is advertised as the ‘most cost effective’..... this would be because it is the only route that has been looked at my external contractors to reduce the apparent costs as much as possible. If the same was done for ALL routes, as would be fair and transparent, I highly doubt this would be the case. 3) the environmental impact of this route is devastating. It is named as the route with the least impact environmentally.... when it goes through one of the only untouched green belts of countryside around Bedford, that was publicised as protected not too long ago..... and is home to ancient woodlands, numerous species of bird, badgers, foxes, and a plethora of other species. The fact that the route will potentially be a diesel freight route is also a massive environmental issue for the area. 4) the route potentially passes closely to a large number of residential areas such as Brickhill,Wilden, Renhold, Roxton, Ravensden and rural areas of Clapham, all of which were chosen by people because of the countryside and peace and quiet that this route would heavily impact. The residents have paid a premium for these elements, and were under the impression they were safe due to the protected nature of the belt. The route will directly negatively impact on peoples lives and finances, and without appropriate consultation at all (please see point one). 5) The route passes through one of the only hilly areas surrounding the town, which will either be cut into, use additional diesel due to the gradient, or have to work around (potentially taking it closer to the residents, costing more, and/or becoming even more indirect) There are several other issues with the process and proposed route, and as a mother who has recently moved to the area (due to having no idea about these plans), especially to being my family up surrounded by peace and natural beauty, I whole heartedly oppose this route and hope you will look into the matter further.
Thank you for your e-mail on the 3rd March 2021 in relation to the proposed East West Rail project. An application for this project has not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate (the Inspectorate). With regards to the proposed Bedford to Cambridge route, the Inspectorate understands that the Applicant ‘East West Railway Company’ (EWR), is currently undertaking detailed design work to define the preferred alignment of the tracks, following a non-statutory consultation in 2019. The Inspectorate also understands that EWR will be holding a further non-statutory consultation exercise in 2021. EWR will then conduct a statutory pre-application consultation in advance of submitting their application to the Inspectorate. The purpose of the statutory pre-application stage is to allow the developer to consult on their proposals so that they can be shaped with the input of communities and others before being finalised and submitted as an application. As the project is still at the pre-application stage, I would strongly encourage you to contact the Applicant directly with regard to your concerns, as they have a statutory duty to have regard to all consultation responses, which should be demonstrated in the Consultation Report as part of their DCO application. If you feel your comments are not being taken into account, I would advise you to also write to your local authority and set out why you think the Applicant is failing to conduct its consultation properly. Your comments will be considered by the local authority when sending the Inspectorate its representations on whether the Applicant has fulfilled its consultation duties which will be taken into account when deciding whether the application can be accepted for Examination. The Applicant can be reached in the following ways: By email: [email protected] By phone: 0330 1340067 By post: FREEPOST East West Rail The Planning Inspectorate has produced several Advice Notes to help provide an overview of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) process and the opportunities to get involved. They are available at the following link: [attachment 1] The following are particularly relevant: Advice Note 8: ‘Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others’. Advice Note 8.1: ‘Responding to the developer’s pre-application consultation’ Advice Note 8.2: ‘How to register to participate in an Examination’. Please be assured that anyone interested in the proposed developments, their potential impacts and any planning matters can be fully engaged in the examination process. Please note, in accordance with Section 51 of the PA2008, a summary of your query and our advice will be published on the project’s webpage of the National Infrastructure Website. I hope you find the above information useful.

09 March 2021
Kerry Taylor
East West Rail - Bedford to Cambridge and Western improvements
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
We are writing to you to express our concern, as residents of Great Shelford, about the adverse impact this proposal could have on our village and the high handed way in which the so called consultation is being conducted by EWR. Whilst a range of routes, to the north and south of Cambridge were initially considered, it now appears that this has been narrowed down to route option E which is to the south and joins the Kings Cross line in the vicinity of Great Shelford. I would argue that this has ignored the benefits of the routes to the north and in particular the route advocated by the CamBedRailRoad group (CBRR). This alternative route, developed by CBRR, presents a very powerful case in favour of the northern approach and would better serve the needs of the whole region as well as local communities on the edge of Cambridge. The forthcoming non-statutory consultation, which considers just route E, should be cancelled and replaced with a wider ranging public consultation to compare the relative merits of both the northern (CBRR) approach as well as the southern route E. I would urge you to consider and promote this alternative consultation.
An application for this project has not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate (the Inspectorate). With regards to the proposed Bedford to Cambridge route, the Inspectorate understands that the Applicant ‘East West Railway Company’ (EWR), is currently undertaking detailed design work to define the preferred alignment of the tracks, following a non-statutory consultation in 2019. The Inspectorate also understands that EWR will be holding a further non-statutory consultation exercise in 2021. EWR will then conduct a statutory pre-application consultation in advance of submitting their application to the Inspectorate. The purpose of the statutory pre-application stage is to allow the developer to consult on their proposals so that they can be shaped with the input of communities and others before being finalised and submitted as an application. As the project is still at the pre-application stage, I would strongly encourage you to contact the Applicant directly with regard to your concerns, as they have a statutory duty to have regard to all consultation responses, which should be demonstrated in the Consultation Report as part of their DCO application. If you feel your comments are not being taken into account, I would advise you to also write to your local authority and set out why you think the Applicant is failing to conduct its consultation properly. Your comments will be considered by the local authority when sending the Inspectorate its representations on whether the Applicant has fulfilled its consultation duties which will be taken into account when deciding whether the application can be accepted for Examination. The Applicant can be reached in the following ways: By email: [email protected] By phone: 0330 1340067 By post: FREEPOST East West Rail The Planning Inspectorate has produced several Advice Notes to help provide an overview of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) process and the opportunities to get involved. They are available at the following link: [attachment 1] The following are particularly relevant: Advice Note 8: ‘Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others’. Advice Note 8.1: ‘Responding to the developer’s pre-application consultation’ Advice Note 8.2: ‘How to register to participate in an Examination’. Please be assured that anyone interested in the proposed developments, their potential impacts and any planning matters can be fully engaged in the examination process.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

17 December 2020
Highways England - anon.
A428 Black Cat to Caxton Gibbet Road Improvement scheme
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached meeting note

17 December 2020
Highways England - anon.
Lower Thames Crossing
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Please see attached.
Please see attached.

17 December 2020
BDB Pitmans and Able Humber Ports Ltd - anon.
Able Marine Energy Park Material Change 2
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Please see attached.
Please see attached.

17 December 2020
BDB Pitmans and Able Humber Ports Ltd - anon.
Able Marine Energy Park Material Change 1
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached Meeting Note

16 December 2020
London Resort Company Holdings
The London Resort
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached Meeting Note

15 December 2020
Local Authority representatives
The London Resort
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Meeting to discuss the withdrawal of the application with representatives of Thurrock Council, Gravesham Borough Council and London Borough of Havering
Please see attached meeting note

15 December 2020
Various local authorities - anon.
Lower Thames Crossing
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Inception Meeting - Cyfarfod Cychwynnol
Please see attached - Gweler ynghlwm

15 December 2020
ENI, Progressive Energy Limited, WSP - anon.
HyNet Carbon Dioxide Pipeline
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Note of Preliminary Meeting part 1 and 2
Please see attached.

10 December 2020
Highways England - anon.
A1 in Northumberland - Morpeth to Ellingham
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting.
Please see attached.

10 December 2020
Ørsted - anon.
Hornsea Project Four Offshore Wind Farm
response has attachments
Meeting Note
Please see attached

10 December 2020
FCC Environment (UK) Limited - anon.
Extension to Allington Integrated Waste Management Facility
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached.

09 December 2020
Highways England - anon.
A417 Missing Link
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Inception Meeting
Please see attached.

09 December 2020
National Grid Electricity Transmission (NGET) - anon.
Bramford to Twinstead
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

08 December 2020
Sunnica Energy Farm - anon.
Sunnica Energy Farm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Please see attached meeting note
Please see attached meeting note

07 December 2020
Highways England - anon.
A428 Black Cat to Caxton Gibbet Road Improvement scheme
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached meeting note

07 December 2020
Highways England - anon.
A47 Blofield to North Burlingham
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Update on engagement and other environmental matters.
Please see attached.

04 December 2020
DEFRA Group - anon.
Bradwell B new nuclear power station
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached meeting note

03 December 2020
London Resort Company Holdings
The London Resort
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Inception Meeting
Please see attached

01 December 2020
Drax Power Ltd - anon.
Drax Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage Project
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project inception meeting.
Please see attached meeting note.

01 December 2020
National Grid Carbon - anon.
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached.

01 December 2020
Highways England - anon.
A57 Link Roads (previously known as Trans Pennine Upgrade Programme)
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project inception meeting.
Please see attached meeting note.

01 December 2020
National Grid Carbon - anon.
Humber Low Carbon Pipelines
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Meeting to discuss the Applicant’s s48 consultation
Please see attached meeting note

27 November 2020
INRG SOLAR (Little Crow) Ltd - anon.
Little Crow Solar Park
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Meeting with the Applicant following withdrawal of the application
Please see attached meeting note

26 November 2020
Highways England - anon.
Lower Thames Crossing
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please see attached.
Please see attached.

23 November 2020
Suffolk Energy Action Solutions (SEAS) - anon.
East Anglia ONE North Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please see attached.
Please see attached.

23 November 2020
Suffolk Energy Action Solutions (SEAS) - anon.
East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project meeting update.
Please see attached.

19 November 2020
The Net Zero Teeside Project - anon.
The Net Zero Teesside Project
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached Meeting Note

19 November 2020
London Resort Company Holdings
The London Resort
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Meeting to discuss in more detail the Applicant’s approach to its plans structure, Green Managed Growth strategy and latest survey work
Please see attached note

19 November 2020
London Luton Airport Limited - anon.
Expansion of London Luton Airport
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting.
Please see attached.

16 November 2020
SADEP - anon.
Sheringham and Dudgeon Extension Projects
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please see letter dated 17 July 2020 attached.
Please see reply dated 13 November 2020.

13 November 2020
Somerset County Council - Andy Coupe
Hinkley Point C New Nuclear Power Station
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Please see attached meeting note.
Please see attached meeting note.

13 November 2020
Highways England - anon.
Lower Thames Crossing
response has attachments
Please see attached.
Please see attached.

13 November 2020
Boston Alternative Energy Facility Limited - anon.
Boston Alternative Energy Facility (BAEF)
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Please see attached.
Please see attached.

11 November 2020
Eversheds
Little Crow Solar Park
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

11 November 2020
Tritax Symmetry (Hinckley) Limited - anon.
Hinckley National Rail Freight Interchange
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Diweddariad ar y prosiect cyfarfod - Project update meeting
Gweler yr atodiad - Please see attached

09 November 2020
Awel y Môr Offshore Wind Farm Limited - anon.
Awel y Môr Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Please see attached.
Please see attached.

06 November 2020
North Falls Offshore Wind Farm Ltd - anon.
North Falls Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Please see attached.
Please see attached.

