Register of advice

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

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

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

Advice given between between 1 October 2009 and 14 April 2015 has been archived.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

PreviewProject
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please see attached.
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 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 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 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 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
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 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
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
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 (Generating Stations)
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
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
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 Low Carbon Gas Power Station Project
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 North West 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 Low Carbon Gas Power Station Project
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
Inception Meeting.
Please see attached.

12 February 2021
Highways England - M60/M62/M66 Simister Island
General
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
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 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.

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

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

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

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

01 June 2020
Augean plc
East Northants Resource Management Facility Western Extension
response has attachments
The London Resort Company has informed me the development of (Paramount Park & Hotels) is a part of National Infrastructure Project supported by the UK Government as this would highly benefit tourism industry in UK. I am sure any amusement parks like the one of Disney, in Paris or Orlando & Sunway in Malaysia has boosted tourism. I did look up the link on your website for London Resort also showing negligible current update. The reason I write to you is because I am concerned about how the London Resort Co has started investment schemes on the bases of the above development. They are pre-selling the hotel rooms. That means I am able to buy one room in the hotel (to be constructed in 3 years) and get guaranteed rental returns of 8% post constructed for the next 3 years., thereafter returns will be un-guaranteed for the next 27 years. However the hotel room is owned by investor for 995 years. To buy the hotel room I need to invest 20% now, 20% when construction begins Jun 2021, 10% Dec 2021 and 50% Dec 2023. The cost of each hotel room is Pound 40,000. This seems quite attractive, hence several would want to invest from INDIA. However I feel something fishy and need some update on the status of permission hence I write to you. Hope its not a big scam. Why you reply benefits me ? I am a realtor and planning to market this project. I do not want to market anything which is a fraud. Hence kindly provide non-bias opinion. Be rest assured your reply will be strictly confidential and will not be used or presented to anyone, it will only help me to decide if this project is right for me to market or not.
The London Resort project is currently in the Pre-Application stage of the development consent process, which means that the Applicant has not yet formally submitted their application to us (the Planning Inspectorate). We currently anticipate that the application will be submitted later this year. You may wish to view our Advice Note which provides an overview of the Planning Act 2008 process. This confirms that the statutory timescales between the Examination commencing and a decision being made on the application is 12 months. We advise that you can sign up to receive updates on this project as it progresses via our webpage: [attachment 1] - the email notification sign-up facility is to the right hand side of the page, halfway down. Unfortunately, we are unable to offer any advice to you in relation to potential purchase of property; this is a matter which is outside of our remit and to do so could pre-judge the outcome of the application. You should seek your own professional advice on this matter.

28 May 2020
Manish Chheda
The London Resort
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting with the Applicant
Please see attached meeting note

28 May 2020
Highways England - anon.
Lower Thames Crossing
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Dear Sir/Madam, I appreciate that you have no legal ability to control the timing of a DCO application, but I wish to register my concern that EDF/CGN are due to submit the DCO application for Sizewell C during this time of national emergency when residents, businesses, parish/town councils, district councils, the county council, statutory authorities, NGOs, indeed the entire country are under severe strain in dealing with the impacts of the coronavirus pandemic. There is enough stress and anxiety in place in society due to fears of the impact of covid 19 on the health and well-being of individuals and on their loved ones, without the additional anxiety that the Sizewell C DCO will inflict on thousands. EDF have claimed on many occasions that they are "good neighbours". Nothing could be further from the truth. The comprehensive omission of information and the lack of serious consultation throughout the four stage pre application consultation is well recognised and has been referred to by many, including the Environment Agency, Natural England, RSPB, Suffolk Wildlife Trust, Suffolk Preservation Society, Together Against Sizewell C, Suffolk Coast Friends of the Earth, Suffolk Coast and Heaths Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, Suffolk County Council. 54 parish and town councils, who together represent more than 50,000 residents, have called on EDF to postpone Sizewell C's DCO application. However, EDF's total disregard for the mental and physical health of the people and businesses of Suffolk is demonstrated by their stated intention of submitting the DCO application imminently. Should the Applicant submit the DCO application before all the coronavirus restrictions are lifted, I urge you, and the local authorities (to whom this is copied), to do all in your power to reject such a callous action and for you to refuse to accept said application. Yours sincerely, Mr Chris Wilson
Dear Mr Wilson Thank you for your email expressing concerns about the adequacy of the Applicants consultation and consultation material, your email and this response will be published on the project page of the National Infrastructure Planning website shortly. We note that you have sent your letter to the local authorities. The local authorities can consider your comments as part of their Adequacy of Consultation Representation submission to the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) at the Application Stage of the process. The Planning Inspectorate will consider any adequacy of consultation representations received from the relevant local authorities when deciding whether or not to accept the application, as required under section 55(4)(b) of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended). It is therefore important to ensure the local authorities are informed of your concerns. Further information about Community Consultation can be found here: [attachment 1] As you are aware the proposed application by EDF Energy is at the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 process. The Planning Inspectorate is unable to consider representations about the merits of any application until it is accepted for Examination. Further information about the process can be found in the link below to the National Infrastructure Planning website: [attachment 2] Should the application be accepted the application and all the supporting documentation will be published on the project page of the National Infrastructure Planning website: [attachment 3] All parties are encouraged to sign up for Email Updates using the button on the project page or via the link below: [attachment 4];email= Email Updates will enable parties to observe what’s happening on the application after it has been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate. (Please note: email updates are occasionally recognised as “spam” mail so if you do sign up to receive updates, you should check you “spam” folders regularly). Should the application be accepted for Examination, it is important to note that if parties then wish to participate in the Examination they would need to register as an Interested Party at the appropriate time during the Pre-examination stage. If parties have signed up for the Email Updates they will receive a prompt when the registration period opens (the Relevant Representation period). The ‘Registration and Relevant Representation form’ will be made available here during the Pre-examination stage and all parties will have an opportunity to outline their views about the project. The appointed Examining Authority will then use these to carry out an initial assessment of principal issues. Further information about registering as an Interested Party can be found in the Planning Inspectorate’s ‘Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination’: [attachment 5] The Planning Inspectorate is mindful of the need to ensure both openness and fairness throughout all stages of the DCO process and will continue to highlight this in discussions with the Applicant. The Applicant has indicated that the Relevant Representation period would be extended beyond the statutory 30 days minimum to allow everyone more time to read the documents through the summer months and submit their views during the Pre-examination period. Once the six month Examination period starts registered Interested Parties can then submit further Written Representations to expand on those views. Finally, with regard to the current Coronavirus (COVID-19) situation, please refer to the Planning Inspectorate’s published guidance which will be updated as the situation develops. [attachment 6] I hope you find the above information helpful.

26 May 2020
Chris Wilson
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via post
response has attachments
Please see attached.
We note that you have sent a letter to the Applicant. Additionally, the local authorities can consider your comments on consultation as part of their Adequacy of Consultation Representation submission to the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) at the Application Stage of the process. The Planning Inspectorate will consider any adequacy of consultation representations received from the relevant local authorities when deciding whether or not to accept the application, as required under section 55(4)(b) of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended) (PA2008). It is therefore important to ensure the local authorities are informed of your concerns. Further information about Community Consultation can be found here: [attachment 1]. The proposed application by EDF Energy is at the Pre-application stage of the PA2008 process. The Planning Inspectorate is unable to consider representations about the merits of any application until it is accepted for Examination. Further information about the process can be found in the link below to the National Infrastructure Planning website: [attachment 2]. Should the application be accepted the application and all the supporting documentation will be published on the project page of the National Infrastructure Planning website: [attachment 3]. The ‘Registration and Relevant Representation form’ will be made available here during the Pre-examination stage and all parties will have an opportunity to outline their views about the project. The appointed Examining Authority will then use these to carry out an initial assessment of principal issues. Further information about registering as an Interested Party can be found in the Planning Inspect The Planning Inspectorate is mindful of the need to ensure both openness and fairness throughout all stages of the PA2008 process and will continue to highlight this in discussions with the Applicant. With regard to the current Coronavirus (COVID-19) situation and the arrangements for members of the public to access and view documents relating to the Application, please note the contents of the Government’s Written Ministerial Statement (WMS) of 13 May 2020 which provides updated guidelines regarding digital documentation.

26 May 2020
Alison Shireff
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via email
Good Afternoon, I am doing some research around Strategic Rail Freight Interchange. I found a recent article covering the refused Rail Freight Interchange in North Yorkshire outside Sherburn. (Developer Harworth Group). In the article it states that the LPA (Selby District Council) refused it in March last year. It has then gone to Appeal and Inspector Kevin Ward dismissed the Appeal. The enquiry/ question I have is that my understanding is that a SRFI like this would go through the Planning Inspectorate and then to Secretary of State as a NSIPs. I just wondered why the Local Authority in this case were able to refuse this in the first instance? What factors/criteria were different? I have little knowledge in this area and just wondered if you could provide some information? Kind Regards
Good morning Thank you for your email. Section 26 of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended) sets out the criteria for Rail Freight Interchanges (RFI) to quality as Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIPs). The NSIP process involves an application for development consent, which is made to the Planning Inspectorate; there is no application to a Local Planning Authority beforehand. The relevant subsections are: (3)The land on which the rail freight interchange is situated must— (a)be in England, and (b)be at least 60 hectares in area. (4)The rail freight interchange must be capable of handling— (a)consignments of goods from more than one consignor and to more than one consignee, and (b)at least 4 goods trains per day. (5)The rail freight interchange must be part of the railway network in England. (6)The rail freight interchange must include warehouses to which goods can be delivered from the railway network in England either directly or by means of another form of transport. (7)The rail freight interchange must not be part of a military establishment Any application for an RFI which does not meet this criteria falls to be considered under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) and an application is made to the relevant Local Authority(ies) in the first instance. If that application is refused, the Applicant has a right of appeal under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act. Unfortunately, as this application was not submitted as an NSIP, we are unable to comment any further on your query. However, hopefully this response will be of assistance to you in understanding the difference in consenting regimes. You may also wish to view our suite of Advice Notes (in particular the 8 series) which provides for information on NSIPs. Yours sincerely

26 May 2020
Amy Moseley
General
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Dear Ms Richards The above are proposing to build a 50 megawatt incinerator in our small Georgian Town of Wisbech. They are making this a national infrastructure to circumnavigate local planning and have ignored planning guidance by failing to put forward alternative sites but have put forward alternatives relating to the design and not its siting which is my understanding of what they have done. My understanding is that in my lifetime it is unlikely to be used to full capacity. This proposed site is within 200 meters of one school, 500 meters from another and 750 meters from our largest school. It meters away from residential areas. We do not need a MEGA incinerator we should be looking to recycle not encourage waste for our future generation to live a healthier life. This small market does not have the infrastructure to cope with the amount of lorries that will be descending on our town which only has single lane carriageways. Our MP Steve Barclay (who is campaigning against this Mega incinerator) and local residents have worked hard to get the railway back into this town so that local people will have better job prospects by having carbon neutral way to expanded their job opportunities in Cambridge, Norwich Peterborough ect. This proposed MEGA incinerator puts that in jeopardy. MVV Environment Ltd have no idea what dangerous items will be on the vehicles heading for the for the proposed incineration. MVV have been less than honest in regard to the downplaying of the dangers this MEGA incinerator will pose to local residents. Not just local residents but anyone eating produce from farmland which surrounds the area from the deposits of particulates coming out of its funnel. I have read the report on PM2.5 and PM10 from AQEG (Air Quality Expert Group) commissioned by DEFRA (Department for Environment Food & Rural Affairs) I have cut and pasted at the bottom of this communication an important part, HEALTH that MVV are failing to bring to residents attention they have in fact gone all out to downplay the dangers by putting a leaflet through residence doors which contains a section MYTH busters, thereby totally disregarding the below report of just how dangerous the particulates exposure is. I am so shocked and appalled by this proposal and MVV’s total disregard for the health and well being of the residents of Wisbech and the surrounding area and further afield by particulates on crops they purchase. Governments are looked upon to protect the health and well being of its citizens if this proposal gets the green light they will have failed. Please think of the ramifications after reading the report below by AQEG and reject this proposal. I have not committed a crime yet MVV Environment Ltd have put a death sentence on my life. (read below) AQEG report 1.3.1 Health effects of PM2.5 10. The Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants (COMEAP) reports LongTerm Exposure to Air Pollution: Effect on Mortality (COMEAP, 2009) and The Mortality Effects of Long-Term Exposure to Particulate Air Pollution in the United Kingdom (COMEAP, 2010) provide an excellent synthesis of the current evidence on the impact of particulate matter on mortality. There is clear evidence that particulate matter has a significant contributory role in human all-cause mortality and in particular in cardiopulmonary mortality. 11. PM2.5 penetrates deeply into the human respiratory system. The acute effects of particle exposure include increases in hospital admissions and premature death of the old and sick due to diseases of the respiratory and cardiovascular systems. The evidence is that both PM2.5 and PM10 cause additional hospital admissions and deaths on high pollution days. Less severe effects of short-term particle exposure also occur during pollution episodes, including worsening of asthma symptoms and even a general feeling of being unwell leading to a lower level of activity. 12. Long-term exposure to particles is associated with increased levels of fatal cardiovascular and respiratory diseases, including lung cancer, which reveal themselves as increased rates of death in cities with higher concentrations of airborne particles. COMEAP (2009) expressed the view that the best estimate of the chronic health impacts of particulate matter exposure was a 6% increase in death rates per 10 µg m-3 PM2.5 concentration. As with the acute effects of particle exposure no wholly safe level has been identified. regards B Males
Dear Ms Males, Thank you for your email of 18 April 2020 expressing concerns about the proposed Medworth Energy from Waste Combined Heat and Power Facility The proposed application by MWV Environment Ltd is at the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) process. Therefore, the Planning Inspectorate is unable to consider representations about the merits of any application until it is accepted for Examination. The Planning Inspectorate also does not have the power to intervene in a Developer’s pre-application programme. The process for applying for a Development Consent Order (DCO) is set out in thePA2008. The timing of the application’s programme is at the discretion of the Applicant. The Developer is currently carrying out their first round of non-statutory consultation. Further rounds of consultation will take place and the Developer will advertise these before they are due to commence. Therefore, I would encourage you to contact the developer directly with regard to your concerns. The developer has a statutory duty to have regard to all consultation responses received and this should be demonstrated in the Consultation Report as part of their DCO application. However, if you feel your comments are not being taken into account, I would advise you to write to your local authority and set out why you think the Applicant is failing to conduct its consultation properly. Your comments should be taken into account when the local authority sends the Inspectorate its comments on whether the Applicant has fulfilled its consultation duties. The local authority’s comments on the Applicant’s consultation will be taken into account when the Acceptance Inspector makes their decision whether to accept the application for Examination. Should the DCO application be accepted by the Inspectorate for examination, the applicant has a duty to notify the local community when providing information on how to register as an Interested Party for the purpose of the process. The process under the PA2008 has been designed to allow members of the public and statutory stakeholders to participate in examination of all DCO applications so that anyone interested in the proposed developments, their potential impacts and any relevant matters can be fully engaged in the examination process. Once the examination begins, the Examining Authority will assess all information submitted in the application documents and will consider whether the Applicant has provided the necessary level of information. The Planning Inspectorate has produced several Advice Notes to help provide an overview of the PA2008 process and the opportunities to get involved. They are available at the following link: [attachment 1] The following are particularly relevant: Advice Note 8: ‘Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others’. Advice Note 8.1: ‘Responding to the developer’s pre-application consultation’ Advice Note 8.2: ‘How to register to participate in an Examination’. Please be assured that anyone interested in the proposed developments, their potential impacts and any planning matters can be fully engaged in the examination process. A copy of your correspondence has been placed on our records and will be presented to the Inspector at acceptance together with the application documents and Local Authorities’ comments on the Applicant’s consultation. With regard to the current Coronavirus (COVID-19) situation, please refer to the Planning Inspectorate’s published guidance which will be updated as the situation develops. [attachment 2] We have also published a Frequently Asked Questions document regarding Pre-application consultation and this can be viewed on our website here: [attachment 3] Please note, in accordance with Section 51 of the PA2008, a summary of your query and our advice will be published on the project’s webpage of the National Infrastructure Website. I hope you find the above information useful.

26 May 2020
Beryl Males
Medworth Energy from Waste Combined Heat and Power Facility
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Dear Mr Salter I have some concerns about the incinerator MVV are proposing to build in the town of Wisbech. I live here and I was born here. I would be grateful if you could answer these questions for me: 1. Over what timescale do they expect to get to 50 megawatts? 2. How much waste will this involve to deliver 50 megawatts? 3. The incinerator will have a chimney up to a massive 95 metres high. From how many miles will the incinerator be visible? 4. The incinerator will be just 200 metres from one primary school, 500 metres from another, and 750 metres from the largest secondary school in our district, Thomas Clarkson Academy. The ACIS Eye Clinic is just 350 metres away. Why is this site so close to three schools and the Eye Clinic the best site given the volume of lorries, impact on air pollution, and odour concerns amongst others? 5. Why does the scoping request fail to include valid alternative locations? 6. What alternative sites / solutions were considered? 7. What is the methodology for site selection and when will it be published in line with best practice? 8. How did it consider sensitive receptors like schools, community impact like odour and noise, and visual impact? 9. The scoping request was issued over the Christmas holiday period, yet the report reveals that “the Inspectorate queried whether the scoping request would be premature given the current stage of development”. Why did the developer ignore the inspector and issue this scoping report over the Christmas holiday period? 10. Why has the developer failed to follow best practice in developing a proposal in consultation with the community, which it does not plan to consult until Spring 2020? 11. The developer suggests the incinerator will require lorry movements 7 days a week from 6am to 7pm. Yet almost all the roads in Fenland are single carriageway. The incinerator will require over half a million tonnes of waste, with the report suggesting 523,500 tonnes a year (i) How many lorries a week will be required (ii) how far will they be travelling including from surrounding counties ? 12. The incinerator will be built on land at risk of flooding (known as Flood Risk 3). Yet the developer is silent on the risk this causes of contamination (including to drinking water), in addition to any risk of soil contamination during the construction phase. Why is flood risk land suitable for a waste incinerator when the Environment Agency has raised concerns at house building on such land? 13. What is the risk of contamination in the event of flooding? 14. Later this month the Cambridgeshire Combined Authority will publish its 15-month long report on the next phase of work for Wisbech Rail, yet the incinerator developer appears to plan to dig up the Wisbech Rail line for a Combine Heat and Power (CHP) connection. How would the incinerator plans impact on Wisbech Rail? 15. The developer suggests two proposed options for connection, a 132kv line at the Walpole substation and one joining the National Grid 400kv line to the east of Walsoken. Yet it is not clear whether these are part of the Development Consent Order (DCO). What impact will this have on the local community, and is it part of the DCO? 16. The developer says they have an option on the main site from the current owners, and that it is used for aggregate storage, but then add that compulsory acquisition may be required to obtain land outside of this main site in order to build an incinerator of the scale required for its designation as a national infrastructure project (i) What land does the developer plan to compulsory purchase? (ii) on what basis? (iii) from whom? 17. Why haven't the particles PM 2.5 been measured in the surveys and only PM 10, which are less harmful to human bodies? 18. Do you consider that MVV believes Wisbech to be a softer target than Waterbeach and King's Lynn, where incinerators have been blocked? I look forward to hearing from you. Carla Johnson
Dear Ms Johnson, Thank you for your email of 18 March 2020, regarding the proposed Medworth Energy from Waste Combined Heat and Power Facility. The proposed application by MWV Environment Ltd is at the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) process. Therefore, the Planning Inspectorate is unable to consider representations about the merits of any application until it is accepted for Examination. The Planning Inspectorate also does not have the power to intervene in a developer’s pre-application programme. The process for applying for a Development Consent Order (DCO) is set out in the PA2008. The timing of the application’s programme is at the discretion of the Applicant. The Developer is currently carrying out their first round of non-statutory consultation. Further rounds of consultation will take place and the Developer will advertise these before they are due to commence. Therefore, I would encourage you to contact the developer directly with regard to your concerns. The developer has a statutory duty to have regard to all consultation responses received and this should be demonstrated in the Consultation Report as part of their DCO application. However, if you feel your comments are not being taken into account, I would advise you to write to your local authority and set out why you think the Applicant is failing to conduct its consultation properly. Your comments should be taken into account when the local authority sends the Inspectorate its comments on whether the Applicant has fulfilled its consultation duties. The local authority’s comments on the Applicant’s consultation will be taken into account when the Acceptance Inspector makes their decision whether to accept the application for Examination. Should the DCO application be accepted by the Inspectorate for Examination, the Applicant has a duty to notify the local community when providing information on how to register as an Interested Party for the purpose of the process. The process under the PA2008 has been designed to allow members of the public and statutory stakeholders to participate in examination of all DCO applications so that anyone interested in the proposed developments, their potential impacts and any relevant matters can be fully engaged in the examination process. Once the Examination begins, the Examining Authority will assess all information submitted in the application documents and will consider whether the Applicant has provided the necessary level of information. The Planning Inspectorate has produced several Advice Notes to help provide an overview of the PA2008 process and the opportunities to get involved. They are available at the following link: [attachment 1] The following are particularly relevant; Advice Note 8: ‘Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others’. Advice Note 8.1: ‘Responding to the developer’s pre-application consultation’ Advice Note 8.2: ‘How to register to participate in an Examination’. Please be assured that anyone interested in the proposed development, the potential impacts and any planning matters can be fully engaged in the examination process. A copy of your correspondence has been placed on our records and will be presented to the Inspector at Acceptance together with the application documents and Local Authorities’ comments on the Applicant’s consultation. With regard to the current Coronavirus (COVID-19) situation, please refer to the Planning Inspectorate’s published guidance which will be updated as the situation develops. [attachment 2] We have also published a Frequently Asked Questions document regarding Pre-application consultation and this can be viewed on our website here: [attachment 3] Please note, in accordance with Section 51 of the PA2008, a summary of your query and our advice will be published on the project’s webpage of the National Infrastructure Website. I hope you find the above information useful.

26 May 2020
Carla Johnson
Medworth Energy from Waste Combined Heat and Power Facility
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Dear Secretary of State Re: Medworth Energy from Waste Combined Heat and Power Facility [attachment 1] With the present health crisis caused by the Coronavirus pandemic all planned public consultations and community events regarding the application to build a vast incinerator in the small market town of Wisbech have been cancelled until further notice. There is significant public objection to this project and it is essential for the community to be able to meet with the Applicant and to challenge their many claims. [attachment 2] [attachment 3] The claim by the Applicant and by staff at the Inspectorate that public consultations can continue online via emails may seem reasonable in these unprecedented times but is, nevertheless, totally inappropriate for this community. Large numbers of residents in Wisbech and the surrounding villages do not use the internet, therefore the community do not accept email communication as being a ‘public consultation’ when many residents are prohibited from taking part. All concerned are very aware of the legislation that has permitted the creation of commercial incinerators in the UK, at a time when not enough evidence was known regarding the possible preventable harm and negative health implications that could be created by burning plastic and other waste materials. Therefore, given the unprecedented circumstances where the community are effectively housebound, and no community event can take place, please consider an exception to the legislation by postponing the public consultations and the eventual decision regarding this project for at least three months, or until such times as the government have deemed that public meetings and community events can safely be held. Thank you for your time. Mo Stewart Retired healthcare professional Resident of Wisbech
Dear Ms Stewart, Thank you for your email of 1 April 2020 expressing concerns about the adequacy of consultation in the current unprecedented public health situation. Please accept our sincere apologies for the delay in replying. The proposed application by MWV Environment Ltd is at the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) process. Therefore, the Planning Inspectorate is unable to consider representations about the merits of any application until it is accepted for Examination. The Planning Inspectorate also does not have the power to intervene in a developer’s pre-application programme. The process for applying for a Development Consent Order (DCO) is set out in the PA2008. The timing of the application’s programme is at the discretion of the Applicant. The Developer is currently carrying out their first round of non-statutory consultation. Further rounds of consultation will take place and the Developer will advertise these before they are due to commence. Therefore, I would encourage you to contact the developer directly with regard to your concerns. The developer has a statutory duty to have regard to all consultation responses received and this should be demonstrated in the Consultation Report as part of their DCO application. However, if you feel your comments are not being taken into account, I would advise you to write to your local authority and set out why you think the Applicant is failing to conduct its consultation properly. Your comments should be taken into account when the local authority sends the Inspectorate its comments on whether the Applicant has fulfilled its consultation duties. The local authority’s comments on the Applicant’s consultation will be taken into account when the Acceptance Inspector makes their decision whether to accept the application for Examination. Should the DCO application be accepted by the Inspectorate for Examination, the Applicant has a duty to notify the local community when providing information on how to register as an Interested Party for the purpose of the process. The process under the PA2008 has been designed to allow members of the public and statutory stakeholders to participate in examination of all DCO applications so that anyone interested in the proposed developments, their potential impacts and any relevant matters can be fully engaged in the examination process. Once the Examination begins, the Examining Authority will assess all information submitted in the application documents and will consider whether the Applicant has provided the necessary level of information. The Planning Inspectorate has produced several Advice Notes to help provide an overview of the PA2008 process and the opportunities to get involved. They are available at the following link: [attachment 4] The following are particularly relevant; Advice Note 8: ‘Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others’. Advice Note 8.1: ‘Responding to the developer’s pre-application consultation’ Advice Note 8.2: ‘How to register to participate in an Examination’. Please be assured that anyone interested in the proposed development, the potential impacts and any planning matters can be fully engaged in the examination process. A copy of your correspondence has been placed on our records and will be presented to the Inspector at Acceptance together with the application documents and Local Authorities’ comments on the Applicant’s consultation. With regard to the current Coronavirus (COVID-19) situation, please refer to the Planning Inspectorate’s published guidance which will be updated as the situation develops. [attachment 5] We have also published a Frequently Asked Questions document regarding Pre-application consultation and this can be viewed on our website here: [attachment 6] Please note, in accordance with Section 51 of the PA2008, a summary of your query and our advice will be published on the project’s webpage of the National Infrastructure Website. I hope you find the above information useful.