05 November 2020
Highways England
A27 Arundel Bypass
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
as a local doctor working in mental health I wish to express my grave concerns about the planned Aquind Interconnector from France via Portsmouth to Lovedean. Portsmouth is one of the most densely populated cities in the UK, and we really need the limited green spaces we have. Our parks and other communal green areas provide outdoor spaces for families and individuals which is especially important during these times of Covid-19. Our allotments enable local residents to grow their own food and spend time in the open air. All these activities are highly beneficial for our city's physical and mental wellbeing. So much so in fact, that social prescribing recognises and recommends the benefits of exercise and socialising (keeping a safe distance currently of course). We have been sending mental health patients from a nearby hospital to the community allotments in Eastney for many years for the purposes of therapeutic activities and structure to their days in a safe environment as part of their recovery. Patients often told the staff with pride about their achievements in planting and tending to the plants. At harvest time, patients were able to bring some fruit or vegetables back to the hospital. It would be inconceivable if this invaluable community resource were destroyed as part of the Interconnector plans. We urge you to find a solution which safeguards Portsmouth's green spaces and community resources. I would like to add a couple of questions in relation to Brexit. From January 1st, 2021 the EU 's Internal Energy Market will no longer include Great Britain (with special rules for Northern Ireland). In the case of a no-deal Brexit, if there is no electricity trading arrangement between the EU and UK, government guidance headed "Trading electricity from 1 January 2021" states that "alternative trading arrangements will need to be developed, including for trade between Great Britain and the Single Electricity Market through interconnectors". The guidance further states that "trade on interconnectors may be less efficient". 1. Who are the owners of Aquind please? Who will pay for this interconnector to be installed, and for local residents to be reimbursed if the project goes ahead? 2. What contingency plans have the owners of Aquind made for Brexit, a) in case of a deal with the EU and b) in case of no-deal? 3. How are the owners of Aquind engaging with the "relevant EU national regulators"? I would be grateful if you could answer my questions in the last paragraph, please regard them as questions under Freedom of Information legislation I look forward to your reply
With reference to your email of 5 October 2020, we note that you have asked some questions under the Freedom of Information (FoI) Act. The Planning Inspectorate is the body responsible for examining Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects and providing recommendation reports to the relevant Secretaries of State. On 30 July 2018, the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (SoS) made a direction under s35 of the Planning Act 2008 that the proposed UK elements of the AQUIND Interconnector project, be treated as development for which development consent is required (i.e. a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project), following a request made by the Applicant, AQUIND Limited. The Application was accepted for examination on 12 December 2019 and the examination formally began on 8 September 2020. All documents submitted during the course of an examination are publicly available as they are published to the project page of the Planning Inspectorate’s website: [attachment 1] As such, it is suggested that the information you have requested, if held, will be within the Applicant’s application documents. For example, you may wish to view the Funding Statement, which provides a background to the Applicant’s funding for the Proposed Development. You may also wish to view the Planning Statement, which provides the Applicant’s position on planning policy and confirms that the project is considered a Project of Common Interest (‘PCI’) of the European Union, in accordance with the TransEuropean Networks for Energy (TEN-E) Regulation (347/2013). I can confirm that the Planning Inspectorate does not hold any separate information (outside of what is available on the project page) that answer your questions subject to the FoI request. If the information is not available in the published documents, you may wish to contact the Applicant directly to seek it. However, there is no explicit obligation on the Applicant to provide answers to these questions as part of the examination process. The contract details for the Applicant are: [email protected] Tel. 01962 893869

04 November 2020
Dr Veronika Wagner
AQUIND Interconnector
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Please see attached meeting note.
Please see attached meeting note.

04 November 2020
Able Humber Ports Ltd - anon.
Able Marine Energy Park Material Change 1
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached Meeting Note

03 November 2020
London Resort Company Holdings
The London Resort
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached.

29 October 2020
Highways England - anon.
A428 Black Cat to Caxton Gibbet Road Improvement scheme
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I hope you have noted that the latest plans being shown by The London Resort project in their public consultation and in their latest Scoping Report (June 2020) are not compliant with those shown in their Direction Order application (April 2014) plan. They are proposing taking a further 30 acres (approx) of industrial estates housing over one hundred businesses and many thousands of employees, direct and indirect. Surely such an amendment to the original Order should have been given due consideration by the SoS as it is slightly more than a tweak to respond to design flexibility as permitted in the Direction Order.
Please see attached

28 October 2020
Bramwell Associates - Dan Bramwell
The London Resort
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please see attached.
Please see attached.

26 October 2020
Harrison Grant - Susan Ring
Sunnica Energy Farm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Hi Liam ; I believe Anglian Water have misled the public regarding the status of the application based on your reply. AW refuse to explain the 500,000 population so not particularly being helpful. See extract from the project website..which clearly states it is a NSIP already ?
Dear Nigel, Thank you for your response. If the application for the Cambridge Waste Water sewage works is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, one of the factors the Secretary of State will consider under section 55 of PA2008 is whether or not the application meets that criteria. It is for the applicant to demonstrate that they have met the relevant thresholds. If you have concerns about the Applicant’s pre-application consultation you should contact the Applicant in the first instance to enable them to address the issues. If you have contacted the developer but you are not satisfied that they have, or will, take account of your comments you can make your comments to the relevant local authority. The local authority can consider them as part of their Adequacy of Consultation Representation submission to the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) at the application stage of the process. Further information about Community Consultation can be found here: [attachment 1] I hope that information is helpful and let me know if you have any further questions?

23 October 2020
Nigel Seamarks
Cambridge Waste Water Treatment Plant Relocation
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
See Meeting Note attached

22 October 2020
Highways England - anon.
A47 Blofield to North Burlingham
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Meeting to advise TCAG about the Planning Act 2008 process
Please see attached meeting note

22 October 2020
Thames Crossing Action Group (TCAG) - anon.
Lower Thames Crossing
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Dear National Infrastructure Applications; I understand you recently planned to have a meeting with Anglian Water about moving the Cambridge Waste Treatment plant. Please can I have an update on the progress of talks. I do object to Anglian Water in using the National Infrastructure programme as a way of obtaining permission and instead AW should use the Cambridgeshire County Council Planning Systems. The Localism Act, local people should have a major role in local projects, this is not a NPI application. I would like your group to consider the reason for my objection of using the National Infrastructure Planning Tool :- 1. During the consultation process Anglian Water would not explain how they would achieve 500,000 people usage of the new Waste Treatment Centre ; a key requirement . 2. The Project is not of National Importance as the current site delivers the needs of Cambridgeshire. There is no Operational need to move. 3. The current site serves Cambridgeshire’s needs and does not have a capacity issue. The current site is large enough to cope with expansion needs if ever required. 4. Anglian Water are undertaking the project for profit by selling the current site for housing. Anglian Water will then need to find a new location. The current location has served the community well for decades probably a century. Moving fo moving sakes is not a NPI valid reason. 5. The Localism Act is in place for this type of application and PINS should not allow this National Infrastructure Planning abuse and recommend Anglian Water applies for permission via Cambridgeshire County Council. 6. Anglian Water are proposing to use the highly valued Cambridge Greenbelt . Once the Cambridge Green Belt is eroded developers will want the rest of the Green Belt. We must protect the last remaining Green corridors. The use of Green Belt would be best considered locally using local planning tools and Localism Act 7. Two of the sites will impact the Mere Way an established pedestrian and cycleway. The landowners and farmers have developed key biodiversity sites along the stretch. This would be better reviewed using the local planning tools and Localism Act 8. The U&C Waterbeach housing development has been given permission; one of the conditions is to protect and enhance the Mere Way , a Roman Road. This would be better reviewed using the local planning tools and Localism Act 9. One of the proposed sites impact the 100 Year vision of the National Trust to reintroduce a Fen from Wicken Fen to Cambridge. This would be better reviewed using the local planning tools and Localism Act 10. A proportion of the current location could be sold as over 50% of the current site is not in operation. Anglian Water could sell some land and the full redevelopment area could still deliver upto 5,000 homes for Cambridge. I appreciate this number of homes is less than if Anglian Water was allowed to use Green Belt land for the move. I strongly believe Anglian Water are using the wrong planning tool; they have failed to communicate with local people regarding the 500,000 people threshold. I don’t believe the NPI was put in place just to move infrastructure for profit. I am not against the redevelopment plans but due to the local impacts, The Localism Act, local planning tools and not meeting the 500,000 threshold the NPI should reject the project and refer Anglian Water back to Cambridgeshire County Council planning.
Dear Mr Seamarks, Application by Anglian Water Services Limited for an Order Granting Development Consent for the Cambridge Waste Water Treatment Plant Relocation I am writing regarding your correspondence sent to the Planning Inspectorate dated 27 September 2020 in relation to the above proposals, apologies for the delay in response. The proposed application is at the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 process. The Applicant approached the Planning Inspectorate to discuss the proposed application, you can find a record of the initial meeting here: [attachment 1]. There has been one further meeting which took place in July, the note of this meeting will shortly be published in the same place. The Inspectorate is unable to consider representations about the merits of any application until it is accepted for Examination. Further information about the process can be found in the link below to the National Infrastructure Planning website: [attachment 2] As the application has not yet been formally submitted to the Inspectorate your first point of contact should be the Applicant and we would encourage you to contact them directly by email: [email protected] It is important that the developer is made aware of your comments at the Pre-application stage of the process to enable them to consider these points before finalising their proposals and submitting the application to the Inspectorate. The Planning Inspectorate has published a series of Advice Notes about the Planning Act 2008 process. ‘Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others’ can be found here:https://infrastructure.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/legislation-and-advice/advice-notes/. I hope the above information is helpful.

22 October 2020
Nigel Seamarks
Cambridge Waste Water Treatment Plant Relocation
response has attachments
Evidence Plan Steering Group Six
Please see attached

21 October 2020
Historic England - PINS, Ørsted, East Riding of Yorkshire Council, Natural England, Marine Management Organisation
Hornsea Project Four Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached.

21 October 2020
National Grid Ventures (NGV) - anon.
Nautilus Interconnector
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting by telecon
Please see attached meeting note

19 October 2020
Rampion Extension Development Limited - anon.
Rampion 2 Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Meeting Update
Please see attached.

16 October 2020
The Net Zero Teeside Project - anon.
The Net Zero Teesside Project
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting.
Please see attached.

12 October 2020
Ørsted - anon.
Hornsea Project Four Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting with the Applicant
Please see attached meeting note

07 October 2020
Highways England - anon.
Lower Thames Crossing
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting to discuss the new scope of the EIA to be undertaken in relation to the Proposed Development.
Please see attached meeting note.

02 October 2020
Network Rail - anon.
Western Rail Link to Heathrow
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Note of meeting.
Please see attached.

30 September 2020
FCC Environment (UK) Limited - anon.
Extension to Allington Integrated Waste Management Facility
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting.
See meeting note attached

30 September 2020
Highways England - anon.
M3 Junction 9 Improvement
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached meeting note

30 September 2020
London Luton Airport Limited - anon.
Expansion of London Luton Airport
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

29 September 2020
Oikos Marine and South Side Development - anon.
Oikos Marine & South Side Development
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Meeting with Thurrock Council, Kent County Council and Gravesham Borough Council to discuss concerns relating to the consultation process, activities and information for Lower Thames Crossing
Please see attached meeting note

25 September 2020
Various local authorities - anon.
Lower Thames Crossing
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting with the Applicant
Please see attached meeting note

23 September 2020
Highways England - anon.
Lower Thames Crossing
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached Meeting Note

23 September 2020
London Resort Company Holdings
The London Resort
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Dear team, I have recently been contacted by my constituent, Mr Daniel Harwood, regarding a proposed development at Swanscombe Marshes. Mr Harwood is concerned that about the impact this could have on both the local environment. He states that he is further concerned about the amount of scrutiny in national government of major developments, such as the Swanscombe Development, which he believes will adversely affect the environment, I would be grateful if you could look into this matter on their behalf and respond to their concerns. I look forward to hearing from you. Yours sincerely, Helen Sent on behalf of Helen Hayes MP Member of Parliament for Dulwich and West Norwood
Dear Mr Harwood, We have been forwarded your details by Helen Hayes MP in relation to your concerns regarding the proposed London Resort project (formally known as London Paramount). The proposed application by London Resort Company Holdings (the Applicant) is at the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) process. The Planning Inspectorate (the Inspectorate) is unable to consider representations about the merits of any application until it is accepted for Examination. The Inspectorate also does not have the power to intervene in an Applicant’s pre-application programme. The process for applying for a Development Consent Order (DCO) is set out in the PA2008. The timing of the application’s programme is at the discretion of the Applicant. This statutory consultation exercise is taking place between 27 July - 21 September 2020. All parties that wish to put their views to the applicant are strongly advised to do so at this opportunity. Further information and documentation can be found on the applicants website: [attachment 1] You can call the Applicant on: 0800 470 0043, or write to them at: FREEPOST: LONDON RESORT CONSULTATION The Applicant has a statutory duty to have regard to all consultation responses received and this should be demonstrated in the Consultation Report which is part of their DCO application. Your comments should be taken into account when the local authority sends the Inspectorate its comments on whether the Applicant has fulfilled its consultation duties. The local authority’s comments on the Applicant’s consultation will be taken into account when the Acceptance Inspector makes their decision whether to accept the application for Examination. Should the DCO application be accepted by the Inspectorate for examination, the Applicant has a duty to notify the local community when providing information on how to register as an Interested Party for the purpose of the process. The process under the PA2008 has been designed to allow members of the public and statutory stakeholders to participate in examination of all DCO applications so that anyone interested in the proposed developments, their potential impacts and any relevant matters can be fully engaged in the examination process. Once the examination begins, the Examining Authority will assess all information submitted in the application documents and will consider whether the Applicant has provided the necessary level of information. The Inspectorate has produced several Advice Notes to help provide an overview of the PA2008 process and the opportunities to get involved. They are available at the following link: [attachment 2] The following are particularly relevant: Advice Note 8: ‘Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others’. Advice Note 8.1: ‘Responding to the developer’s pre-application consultation’ Advice Note 8.2: ‘How to register to participate in an Examination’. Please be assured that anyone interested in the proposed developments, their potential impacts and any planning matters can be fully engaged in the examination process. A copy of your correspondence has been placed on our records and will be presented to the Inspector at acceptance together with the application documents and Local Authorities’ comments on the Applicant’s consultation. Regarding your concerns on scrutiny in national government of major developments; National Policy Statements (NPSs) are produced by government. They give reasons for the policy set out in the statement and must include an explanation of how the policy takes account of government policy relating to the mitigation of, and adaptation to, climate change. They comprise the government’s objectives for the development of nationally significant infrastructure projects (NSIPs). The Inspectorate is impartial and does not comment on government policy. However, Examining Authorities do make their recommendations within the framework provided by NPSs, as required by the Planning Act 2008. At this time, there is no specific NPS for Business and Commercial NSIPs. The Applicant has acknowledged this in their scoping report. They have identified the National Planning Policy Framework and the local plans prepared by the relevant planning authorities in the area affected by the proposed development. In addition, the National Networks NPS (NPS EN-1) and the NPS for Ports (NPSP) have been identified as being relevant to the proposed development. With regard to the current Coronavirus (COVID-19) situation, please refer to the Planning Inspectorate’s published guidance which will be updated as the situation develops. [attachment 3] We have also published a Frequently Asked Questions document regarding Pre-application consultation and this can be viewed on our website here: [attachment 4] Please note, in accordance with Section 51 of the PA2008, a summary of your query and our advice will be published on the project’s webpage of the National Infrastructure Website.

21 September 2020
Mr Daniel Harwood - Helen Hayes MP
The London Resort
Enquiry received via email
Sir / Madam, I deal with the Councils’ responsibilities under The Rookery South Order 2011 for the construction of a circa. 50MW resource recovery facility in Bedfordshire. We have recently received a Rights of Way Strategy as required under the DCO and accompanying S106 agreement. Schedule 3, Part 2 of the DCO lists the new status of footpaths and cycleways within the Order Limits (please see attached). Could you please confirm that their reference within the DCO eliminates the need for these routes to be formally adopted by the Council under other rights of way / highway legislation and that they are effectively adopted as such by virtue of the DCO? In addition – if these routes were to be upgraded to bridleways would these need to go through the formal adoption process as the DCO does not specifically refer to them as such? Many thanks for your advice,
Dear Anita, Thank you for your email regarding the Rookery South DCO and the Public Rights of Way (PRoW) affected. Firstly, if the PRoWs referred to in the DCO were to be adopted by the local highway authority then this would have been agreed as part of a s106 agreement with the relevant Council. You cannot assume their inclusion in the DCO confers any automatic adoption by the Council. I would recommend you check with your in-house legal team or records about this aspect of the implementation of the DCO. Secondly, given the DCO is explicit about the status of the new PRoWs in terms of their purpose and use, any change to this may require the applicant to make an application to the Secretary of State to change the DCO. There may be alternatives to that approach but again you would need to discuss this with the applicant and take your own legal advice as necessary. Obviously, how you would approach a change to the status of the PRoWs would depend on whether or not the Council was going to adopt them and when. Please contact us again if you have any further questions. However, please be advised that the Inspectorate is not able to provide legal advice and so if you have particular legal questions about the implementation of the Rookery South DCO you should consult with your own legal team in the first instance. Yours sincerely

21 September 2020
Central Bedfordshire Council - Anita Taylor
Rookery South Energy from Waste Generating Station
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Dear Louise This has been extremely helpful thanks once again for your assistance. May I just enquire further with regards to the applicants “Preliminary Environmental Information Report”. Is the (PEIR) the applicants opportunity to address the Inspectors concerns detailed in his “Environmental Statement Scoping Opinion" report.? Would it be reasonable to expect the applicant to comprehensively address the Inspectors specific concerns such as? - Risk of Major Accidents and/or Disasters and Flooding. Tidal, Breach and Over Topping / Fluvial and critical drainage issues. Addressing these issues will not only be of an advantage to the applicant, it would also give the local community confidence that the Local Authority will have considered all residual risk ramification of this application. There are reservations however that adverse public comments on such issues, however soundly formulated, having been submitted to the applicant may not be transmitted to the Inspector for further consideration. I am particularly grateful for your direction towards Sec47 of the Planning Act 2008 and the reference to the area of public consultation, “living in the vicinity of the land”. In this context what does this actually mean? For example, could it relate to the HSEs consultation distances (CD)or should it reflect the revised “Hazard Range” as determined by the Installations “Safety Report”. Some clarity would be helpful as to the term (vicinity) in respect of the possible impact on the wider area of residential properties that this public consultation should embrace. Thank you once again Yours sincerely
Dear Mr Webb Thank you for your email. The purpose of the Preliminary Environmental Report (PEIR) is to enable consultees (both specialist and non-specialist) to understand the likely environmental effects of the Proposed Development and help to inform their consultation responses on the Proposed Development during the pre-application stage. It is defined in s.12(2)(b) of the EIA Regulations as information which: (a) has been compiled by the applicant; and (b) is reasonably required for the consultation bodies to develop an informed view of the likely significant environmental effects of the development (and of any associated development)’ The Applicant recently published an update on their project website concerning their plans for formal pre-application consultation which they intend to commence in early 2021: [attachment 1] In this update the Applicant states that the formal Environmental Information Scoping Opinion received from the Planning Inspectorate has been used to continue to progress the design of the project and to develop their programme of environmental assessment, (along with the responses received during the 2019 informal consultation and ongoing discussion with various stakeholders) and therefore this should inform any consultation documents provided by the Applicant during their statutory consultation next year. Please note that an Inspector (Examining Authority) will not be appointed until the application for this project is accepted for Examination. To answer your second query, it is for the Applicant to determine during the Pre-Application period which parties fall under the category of s47 (‘people living within the vicinity of the land’), and for them to then justify their compliance within their application for development consent. The Applicant is expected to consult with relevant local authorities, statutory consultees and those owning or having an interest in the land that would be affected by the proposed development. The Applicant should have regard to guidance as well as the views of relevant local authorities on their proposed consultation with the local community under s47. I hope that this has been of help to you. Kind regards

17 September 2020
John Webb
Oikos Marine & South Side Development
Enquiry received via email
Good Afternoon, I have a relatively straightforward question that I have ben unable to find the answer for on your website. I have been asked to look at a potential large scale solar park. I understand that if the export capacity is 50MW is will be a NSIP. What I am seeking advice on is the cumulative export capacity of a proposed solar park and an existing one. If the new solar park will have an export capacity of say 45MW but is adjacent to an existing site of 10MW will it be considered to be a NSIP? The two solar parks may share the same grid connection point but would be operated and managed separately. There would be no physical connection between the two, i.e each solar park would be fenced separately. Many thanks. Kind regards,
Dear Helen, Thank you for your email about whether or not the proposed 45MW solar park you refer to in your email of 10 September would constitute an extension of an existing solar park. The definition of extension is set out in Section 235(1) of PA 2008 which states that, in relation to a generating station, it has the meaning given by Section 36(9) of the Electricity Act 1989. That provision of the Electricity Act states that, ““extension”, in relation to a generating station, includes the use by the person operating the station of any land or area of waters (wherever situated) for a purpose directly related to the generation of electricity by that station…”. You state that the 45MW solar park would be operated and managed separately to the existing 10MW generating station, however, you would need to clarify whether that is consistent with the definition in the Electricity Act that refers to “the person operating the station”. For example, if it was the same entity seeking to operate both stations independently of one another. You may also wish to explore the significance of the shared grid connection in that context and the ability of the solar parks to operate independently of one another. An applicant will need to satisfy itself, taking its own legal advice if appropriate, as to whether or not its proposal is an Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP). The Inspectorate cannot provide you with a legal opinion on this. It should be noted that under Section 160 of PA 2008, it is an offence if a “person carries out, or causes to be carried out, development for which development consent is required at a time when no development consent is in force in respect of the development”. You may also wish to make enquiries with the relevant local planning authority about their willingness to accept an application for planning permission for your proposed solar park. Yours sincerely

17 September 2020
Corylus Planning and Environmental Ltd - Helen Donnelly
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting prior to Submission
Please see attached.

17 September 2020
Highways England - anon.
A428 Black Cat to Caxton Gibbet Road Improvement scheme
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
A47 Projects Programme Update Meeting
Please see attached.

16 September 2020
Highways England - anon.
A47 - A11 Thickthorn Junction
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please find attached a note in response to your letter, dated 23rd July, which you might like to share with your Chief Executive. I apologise for the length but as you will see a large portion of it is an extract from LRCH's latest Scoping Opinion. I think it is important that this is placed 'on the record' as it is very evident that the Applicant has been less than honest with The Inspectorate and its Officers, MHCLG and the taxpayer! The only section I would like a response to is the last paragraph as many people cannot understand why this was not included in your Scoping Opinion when it was so evident in the various responses. I am extremely grateful for the time you have taken to deal with this enquiry but I think the one lesson that has to be learnt from this 'commercial NSIP' is that the facts have to be true and not made up as the Applicant goes along.
Thank you for your email of 7 August 2020 regarding the application by London Resort Company Holdings Limited for an order granting development consent for the London Resort Project, specifically in relation to the Planning Inspectorate’s letter of 23 July 2020 in response to your email of 15 July 2020. We value your comments in explaining the relationship between Peninsula Management Group (PMG) and parties potentially affected by the proposed development and that PMG has no legal and professional advice concerning land acquisition and the compulsory acquisition process. In relation to your comment on the Secretary of State direction under s35 of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008), can you please provide clarity as to which meeting note/s express that the project would meet ‘NSIP criteria in terms of economic regeneration, cross-council boundary issues etc’. We are unable to find this specific advice in any of the meeting notes published under s51 of PA2008. In relation to your comments on participation in the scoping process, we reiterate our position that the scoping opinion adopted by the Inspectorate on behalf of the Secretary of State is formed on the basis of information provided by the Applicant. The Applicant has a statutory duty to have regard to all consultation responses received and this should be demonstrated in the Consultation Report as part of their DCO application. However, if you feel your comments are not being taken into account, I would advise you to raise these with your local authority, Dartford Borough Council and set out why you think the Applicant is failing to conduct its consultation properly. Your comments should be taken into account when the local authority sends the Inspectorate its comments on whether the Applicant has fulfilled its consultation duties. The local authority’s comments on the Applicant’s consultation will be taken into account when the Acceptance Inspector makes their decision whether to accept the application for Examination. In relation to your comments on the land required for the project, the applicant has revised their project site boundary throughout the pre-application process. The applicant has launched the statutory consultation phase of their project. Earlier rounds on non-statutory consultation are used by the applicant to help inform the final project; the statutory consultation exercise should be considered as the official consultation in regard to any submitted application for a Development Consent Order. This statutory consultation exercise is taking place between 27 July – 21 September 2020. All parties that wish to put their views to the applicant are strongly advised to do so at this opportunity. Further information and documentation can be found on the applicants website: [attachment 1] The site meeting that took place on 10 November 2015, which included viewing the Manor Way Industrial Estate is documented in a meeting note: [attachment 2];ipcadvice=e4922a0577 No specific information is included in this meeting note in regard to the industrial estate and we cannot speculate as to any discussion that may have taken place between parties. As there is no documented evidence of questions being asked about the impact on the businesses, then we must conclude that none were asked. In determining if the application is of a sufficient standard to be accepted for examination, the Inspectorate can only make a decision on the final application submitted. In response to your query on the content of the Scoping Opinion, it should be noted that section 7 of the Scoping Report does describe the displacement of existing businesses and jobs as a matter that would be included in the assessment of socio-economic effects resulting from the Proposed Development. The Inspectorate’s advice (see section 4.1 of the Scoping Opinion, items 4.12 and 4.13) requested clarity regarding the study area and receptors to be included in the socio-economic assessment. This encompasses all the receptors likely to experience significant socio-economic effects. The Applicant was also advised to agree the receptors with the relevant consultation bodies, which would include the local authorities and Ebbsfleet Development Corporation.