26 May 2020
Mo Stewart
Medworth Energy from Waste Combined Heat and Power Facility
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
On behalf of the Campaign against the proposed Wisbech Incinerator, (WisWIN - Wisbech Against Incineration) we wish to raise our grave concern that no consultation is taking place with residents and that the Planning Inspectorate are of the view that consultation via email is acceptable. Wisbech is a small rural town and many people do not have digital communication in the form of emails and social media. This is well known locally but was evident when people cued up when we held a Rally in Wisbech Market Place in February when we had a paper petition for people to sign. Over 200 people signed. We subsequently took the petition to Tesco's early in March for two hours on two occasions and we received nearly 1,000 signatures. When checking with residents to ensure they hadn't already signed our MP's petition, many people confirmed they had no computer. We are therefore asking for a delay and have also written to the Leader of Cambs County Council and the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Mayor raising our concerns and asking for them to request a deferment. We appreciate that there are legal time limits but in this unprecedented time because of the Coronavirus epidemic, this seems a reasonable request.
Thank you for your email of 29 March 2020 expressing concerns about the adequacy of consultation in the current unprecedented public health situation. Please accept our sincere apologies for the delay in replying. As you are aware, the proposed application by MWV Environment Ltd is at the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) process. Therefore, the Planning Inspectorate is unable to consider representations about the merits of any application until it is accepted for Examination. The Planning Inspectorate also does not have the power to intervene in a Developer’s pre-application programme. The process for applying for a Development Consent Order (DCO) is set out in thePA2008. The timing of the application’s programme is at the discretion of the Applicant. The Developer is currently carrying out their first round of non-statutory consultation. Further rounds of consultation will take place and the developer will advertise these before they are due to commence. Therefore, I would encourage you to contact the developer directly with regard to your concerns. The developer has a statutory duty to have regard to all consultation responses received and this should be demonstrated in the Consultation Report as part of their DCO application. However, if you feel your comments are not being taken into account, I would advise you to write to your local authority and set out why you think the Applicant is failing to conduct its consultation properly. Your comments should be taken into account when the local authority sends the Inspectorate its comments on whether the Applicant has fulfilled its consultation duties. The local authority’s comments on the Applicant’s consultation will be taken into account when the Acceptance Inspector makes their decision whether to accept the application for Examination. Should the DCO application be accepted by the Inspectorate for examination, the applicant has a duty to notify the local community when providing information on how to register as an Interested Party for the purpose of the process. The process under the PA2008 has been designed to allow members of the public and statutory stakeholders to participate in examination of all DCO applications so that anyone interested in the proposed developments, their potential impacts and any relevant matters can be fully engaged in the examination process. Once the examination begins, the Examining Authority will assess all information submitted in the application documents and will consider whether the Applicant has provided the necessary level of information. The Planning Inspectorate has produced several Advice Notes to help provide an overview of the PA2008 process and the opportunities to get involved. They are available at the following link: [attachment 1] The following are particularly relevant: Advice Note 8: ‘Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others’. Advice Note 8.1: ‘Responding to the developer’s pre-application consultation’ Advice Note 8.2: ‘How to register to participate in an Examination’. Please be assured that anyone interested in the proposed developments, their potential impacts and any planning matters can be fully engaged in the examination process. A copy of your correspondence has been placed on our records and will be presented to the Inspector at acceptance together with the application documents and Local Authorities’ comments on the Applicant’s consultation. With regard to the current Coronavirus (COVID-19) situation, please refer to the Planning Inspectorate’s published guidance which will be updated as the situation develops. [attachment 2] We have also published a Frequently Asked Questions document regarding Pre-application consultation and this can be viewed on our website here: [attachment 3]

26 May 2020
WisWIN - Wisbech Against Incineration - Virginia Bucknor
Medworth Energy from Waste Combined Heat and Power Facility
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Dear Mr Salter I have some concerns about the incinerator MVV are proposing to build in the town of Wisbech. I live here and I was born here. I would be grateful if you could answer these questions for me: 1. Over what timescale do they expect to get to 50 megawatts? 2. How much waste will this involve to deliver 50 megawatts? 3. The incinerator will have a chimney up to a massive 95 metres high. From how many miles will the incinerator be visible? 4. The incinerator will be just 200 metres from one primary school, 500 metres from another, and 750 metres from the largest secondary school in our district, Thomas Clarkson Academy. The ACIS Eye Clinic is just 350 metres away. Why is this site so close to three schools and the Eye Clinic the best site given the volume of lorries, impact on air pollution, and odour concerns amongst others? 5. Why does the scoping request fail to include valid alternative locations? 6. What alternative sites / solutions were considered? 7. What is the methodology for site selection and when will it be published in line with best practice? 8. How did it consider sensitive receptors like schools, community impact like odour and noise, and visual impact? 9. The scoping request was issued over the Christmas holiday period, yet the report reveals that “the Inspectorate queried whether the scoping request would be premature given the current stage of development”. Why did the developer ignore the inspector and issue this scoping report over the Christmas holiday period? 10. Why has the developer failed to follow best practice in developing a proposal in consultation with the community, which it does not plan to consult until Spring 2020? 11. The developer suggests the incinerator will require lorry movements 7 days a week from 6am to 7pm. Yet almost all the roads in Fenland are single carriageway. The incinerator will require over half a million tonnes of waste, with the report suggesting 523,500 tonnes a year (i) How many lorries a week will be required (ii) how far will they be travelling including from surrounding counties ? 12. The incinerator will be built on land at risk of flooding (known as Flood Risk 3). Yet the developer is silent on the risk this causes of contamination (including to drinking water), in addition to any risk of soil contamination during the construction phase. Why is flood risk land suitable for a waste incinerator when the Environment Agency has raised concerns at house building on such land? 13. What is the risk of contamination in the event of flooding? 14. Later this month the Cambridgeshire Combined Authority will publish its 15-month long report on the next phase of work for Wisbech Rail, yet the incinerator developer appears to plan to dig up the Wisbech Rail line for a Combine Heat and Power (CHP) connection. How would the incinerator plans impact on Wisbech Rail? 15. The developer suggests two proposed options for connection, a 132kv line at the Walpole substation and one joining the National Grid 400kv line to the east of Walsoken. Yet it is not clear whether these are part of the Development Consent Order (DCO). What impact will this have on the local community, and is it part of the DCO? 16. The developer says they have an option on the main site from the current owners, and that it is used for aggregate storage, but then add that compulsory acquisition may be required to obtain land outside of this main site in order to build an incinerator of the scale required for its designation as a national infrastructure project (i) What land does the developer plan to compulsory purchase? (ii) on what basis? (iii) from whom? 17. How does this fit in with the government target of eliminating greenhouses gases by 2050? I look forward to hearing from you. David Hammond
Dear Mr Hammond, Thank you for your email of 21 March 2020, regarding the proposed Medworth Energy from Waste Combined Heat and Power Facility. The proposed application by MWV Environment Ltd is at the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) process. Therefore, the Planning Inspectorate is unable to consider representations about the merits of any application until it is accepted for Examination. The Planning Inspectorate also does not have the power to intervene in a developer’s pre-application programme. The process for applying for a Development Consent Order (DCO) is set out in the PA2008. The timing of the application’s programme is at the discretion of the Applicant. The Developer is currently carrying out their first round of non-statutory consultation. Further rounds of consultation will take place and the Developer will advertise these before they are due to commence. Therefore, I would encourage you to contact the developer directly with regard to your concerns. The developer has a statutory duty to have regard to all consultation responses received and this should be demonstrated in the Consultation Report as part of their DCO application. However, if you feel your comments are not being taken into account, I would advise you to write to your local authority and set out why you think the Applicant is failing to conduct its consultation properly. Your comments should be taken into account when the local authority sends the Inspectorate its comments on whether the Applicant has fulfilled its consultation duties. The local authority’s comments on the Applicant’s consultation will be taken into account when the Acceptance Inspector makes their decision whether to accept the application for Examination. Should the DCO application be accepted by the Inspectorate for Examination, the Applicant has a duty to notify the local community when providing information on how to register as an Interested Party for the purpose of the process. The process under the PA2008 has been designed to allow members of the public and statutory stakeholders to participate in examination of all DCO applications so that anyone interested in the proposed developments, their potential impacts and any relevant matters can be fully engaged in the examination process. Once the Examination begins, the Examining Authority will assess all information submitted in the application documents and will consider whether the Applicant has provided the necessary level of information. The Planning Inspectorate has produced several Advice Notes to help provide an overview of the PA2008 process and the opportunities to get involved. They are available at the following link: [attachment 1] The following are particularly relevant; Advice Note 8: ‘Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others’. Advice Note 8.1: ‘Responding to the developer’s pre-application consultation’ Advice Note 8.2: ‘How to register to participate in an Examination’. Please be assured that anyone interested in the proposed development, the potential impacts and any planning matters can be fully engaged in the examination process. A copy of your correspondence has been placed on our records and will be presented to the Inspector at Acceptance together with the application documents and Local Authorities’ comments on the Applicant’s consultation. With regard to the current Coronavirus (COVID-19) situation, please refer to the Planning Inspectorate’s published guidance which will be updated as the situation develops. [attachment 2] We have also published a Frequently Asked Questions document regarding Pre-application consultation and this can be viewed on our website here: [attachment 3] Please note, in accordance with Section 51 of the PA2008, a summary of your query and our advice will be published on the project’s webpage of the National Infrastructure Website. I hope you find the above information useful.

26 May 2020
David Hammond
Medworth Energy from Waste Combined Heat and Power Facility
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Dear Sir or Madam, I wonder if you can help, I manage, together with several of my colleagues a number of large offshore high voltage electrical windfarm connections with cables onshore and offshore and as such we have experienced a stead increase in the planning applications associated with these recently. Therefore I would like to arrange a call to exchange contact details as several of the initial letters/emails have gone to the wrong address and improve our understanding of the process and interaction. Therefore could you please forward this email to the appropriate person to potential start this. In anticipation many thanks. Regards David Lyon
Good afternoon Mr Lyon Following our telephone conversation yesterday, I have provided in this email an overview of the Planning Act 2008 process, including any key milestones which might impact you. The development consent process for nationally significant infrastructure projects (NSIPs) is made up of stages, which is how I’ve set out the information below: Pre-Application: this is the initial stage during which the Applicant will be preparing their application for development consent, consulting with required persons and organisations and seeking advice and information from the Planning Inspectorate (PINS) on the process. During Pre-Application the Applicant is required, in accordance with s42 of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended), to consult on the proposed development with the following persons: (a) such persons as may be prescribed - this includes all persons listed in Column 1 of the table in Schedule 1 to the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009 (aa) the Marine Management Organisation, in any case where the proposed development would affect, or would be likely to affect, any of the areas specified in subsection (2) - the areas specified in subsection (2) include waters in or adjacent to England (offshore wind projects would be impacted by this) (b) each local authority that is within section 43 - this includes the local authorities for land affected by the proposed development (c) the Greater London Authority if the land is in Greater London, and (d) each person who is within one or more of the categories set out in section 44 - this includes any person who owns, is a legal tenant/lessee or has a legal interest in the land that would be affected by the proposed development - during Pre-Application the applicant is required to make diligent enquiry to ascertain any and all persons within these categories and consult with them The Applicant is also required to keep the local communities in the areas which would be affected by the proposed development notified during Pre-Application via a Statement of Community Consultation (see s47 of the Planning Act) and notices published in local and national papers, including in Lloyds List and an appropriate fishing trade journal if relating to a proposed offshore development (see s48 of the Planning Act and section 4 of the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedures) Regulations 2009). In accordance with Regulation 10 of the EIA Regulations 2017, the Applicant is required during Pre-Application to seek an opinion from PINS on the content of their Environmental Statement (a document relating to the environmental impact of the proposed development forming part of their application for development consent). Before providing the Applicant with their opinion, PINS must consult with all parties listed in column 1 of the table as set out in Schedule 1 of the Infrastructure Planning (Applications Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009. Please also see Advice Note 3: EIA Notification and Consultation attached to this email. It is the responsibility of the Applicant to ensure that their pre-application consultation fully accords with the requirements of the PA2008, including associated regulations, and that they have regard to relevant guidance. The Applicant must also contact PINS to inform them of the proposed development and arrange an initial meeting to discuss the progress of the project so far, as well as the requirements and responsibilities of both the Applicant and PINS throughout the development consent process. PINS can provide advice throughout the Pre-Application stage. The Applicant can also submit draft versions of their application documents to PINS for review prior to the submission of the application. For further information please see our Advice Note 8.0: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others’, and Advice Note 8.1: Responding to the developer’s pre-application consultation, which I have attached to this email. Acceptance: this is the stage during the development consent process in which the Applicant submits the final version of their application to PINS. Once the application for development consent is received by PINS, we have 28 days in which to ascertain if the application has met the necessary statutory requirements, including the requirements as set in sections 42 - 48 of the Planning Act 2008 ‘Duty to Consult’. Pre-Examination If an application for development consent has been accepted by PINS, registration for Interested Parties (IPs) to the proposed development officially opens, during which individuals and organisations can register their views, which will help to inform the Examining Authority’s examination of the project. As registered IPs they will also be kept informed of the progress of the examination and receive notifications of related hearings and site inspections. Examination The Examination of an application for development consent must be completed within six months. During this time the Examining Authority will gather evidence and information on the proposed development in the form of written representations submitted by the Applicant and Interested or Affected Parties. Persons with IP status (see Pre-Examination above) will be invited to submit information throughout the Examination process. However, any person can submit information during Examination, and it is the ExA’s decision whether to accept it into the Examination. Hearings can also be held within the vicinity of the proposed development, which focus on a specific issue(s) (environmental, compulsory acquisition, the development consent order, etc) or are ‘open floor’ during which anyone can attend and give their views. Throughout the Examination, PINS will send correspondence to persons/organisations that have registered as IPs to the project, and all statutory consultees in accordance with s42 of the PA2008. A list of the persons who are statutory consultees as set out in s44 are provided to PINS by the Applicant in their Book of Reference which is submitted as part of their application. Recommendation Once the Examination has closed, the Examining Authority has three months in which to write a Recommendation Report on the proposed development, which will then be submitted to the relevant Secretary of State. Decision Once the recommendation report has been submitted, the relevant SoS has three months in which to make their decision whether or not to grant development consent based on the information provided. Post-Decision Once a decision has been granted by the SoS, there is a six-week period in which the decision may be challenged in the High Court (a judicial review). I hope that the above has been of help to you. PINS’ full suite of advice notes, legislation and guidance can be accessed via our website: [attachment 1]. We also advise you to review our guide on the development consent process, which includes the video ‘6 stages of the development consent process’: [attachment 2] In your email to us you stated that correspondence to yourselves has not been sent to the correct address. If this has been sent from PINS please let us know of the project that this relates to, including the correct contact information for yourselves (as well as any reference numbers included in the correspondence), and we will update our records accordingly. However if the correspondence has been sent to you by the Applicant we advise you to inform them directly of the contact information of the person within your organisation who is in the most appropriate position to provide a response on the impact of their proposed development on the affected wind farm in question. Please contact us at any time if you require further information or clarification on the above. If this remains unclear, and you maintain your request for a face to face meeting, please let us know. However, it is worth noting that our offices are not current available due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Nevertheless, it may be possible for us to arrange a virtual meeting with yourselves via Microsoft Teams earlier. Yours sincerely

20 May 2020
David Lyon
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Submission logistics meeting
Please see attached

18 May 2020
NNB Nuclear Generation (SZC) Limited - anon.
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please see attached
As you are aware the proposed application is at the Pre-application stage of the PA2008 process. The Planning Inspectorate is unable to consider representations about the merits of any application or supporting documentation during Pre-application. At this stage any concerns about the Applicant’s Pre-application consultation should be directed to the Applicant in the first instance to enable them to address the issues. Where the Applicant has been contacted and you are not satisfied that the Applicant has, or will, take account of the comments, then the comments should be made to the relevant local authority. The local authorities can consider these comments as part of their Adequacy of Consultation Representation submission to the Planning Inspectorate during the Acceptance stage of the application process. The Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) will consider any Adequacy of Consultation representations received from the relevant local authorities when deciding whether or not to accept the application, as required under section 55(4)(b) of the PA2008. You have also raised an issue in relation to the standards to be met for Acceptance of an application for development consent, notably in regard to the Environmental Statement (ES). The standards for Acceptance of an application for development consent are set out in Section 55 of the PA2008 and Regulations 5 and 6 of the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009. The Acceptance process is for the Planning Inspectorate, on behalf of the Secretary of State, to decide whether or not the application meets the standard required to be examined. Where an application is accepted for Examination, consideration of the planning merits of the scheme are then matters for the appointed Examining Authority (ExA) (in making their recommendation) and the Secretary of State in determining whether or not development consent should be granted. Regulation 14 of The Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 (EIA Regulations) sets out the information which an ES accompanying a Development Consent Order (DCO) application must include. Amongst the requirements is a reference to the inclusion of additional information specified in Schedule 4 of the EIA Regulations where relevant to the specific characteristics of the particular development or type of development and to the environmental features likely to be significantly affected. The requirements of Schedule 4 of the EIA Regulations will be considered carefully by the Planning Inspectorate at the point of submission of the DCO application to ensure that any accompanying ES is adequate and complies with the minimum requirements of the EIA Regulations. . In reaching a decision as to whether an application is of a satisfactory standard, the Secretary of State must have regard to (inter alia) the extent to which the applicant has followed any applicable guidance given under section 37(4) of PA2008 (section 55(5A)(b)). For example, paragraph 6 of the DCLG Application Form Guidance (2008) states that ‘the application information must be provided to a sufficient degree of detail that will enable the Secretary of State (and all interested parties) to appropriately consider the proposal’. The EIA Regulations make provisions for ‘further information’ to be requested by the ExA or the Secretary of State where they consider such information necessary in order to reach a reasoned conclusion on the significant effects of the development on the environment. You have also requested that certain legal and policy developments should inform the Pre-examination process and have stated that funding matters should be publicly examined. The process for deciding an application and the criteria for assessment are clearly set out in Chapter 5 of the PA2008. This specifies the matters to which the Secretary of State must have regard when he/she determines whether or not development consent should be granted. It is important to note that the appointed ExA has a duty to assess and test a range of issues during an Examination and examine against the relevant international, national and local planning policy context and legislative framework. It is for the ExA to decide how to examine an application. The appointed ExA are required to make an initial assessment of the principle issues arising on the application during the Pre-examination stage of the PA2008 process. When making this assessment the ExA will have regard to the content of all the Relevant Representations submitted by those who have registered to become an Interested Party With regards to the preparation of any Statements of Common Ground, the Planning Inspectorate has held meetings with some of the relevant Statutory Parties and the Applicant and discussed these matters. Notes of the meetings held are available to view on the project page of the National Infrastructure Planning website: [attachment 1] Applicants are advised that, should the application be accepted, then they should aim to have reached an initial agreement of common ground with relevant statutory consultees in the Pre-examination period before the Preliminary Meeting (PM) is held. Following the PM the ExA will publish an Examination Timetable that will set deadlines for the completion of draft and final Statements of Common Ground between parties. Finally, with regards to consultation, when making a decision on whether or not an application can be accepted the Secretary of State will consider the consultation report submitted with the application. He/she will consider the consultation process undertaken by the Applicant and if the consultation report adequately sets out how the Applicant has taken account of any responses.

15 May 2020
Sizewell C Liaison Monitoring Group - Regan Scott on behalf of
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Dear Sizewell team PINS, Please find enclosed the document - Sizewell C – The environment, coastal morphology and climate change-a 2020 perspective. The document explores a serious flood risk associated with the Sizewell location for EDF’s proposed new nuclear power station. The Sizewell C development needs to have security from flooding to at least the year 2150. The so far security of the Sizewell A and B installations is in main part a consequence of the offshore Sizewell Dunwich bank complex that dissipates and attenuates larger waves and prevents their access to the Sizewell foreshore. These matters are not covered in the Scoping reports. Any loss or compromise of these banks would therefore represent high risk to the nuclear installations. This paper looks at the geomorphology and historical bathymetry of the banks and shows how they cannot be relied upon to be sufficiently stable until 2150. The paper also considers climate change and how median sea level rise will diminish the effects of the banks with deeper water allowing the larger waves to pass. The resulting stress to the Sizewell foreshore from increased wave energies and size could result in full or partial ‘islanding’ of the Sizewell nuclear complex. The enclosed brief paper challenges EDF’s claimed micro-stability of the Sizewell coast and shows that it is based on a highly selective interpretation of historical expert evidence. If climate change predictions are accepted along with their acknowledged consequences and a new, full risk analysis undertaken on this basis to define security until at least the year 2150, the Sizewell site will be seen to be highly unsuitable. Regards Nick Scarr – Nuclear Consulting Group, NCG, M.D Seismic and oceanographic engineering consultancy.
Should the application be accepted an Examining Authority (ExA) will be appointed (on behalf of the Secretary of State(SoS)) to examine it and subsequently make a recommendation to the SoS, who will then proceed to issue a decision on the proposal. The process for deciding an application and the criteria for assessment are clearly set out in Chapter 5 of the Planning Act 2008. With regard to climate change please note that the appointed ExA has a duty to assess and test a range of issues during an Examination including the European, National, Local Law and Policy context. We would again emphasise that, should the application be accepted, the Pre-examination stage includes a Relevant Representation period when those who wish to fully participate in the Examination must register to become an Interested Party. This will then provide an opportunity for all parties to put forward their views about the application and the appointed ExA can consider these views when carrying out their initial assessment of principal issues before the Preliminary Meeting. Once the Examinations has started registered Interested Parties can submit further Written Representations to expand on those views or set out their case. Further information about the content of Interested Parties Written Representations can be found in the Planning Inspectorate’s Advice Note 8.4: [attachment 1]

15 May 2020
Nick Scarr
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Dear Sir or Madam I am writing to you as a very concerned member of the public. I believe that EdF are about to or may have already submitted a Development Consent Order (DCO) in respect of Sizewell C to the Planning Inspectorate. During this Covid pandemic lockdown how are the general public going to access , read and respond to the documents when the library’s are not open.? How are the Planning Inspectors going to be able to make sight visits ? I consider it very important that we the public are fully informed about this application which will severely impact our precious Suffolk coast and rural communities. Yours sincerely Virginia Storey
Dear Ms Storey, Thank you for your email expressing concern about the submission of the Sizewell C New Nuclear Power Station application for development consent. The process for applying for a Development Consent Order (DCO) is set out in the Planning Act 2008. The timing of the application is at the discretion of the Applicant. The project page of the National Infrastructure Planning website will be updated when the application is received and when the decision on whether or not to accept the application for Examination is made. [attachment 1] The Planning Inspectorate (the Inspectorate) is mindful of the need to ensure both openness and fairness throughout all stages of the DCO process and will continue to highlight this in discussions with the Applicant. Please see a note of the meeting between the Inspectorate and the Applicant held on the 17 April 2020 for more information. With regard to the current Coronavirus (COVID-19) situation and the arrangements for members of the public to access and view documents relating to the DCO application, please note the contents of the Government’s Written Ministerial Statement (WMS) of 13 May 2020 which provides updated guidelines regarding digital documentation. The WMS explains that online inspection of documents should be the default position and, recognising that there are sections of the community that may have limited or no access to the internet, Applicants should take reasonable steps to ensure all members of the public are able to be involved. The Planning Inspectorate’s published guidance has been updated and will continue to be updated as the situation develops: [attachment 2] When an Applicant submits an application for development consent to the Planning Inspectorate there then follows a period of up to 28 days for the Planning Inspectorate, on behalf of the Secretary of State, to decide whether or not the application meets the standards required to be accepted for Examination. The standards are set out in Section 55 of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended) and Regulations 5 and 6 of the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009. All parties are encouraged to sign up for Email Updates using the button on the project page or via the link below: [attachment 3];email= Email Updates will enable parties to observe what’s happening on the application after it has been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate. Should the application be accepted for Examination, it is important to note that if parties then wish to participate in the Examination they would need to register as an Interested Party at the appropriate time during the Pre-examination stage. If parties have signed up for the Email Updates they will receive a prompt when the registration period opens (the Relevant Representation period). For further information about registering as an Interested Party please see ‘Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination’: [attachment 4] The Advice Note explains that if the Planning Inspectorate decides to accept an application for Examination, it will then be the Applicant’s duty to advertise the Relevant Representation period and provide details about how to register to become an Interested Party. The Applicant has indicated that it will extend this registration period beyond the statutory minimum of thirty days, if the application is accepted, to allow all parties more time to review the application documents and register their interest before the start of the six month Examination stage. I hope you find the above information helpful.