10 September 2020
Bramwell Associates - Dan Bramwell
The London Resort
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Dear Louise, Please see this speedy response from Oikos Community Relations to my email dated 12th July 2020 from which I have made the following observations. Oikos agree that effective engagement is a critical element of the DCO process and express that the SoCC is essentially a plan of activities undertaken to consult local communities. As to content of this engagement however they state that:- The SoCC itself does not, therefore, include detailed information about the proposal, the likely implications of the project, nor does it summarise the consultation undertaken to date or the views of the local community. Information relating to the project and its likely impacts and implications is included in the Preliminary Environmental information Report. It is not clear how this can be regarded as effective engagement if the Statement of Community Consultation does not reflect the unique circumstances of the community/area of Canvey Island. If this is indeed the correct procedure, it seems that the SoCC event undertaken by Oikos will only take the form of a Presentation and not a Consultation. Those with the concerns that have been highlighted as Local Issues, need not therefore partake in the process but instead await the production of a “Preliminary Environmental information Report.” As such Public Safety concerns effectively become an afterthought. This does not seem to correspond with the spirit of Advice note 8.1 “3. Statutory consultation with the local community This is required and is usually carried out nearer to the submission of the application. At this stage the project is likely to be more defined, although the developer should retain the flexibility to alter the development based on consultation feedback. The developer is under a legal duty to demonstrate that they have had regard to consultation responses at this stage, although that isn’t to say that they must agree with all of the views put to them in the responses recieved.” What is apparent is that it is not in the applicants interest to discuss the increased Ramifications of Major Accidents, residual or otherwise, nor is it the interest of Castle Point Borough Council to take ownership of Societal Risk when it impacts on their Local Planning aspirations. It is therefore imperative that public participation of the examination of this project is encouraged and I am extremely grateful for your assistance with this matter. Yours sincerely
Dear Mr Webb Thank you for your email, and I apologise again for the delay in replying. The Statement of Community Consultation (SoCC) is a statement setting out how the applicant’s consultation activities within the areas impacted by the proposed development will be conducted, including details of public consultation events (e.g. dates, locations, which documents will be available to view at the event etc) and how views on the proposed development can be submitted. An example of a SoCC for an earlier port development nationally significant infrastructure project (NSIP) can be viewed here: [attachment 1]. The applicant is statutorily required to consult with each local authority within the vicinity of the proposed development on the intended content of this statement, and to have regard to any responses provided. The views of the affected local authorities on the applicant’s intended consultation with the community must be reflected in the final version of the SoCC. The Preliminary Environmental Information Report is often provided in draft form at public consultation events for review, after which comments can be submitted to the applicant. On submitting their application for development consent, the applicant must demonstrate that they have met all statutory requirements necessary for their application to be accepted for Examination, which includes the requirements relating to the Statement of Community Consultation, as set out in s47 of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended) . If the applicant has not demonstrated in their application that they have met these statutory requirements, their application may not be accepted for Examination. During the Pre-Application period, the Planning Inspectorate will provide advice to the applicant on the statutory requirements that they must meet in order for their application for development consent to be accepted, as outlined above. I hope that this email has been of help to you. Please contact us if you have any further queries. Yours sincerely

09 September 2020
John Webb
Oikos Marine & South Side Development
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached Meeting Note

09 September 2020
London Resort Company Holdings
The London Resort
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting and review of draft documents
Please see attached.

08 September 2020
Highways England - anon.
A47 Blofield to North Burlingham
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Please see attached.
Please see attached.

07 September 2020
Boston Alternative Energy Facility Limited - anon.
Boston Alternative Energy Facility (BAEF)
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Please see attached
Please see attached

04 September 2020
Longfield Solar Farm - anon.
Longfield Solar Farm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached.

01 September 2020
North Lincolnshire Green Energy Park Limited - anon.
North Lincolnshire Green Energy Park
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Please see attached.
Please see attached.

01 September 2020
Highways England
Lower Thames Crossing
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please see attached.
Please see attached.

26 August 2020
Marianne Fellowes
East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please see attached.
Please see attached.

26 August 2020
Marianne Fellowes
East Anglia ONE North Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Compensation Workshop for ‘Project Seabird’ and derogation under the Habitats Regulations with Ørsted, Natural England, the Marine Management Organisation, Defra, The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds
Please see attached meeting note

11 August 2020
Ørsted - anon.
Hornsea Project Four Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Compensation Workshop for ‘Project Seabird’ and derogation under the Habitats Regulations with Ørsted, Natural England, the Marine Management Organisation, Defra, The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds
Please see attached meeting note

11 August 2020
Ørsted - anon.
Hornsea Project Three Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via email
Dear Sirs I am trying to clarify procedure. If a local council gives planning permission for groundwork investigation related to a NIP and groundworks are clearly for a larger project should the local council reject the application? I presume the local council should follow the NPS? Kind regards Graham Fraley
Dear Mr Fraley, Thank you for your email. Whilst the Planning Inspectorate cannot comment on any Local Authority’s planning or decision, it might be that some of the groundwork currently being conducted could be part of survey work. If the works are in relation to a potential Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP), providing your comments to the Local Authority may be considered as part of the Local Authority’s response on the project; if an application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate. Please see this Advice Note on how the NSIP process is conducted. We would advise you to contact your Local Authority for further information on the current works and provide you with the relevant advice. Yours Sincerely, Paige Hall

10 August 2020
Graham Fraley
General
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
My family and I live in the small Georgian town of Wisbech and are strongly opposed to the proposal to build an incinerator in the town, 1 mile from our children's school and adding to the significant traffic problems that we already have. I look forward to receiving your answers to my questions below: Over what timescale do you expect to get to 50 megawatts? How much waste will this involve to deliver 50 megawatts? Over what timescale do they expect to get to 50 megawatts? How much waste will this involve to deliver 50 megawatts? Why is proximity to three schools and The Eye Clinic the best site given the volume of lorries, impact on air pollution, and odour concerns amongst others? Why did the developer ignore the planning inspector and issue this scoping report over the Christmas holiday period? Why has the developer failed to follow best practice in developing a proposal in consultation with the community, when consultation did not begin until Spring 2020 at which point Covid-19 hit? How many lorries a week will be required, and how far will they be travelling including from surrounding counties? Why is flood risk land suitable for a waste incinerator when the Environment Agency has raised concerns at house building on such land? What is the risk of contamination in the event of flooding? How would the incinerator plans impact on Wisbech Rail? What impact will the grid connection have on the local community, and is it part of the DCO? What land does the developer plan to compulsory purchase, on what basis, and from whom, in order to build an incinerator of the scale required for its designation as a national infrastructure project?
The proposed application by MWV Environment Ltd (the Applicant) is at the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) process. Therefore, the Planning Inspectorate is unable to consider representations about the merits of any application until it is accepted for Examination. The Planning Inspectorate also does not have the power to intervene in an Applicant’s pre-application programme. The process for applying for a Development Consent Order (DCO) is set out in the PA2008. The timing of the application’s programme is at the discretion of the Applicant. The Applicant is currently carrying out their first round of non-statutory consultation. Further rounds of consultation will take place and the Applicant will advertise these before they are due to commence. Therefore, I would encourage you to contact the Applicant directly with regard to your concerns. The Applicant has a statutory duty to have regard to all consultation responses received and this should be demonstrated in the Consultation Report which is part of their DCO application. However, if you feel your comments are not being taken into account, I would advise you to write to your local authority and set out why you think the Applicant is failing to conduct its consultation properly. Your comments should be taken into account when the local authority sends the Inspectorate its comments on whether the Applicant has fulfilled its consultation duties. The local authority’s comments on the Applicant’s consultation will be taken into account when the Acceptance Inspector makes their decision whether to accept the application for Examination. Should the DCO application be accepted by the Inspectorate for examination, the applicant has a duty to notify the local community when providing information on how to register as an Interested Party for the purpose of the process. The process under the PA2008 has been designed to allow members of the public and statutory stakeholders to participate in examination of all DCO applications so that anyone interested in the proposed developments, their potential impacts and any relevant matters can be fully engaged in the examination process. Once the examination begins, the Examining Authority will assess all information submitted in the application documents and will consider whether the Applicant has provided the necessary level of information. The Planning Inspectorate has produced several Advice Notes to help provide an overview of the PA2008 process and the opportunities to get involved. They are available at the following link: [attachment 1] The following are particularly relevant: Advice Note 8: ‘Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others’. Advice Note 8.1: ‘Responding to the developer’s pre-application consultation’ Advice Note 8.2: ‘How to register to participate in an Examination’. Please be assured that anyone interested in the proposed developments, their potential impacts and any planning matters can be fully engaged in the examination process. A copy of your correspondence has been placed on our records and will be presented to the Inspector at acceptance together with the application documents and Local Authorities’ comments on the Applicant’s consultation. With regard to the current Coronavirus (COVID-19) situation, please refer to the Planning Inspectorate’s published guidance which will be updated as the situation develops. [attachment 2] We have also published a Frequently Asked Questions document regarding Pre-application consultation and this can be viewed on our website here: [attachment 3] Please note, in accordance with Section 51 of the PA2008, a summary of your query and our advice will be published on the project’s webpage of the National Infrastructure Website.

07 August 2020
Lucy Moody
Medworth Energy from Waste Combined Heat and Power Facility
Enquiry received via email
Subject: Solar PV NSIP planning Dear James, We have been in touch before in relation to the requirements for NSIP on solar PV projects. Horus is starting the development of 3 single and independent projects, that will share a grid connection at the DNO level (but not at project level). Please find enclosed a brief presentation of the proposed development. We would like to ask you a confirmation that we can progress the planning for the projects with the LPA and that the projects do not fall under the NSIP regime. We remain at your disposal if you need any additional information. Thanks in advance for your support. Regards, Stefano Romanin | CEO Horus Capital 20 North Audley Street London, W1K 6LX, UK [email protected] www.horuscapital.co.uk www.horusenergy.co.uk
Dear Mr Romanin, Thank you for your query of the 24 July2020 regarding the proposed three solar PV sites, located at two disused airfield sites in the vicinity of Eaton upon Tern and High Ercall in Shropshire. Please accept my apologies for the delay in replying. As you will be aware, under section 14(1)(a) of the Planning Act 2008, as amended (PA 2008) the construction or extension of a generating station is defined as a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (‘NSIP’). Section 15 of PA 2008, amongst other things, provides that the construction or extension of an onshore generating station in England is within section 14(1)(a) only if the generating station, when constructed or extended, is expected to have a capacity of more than 50 megawatts. Development consent for development that is or forms part of a NSIP must be sought through the NSIP regime, as provided for by PA 2008, rather than under other legislation including, where relevant, the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (see section 31 of the PA 2008). An application for such a project would be submitted to the Planning Inspectorate in accordance with the process outlined on the National Infrastructure Planning website. If you decide to submit an application to the relevant local authority, the Council will need to satisfy itself, taking its own legal advice if appropriate, as to whether or not any proposal can be considered and determined by the planning authority under any regime other than the development consent regime provided for by the PA 2008. It should be noted that, under section 160 of PA 2008, it is an offence if a “person carries out, or causes to be carried out, development for which development consent is required at a time when no development consent is in force in respect of the development”. It will of course be for the developer who proposes to construct the generating station to decide whether or not to apply for an order granting development consent, taking their own independent legal advice. Please note that the Planning Inspectorate does not have the power to give a legally binding interpretation on such matters. Only the Courts can provide a definitive interpretation of legislation, and, so far as we are aware, to date there has been no case law on this point under the PA 2008 regime. The Planning Inspectorate, on behalf of the Secretary of State, is only able to decide whether an application for an order granting development consent can be accepted for examination, under section 55 of PA 2008, once an application has been formally submitted. Looking at the information provided, you assert that the solar PV installations on the three sites will operate independently of each other and this is indeed pertinent to considering whether all or some of the sites can be considered as different generating stations. It is also pertinent that the solar parks will share a connection to the DNO and a shared capacity agreement has been negotiated with National Grid. Other material considerations that may inform whether these are separate generating stations are related to the environmental impact of the proposals, if the development requires an Environmental Impact Assessment. In particular, we note that two of the sites, Peplow and Eaton upon Tern solar parks, are immediately adjacent to each other and are likely to be viewed as a single solar park in landscape and visual terms. It may also be pertinent in environmental terms if they are constructed at the same time by the same contractor and how the construction impacts are therefore assessed and mitigated. Another consideration may also be whether all of the sites are operated by the same entity and the maintenance regime(s) for the installation(s). This email should not be taken as providing any view on which is the appropriate consenting regime for these proposals, nor should any advice given in this letter be taken to pre-judge any future decisions that may be made by, or fetter any discretion of, the Secretary of State in relation to these proposals. Please note that the Inspectorate has a statutory duty to record and make publicly available any advice, such as this, given under s51 of the PA 2008 about applying for an order granting development consent; or making representations about an application, or a proposed application for a development consent order. If you wish to seek any further advice in relation to the NSIP planning regime and these proposals, please contact us again. Yours sincerely Mark Wilson

05 August 2020
Horus Capital - Stefano Romanin
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached.

04 August 2020
Bradwell B - anon.
Bradwell B new nuclear power station
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached meeting note

29 July 2020
London Luton Airport Limited - anon.
Expansion of London Luton Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please see attached
Please see attached

28 July 2020
on behalf of Bean Residents Association - Linda Collins
The London Resort
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached.

28 July 2020
Sunnica Ltd - anon.
Sunnica Energy Farm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Sent: 08 July 2020 06:46 To: Enquiries Subject: NSIP - Anglia Water Cambridge Waste Application Good Morning PINs; I am writing to you about the Anglia Water Cambridge Waste Water Application ( Sewage works ) . Am I correct that an NSIP must benefit 500,000 people. I cant believe this project meets the National Project status and 500,000 people. Have Anglia Water shared the maths with PINs and shown they meet the 500,000 people threashold. I assume 500,000 target is on the opening of the project not what might be in 50/100 years. How are developers meant to show they meet the 500,000 people threshold. Take Care Helen
Cc: NI Enquiries Subject: RE: NSIP - Anglia Water Cambridge Waste Application Dear Ms Seamarks Thank you for your email. I apologise for the delay in our reply. An application for a waste water treatment plant will be considered as a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project under section 14(o) of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) if it meets the criteria in section 29(1) that it will be (a) in England and (b) is expected to have a capacity exceeding a population equivalent of 500,000 (when constructed). If the application for the Cambridge Waste Water sewage works is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, one of the factors the Secretary of State will consider under section 55 of PA2008 is whether or not the application meets that criteria. It is for the applicant to demonstrate that they have met the relevant thresholds. Regards Siân Evans Case Manager National Infrastructure Planning The Planning Inspectorate Helpline: 0303 444 5000 Email: [email protected] Web: [attachment 1] (National Infrastructure Planning) Web: www.gov.uk/government/organisations/planning-inspectorate (The Planning Inspectorate) Twitter: @PINSgov This communication does not constitute legal advice Please view our Privacy Notice before sending information to the Planning Inspectorate.

27 July 2020
Helen Seamarks
Cambridge Waste Water Treatment Plant Relocation
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
FOA: Sarah Richards, Chief Executive, The Planning Inspectorate In the absence of an e-mail address, I should be grateful if you could forward the following e-mail to The Chief Executive and please confirm receipt. Many thanks. Dear Secretary I am writing to you in your capacity as Secretary MHCLG and apologise for using your MP address but there is no other evident way to contact you. I have very grave concerns about many aspects of the above project, some of which have already been stated in correspondence to The Planning Inspectorate Case Officers and others which are becoming evident by the day. I am extremely disappointed with all the responses I am receiving as none of The Planning Inspectorate Case Officers are taking any notice of them and are literally 'running scared' of what is being said. They are not posting s51 advice on the website and not responding to serious claims made by e-mail. Hence I have to raise these issues to the most senior level as investigative journalists are already phoning me about what appears to be 'an insider job' project and another political scandal. I have lodged an FoI request with The Planning Inspectorate concerning the initial Direction Letter categorising the project as an NSIP and various matters about the Applicant's first EIA Scoping Report, lodged November 2014. I have also asked whether or not representatives from The Inspectorate visited the proposed site to assess the veracity of the material contained therein. I am awaiting responses. Whether they did or not, they will notice that the Scoping Report and, more importantly, the Applicant's second EIA Scoping Report, submitted 17th June 2020, are both totally inaccurate and deceptive to say the least. In fact the Applicant has almost intentionally tried to avoid admitting that there are major industrial estates on part of the site which could mean the elimination of approx 140 businesses with over 1,500 jobs without much prospect of them being relocated nearby. Furthermore, I have raised this matter on many occasions with The Inspectorate as the Applicant has failed to engage fully with these businesses, the last 'constructive' meeting being OVER TWO YEARS AGO but they have failed to respond to many questions since then. More importantly, I have advised your Officer (Helen Lancaster) of these serious errors and am advised I have no right to comment on the Scoping Report - A SERIOUS PROCESS ERROR if landowners are not allowed to rectify such 'untruths'. I must request that in the interests of these businesses, the truth and full facts must be addressed urgently and immediately to prevent any further waste of civil servant time and taxpayer funds. If the Applicant can't disclose the truth to The Planning Inspectorate their credibility to front such a project must be challenged, especially as they have no funds and, according to various official and published sources, they are not to be trusted financially!
Please see attached.

23 July 2020
Dan Bramwell
The London Resort
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Please see attached meeting note.
Please see attached meeting note.

23 July 2020
Anglian Water - anon.
Cambridge Waste Water Treatment Plant Relocation
Enquiry received via email
Helen Many thanks for your e-mail. You are obviously not as familiar with LRCH and its team as I am. For two years I have been asking them for information, responses to e-mails and update meetings but no reply! Then suddenly last week they wanted everybody to attend a Zoom meeting call with just 48 hours notice but most couldn't manage it as they were already in meetings, abroad on business or otherwise unavailable. However, these issues were raised during the meeting: • Why weren't the Estates included in the Scoping Report? They didn't know why not and couldn't answer the reasons on why the Estates were not included within the application submission back in 2014 because they didn't work there! They did say they are amending the Report and re-submitting it - not good enough! They need to do the total site assessment exercise again....and they are not aware of the horrific contamination and other issues already existing on the site • During the Zoom call they also told us that the site could well be sold on to another developer if they are successful with the DCO Application but they can't guarantee any Option agreements if any were to be agreed and hence the PMG businesses and landowners are facing even further uncertainty . Unfortunately, all of this is impacting on businesses, already struggling after eight years of their dithering and also having to cope with the effects of the virus, HS1, Brexit etc. I would have hoped that The Planning Inspectorate would be an effective independent organisation capable of ensuring that all parties concerns are addressed so that the Applicant is given robust and constructive advice to progress their application. I understand your hands are tied so time to change the system and expose its flaws. Many thanks and please publish this as a formal response to the 's51 advice' - people must get the full story. I live in Bristol and as stated many times previously am more than willing to attend any meeting if it would be advantageous. Best wishes Dan
Dear Mr Bramwell Thank you for your email addressed to my colleague in the Environmental Services Team. Please note during the pre-application stage, the Inspectorate is not required to publish any responses it receives to s51 advice unless further s51 advice is given to that response. Therefore, as previously advised, please continue to direct your concerns directly to the Applicant and where you are not satisfied, to raise your concerns with the local authority. In the meantime, the Inspectorate will continue to encourage the Applicant to engage with parties throughout its pre-application stage and should the application be accepted for examination, you will be provided with an opportunity to register as an Interested Party. Apologies this email was in reply to the below, I will reply to your later emails in due course. Kind regards Liam London Resort Case Team

22 July 2020
Dan Bramwell
The London Resort
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
My wife and I have both received a letter asking for a contact email in relation to the application by North Somerset Council for an order granting development consent for the Portishead Branch Line - MetroWest Phase 1. I'm writing to ask that you remove our details from your records as we are in the process of selling our property so will no longer be directly impacted by the development.
The Applicant’s Book of Reference (the document identifying ‘Affected Persons’ whose rights will be affected by Compulsory Acquisition required to construct and operate the scheme) lists both yourself and your wife due to your properties’ proximity to the proposed Portishead Branch Line - MetroWest Phase 1. The Planning Inspectorate is legislatively required to correspond with all Affected Persons for the duration of the application until the Secretary of State’s decision is issued. I will forward your email to the Applicant so it’s aware of the situation. It would be helpful if you could confirm again once you have formally left the property so we can temporarily amend our records to ‘Owner / Occupier’ until those persons have been identified.

22 July 2020
An Affected Person
Portishead Branch Line - MetroWest Phase 1
Enquiry received via email
Could someone explain why work has started on the construction of the rail compounds, e.g. at Sheepway Farm; has other work started of which I am not aware? Is this DCO application, which is still subject to the ExA gathering evidence and facilitating public consultation, in effect (however it is presented) a retrospective application to approve matters already decided?
The Portishead Branch Line - MetroWest Phase 1 scheme is currently in the ‘Pre-Examination stage’ with the Examining Authority’s (ExA) six-month Examination yet to start. Once the ‘Preliminary Meeting’ is held, the Examination will formally begin and the ExA can begin to test and probe the evidence via written and oral questioning. Construction of the development cannot commence until after the SoS’s decision has been made. The Planning Act 2008 regime has no scope to consent Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects retrospectively. It might be that some groundwork conducted on site by the Applicant at this stage could be a part of the scheme’s ongoing survey work programme or similar. Please contact the applicant, James Willcock at North Somerset Council directly who will be able to answer your concerns: [email protected] If you still have concerns once the Examination has started, you may wish to bring this to the attention of the ExA via written or oral submissions.

22 July 2020
Stuart Tarr
Portishead Branch Line - MetroWest Phase 1
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please see attached
Please see attached

21 July 2020
on behalf of Swanscombe & Greenhithe Town Council - Graham Blew
The London Resort
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting.
Please see attached.

16 July 2020
Ørsted - anon.
Hornsea Project Four Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please see attached
Please see attached

13 July 2020
on behalf of Buglife - Jamie Robins
The London Resort
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting with the Applicant.
Please see attached note.

08 July 2020
Highways England - anon.
A12 Chelmsford to A120 Widening Scheme
response has attachments
Received: 1 July 2020 I refer back to your e-mail to me of 9th March 2020. There is one general point I wish to raise with you and some specific issues which it is essential are noted on the application case file and The Planning Inspectorate must consider. I registered to receive updates on this project from The Planning Inspectorate on 17th June 2017 but for some reason your system is failing to advise me when new documents are added to the website project file. Luckily I check the website regularly so am able to pick up any important additions such as the EIA Scoping Reports! Reference these reports, I trust you realise and pick-up on the flaws within them. Issues I wish to raise and upon which I expect the The Planning Inspectorate to revert to the Applicant are: SITE SELECTION I refer to the Applicant's Scoping Report Table 4.1 on Page 38. This is severely flawed as under the 'Swanscombe, North Kent' entry it states that both 'Land Use' and 'Regeneration & Economic Benefits' are positive. A significantly important element of this land (approx 40 acres at entrance to site) is not readily available for development as it is the home to approx 140 businesses, employing circa 1,000-1,500 employees with many offsite businesses also reliant on trading with them. The Applicant has failed to include this in their assessment (see also below - Estates). There were plans afoot by some of the existing landowners to invest in the estates but because of all the uncertainty these had to be put on hold. This would have significantly increased the local employment base so to claim it is suitable for regeneration with economic benefits is not accurate. ESTATES The Planning Inspectorate has been aware of these industrial estates (Northfleet Industrial, Manor Way, Kent Kraft and Rod End) for some years. However, when the Applicant applied for NSIP status for the project, to the best off my knowledge, no mention was made of them and the likely impact on the businesses. Furthermore, the fourth public consultation exercise undertaken by LRCH failed to include them but they were re-instated into their plans AFTER the consultation exercise was completed. It is interesting to note that the Applicant is at last confirming they have every intention of using the CPO process to take control of the required land, despite their then Chief Executive re-assuring the businesses at a meeting with them on 12th June 2017 that they would only use the CPO process as a last resort. There has been a draft document circulated by LRCH suggesting an option agreement but this will mean many businesses/landowners losing large sums of money, is riddled with flaws and, despite it being circulated TWO years ago, LRCH has yet to respond to any comments made by the businesses. The ultimate consequences of this ineptitude is that many businesses won't survive having already gone through the effects of HS1, Brexit, Coronavirus and now this! ENGAGEMENT The last constructive engagement between LRCH and the businesses was two years ago although some communication has been received in recent days. Over this time, PMG, representing the businesses, has sent endless e-mails to LRCH requesting responses to comments made on their offer, meetings, project updates etc but there has NEVER been any response. Thus in your e-mail to me dated 9th March you say ask the Applicant - how can one ask an Applicant if they are refusing to engage with parties impacted by their ill-thought out plans? Furthermore, LRCH has been constantly advised that it needs to engage with the individual businesses who have been affected by the implications of The London Resort project, many for eight years and more since the project was first suggested. Over this time the businesses have suffered blight, impacted trading, trouble raising finance for trading due to the uncertainties and some landowners have lost out on significant business deals which could have created thousands of additional jobs. Other businesses have already left due to the uncertainties. If LRCH was really serious about acquiring the site it has had ample opportunities to purchase elements of the estates - and make money to cover their investments. It has been made abundantly clear to LRCH that PMG does not represent the businesses but is in existence to give them guidance. It is up to LRCH to identify all the businesses and landowners and PMG has offered its support. However, LRCH has to date asked Argent, Savills and now Land Referencing Services (LRS) to undertake the compilation of a business and landowners register, only then will they be able to start any sort of negotiations. Again little has happened to date! This must be completed before any further progress can be made with the DCO Application or the Applicant has failed to undertake basic engagement/consultation activities. SUMMARY In the absence of any meaningful direct engagement with the Applicant, I hope The Planning Inspectorate will take onboard the above comments on behalf of PMG to ensure the businesses, employees, communities and the taxpayer is fully represented in consideration of the Applicant's performance and in responding to the EIA Scoping Report. Received: 6 July 2020 I must express my disappointment that there has been no acknowledgement of my e-mail of last week, as below, and it has not yet been posted to The Planning Inspectorate (NSIP) website as requested. Please can you acknowledge receipt as a matter of urgency. I should also be grateful if you can confirm that the EIA Scoping Reports published online for the above project are the final copies for consideration by all parties. I have to advise my Clients as to whether it is justified to consider a formal review of the process as the inclusion of the Industrial Estates was not included in the initial application for NSIP status to the then Secretary of State and is still missing in these latest Reports, a major omission that cannot have gone unnoticed by The Planning Inspectorate. I request an immediate response to this matter.
Thank you for your enquiry. I can confirm that the version of the Scoping Report published on our website is the final version. However, we will not be able to take your comments into account in the Scoping Opinion since the list of consultees is largely prescribed by law. Our Advice Note 3 ‘EIA Notification and Consultation’ provides more information and is available at this link: [attachment 1] We advise you to consult the developer directly about your concerns.