15 May 2020
Virginia Storey
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Dear Sir We are writing to say we are extremely unhappy that EDF are intending to submit their DCO application this month and that the Planning Inspectorate will only have 28 days from the submission date to make a decision to accept the DCO or not. The country is in lockdown, local councils and government agencies will be severely impacted by the restrictions placed on them due to the Covid-19 pandemic. We would ask you to ensure that EDF wait until the country is back to normal before it submits their DCO application, then a proper, more in-depth review can take place. It looks like EDF are taking advantage of the pandemic to push through the DCO without consideration from all who oppose the building of yet another nuclear power station. The government are saying the country will be different once the lockdown is gradually lifted and people start to go back to work, so in that case wouldn’t it be better for EDF to wait and see if we require yet another nuclear power station, which is not carbon free with all the concrete etc that is used in it’s construction, loss of historical woodlands and sites like SSIs etc. Why can’t we use solar power, wind power and wave power, all this can be up and running quicker than the 10 to 15 years it will take to build Sizewell C? in the event that EDF submits its DCO application, we ask that the planning process is made to stop until all social distancing restrictions are lifted and everyone is free to fully engage. In summary, our concerns are listed below: • The DCO scrutiny process requires the free access and movement of personnel of every authority and agency involved, from the Planning Inspectorate to the county, district, town and parish councils and every individual attending the hearings • Local authorities, large and small, and regulators are all under pressure, such as ability to travel, lack of staff and timescales and are likely overwhelmed dealing with so many difficult issues • EDF should, at least, show respect for the consequences of the coronavirus pandemic by calling a halt to business as usual for a sensible and reasonable period of time to allow life to regain some normality • Many will still be required to self-isolate and the gathering of people in even small groups is likely to be banned as we continue to struggle to fight the pandemic • We would ask that you call on EDF to agree to delay the submission of their DCO until the government declare the Covid-19 emergency permanently over, enabling all to give their full and undivided attention to fighting this outrageous threat to our Heritage Coast and AONB • Residents will be unable to visit libraries or other public places where the documents are displayed and many may not have access to the internet at all, while others will suffer from irregular and poor quality reception • Many residents will already be suffering anxiety from isolation, financial worries, ill-health of a loved one or even bereavement, without the added burden and worry of the Sizewell C DCO Yours sincerely Stephen and Beverley Chamberlain
Dear Mr and Mrs Chamberlain, Thank you for your email expressing concern about the submission of Sizewell C New Nuclear Power Station application for development consent. The process for applying for a Development Consent Order (DCO) is set out in the Planning Act 2008. The timing of the application is at the discretion of the Applicant. The Planning Inspectorate (the Inspectorate) is mindful of the need to ensure both openness and fairness throughout all stages of the DCO process and will continue to highlight this in discussions with the Applicant. Please see a note of the meeting between the Inspectorate and the Applicant held on the 17 April 2020 for more information. With regard to the current Coronavirus (COVID-19) situation and the arrangements for members of the public to access and view documents relating to the DCO application, please note the contents of the Government’s Written Ministerial Statement (WMS) of 13 May 2020 which provides updated guidelines regarding digital documentation. The WMS explains that online inspection of documents should be the default position and, recognising that there are sections of the community that may have limited or no access to the internet, Applicants should take reasonable steps to ensure all members of the public are able to be involved. The Planning Inspectorate’s published guidance has been updated and will continue to be updated as the situation develops: [attachment 1] When an Applicant submits an application for development consent to the Planning Inspectorate there then follows a period of up to 28 days for the Planning Inspectorate, on behalf of the Secretary of State, to decide whether or not the application meets the standards required to be accepted for Examination. The standards are set out in Section 55 of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended) and Regulations 5 and 6 of the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009. All parties are encouraged to sign up for Email Updates using the button on the project page or via the link below: [attachment 2];email= Email Updates will enable parties to observe what’s happening on the application after it has been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate. Should the application be accepted for Examination, it is important to note that if parties then wish to participate in the Examination they would need to register as an Interested Party at the appropriate time during the Pre-examination stage. If parties have signed up for the Email Updates they will receive a prompt when the registration period opens (the Relevant Representation period). For further information about registering as an Interested Party please see ‘Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination’: [attachment 3] The Advice Note explains that if the Planning Inspectorate decides to accept an application for Examination, it will then be the Applicant’s duty to advertise the Relevant Representation period and provide details about how to register to become an Interested Party. The Applicant has indicated that it will extend this registration period beyond the statutory minimum of thirty days, if the application is accepted, to allow all parties more time to review the application documents and register their interest before the start of the six month Examination stage. I hope you find the above information helpful.

15 May 2020
Stephen and Beverley Chamberlain
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Pre-Submission Meeting
Please see attached

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

15 May 2020
London Luton Airport Limited - anon.
Expansion of London Luton Airport
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Meeting with the No Third Runway Coalition to discuss expansion at Heathrow Airport
Please see attached meeting note

15 May 2020
No Third Runway Coalition - anon.
Expansion of Heathrow Airport (Third Runway)
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Dear Sir/Madam, Please find attached a letter sent yesterday to Rt Hon Alok Sharma MP in connection with the impending Sizewell C development consent order and complications relating to the Covid 19 lockdown. This is a copy for your information. With kind regards, Pete Wilkinson Chairman Together Against Sizewell C
With regard to the current Coronavirus (COVID-19) situation and the arrangements for members of the public to access and view documents relating to the DCO, please note the contents of the Governments Written Ministerial Statement (WMS) of 13 May 2020 which provides updated guidelines regarding digital documentation. The WMS explains that online inspection of documents should be the default position and that developers should take reasonable steps to ensure all members of the public are able to be involved. The Planning Inspectorate’s published guidance has been updated and will continue to be updated as the situation develops: [attachment 1] The Planning Inspectorate is mindful of the need to ensure both openness and fairness throughout all stages of the DCO process and will continue to highlight this in discussions with the Applicant. The Planning Inspectorate is fully committed to ensuring that everyone can participate fairly. Finally, as you may be aware, when an Applicant submits an application for development consent to the Planning Inspectorate that there then follows a period of up to 28 days for the Planning Inspectorate, on behalf of the Secretary of State, to decide whether or not the application meets the standards required to be accepted for Examination. Should the application be accepted for Examination, it is important to note that if parties then wish to participate in the Examination they would need to register as an Interested Party at the appropriate time during the Pre-examination stage. The Applicant has indicated that it will extend this registration period beyond the statutory minimum of thirty days, if the application is accepted, to allow all parties more time to review the application documents and register their interest before the start of the six month Examination stage. For further information about registering as an Interested Party please see ‘Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination’. [attachment 2]

14 May 2020
on behalf of Together Against Sizewell C - Pete Wilkinson
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's Supplementary Consultation in light of current COVID19 circumstances by providing the Planning Inspectorate and Thurrock Council their consultation response.
Thank you for your email expressing concerns about the adequacy of the Applicant’s Pre-application consultation in the current unprecedented public health situation. Please accept our apology for the delay in responding. The Planning Inspectorate does not have power to intervene in an applicant’s pre-application programme. The process for applying for a Development Consent Order (DCO) is set out in the Planning Act 2008. The timing of the application is at the discretion of Highways England, the Applicant. As you have concerns about the Applicant’s pre-application consultation, you should contact the Applicant in the first instance to ensure these issues are addressed. If you have contacted the Applicant but you are not satisfied that the Applicant has, or will, address them, the relevant local authority can take account of your comments. I see you have copied Thurrock Council into your consultation response already. For avoidance of doubt, relevant local authorities can consider comments from members of the public relating to consultation when preparing an ‘Adequacy of Consultation Representation’ (AoCR) submission to the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) during the Acceptance period. The Planning Inspectorate must consider any AoCRs received from relevant local authorities when deciding whether or not to accept the application, as required under s55(4)(b) of the Planning Act 2008. It is therefore important to ensure the local authorities are informed of your concerns. Further information about Community Consultation is contained within the attached FAQ document.

14 May 2020
Gladys Vellamaa
Lower Thames Crossing
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's Supplementary Consultation in light of current COVID19 circumstances by providing the Planning Inspectorate and various Members of Parliament and local councillors their consultation response.
Dear Mr Windiate Thank you for your email. Please accept our apology for the delay in responding. It appears you have copied the Planning Inspectorate into your response to the Applicant’s pre-application consultation. The Planning Inspectorate is unable to consider representations about the merits of any application until it is accepted for Examination. Further information about the process can be found in the link below to the National Infrastructure Planning website: [attachment 1]. Should the application be accepted for Examination, all the supporting documentation will be published on the project page of the National Infrastructure Planning website: [attachment 2] and parties will have an opportunity to outline their views about the application by registering to become ‘Interested Parties’ (IP). Further information about registering as an IP can be found in the Planning Inspectorate’s ‘Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination’: [attachment 3]. With regard to the current Coronavirus (COVID-19) situation, please refer to the Planning Inspectorate’s published guidance which will be updated as the situation develops: [attachment 4]. You may wish to register at the following link to receive email updates on the status of the application: [attachment 5];email= Kind regards

14 May 2020
Mr Cyril Windiate
Lower Thames Crossing
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached.

12 May 2020
NNB Generation Company (HPC) Limited - anon.
Hinkley Point C New Nuclear Power Station Material Change 1
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Dear Planning Inspectorate, I am forwarding a letter I wrote to my MP Peter Aldous today about EDFE's Sizewell C DCO. Please hear my concerns about this possibly happening in the next few weeks as I would like to fully participate in the process. However as I express below [Redacted] and believe that my chance to participate will be eroded as I have been told to stay in my house till July 1st. I also have to deal with the added pressure of managing [Redacted] during the Lockdown. I cannot stress strongly enough how important it is to be able to leave my house whilst engaging in the first stages of the DCO process and feel that [Redacted] puts me at a disadvantage in terms the quality of participation I can provide. Besides myself there will also be other people similarly wanting to participate who are Shielded. Please don't forget your obligation to Equalities legislation and assure me that you will reject a DCO submission until people are able to safely leave their homes and fully engage. The fact that we are having to deal with the uncertainties of COVID19 and uncertainties about when EDFE are going to submit their DCO is very challenging to those who are concerned about the impact of SizewellC on local communities and the environment. Sincerely Nicola Pilkington ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Peter, I hope you are keeping well. I am contacting you at this difficult time as I am reading in the Media that EDFE are about to submit their Development Consent Order to the Planning Inspectorate in the next few weeks. If they do submit as they suggest, they will not have taken into account how difficult it will be for the public to properly engage during Covid19. A proportion of the public [Redacted] will have received a Shielding Letter from the NHS. [Redacted]. It stated that I should not leave my house or garden for three months and gave detailed information about how I should manage [Redacted] in the current Pandemic. The suggestions for care are time absorbing and have left me [Redacted] about what I should do if I get ill, how I keep to regular Hospital appointments etc etc. The NHS is being brilliant and I can't complain however it does mean that my focus is somewhat different than usual. Even with a staged lifting of Lockdown for Shielded individuals our Lockdown is likely to continue after July!st. This means that a proportion of the population are not going to be able to engage in the planning process in a manner they feel would be most effective and are going to have to compromise on the quality of their participation. This hardly seems Fair and I would like you to take it up with Ministers charged with Equalities Legislation to establish what is Fair in terms of postponement of the DCO. Any adjusted plans I have seen for going ahead with the DCO depend completely on online usage, including EDFE documents. Being able to visit Libraries as a way of accessing special data as well as EDFE paper copies of Documents is essential. So is the opportunity to meet MP's, Parish and Town Councils and NGO's face to face. Even for those who are not Shielded they should be able to carry out these activities without having to worry whether they need to have these meetings with a face mask on or not? The Industrialisation of East Suffolk through Wind and new Nuclear is challenging to everyone who lives in the area and it is vital that attempts at full engagement should be exemplarily and notably take in account all the environmental protections that apply to the area. I will feel personally most aggrieved if the Government, Planning Inspectorate and EDFE don't show they are listening to the needs of Shielded individuals and make sure there is a postponement of the Development Consent Order of more than a few weeks. Some clarity on this is greatly needed. Best wishes Nicola Pilkington
The process for applying for a Development Consent Order (DCO) is set out in the Planning Act 2008. The timing of the application is at the discretion of the Applicant. The project page of the National Infrastructure Planning website will be updated when the application is received and when the decision on whether or not to accept the application for Examination is made. [attachment 1] When an Applicant submits an application for development consent to the Planning Inspectorate that there follows a period of up to 28 days for the Planning Inspectorate, on behalf of the Secretary of State, to decide whether or not the application meets the standards required to be accepted for Examination. The standards are set out in Section 55 of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended) and Regulations 5 and 6 of the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009. All parties are encouraged to sign up for Email Updates using the button on the project page or via the link below: [attachment 2];email= Email Updates will enable parties to observe what’s happening on the application after it has been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate. Should the application be accepted for Examination, it is important to note that if parties then wish to participate in the Examination they would need to register as an Interested Party at the appropriate time during the Pre-examination stage. If parties have signed up for the Email Updates they will receive a prompt when the registration period opens (the Relevant Representation period). For further information about registering as an Interested Party please see ‘Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination’. [attachment 3] The Advice Note explains that if the Planning Inspectorate decides to accept an application for Examination, it will then be the Applicant’s duty to advertise the Relevant Representation period and provide details about how to register to become an Interested Party. The Applicant has indicated that it will extend this registration period beyond the statutory minimum of thirty days, if the application is accepted, to allow all parties more time to review the application documents and register their interest before the start of the six month Examination stage. The PA2008 process is primarily a written process, if you register as an Interested Party then you will have the opportunity to submit written representations throughout the Examination. The Inspectorate will continue to look at ways to engage with people and facilitate progress online. The Planning Inspectorate is mindful of the need to ensure both openness and fairness throughout all stages of the DCO process and will continue to highlight this in discussions with the Applicant. Finally, with regard to the current Coronavirus (COVID-19) situation, please refer to the Planning Inspectorate’s published guidance which will be updated as the situation develops. [attachment 4]

11 May 2020
Nicola Pilkington
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Submission Logistics meeting with NNB Nuclear Generation (SZC) Ltd
Please see attached Meeting Note

07 May 2020
NNB Nuclear Generation (SZC) Ltd - anon.
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Please see attached.
Please see attached.