07 July 2020
Bramwell Associates - Dan Bramwell
The London Resort
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I refer back to your e-mail to me of 9th March 2020. There is one general point I wish to raise with you and some specific issues which it is essential are noted on the application case file and The Planning Inspectorate must consider. I registered to receive updates on this project from The Planning Inspectorate on 17th June 2017 but for some reason your system is failing to advise me when new documents are added to the website project file. Luckily I check the website regularly so am able to pick up any important additions such as the EIA Scoping Reports! Reference these reports, I trust you realise and pick-up on the flaws within them. Issues I wish to raise and upon which I expect the The Planning Inspectorate to revert to the Applicant are: SITE SELECTION I refer to the Applicant's Scoping Report Table 4.1 on Page 38. This is severely flawed as under the 'Swanscombe, North Kent' entry it states that both 'Land Use' and 'Regeneration & Economic Benefits' are positive. A significantly important element of this land (approx 40 acres at entrance to site) is not readily available for development as it is the home to approx 140 businesses, employing circa 1,000-1,500 employees with many offsite businesses also reliant on trading with them. The Applicant has failed to include this in their assessment (see also below - Estates). There were plans afoot by some of the existing landowners to invest in the estates but because of all the uncertainty these had to be put on hold. This would have significantly increased the local employment base so to claim it is suitable for regeneration with economic benefits is not accurate. ESTATES The Planning Inspectorate has been aware of these industrial estates (Northfleet Industrial, Manor Way, Kent Kraft and Rod End) for some years. However, when the Applicant applied for NSIP status for the project, to the best off my knowledge, no mention was made of them and the likely impact on the businesses. Furthermore, the fourth public consultation exercise undertaken by LRCH failed to include them but they were re-instated into their plans AFTER the consultation exercise was completed. It is interesting to note that the Applicant is at last confirming they have every intention of using the CPO process to take control of the required land, despite their then Chief Executive re-assuring the businesses at a meeting with them on 12th June 2017 that they would only use the CPO process as a last resort. There has been a draft document circulated by LRCH suggesting an option agreement but this will mean many businesses/landowners losing large sums of money, is riddled with flaws and, despite it being circulated TWO years ago, LRCH has yet to respond to any comments made by the businesses. The ultimate consequences of this ineptitude is that many businesses won't survive having already gone through the effects of HS1, Brexit, Coronavirus and now this! ENGAGEMENT The last constructive engagement between LRCH and the businesses was two years ago although some communication has been received in recent days. Over this time, PMG, representing the businesses, has sent endless e-mails to LRCH requesting responses to comments made on their offer, meetings, project updates etc but there has NEVER been any response. Thus in your e-mail to me dated 9th March you say ask the Applicant - how can one ask an Applicant if they are refusing to engage with parties impacted by their ill-thought out plans? Furthermore, LRCH has been constantly advised that it needs to engage with the individual businesses who have been affected by the implications of The London Resort project, many for eight years and more since the project was first suggested. Over this time the businesses have suffered blight, impacted trading, trouble raising finance for trading due to the uncertainties and some landowners have lost out on significant business deals which could have created thousands of additional jobs. Other businesses have already left due to the uncertainties. If LRCH was really serious about acquiring the site it has had ample opportunities to purchase elements of the estates - and make money to cover their investments. It has been made abundantly clear to LRCH that PMG does not represent the businesses but is in existence to give them guidance. It is up to LRCH to identify all the businesses and landowners and PMG has offered its support. However, LRCH has to date asked Argent, Savills and now Land Referencing Services (LRS) to undertake the compilation of a business and landowners register, only then will they be able to start any sort of negotiations. Again little has happened to date! This must be completed before any further progress can be made with the DCO Application or the Applicant has failed to undertake basic engagement/consultation activities. SUMMARY In the absence of any meaningful direct engagement with the Applicant, I hope The Planning Inspectorate will take onboard the above comments on behalf of PMG to ensure the businesses, employees, communities and the taxpayer is fully represented in consideration of the Applicant's performance and in responding to the EIA Scoping Report. I must express my disappointment that there has been no acknowledgement of my e-mail of last week, as below, and it has not yet been posted to The Planning Inspectorate (NSIP) website as requested. Please can you acknowledge receipt as a matter of urgency. I should also be grateful if you can confirm that the EIA Scoping Reports published online for the above project are the final copies for consideration by all parties. I have to advise my Clients as to whether it is justified to consider a formal review of the process as the inclusion of the Industrial Estates was not included in the initial application for NSIP status to the then Secretary of State and is still missing in these latest Reports, a major omission that cannot have gone unnoticed by The Planning Inspectorate.
Thank you for your enquiry. I can confirm that the version of the Scoping Report published on our website is the final version. However, we will not be able to take your comments into account in the Scoping Opinion since the list of consultees is largely prescribed by law. Our Advice Note 3 ‘EIA Notification and Consultation’ provides more information and is available at this link: [attachment 1] We advise you to consult the developer directly about your concerns.

07 July 2020
Bramwell Associates - anon.
The London Resort
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached Meeting Note

06 July 2020
MVV Environment Ltd
Medworth Energy from Waste Combined Heat and Power Facility
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting with the Applicant
Please see attached meeting note

02 July 2020
Highways England - anon.
Lower Thames Crossing
Enquiry received via email
Dear Louise, Thank you for your quick and informative response. There has already been a public consultation undertaken by Oikos at the Paddocks Community Centre on Canvey Island, where strong public concerns were expressed at that time. There are several of us taking an interest, who have not seen a “Statement of Community Consultation” reflecting the unique circumstances of Canvey Island. The Island’s population of approximately 40,000 is accommodated in the high-density development within the residential and commercial areas. Historically residential provision has been undertaken on a piecemeal basis and not strategically planned, leading to incremental development in and around the COMAH sites on Canvey Island, some within consultation distances all within the hazard range. Canvey Islanders, blissfully unaware of the risk and ramification of an industrial accident such as a BLEVE (Boiling Liquid Expanding Vapour Explosion) or (Unconfined Vapour Cloud Explosions) residual or otherwise, emanating from the Major Hazardous Sites. The Community are being asked to trust that CPBC’s Cabinet Members and not the Hazardous Substance Authority, have the relevant expertise required to secure the communities safety and that all appropriate emergency planning logistics are in place. Canvey islanders are perhaps not fully aware of the challenges presented that come from living below sea level. Although the risk is reduced by sea defences those defences are in constant need of maintenance and improving in line with global warming. The flooding of a defended area, be it via a breach or overtopping, is described as having a catastrophic outcome. The issue of surface water flooding is however more apparent, with the urgent need to improve the control and removal of surface water due to inadequate and poorly maintained drainage infrastructure. The complicated management and the lack of pumping capacity against tidal influence is an additional problem. It is not unreasonable to suggest that our local authority has not expressed fully their overall knowledge of local issues. It has been reasoned that this is because of the need, not to create an unduly atmosphere of fear of pending disasters, or the subsequent devaluation of property. It needs to be recognised that by registering as an Interested Party, taking part in representation, highlighting such points of concern, would put individuals in line for criticism from the very members of the community, that the Local Authority have failed to protect. Having said that, there are community members that wish to register as an interested party so that the community’s concerns are expressed. Can I therefore request, that we be informed immediately the Planning Inspectorate accepts this proposal to hugely increase the storage capacity of hazardous materials, so that application for registration can be made well in time for the deadline. Louise thanks once again for your assistance, your further thoughts and guidance is very much appreciated. Yours Sincerely, John Webb
Dear Mr Webb Thank you for your email. The applicant’s Statement of Community Consultation (SoCC) will form part of their Pre-Application statutory consultation activities as per s47 of the Planning Act 2008, and has not yet been made public. We advise that you contact the Applicant directly for updates on their public consultation activities, as well as to inform them of your concerns for the proposed development as outlined below. If the application is submitted and accepted for Examination we advise that you include these concerns in your representation to register as an Interested Party with as much detail as possible, so that they can form part of the Examining Authority’s Examination of the proposed development. The Planning Inspectorate’s role during the Pre-Application stage is primarily to act in an advisory capacity to the Applicant in preparing their application documents for submission. When the application is submitted, the Planning Inspectorate will review all documents provided as part of the application to ensure that the Applicant has sufficiently fulfilled their statutory requirements, including their consultation activities with the public. The Planning Inspectorate is not able to contact individual parties as per your request below, however by registering for email updates via the project webpage you will be notified straightaway once the application for the Oikos Port Development project has been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, when a decision is made on whether to accept the application for Examination, and when the registration for Interested Parties is open. Yours sincerely Louise Evans

01 July 2020
John Webb
Oikos Marine & South Side Development
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Please see attached.
Please see attached.

29 June 2020
Highways England
A47 North Tuddenham to Easton
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I refer to your letter dated 11 May 2020, described as a ‘progress note’ and which was circulated to all Interested Parties, Statutory Parties and Other Persons. The letter covers a number of matters but I wish to focus on the topic of the pre application consultation exercise. The letter contains the following observation: We have received a number of representations in relation to the formal acceptance of the application for Development Consent by the Planning Inspectorate, and others in relation to the perceived adequacy of pre-application consultation by the Applicant. It may be useful for all parties to know that our current thinking is that both matters precede and therefore lie outside the remit of the Examination process, and it is therefore unlikely that we will consider them in detail during the Examination. In its Adequacy of Response letter dated 28 November 2019 (document AoC-016) Winchester City Council (WCC) raised concerns over the adequacy of the pre application consultation exercise. This concern was discounted and in the letter dated 12 December 2019 (doc PD-001) the Planning Inspectorate stated that the application was accepted for examination. The Section 55 Checklist (doc PD-002) was the only explanation available that in any way sought to explain the reasons behind the acceptance decision. Having noted its contents, WCC had outstanding questions and therefore raised the matter again in its Relevant Representation (doc RR-198) and was intending to raise it at the Preliminary Meeting. Given the above circumstances, WCC is therefore grateful that the Examination Panel has alerted us to the fact that consideration of this matter should precede the Examination. It is considered that there is sufficient time to raise this matter now with PINs as the application has not yet moved into the Examination Stage, a phase in the procedure which is clearly defined in Section 98 of the 2008 Planning Act. WCC is therefore taking this opportunity to seek clarification and a more detailed explanation of why PINS discounted its concerns over the pre application consultation exercise. The concerns of the council relate to the way Aquind has sought to fulfil its duties under Section 47 of the act (duty to consult the local community). The WCC letter Adequacy of Response (doc AoC-016) sets out in detail the concerns and what are regarded as the failures to comply with Section 47. To summarise, the council had concerns relating to the following: • A failure to appreciate that the application area is not uniform in nature and needed different and potentially novel approaches to consultation across it. • A failure to offer people reasonable access to hard copies of the details. • A failure to reach out and engage with the local community across the whole of the area potentially impacted by the proposed development. • A failure to explain to recipients of the consultation letter sent to the organisers of groups based at community centres in Denmead and Hambledon why they where being approached. • The failure to reach out to the local business community. The Council has been left confused by the apparent dismissal of its concerns in the Section 55 Checklist. In section 5 of the matrix, under the question “Have any Adequacy of Consultation Representations been received from ‘A’, ‘B’, ‘C’ and ‘D’ local authorities; and if so, do they confirm that the Applicant has complied with the duties under s42, s47 and s48?” it makes the following comment on the Winchester representations: Winchester City Council states within its AoCR: “Overall, Winchester City Council considers that the applicant has complied with its duties under Sections 42, & 48 of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended). Regarding Section 47, the council has concerns over the extent of the engagement with the local community which it feels could have been more inclusive.” The Council’s concerns regarding the Denmeat and Hambledon areas are noted, and there is applicable discussion in paragraph 8.4.1.4 of the Consultation Report (Doc 5.1). We note the Council’s concerns regarding a perceived lack of consultation with local businesses, and observation that it is felt that the consultation could have been more inclusive. The Council were consulted on the Statement of Community Consultation and the Applicant appears to have consulted in accordance with the commitments set out within the SoCC. Aquinds consultation report (Doc 5.1) para 8.4.1.4 reported above states: “It was subsequently realised that the distribution area did not include one stretch of the proposed onshore underground cable route along Hambledon Road In addition, the public exhibition event held at Lovedean Village Hall (the venue nearest the area affected) was attended by a significantly higher number of individuals than the events held at Waterlooville Community Centre and Milton Village Community Hall, thereby illustrating that the local community were well informed of the consultation. All these areas were included in the mailing area for the statutory consultation period in 2019 and all subsequent mailings”., or an area of land potentially affected by the Proposed Development in the Denmead area. However, the Applicant does not believe this impacted the ability of the local community to participate in the consultation, due to the extensive publicity conducted through other channels as detailed below in the remainder of Chapter 8. Doc 5.1 does not address all the specific concerns raised by WCC. Reading the above, if taken at face value, it appears to be saying notwithstanding any comments made by WCC, PINs accepts compliance with the regulations since Aquind undertook a consultation exercise in accordance with its written Statement of Community Consultation (SoCC). This is despite the fact that WCC considers the SoCC to be deficient for the reasons set out in its letter. In the circumstances and particularly with the concern raised by the local parish council a more thoughtful analysis of the points raised by WCC against the actions of Aquind was expected. I am therefore inviting you to explain in more detail why the specific issues raised by WCC where discounted, before the application moves on into the Examination Stage.
Thank you for your letter dated 26 May 2020, which has been forwarded to the Examining Authority (ExA). I apologise for the delay in responding to you. A copy will be published on the project webpage and added to the Examination Library (EL): [attachment 1]. In the meantime, as Case Manager for the project, I thought it would be helpful to respond to some of the points you have raised. In accordance with s51 of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008), please note that a copy of my response will be published to the project webpage. In relation to the adequacy of the Applicant’s consultation, and your response during the acceptance stage (EL reference AoC 016), I can assure you that your comments were fully considered when a decision was made on firstly, whether the Applicant complied with its statutory duties to consult, and secondly, on whether the application was of a satisfactory standard to proceed to Examination. As you have seen from the s55 acceptance checklist (EL reference PD-002), the checklist sets out the criteria for acceptance and provides an explanation against each and whilst noting comments raised by the Local Authorities, a judgement was made that the Applicant had fulfilled its statutory duties under sections 42, 45, 46, 47, 48 and 49 of the PA2008. Whilst the s55 checklist does not in your view contain the level of detail you consider it should, or provide the answers which you are seeking, the application was accepted for Examination on 12 December 2019 in accordance with the PA2008. Therefore, it must now proceed to Examination as that decision is final. There is no mechanism under the PA2008 for the decision to be re-visited, and the only way in which it could be overturned is through a successful Judicial Review. For this reason, the ExA is unlikely to consider any submissions relating to this during the Examination. I am sorry if this information is not the response you were hoping for. If you have any further queries in relation to the above or any other matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.

26 June 2020
Winchester City Council - Ms Julie Pinnock Service Lead Built Environment
AQUIND Interconnector
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Dear Emily Having been informed by the Oikos Community Relations Team the following: - “Whilst writing, we would also like to take the opportunity to provide you with an update on the preparation timeframe for the OMSSD project. In light of the Covid-19 pandemic, it is clearly no longer possible for the project to proceed along the timeframe we originally programmed. This means that the statutory consultation period, which we originally envisaged taking place in early summer 2020, will not be going ahead as planned at that time” Being unaware that the Scoping Opinion process including statutory responses had been undertaken with the deadline being 7th May 2020. I am strongly of the opinion that whole process has subsequently been undermined in terms of the local community’s participation in the procedure. May I respectfully therefore request dispensation to express the following. The lack of opportunity for public consultation at this stage, has prompted this response to provide background information and overview of the Inspectorates Scoping Opinion and consultation responses. The primary objective being to ensure that public safety and well-being is foremost in all aspects of the (OMSSD) project. Oikos Site Storage History The proposed increase storage of hazardous materials represents a huge increase, in real terms, when consideration is given to the fact that a significant proportion of the Oikos storage site facility was operating under the Environment Agency “Pollution Prevention and Control Regulation 2000”, Permit Number VP3838LP issued 30/10/2007. Whereby a permitted grant for 237,750 tonnes annual throughput of a variety of waste raw material and fuel of a less volatile nature was processed. The point being made here is that the original tank capacity for the storage of highly hazardous materials was not being maintained for some considerable time at this facility. The argument that the recent application for renewal of licence ( Hazardous Substance Consent Ref CPT/3811/HAZ) to store at this site, represented reduction in previous storage capacities of highly volatile materials was not only questionable, it highlights that the real objective, as this application indicates, has been the further substantial increased storage capacity. In the understanding that the considerable increase in storage of hazardous materials does not necessarily equate to the increase in risk, the “Residual Risk” consequences imposed on the same community is however considerable. The consequential and totality of increased activity, human or otherwise, when handling the storage and distribution hazard material in this area of Canvey Island has increased the likelihood of an adverse event and thereby heightened the level of Societal Risk. The Applicants Scoping report at: - “2.18 Calor LPG Terminal - The Calor LPG terminal, located to the east of the Oikos Facility and the HBC site, is owned and operated by Calor Gas Ltd and adjoins the south-east corner of the Oikos Facility (as shown on Figure 2.2). The Calor terminal contains LPG storage tanks and benefits from a jetty that extends out into the River Thames. 2.19 Beyond the Calor LPG terminal and further to the east lies an existing waste-water treatment works, the Concord Rangers Football Club and Thorney Bay Caravan Park, which contains static caravans and mobile homes for both holiday use and permanent residential occupation” The significance of the “Calor Gas” site and the “Thorney Bay Caravan Park” in terms of Societal Risk needs to be fully explored. For reasons best known to themselves, the Calor Gas Company Ltd have seemingly failed to contribute towards this consultation process, however, they are the Domino site to the Oikos installation. The significant storage and transportation of LPG, to and from this Major Hazardous terminal, requires a stringent risk reduction safety regime. The Thorney Bay Caravan Park exists under licence issues by Castle Point Borough Council. The applicants scoping report at page 245 refers to planning applications 14/0620/FUL and CPT/707/11/OUT for consideration. What is clear however is that the “Thorney Bay” site owner has favoured the very popular concept of the now “Sandy Bay” Luxury Park Home Residential Development exclusively for an over 50s occupation covering the whole site. (www.sandybay.co.uk) A site visit would be conclusive. Astonishingly, neither Castle Point Borough Council, the Canvey Island Town Council or Essex County Council have discussed this issue in their response. Also see from scoping report “HSE Consultation Diagram” on page 239 which identifies how intrinsically linked the Oikos and Calor Gas sites are in terms of hazard zoning. The Development of a Park Homes Complex should have caused a review of the Local Authorities Licensing Process to reflect on the requirement of NPPF.45 “45. Local planning authorities should consult the appropriate bodies when considering applications for the siting of, or changes to, major hazard sites, installations, or pipelines, or for development around them”. Environment Agency Competent Authority The Environment Agency submission to the Planning Inspectorate Scoping Opinion Report refers to COMAH Site “Safety Reports”. “Control of Major Accident Hazards Regulations “COMAH Regulation (Notifications and Safety Report) As noted in section 20 of the Scoping Report the proposal is located at a facility notified under The Control of Major Accident Hazards Regulations 2015 (COMAH) as an upper tier COMAH establishment. It is also adjacent to another upper tier COMAH establishment operated by Calor Gas Limited. The COMAH regulations are enforced by the Competent Authority (CA). The CA comprises the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) and the Environment Agency (EA), acting jointly. COMAH requires for operators to notify the CA ‘in advance’ of certain changes including ‘a significant increase or decrease in the quantity of dangerous substances’ and ‘any modification of the establishment or an installation which could have significant consequences in terms of major accident hazards’. Upper Tier establishments are also required to submit revised Safety Reports which, amongst other aspects, must demonstrate that the major accident scenarios in relation to the establishment have been identified and that the necessary measures have been taken to prevent such accidents and to limit their consequences for human health and the environment This proposal will require a review and revision to the Safety Report before the proposed changes are made at the establishment. The operator should discuss this requirement with their COMAH Intervention Manager. Further information on COMAH is available in guidance document ‘L111 - A guide to the Control of Major Accident Hazards Regulations 2015’ available on the HSE website” COMAH Site Safety Reports It is hoped that the Planning Inspector will avail him/herself of the content of the updated Oikos and current Calor Gas “Safety Reports”, particularly the section that identifies “Societal Risk” with worst case events and consequences. This will allow for a full appreciation of the types of possible incidents, the hazard range resulting from such incidents and the likely number and type of persons that could harmed. Such information will also present an opportunity to examine the logistics of suitable for purpose Off Site Emergency Planning and evacuation proposals. The submission from the HSE “Land Use Planning” Department is extremely limited as what its role covers when dealing with what they describe as the Major Accident Sites such as Oikos and Calor Gas. This consultation with regards to Land Use Planning is totally reliant on communication from Local Planning Authorities Waiver of Representation at Local Level The process of protecting the community of Canvey Island and beyond via the Hazardous Substance Consent controls has been relinquished by the Cabinet at CPBC, when agreeing to the recommendation to do so. Agenda Item 7(b) Cabinet Agenda Wednesday 19th February 2020 Recommendations 1 That the Cabinet notes the Development Consent Order process and the role of the Council. 2 To approve the inclusion within the Development Consent Order the Hazardous Substances Consent and waive the Council’s determination of such a consent only in respect to the matters identified in the Development Consent Order. 3 That a report is made to Cabinet in respect of the Council’s representation to the Development Consent Order. A point to note here is, that the decision having been taken, to waive the Councils determination of such consent, was made by CPBC Cabinet Members and not as normally the Hazardous Substance Authority ie the Planning Committee. This had the outcome of denying the community of Canvey Island of Councillor representation, due to Councillor distribution and there being no Canvey Island Councillors in the Cabinet. Flood Risk The issue of flood risk and the use of the most up to date information has been dealt with comprehensively in the Scoping Opinion comments. This is a significant issue for Canvey Island in terms of property damage and risk to life, with the Stay Put Emergency Plan seemingly completely in appropriate in some cases. What has not been discussed however is the activity of water take-up space erosion caused by development and the considerable land raising incidents, particularly in the area immediately around the Okios and neighbouring Calor Gas establishments. This unabated activity has had a direct impact on flood water depth and velocities, to the effect that any previous flood issue modelling such as LiDAR is now completely nullified. The likelihood of flooding of the access routes to and from Canvey Island will increase following sea level rise. Access to Canvey Island is currently only possible by two roads (A130 and B1006), both of which are connected at the same roundabout. Any disruption to these routes would hamper evacuation and severely limit access to the industrial areas on Canvey Island, including potential disruption to the gas and oil storage installations. This could have significant implications for the national economy since Canvey Island is already functioning as one of the main oil and gas distribution centres for the UK, which question the logistics of these sites having any long-term sustainability. Aspirational TE2100 Plan The Environment Agency’s submission clearly identifies that: - “The TE2100 Plan is an aspirational document, rather than a definitive policy, so whether the defences are raised in the future will be dependent on cost benefit analysis as well as eligibility and availability of central government Grant in Aid to deliver the required works”. This indicates that recommendation from the TE2100 plan should not be relied upon as the evidence basis in support of a long-term sustainability. Critical Drainage. There has been no acknowledgement from the relevant authorities that the whole of Canvey Island is a “Critical Drainage” area, and despite CPBCs best efforts to gain significant government funding following the severe surface water flooding incidents in 2013 and 2014 to resolve such issues, no such funding has materialised. Strategic Flood Risk Assessment and Surface Water Management Plan. The following comment from the Essex County Council Lead Local Flood Authority submission implies that they consider the flood risk modelling and surveys to be up to date and suitable for purpose, which clearly is not the case. “The information supplied for flood risk and surface water management is considered sufficient, and there is not a need for additional information to be supplied as part of the ES”. This would indicate that there is a lack of communication between CPBC and the LLFA as to the activities undertaken on Canvey Island that would have a direct impact on the “Surface Water Management Plan” and Strategic Flood Risk Assessment, both of which need review. Thank you for giving these observations your consideration, they are intended to be constructive and hopefully of value in the examination process. Yours sincerely John Webb.
Dear Mr Webb Thank you for your email. At present the Oikos Applicant has undertaken their scoping activities; In accordance with Regulation 10 of the EIA Regulations 2017, the Applicant is required during Pre-Application to seek an opinion from PINS on the content of their Environmental Statement (a document relating to the environmental impact of the proposed development forming part of their application for development consent). Before providing the Applicant with their opinion, PINS must consult with all parties listed in column 1 of the table as set out in Schedule 1 of the Infrastructure Planning (Applications Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009. Please also see Advice Note 3: EIA Notification and Consultation for further information, which I have attached to this email. The applicant’s consultation with the local communities and general public has not yet taken place. Due to the current Covid-19 situation the applicant’s public consultation activities, which they are statutorily obligated to undertake as part of the Pre-Application stage of the development consent process, have been delayed as per their communication to you. Once they are able to resume these, you will be able to view and provide a response to their proposals. We are currently not aware of when these will take place. If the Oikos Development application is submitted and accepted for Examination, you will be able to register as an Interested Party to the project and submit your views, which will form part of the Examining Authority’s subsequent Examination. We advise that you view our webpage for this project, where you can sign up for updates via email as the project progresses - the email updates option is on the right hand side of the page. For further information I have also attached our Advice Note 8.1 which provides information on responding to the developer’s Pre-Application consultation, and Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination. Our full suite of Advice Notes can be accessed from our website. I hope this email has been of assistance, please contact us if you have any further queries.