07 May 2020
Ørsted
Hornsea Project Four Offshore Wind Farm (Generating Stations)
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Dear Planning Inspectorate, BEIS Ministers and EDF I urge you not to accept EDF’s application to construct two new nuclear reactors at Sizewell. I am deeply dismayed that EDF has proceeded with submitting this application whilst the country is dealing with coronavirus restrictions, and consider the timing to be totally inappropriate. Additionally, despite 4 rounds of public consultations, EDF has not provided enough information or adequately consulted people about a number of issues: The Environment Agency, Marine Management Organisation and Natural England have expressed concerns to you about the DCO, including that agreement on a number of issues had not yet been reached, that they did not have access to sufficient levels of information, and that necessary documents were late or not provided. The serious threat to RSPB Minsmere Nature Reserve and other protected sites. The company has provided no assurances that Minsmere and Sizewell Marsh SSSI will be protected from any potential harm as a result of Sizewell C. The amount of information about environmental impacts has been woeful. The way in which EDF plans to deliver 10m tonnes of material without a jetty, significant use of rail, or an adequate road route that will protect local communities. Suffolk Councils dispute EDF's claim to have chosen the best road route. Community Impacts: No study has been provided despite despite EDF promising this “at a later stage of consultation” Health Impacts: no study has been provided despite despite EDF promising this “at a later stage of consultation” Worker numbers and accommodation: Before coronavirus there were reports that EDF has underestimated the workers it needs at Hinkley Point. This suggests more will be needed at Sizewell C too. EDF’s communications about worker numbers at Sizewell have been very misleading and it is uncertain where everyone would live. At Stage 4 consultations the two villages most affected by the Sizewell Link Road, a major part of this consultation, were not visited with EDF’s touring exhibition. Yours sincerely, Joan Gernand
Dear Ms Gernand, Thank you for your email of the 28 April 2020. The process for applying for a Development Consent Order (DCO) is set out in the Planning Act 2008. The timing of the application is at the discretion of the Applicant. The project page of the National Infrastructure Planning website will be updated when the application is received and when the decision on whether or not to accept the application for Examination is made. [attachment 1];ipcadvice=f89bb4795f It is important to note that when an Applicant submits an application for development consent to the Planning Inspectorate that there then follows a period of up to 28 days for the Planning Inspectorate, on behalf of the Secretary of State, to decide whether or not the application meets the standards required to be accepted for Examination. The standards are set out in Section 55 of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended) and Regulations 5 and 6 of the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009. I note you have concerns about the Applicant’s pre-application consultation, you should contact the Applicant in the first instance to enable them to address the issues ([email protected]o.uk). If you have contacted the Applicant but you are not satisfied that the Applicant has, or will, take account of your comments you can make your comments to the relevant local authority. The local authority can consider them as part of their Adequacy of Consultation Representation submission to the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) at the Acceptance stage of the process. All parties are encouraged to sign up for Email Updates using the button on the project page or via the link below: [attachment 2];email= Email Updates will enable parties to observe what’s happening on the application after it has been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate. Should the application be accepted for Examination, it is important to note that if parties then wish to participate in the Examination they would need to register as an Interested Party at the appropriate time during the Pre-examination stage. If parties have signed up for the Email Updates they will receive a prompt when the registration period opens (the Relevant Representation period). For further information about registering as an Interested Party please see ‘Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination’. [attachment 3] The Advice Note explains that if the Planning Inspectorate decides to accept an application for Examination, it will then be the Applicant’s duty to advertise the Relevant Representation period and provide details about how to register to become an Interested Party. The Applicant has indicated that it will extend this registration period beyond the statutory minimum of thirty days, if the application is accepted, to allow all parties more time to review the application documents and register their interest before the start of the six month Examination stage. The Planning Inspectorate is mindful of the need to ensure both openness and fairness throughout all stages of the DCO process and will continue to highlight this in discussions with the Applicant. Finally, with regard to the current Coronavirus (COVID-19) situation, please refer to the Planning Inspectorate’s published guidance which will be updated as the situation develops. [attachment 4] I hope you find the above information helpful. Kind regards, Liam

06 May 2020
Joan Gernand
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Dear all, I am writing to ask that the DCO submission be delayed until after lockdown and social distancing measures no longer in place to allow full access to information such as at re-opened libraries and access to meetings. When consulting groups are allowed to gather again,people are not encumbered by ill-health, stress , bereavement etc due to covid-19. If EDF make the submission the planning process needs to halt until the above is achievable. This is an extremely unwelcome proposal for Suffolk, East Anglia and indeed for further afield and cannot be rushed through behind closed doors. The consultation is overwhelmingly thought to be completely inadequate. All the dissenters opinions , questions, petiitions,letters etc have been quietly swept aside, an opinion shared by practically all. We have a duty to hand on the land to future generations in good shape. It is appalling to think our children and their children will be fighting exraordinary problems in years to come due to climate change, which we have brought about , and on top of that they will have large reserves of highly toxic nuclear waste( just for one example ,combined with the projected rising sea level) which will be impossible to deal with and will cause untold suffering. Overwhelmingly the people of Suffolk (and beyond) are horrified and cannot believe what is being proposed here with two untried nuclear mega-reactors. It appears EDF have a well rehearsed strategy of simply ignoring the objections and carrying on as usual. This has happened time and again for example over 1000 people collected at Minsmere last Autumn to form a huge heart overlooking the nearby proposed site. Animals/birds have to range over large interconnected areas to breed /feed successfully. This event was reported on the news and then conveniently disappeared from the radar,like many others. For these reasons, EDF has fragmented the consultation so that the vast majority of Suffolk which is opposing has been silenced. It is not necessary to subject us , East Anglia and indeed potentially London and beyond (with potential fallout) to this collosal danger and destructive project. Renewables are cheaper, quicker to build , local jobs and you can walk away in times of crisis. So many experts have plans of how we could achieve this-just one -something as simple as replacing all street lighting with LED would create huge savings in electricity.Lets move forward with the times and put Nuclear Energy behind us ,you cannot expect tax payers to bail out this dying industry. Yours sincerely, Clare Rizzo
Dear Ms Rizzo, Thank you for your email. The process for applying for a Development Consent Order (DCO) is set out in the Planning Act 2008. The timing of the application is at the discretion of the Applicant. The project page of the National Infrastructure Planning website will be updated when the application is received and when the decision on whether or not to accept the application for Examination is made. [attachment 1];ipcadvice=f89bb4795f It is important to note that when an Applicant submits an application for development consent to the Planning Inspectorate that there then follows a period of up to 28 days for the Planning Inspectorate, on behalf of the Secretary of State, to decide whether or not the application meets the standards required to be accepted for Examination. The standards are set out in Section 55 of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended) and Regulations 5 and 6 of the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009. I note you have concerns about the Applicant’s pre-application consultation, you should contact the Applicant in the first instance to enable them to address the issues. If you have contacted the Applicant but you are not satisfied that the Applicant has, or will, take account of your comments you can make your comments to the relevant local authority. The local authority can consider them as part of their Adequacy of Consultation Representation submission to the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) at the Acceptance stage of the process. All parties are encouraged to sign up for Email Updates using the button on the project page or via the link below: [attachment 2];email= Email Updates will enable parties to observe what’s happening on the application after it has been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate. Should the application be accepted for Examination, it is important to note that if parties then wish to participate in the Examination they would need to register as an Interested Party at the appropriate time during the Pre-examination stage. If parties have signed up for the Email Updates they will receive a prompt when the registration period opens (the Relevant Representation period). For further information about registering as an Interested Party please see ‘Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination’. [attachment 3] The Advice Note explains that if the Planning Inspectorate decides to accept an application for Examination, it will then be the Applicant’s duty to advertise the Relevant Representation period and provide details about how to register to become an Interested Party. The Applicant has indicated that it will extend this registration period beyond the statutory minimum of thirty days, if the application is accepted, to allow all parties more time to review the application documents and register their interest before the start of the six month Examination stage. The Planning Inspectorate is mindful of the need to ensure both openness and fairness throughout all stages of the DCO process and will continue to highlight this in discussions with the Applicant. Finally, with regard to the current Coronavirus (COVID-19) situation, please refer to the Planning Inspectorate’s published guidance which will be updated as the situation develops. [attachment 4] I hope you find the above information helpful. Kind regards, Liam

06 May 2020
Clare Rizzo
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Dear EDF & Sizewell Planning Inspectorate, Do not submit an application for Sizewell C during coronavirus restrictions – which government advisers say could last most of the year. Do not to proceed until all social distancing restrictions are lifted and everyone is free to fully engage. Without this, the planning process would be severely compromised. Yours sincerely, Dorothy Aitchison DA, Dip. Ed.
Dear Ms Aitchison, Thank you for your email. The process for applying for a Development Consent Order (DCO) is set out in the Planning Act 2008. The timing of the application is at the discretion of the Applicant. The project page of the National Infrastructure Planning website will be updated when the application is received and when the decision on whether or not to accept the application for Examination is made. [attachment 1];ipcadvice=f89bb4795f It is important to note that when an Applicant submits an application for development consent to the Planning Inspectorate that there then follows a period of up to 28 days for the Planning Inspectorate, on behalf of the Secretary of State, to decide whether or not the application meets the standards required to be accepted for Examination. The standards are set out in Section 55 of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended) and Regulations 5 and 6 of the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009. All parties are encouraged to sign up for Email Updates using the button on the project page or via the link below: [attachment 2];email= Email Updates will enable parties to observe what’s happening on the application after it has been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate. Should the application be accepted for Examination, it is important to note that if parties then wish to participate in the Examination they would need to register as an Interested Party at the appropriate time during the Pre-examination stage. If parties have signed up for the Email Updates they will receive a prompt when the registration period opens (the Relevant Representation period). For further information about registering as an Interested Party please see ‘Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination’. [attachment 3] The Advice Note explains that if the Planning Inspectorate decides to accept an application for Examination, it will then be the Applicant’s duty to advertise the Relevant Representation period and provide details about how to register to become an Interested Party. The Applicant has indicated that it will extend this registration period beyond the statutory minimum of thirty days, if the application is accepted, to allow all parties more time to review the application documents and register their interest before the start of the six month Examination stage. The Planning Inspectorate is mindful of the need to ensure both openness and fairness throughout all stages of the DCO process and will continue to highlight this in discussions with the Applicant. Finally, with regard to the current Coronavirus (COVID-19) situation, please refer to the Planning Inspectorate’s published guidance which will be updated as the situation develops. [attachment 4] I hope you find the above information helpful. Kind regards, Liam