25 June 2020
John Webb
Oikos Marine & South Side Development
s51 Advice given to the Applicant following issue of decision to accept the application for examination.
Dear Mr Bull Planning Act 2008 (as amended) – Section 51 Application by NNB Nuclear Generation (SZC) Limited for an Order Granting Development Consent for The Sizewell C Project Advice following issue of decision to accept the application for examination On 24 June 2020 the Secretary of State decided that the application for the above project satisfied the acceptance tests under section 55 of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008). The Planning Inspectorate’s acceptance checklist and the application documents have been published and made available on the project page of the National Infrastructure Planning website. In undertaking checks at the Acceptance stage, the Inspectorate has made some initial observations in relation to the application. This letter comprises advice to the Applicant provided under section 51 of the PA2008 in respect of these initial observations. The Applicant should pay attention to its content and consider how appropriate action might be taken in response. Consultees identified on a precautionary basis Given the individual circumstances of this case, and taking a precautionary approach to ensure that all persons potentially affected by, or potentially likely to have an interest in, the application are given the opportunity to participate fully in the examination of the application, the Planning Inspectorate suggests that the Applicant may wish to include the bodies listed below amongst those on whom they serve notice of the accepted application under s56(2)(a) of the PA2008; unless there is a specific justification why this is not necessary. • Murphy Gas Network • Eclipse Power Networks • Leep Electricity Networks • Vattenfall Networks Limited • Harlaxton Energy Networks • Energy Assets Pipelines Limited • Energy Assets Networks Limited • Fulcrum Electricity Assets Limited • UK Power Distribution Limited Please pay close attention to the advice set out in this letter and act on it accordingly. This will contribute towards a more efficient Examination and give any future Examining Authority comfort that the documentation is complete and accurate. We trust you find this advice helpful, however if you have any queries on these matters please do not hesitate to contact our office using the contact details at the head of this letter. Yours sincerely Michele Gregory Case Manager

24 June 2020
Richard Bull
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please see attached
Please see attached

24 June 2020
Various Enquiries
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Please see attached.
Please see attached.

24 June 2020
Ørsted, the MMO, RSPB, GoBe
Hornsea Project Four Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please see attached
The Acceptance Stage The application was submitted on 27 May 2020 and the decision about whether or not to accept the application must be taken on or before 24 June 2020. The decision will be published on the Project page of the National Infrastructure Planning website here: [attachment 1] If the application is accepted for Examination, the following documents will also be published on the Project page: • The application documents, including the Environmental Statement; • any Adequacy of Consultation Representations submitted by relevant local authorities; and • the Planning Inspectorate’s acceptance checklist. The Acceptance tests Section 55 of the Planning Act 2008 states that an application can be accepted provided: • It is an application for an order granting development consent; • that development consent is required for any of the development to which the application relates; • that the applicant has, in relation to a proposed application that has become the application, complied with Chapter 2 of Part 5 (pre-application procedure); and • that the application (including accompaniments) is of a standard that the Secretary of State considers satisfactory. Additionally, Regulation 14 and Schedule 4 of the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 set out the information for inclusion in an Environmental Statement. The Secretary of State must have regard to the following when making the decision: • The Consultation Report received with the application; • any Adequacy of Consultation Representations received by the Planning Inspectorate from a local authority consultee. • The extent to which the Applicant has had regard to Government guidance.

19 June 2020
The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds - Jacqui Miller On behalf of
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Dear PINS I am writing on behalf of Suffolk Coastal Friends of the Earth or which I am Coordinator. Our members are concerned that the Sizewell C application for planning consent was put in on Wednesday without any public notification nor any advertising in local and national newspapers, as required under section 48 of the Planning Act and further instructed under Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms & Procedures) Regulations 2009: Publicising a proposed application Section 4(2) The applicant must publish a notice .... of the proposed application ... a) for at least two successive weeks in one or more local newspapers .... in which the proposed development would be situated b) once in a national newspaper None of our members has seen any such advertisements. This indicates to us that many members of the public will not be aware that the application has been submitted. Clearly, bearing in mind the massive impact that this project would have on local communities here in Suffolk, everyone has a right to know the current situation. Moreover, I was personally promised by Carly Vince, EDFE's Planning Officer, that we would have a fortnight's notice of the application going in. We ask, therefore, that this application be rejected until proper procedure has been followed. Yours sincerely Rachel Fulcher, Coordinator Suffolk Coastal FOE
Dear Ms Fulcher, Thank you for contacting the Planning Inspectorate about the application by NNB Nuclear Generation (SZC) Ltd for an order granting development consent for the Sizewell C Project, Suffolk. Please accept our apologies for the delay in responding The Acceptance Stage The application was submitted on 27 May 2020 and the decision about whether or not to accept the application must be taken on or before 24 June 2020. The decision will be published on the Project page of the National Infrastructure Planning website here: [attachment 1] If the application is accepted for Examination, the following documents will also be published on the Project page: • The application documents; • any Adequacy of Consultation Representations submitted by relevant local authorities; and • the Planning Inspectorate’s acceptance checklist. The Acceptance tests Section 55 of the Planning Act 2008 states that an application can be accepted provided: • It is an application for an order granting development consent; • that development consent is required for any of the development to which the application relates; • that the applicant has, in relation to a proposed application that has become the application, complied with Chapter 2 of Part 5 (pre-application procedure); and • that the application (including accompaniments) is of a standard that the Secretary of State considers satisfactory. Chapter 2 of Part 5 of the Planning Act 2008 includes section 48 to which you have referred. The Secretary of State must have regard to the following when making the decision: • The Consultation Report received with the application; • any Adequacy of Consultation Representations received by the Planning Inspectorate from a local authority consultee. • The extent to which the Applicant has had regard to Government guidance. I hope the above information is helpful to you. Kind regards Liam

19 June 2020
Suffolk Coastal Friends of the Earth - Rachel Fulcher On behalf of
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Dear Liam and Michelle, We noted in the latest Meeting note between PINS and EDF that issues regarding making documents available at public locations remain unresolved. Can you let us know whether you anticipate legislative changes prior to 24 June, and if not and the application is accepted, what the implications are likely to be for the commencement of Section 56? Best wishes Alison Downes
Dear Alison, Thank you for your email. Please accept our apologies for the delay in responding. With regard to the current Coronavirus (COVID-19) situation and the arrangements for members of the public to access documents relating to an application that has been accepted for Examination, please note the contents of the Government’s Written Ministerial Statement (WMS) of 13 May 2020 which provides updated guidelines regarding the use of digital events, such as virtual hearings, and digital documentation. The WMS explains that online inspection of documents should be the default position and, recognising that there are sections of the community that may have limited or no access to the internet, that developers should take reasonable steps to ensure all members of the public are able to be involved. The Planning Inspectorate’s published guidance has been updated and will continue to be updated as the situation develops: [attachment 1] As you are aware, should the application be accepted for Examination then parties who wish to participate in the Examination would have the opportunity to register as an Interested Party by submitting a Relevant Representation at the appropriate time during the Pre-examination stage of the PA2008 process. If the Planning Inspectorate decides to accept an application for Examination, it remains the Applicant’s duty to advertise the Relevant Representation period and provide details about how to register to become an Interested Party under Section 56 of the Planning Act 2008. In this case the Applicant has indicated that it would extend this registration period beyond the statutory minimum of thirty days, if the application is accepted, to allow all parties more time to review the application documents and register their interest before the start of the six month Examination stage. I hope the above information is helpful to you. Kind regards Liam

19 June 2020
Alison Downes
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Please see attached.
Please see attached.

17 June 2020
Natural England and Marine Management Organisation
Hornsea Project Four Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via post
response has attachments
Please see attached.
The proposed application by MWV Environment Ltd is at the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) process. Therefore, the Planning Inspectorate is unable to consider representations about the merits of any application until it is accepted for Examination. The Planning Inspectorate also does not have the power to intervene in a developer’s pre-application programme. The process for applying for a Development Consent Order (DCO) is set out in the PA2008. The timing of the application’s programme is at the discretion of the Applicant. The Developer is currently carrying out their first round of non-statutory consultation. Further rounds of consultation will take place and the Developer will advertise these before they are due to commence. Therefore, I would encourage you to contact the developer directly with regard to your concerns. The developer has a statutory duty to have regard to all consultation responses received and this should be demonstrated in the Consultation Report as part of their DCO application. However, if you feel your comments are not being taken into account, I would advise you to write to your local authority and set out why you think the Applicant is failing to conduct its consultation properly. Your comments should be taken into account when the local authority sends the Inspectorate its comments on whether the Applicant has fulfilled its consultation duties. The local authority’s comments on the Applicant’s consultation will be taken into account when the Acceptance Inspector makes their decision whether to accept the application for Examination. Should the DCO application be accepted by the Inspectorate for Examination, the Applicant has a duty to notify the local community when providing information on how to register as an Interested Party for the purpose of the process. The process under the PA2008 has been designed to allow members of the public and statutory stakeholders to participate in examination of all DCO applications so that anyone interested in the proposed developments, their potential impacts and any relevant matters can be fully engaged in the examination process. Once the Examination begins, the Examining Authority will assess all information submitted in the application documents and will consider whether the Applicant has provided the necessary level of information. The Planning Inspectorate has produced several Advice Notes to help provide an overview of the PA2008 process and the opportunities to get involved. They are available at the following link: [attachment 1] The following are particularly relevant; Advice Note 8: ‘Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others’. Advice Note 8.1: ‘Responding to the developer’s pre-application consultation’ Advice Note 8.2: ‘How to register to participate in an Examination’. Please be assured that anyone interested in the proposed development, the potential impacts and any planning matters can be fully engaged in the examination process. A copy of your correspondence has been placed on our records and will be presented to the Inspector at Acceptance together with the application documents and Local Authorities’ comments on the Applicant’s consultation. With regard to the current Coronavirus (COVID-19) situation, please refer to the Planning Inspectorate’s published guidance which will be updated as the situation develops. [attachment 2] We have also published a Frequently Asked Questions document regarding Pre-application consultation and this can be viewed on our website here: [attachment 3]

16 June 2020
Sue Beel
Medworth Energy from Waste Combined Heat and Power Facility
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please see attached
Please see attached

05 June 2020
Dr Daniel Poulter MP
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via phone
response has attachments
Draft Document Review and Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

02 June 2020
Highways England - anon.
A428 Black Cat to Caxton Gibbet Road Improvement scheme
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Inception Meeting
Please see attached Meeting Note

01 June 2020
Augean plc
East Northants Resource Management Facility Western Extension
response has attachments
The London Resort Company has informed me the development of (Paramount Park & Hotels) is a part of Nati