06 May 2020
Dorothy Aitchison
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Dear Sir, please stop the DCO submission from EDF for Sizewel C.We the residents of Theberton and Middleton living along the [redacted] are already [redacted] and exhausted. Why 1.Living for 8 years with the threat of the largest project in Europe possibly, 2.Most of the residents are over seventy and are in lock down possibly till December.3. A number are under "expressions of interest" from EDF to take part of their front gardens and some to loose their farms.4.With the cancellation of movements over a cancelled jetty and very little coming by train a road led stratagy with 1100 lorry movements a day via B1122 and a bypass going god knows where.5.We the old locked down for many months to come. and 6.YOU PROPOSE TO WELCOME THE DCO FROM EDF. EDF arrogantly claim that we the public must learn new ways of working backed up by PINS confidently predicting the DCO can be accommodate during lockdown..So people in their 70s and 80,s have to buy large computers,learn to cope with hundreds of on line documents including tiny maps that when enlarged mean nothing, impossible to read. Zoom conferencing to those able to understand more. Obscure links embedded in documents to hide or confuse. (our councils are adept at this). Before lock down we would have all gone to our local library , read the reporton paper, got relevant copies and discussed at public meetings. To quote... If this is justice(and democracy) in action I,m a banana. Ian Hislop.
Dear Mr Hatt, Thank you for your email expressing concern at the submission of the Sizewell C New Nuclear Power Station Development Consent Order (DCO) application. The process for applying for a DCO is set out in the Planning Act 2008. The timing of the application is at the discretion of the Applicant. The project page of the National Infrastructure Planning website will be updated when the application is received and when the decision on whether or not to accept the application for Examination is made. [attachment 1];ipcadvice=f89bb4795f It is important to note that when an Applicant submits an application for development consent to the Planning Inspectorate that there then follows a period of up to 28 days for the Planning Inspectorate, on behalf of the Secretary of State, to decide whether or not the application meets the standards required to be accepted for Examination. The standards are set out in Section 55 of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended) and Regulations 5 and 6 of the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009. All parties are encouraged to sign up for Email Updates using the button on the project page or via the link below: [attachment 2];email= Email Updates will enable parties to observe what’s happening on the application after it has been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate. Should the application be accepted for Examination, it is important to note that if parties then wish to participate in the Examination they would need to register as an Interested Party at the appropriate time during the Pre-examination stage. If parties have signed up for the Email Updates they will receive a prompt when the registration period opens (the Relevant Representation period). For further information about registering as an Interested Party please see ‘Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination’. [attachment 3] The Advice Note explains that if the Planning Inspectorate decides to accept an application for Examination, it will then be the Applicant’s duty to advertise the Relevant Representation period and provide details about how to register to become an Interested Party. The Applicant has indicated that it will extend this registration period beyond the statutory minimum of thirty days, if the application is accepted, to allow all parties more time to review the application documents and register their interest before the start of the six month Examination stage. The Planning Inspectorate is mindful of the need to ensure both openness and fairness throughout all stages of the DCO process and will continue to highlight this in discussions with the Applicant. Finally, with regard to the current Coronavirus (COVID-19) situation, please refer to the Planning Inspectorate’s published guidance which will be updated as the situation develops. [attachment 4] I hope you find the above information helpful. Kind regards, Liam

06 May 2020
Alan Hatt
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Dear Planning Inspectorate, BEIS Ministers and EDF We will all be measured and remembered by how we behave in the current Coronavirus crisis. I urge you not to accept EDF’s application to construct two new nuclear reactors at Sizewell. I am deeply dismayed that EDF has proceeded with submitting this application whilst the country is dealing with coronavirus restrictions, and consider the timing to be totally inappropriate and, simply, wrong. Additionally, despite 4 rounds of public consultations, EDF has not provided enough information or adequately consulted people about a number of issues: The Environment Agency, Marine Management Organisation and Natural England have expressed concerns to you about the DCO, including that agreement on a number of issues had not yet been reached, that they did not have access to sufficient levels of information, and that necessary documents were late or not provided. The serious threat to RSPB Minsmere Nature Reserve and other protected sites. The company has provided no assurances that Minsmere and Sizewell Marsh SSSI will be protected from any potential harm as a result of Sizewell C. The amount of information about environmental impacts has been woeful. The way in which EDF plans to deliver 10m tonnes of material without a jetty, significant use of rail, or an adequate road route that will protect local communities. Suffolk Councils dispute EDF's claim to have chosen the best road route. Community Impacts: No study has been provided despite despite EDF promising this “at a later stage of consultation” Health Impacts: no study has been provided despite despite EDF promising this “at a later stage of consultation” Worker numbers and accommodation: Before coronavirus there were reports that EDF has underestimated the workers it needs at Hinkley Point. This suggests more will be needed at Sizewell C too. EDF’s communications about worker numbers at Sizewell have been very misleading and it is uncertain where everyone would live. At Stage 4 consultations the two villages most affected by the Sizewell Link Road, a major part of this consultation, were not visited with EDF’s touring exhibition. Yours sincerely, Sent from my iPad
Dear Mr Daniell, Thank you for your email of the 28 April 2020. The process for applying for a Development Consent Order (DCO) is set out in the Planning Act 2008. The timing of the application is at the discretion of the Applicant. The project page of the National Infrastructure Planning website will be updated when the application is received and when the decision on whether or not to accept the application for Examination is made. [attachment 1];ipcadvice=f89bb4795f It is important to note that when an Applicant submits an application for development consent to the Planning Inspectorate that there then follows a period of up to 28 days for the Planning Inspectorate, on behalf of the Secretary of State, to decide whether or not the application meets the standards required to be accepted for Examination. The standards are set out in Section 55 of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended) and Regulations 5 and 6 of the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009. I note you have concerns about the Applicant’s pre-application consultation, you should contact the Applicant in the first instance to enable them to address the issues. If you have contacted the Applicant but you are not satisfied that the Applicant has, or will, take account of your comments you can make your comments to the relevant local authority. The local authority can consider them as part of their Adequacy of Consultation Representation submission to the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) at the Acceptance stage of the process. All parties are encouraged to sign up for Email Updates using the button on the project page or via the link below: [attachment 2];email= Email Updates will enable parties to observe what’s happening on the application after it has been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate. Should the application be accepted for Examination, it is important to note that if parties then wish to participate in the Examination they would need to register as an Interested Party at the appropriate time during the Pre-examination stage. If parties have signed up for the Email Updates they will receive a prompt when the registration period opens (the Relevant Representation period). For further information about registering as an Interested Party please see ‘Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination’. [attachment 3] The Advice Note explains that if the Planning Inspectorate decides to accept an application for Examination, it will then be the Applicant’s duty to advertise the Relevant Representation period and provide details about how to register to become an Interested Party. The Applicant has indicated that it will extend this registration period beyond the statutory minimum of thirty days, if the application is accepted, to allow all parties more time to review the application documents and register their interest before the start of the six month Examination stage. The Planning Inspectorate is mindful of the need to ensure both openness and fairness throughout all stages of the DCO process and will continue to highlight this in discussions with the Applicant. Finally, with regard to the current Coronavirus (COVID-19) situation, please refer to the Planning Inspectorate’s published guidance which will be updated as the situation develops. [attachment 4] I hope you find the above information helpful. Kind regards, Liam

06 May 2020
Robert Daniell
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Dear Sir/Madam I wrote to the planning Inspectorate on 12 March 2020 regarding my dissatisfaction of EDF/CGN Sizewell C four stages of consultation. I am now concerned that EDF/CGN despite being made aware by various Parish Councillors and residents that it would be inappropriate to submit the DCO application during this time of national emergency are planning to do so before the end of April 2020. Surely this cannot be allowed to happen when people are struggling with all the horrors that the Covid 19 virus is and will be inflicting for an unidentifiable period of time. The Sizewell C forum meeting about the EDF Sizewell C Application has been cancelled, libraries are closed and many like myself in rural locations frequently have no or an interrupted internet service, so to proceed before the emergency is officially declared to be over would be undemocratic. I have looked at pins website and it appears that everything is geared towards the developer even down to the fact that the developer dictates the timing-surely this can’t be fair? Sizewell C was first mooted in 2008 so for many has been a constant worry and concern for many years. Quite frankly how it has got to the DCO stage is unbelievable. There is currently no siting criteria for new nuclear as EN6 is out of date. The overall energy policy EN1 is out of date. The public where supposed to have an opportunity to comment on the ongoing need for new nuclear as part of the consultation on the draft new national policy statement for nuclear-this has not happened. I am aware that the Environment Agency, Natural England and other statutory bodies have stated that a wide range of issues have not yet been addressed in any detail making the consultation exercises inadequate and meaningless. There are many site issues:- It is too small for the planned development It is in flood zone 2 and 3 There are many Environmental issues:- Climate change is happening faster than previously predicted meaning that the safety of the nuclear reactor and storing of radioactive waste for 150yrs+ is at risk from coastal erosion, flooding, sea level rise, storm surges and extreme weather events. Sizewell is predicated to become a nuclear island in 100 years! The lack of an Environmental Impact Assessment particularly as it is in Suffolk Coast and Heaths Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and will destroy Sizewell Marsh SSSI impact one the UK’s most important wildlife reserves RSPB Minsmere a Ramsar site, SPA, SAC and a marine conservation area. New roads, road widening, roundabouts, park and ride, rail, caravans & accommodation blocks for 3000/4000 workers. Thousands of HGV, buses and car movements a day. Destruction of woodland and encroachment on vulnerable and sensitive coastal areas. Destroying all flora and fauna in its path many of which are rare or endangered species. The heritage coast is known and loved for its peace, tranquility and rural environment supporting a thriving tourist trade EDF’s SizewellC development will transform the area into an industrial environment irrevocably damaging the tourist industry and all the businesses that supports. EDF EPR has many problems:- EDF’s other EPR projects at Olkiluoto Finland and Flamanville France are at least three times over budget and at least 10 years late to date neither operational. Here in UK Hinkley C was supposed to be up and running by 2017 now not likely to be operational before 2025 budget increased vastly I believe latest estimate around £23 billion French government owned EDF are broke so it needs British taxpayers to pay upfront and take the risk for the construction of Sizewell C and EDF are desperate for UK government to announce a nuclear RAB for new nuclear projects in order to prop up their failing nuclear industry in France. For all the above reasons I urge you to reject EDF’s Sizewell C DCO when it is submitted. Yours sincerely Ms J Wilson
Dear Ms Wilson, Thank you for your email of 21 April 2020. The process for applying for a Development Consent Order (DCO) is set out in the Planning Act 2008. As you note, the timing of the application is at the discretion of the Applicant. With regard to site location and suitability please note that the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) has responsibility for reviewing and designating National Policy Statements, including EN-6. The link below provides the latest information about the designation of the new National Policy Statement for Energy for nuclear power generation including the siting criteria (NPS EN-6): [attachment 1] Page 6 provides details of the timeline towards designating the new NPS. The project page of the National Infrastructure Planning website will be updated when the application is received and when the decision on whether or not to accept the application for Examination is made. [attachment 2];ipcadvice=f89bb4795f It is important to note that when an Applicant submits an application for development consent to the Planning Inspectorate that there then follows a period of up to 28 days for the Planning Inspectorate, on behalf of the Secretary of State, to decide whether or not the application meets the standards required to be accepted for Examination. The standards are set out in Section 55 of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended) and Regulations 5 and 6 of the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009. As you have concerns about the Applicant’s pre-application consultation you should contact the Applicant in the first instance to enable them to address the issues. If you are not satisfied that the Applicant has, or will, take account of your comments you can make your comments to the relevant local authority. The local authorities can consider your comments as part of their Adequacy of Consultation Representation submission to the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) at the Application Stage of the process. The Planning Inspectorate will consider any adequacy of consultation representations received from the relevant local authorities when deciding whether or not to accept the application, as required under section 55(4)(b) of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended). It is therefore important to ensure the local authorities are informed of your concerns. All parties are encouraged to sign up for Email Updates using the button on the project page or via the link below: [attachment 3];email= Email Updates will enable parties to observe what’s happening on the application after it has been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate. Should the application be accepted for Examination, it is important to note that if parties then wish to participate in the Examination they would need to register as an Interested Party at the appropriate time during the Pre-examination stage. If parties have signed up for the Email Updates they will receive a prompt when the registration period opens (the Relevant Representation period). For further information about registering as an Interested Party please see ‘Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination’. [attachment 4] The Advice Note explains that if the Planning Inspectorate decides to accept an application for Examination, it will then be the Applicant’s duty to advertise the Relevant Representation period and provide details about how to register to become an Interested Party. The Applicant has indicated that it will extend this registration period beyond the statutory minimum of thirty days, if the application is accepted, to allow all parties more time to review the application documents and register their interest before the start of the six month Examination stage. The Planning Inspectorate is mindful of the need to ensure both openness and fairness throughout all stages of the DCO process and will continue to highlight this in discussions with the Applicant. Finally, with regard to the current Coronavirus (COVID-19) situation, please refer to the Planning Inspectorate’s published guidance which will be updated as the situation develops. [attachment 5] I hope you find the above information helpful. Kind regards, Liam

05 May 2020
J Wilson
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Two meetings were held on 5 and 12 May 2020 to discuss the Applicant’s approach to meeting its duties under s56 of the Planning Act 2008 with the current COVID-19 restrictions in place
Please see attached meeting note that comprises discussion and advice for both meetings

05 May 2020
EP Waste Management Limited - anon.
South Humber Bank Energy Centre
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Please see attached.
Please see attached.

05 May 2020
RWE Renewables UK Ltd
Rampion 2 Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
On 4 May 2020 the Secretary of State decided that the application for the South Humber Bank Energy Centre satisfied the acceptance tests under section 55 of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008). In undertaking checks at the acceptance stage, the Planning Inspectorate made some observations in relation to the application. The Applicant should pay attention to its content and consider the appropriate action to be taken.
Please see attached letter.

04 May 2020
EP Waste Management Limited - anon.
South Humber Bank Energy Centre
response has attachments
Dear Sir/Madam, I believe that the short delay in submitting a Development Consent Order (DCO) application for Sizewell C “for a few weeks” is totally unacceptable. It is becoming increasingly clear that you intend to go ahead before the end of April, despite the coronavirus crisis. Please will you not submit the application until the Planning Inspectorate, Government’s Statutory Advisers, Local Authorities, Parish and Town Councils, Groups and concerned individuals are fully resourced and fully able to engage. This may require a delay of several months, till the end of the Coronavirus disruption, rather than a few weeks. [Redacted]over the coronavirus is being exacerbated by my worries over Sizewell C. These are very difficult times in Suffolk Coastal, without the threat of the disruption caused by the Sizewell C build. Yours faithfully, Paul Offiler.
Dear Paul Offiler Thank you for your email. The process for applying for a Development Consent Order (DCO) is set out in the Planning Act 2008. The timing of the application is at the discretion of the Applicant. The project page of the National Infrastructure Planning website will be updated when the application is received and when the decision on whether or not to accept the application for Examination is made. [attachment 1];ipcadvice=f89bb4795f It is important to note that when an Applicant submits an application for development consent to the Planning Inspectorate that there then follows a period of up to 28 days for the Planning Inspectorate, on behalf of the Secretary of State, to decide whether or not the application meets the standards required to be accepted for Examination. The standards are set out in Section 55 of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended) and Regulations 5 and 6 of the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009. All parties are encouraged to sign up for Email Updates using the button on the project page or via the link below: [attachment 2];email= Email Updates will enable parties to observe what’s happening on the application after it has been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate. (Please note: email updates are occasionally recognised as “spam” mail so if you do sign up to receive updates, you should check you “spam” folders regularly). Should the application be accepted for Examination, it is important to note that if parties then wish to participate in the Examination they would need to register as an Interested Party at the appropriate time during the Pre-examination stage. If parties have signed up for the Email Updates they will receive a prompt when the registration period opens (the Relevant Representation period). For further information about registering as an Interested Party please see ‘Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination’. [attachment 3] The Advice Note explains that if the Planning Inspectorate decides to accept an application for Examination, it will then be the Applicant’s duty to advertise the Relevant Representation period and provide details about how to register to become an Interested Party. The Applicant has indicated that it will extend this registration period beyond the statutory minimum of thirty days, if the application is accepted, to allow all parties more time to review the application documents and register their interest before the start of the six month Examination stage. The Planning Inspectorate is mindful of the need to ensure both openness and fairness throughout all stages of the DCO process and will continue to highlight this in discussions with the Applicant. Finally, with regard to the current Coronavirus (COVID-19) situation, please refer to the Planning Inspectorate’s published guidance which will be updated as the situation develops. [attachment 4] I hope you find the above information helpful. Regards Sizewell C Project Team National Infrastructure Planning

01 May 2020
Paul Offiler
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Short teleconference covering continuation of service under COVID-19 restrictions.
Please see attached.

30 April 2020
Highways England - anon.
A417 Missing Link
Enquiry received via email
Dear Sirs I’m hoping you can assist me. I currently live in Easthorpe, Essex which could or could not be affected by the A12 widening scheme. I have spoken to the Highway’s Agency who have told me the decision with the garden village, at West Tey lays with the planning inspectorate and I won’t know if I will have a motorway going through my land or house until the decision is made. I currently have my property up for sale and no one is interested in buying it due to no decision being made. This is causing me no end of stress as I need to move for my job and the Highways Agency have refused to buy my property until a decision is made. Is it possible to tell me when a decision is going to be made on the garden village as I really don’t know what else to do with my property. Any help would be appreciated. Kind regards
Dear Miss Coombes Thank you for your e-mail, which appears to relate to both the A12 – A120 widening scheme and the garden village at West Tey. In reference to the A12 to A120 Chelmsford widening scheme, this project is currently in the pre-application stage and has not yet been submitted to us by the Applicant, Highways England. It is unlikely to be submitted to the Planning Inspectorate us as an application for development consent before 2021. Information on the progress of this project can be found on the Highways England website. Once it progresses further the Planning Inspectorate will also have a dedicated webpage for this project, and you can check both websites for updates. As the project is at such an early stage, I would suggest that you approach the Applicant with any concerns you have; contact details can be found on their website. In relation to the garden village at West Tey, this appears to be a matter which is currently under consideration by our Local Plans team. As such, colleagues within that team will respond to you separately concerning this matter shortly. Yours sincerely

30 April 2020
Clare Coombes
General
Enquiry received via phone
response has attachments
A47 Projects Programme Update Meeting
Please see attached.

29 April 2020
Highways England - anon.
A47 Wansford to Sutton
Enquiry received via phone
response has attachments
A47 Projects Programme Update Meeting
Please see attached.

29 April 2020
Highways England - anon.
A47/A11 Thickthorn Junction
Enquiry received via phone
response has attachments
A47 Projects Programme Update Meeting
Please see attached.

29 April 2020
Highways England - anon.
A47 North Tuddenham to Easton
Enquiry received via phone
response has attachments
A47 Projects Programme Update Meeting
Please see attached.

29 April 2020
Highways England - anon.
A47 Blofield to North Burlingham
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting.
Please see attached.

29 April 2020
Equinor UK - anon.
Sheringham and Dudgeon Extension Projects
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Submission Logistics meeting with NNB Nuclear Generation (SZC) Ltd
Please see attached Meeting Note

28 April 2020
NNB Nuclear Generation (SZC) Ltd - anon.
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting by telecon
Please see attached meeting note.

28 April 2020
Boston Alternative Energy Facility Limited - anon.
Boston Alternative Energy Facility (BAEF)
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Dear Liam Fedden, Thank you for your email re the above. I represent a group of people called FERN who will he having to submit documents and evidence about the 2 village bypass proposal. A couple of things: 1) no email verification email received when I signed up to get alerts 2) I understand EDF submit and you decide whether to accept application within 28 days, but I can’t find the answer too the following: if you do accept it, how long we have to prepare and submit our own evidence, we need time as, EDF would not share their final plans with us, nor any of their evidence, informing us we can see it at the DCO stage. This means we will be under pressure to analyse what they’ve done and prepare our comments. Alongside having to reestablish life after coronavirus, we will have to spend many hours having to deal with this and need time to prepare in an orderly manner. 3) I can’t find advice on how best we, as interested parties, submit our evidence that meets your requirements? I look forward to hearing from you, Many thanks, Sarah Morgan Kew Dip. (Hons)
Dear Sarah Morgan Thank you for your email. I am sorry that you did not receive a verification email when signing up for Email Updates. I will raise this with our IT team. I can confirm that should the application be accepted the Planning Inspectorate will publish all the application documents on the project page of the National Infrastructure Planning website as soon as practicable. These will be available under the ‘Documents’ tab. As you know the Applicant would then advertise the Relevant Representation period when those who wish to fully participate in the Examination must register to become an Interested Party. EDF have indicated that this period would be extended from the 30 days minimum to allow everyone more time to read the documents through the summer months and submit their views during the Pre-examination period. Once the six-month Examination period starts registered Interested Parties can then submit further Written Representations to expand on those views. Further information about the requirements for registering as an Interested Party can be found in the Planning Inspectorate’s Advice Note 8.2: [attachment 1] Further information about the content of Interested Parties Written Representations can be found in the Planning Inspectorate’s Advice Note 8.4: [attachment 2] I hope the above information answers your queries. Regards Liam

27 April 2020
Farnham Environment Friends & Neighbours - Sarah Morgan on behalf of
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Please see Attached
Please see Attached

23 April 2020
IRNG Solar (Little Crow) Ltd - anon.
Little Crow Solar Park
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Dear PINS Please can you explain at what point the public will be able to see all the documents submitted by EDF Energy regarding Sizewell C. Will this be when the application goes in, or when the application is accepted? Thank you, Rachel Fulcher, Coordinator Suffolk Coastal Friends of the Earth
Dear Rachel Fulcher Thank you for your email. I can confirm that should the application be accepted the Planning Inspectorate will publish all the application documents on the project page of the National Infrastructure Planning website as soon as practicable after the decision to accept the application has been made. These will be available under the ‘Documents’ tab. As you are aware the Applicant would then advertise the Relevant Representation period when those who wish to fully participate in the Examination must register to become an Interested Party. EDF have indicated that this period would be extended beyond the statutory 30 days minimum to allow everyone more time to read the documents through the summer months and submit their views during the Pre-examination period. Once the six month Examination period starts registered Interested Parties can then submit further Written Representations to expand on those views. Further information about the requirements for registering as an Interested Party can be found in the Planning Inspectorate’s Advice Note 8.2: [attachment 1] Further information about the content of Interested Parties Written Representations can be found in the Planning Inspectorate’s Advice Note 8.4: [attachment 2] Kind regards Michele Gregory Sizewell C Case Team National Infrastructure Planning

21 April 2020
On behalf of Suffolk Coastal Friend of the Earth - Rachel Fulcher
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
FAO Michele Gregory SZC Case Manager Dear Michele, I have looked at the PINS website for a better understanding of what will happen when EDFE submit their DCO for Sizewell C knowing that it could be imminent. I fully understand the Inspectorate will have 28 days to accept or reject the application. My first question is will the DCO application documents be available to members of the public at that stage ? Secondly if PINS accept the application while the country is still under "lock down" would the Inspectorate have the ability to hold the examination stage part of the process in abeyance until as such time as it could be held in normal circumstances ? This question arises because many people fell intimidated by technology and in the spirit of openness and transparency is it something which may be considered? Joan Girling
Dear Joan Girling Thank you for your email. I can confirm that should the application be accepted the Planning Inspectorate will publish all the application documents on the project page of the National Infrastructure Planning website as soon as practicable. These will be available under the ‘Documents’ tab. See link below: [attachment 1] As you know the Applicant would then advertise the Relevant Representation period when those who wish to fully participate in the Examination must register to become an Interested Party. EDF have indicated that this period would be extended beyond the statutory 30 days minimum to allow everyone more time to read the documents through the summer months and submit their views during the Pre-examination period, there is no statutory timeframe for this period. Once the six month Examination period starts registered Interested Parties can then submit further Written Representations to expand on those views. Further information about the requirements for registering as an Interested Party can be found in the Planning Inspectorate’s Advice Note 8.2: [attachment 2] Further information about the content of Interested Parties Written Representations can be found in the Planning Inspectorate’s Advice Note 8.4: [attachment 3] The Planning Inspectorate recognises the constraints for all parties during these unprecedented times and is always mindful of the need to ensure both openness and fairness for all parties. The Coronavirus (Covid-19) situation is under constant review and the Planning Inspectorate’s website provides guidance which is reviewed and updated regularly: [attachment 4] I hope the above information answers your queries. Kind regards Michele Gregory Sizewell C Case Team National Infrastructure Planning

21 April 2020
Joan Girling
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please see attached
Dear Mr Taylor Thank you for your email and attachment. As you are aware the process for applying for a Development Consent Order (DCO) is set out in the Planning Act 2008 (as amended). The timing of the application is at the discretion of the Applicant. Should the application be accepted an Examining Authority (ExA) will be appointed (on behalf of the Secretary of State(SoS)) to examine it and subsequently make a recommendation to the SoS, who will then proceed to issue a decision on the proposal. The process for deciding an application and the criteria for assessment are clearly set out in Chapter 5 of the Planning Act 2008. In particular section 104 describes what the SoS must have regard to in cases where a National Policy Statement has effect. Before making a recommendation to the SoS the role of the ExA is to consider whether the impacts of a development on the local community and environment outweigh the national need for it. As you are aware the need for an infrastructure development is set down in an NPS. It is not the ExA’s role to examine the merits of Government Policy set down in NPSs that have been laid in Parliament and designated. The ExA can however consider comments on how an application complies or conflicts with national policies. With regard to climate change please note that the ExA will assess and test a range of issues during an Examination including the European, National, Local Law and Policy context. The Pre-examination stage includes a Relevant Representation period when those who wish to fully participate in the Examination must register to become an Interested Party. This provides an opportunity for parties to put forward their views about the application and the appointed ExA can consider these views when carrying out their initial assessment of principal issues before the Preliminary Meeting. Once the Examinations has started registered Interested Parties can submit further Written Representations to expand on those views or set out their case. Further information about the content of Interested Parties Written Representations can be found in the Planning Inspectorate’s Advice Note 8.4: [attachment 1] I hope the above information is helpful. Kind regards Michele Gregory Sizewell C Case Team National Infrastructure Planning

21 April 2020
Mike Taylor
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Dear Sizewell C Team We've asked EDF not to submit an application for a a Development Consent Order to build Sizewell C, we copied you on our email. Should they decide to do so anyway please do not accept such an application as the timing is totally inappropriate during the current coronavirus pandemic. You, our local authorities and the public would not be able to properly assess and engage in an examination of this application. Please refuse to accept an application from EDF. Yours sincerely Louise & Derek Chadwick
Dear Mrs and Mr Chadwick, Thank you for your email to the Inspectorate. The process for applying for a Development Consent Order (DCO) is set out in the Planning Act 2008. The timing of the application is at the discretion of the Applicant. The project page of the National Infrastructure Planning website will be updated when the application is received and when the decision on whether or not to accept the application for Examination is made. [attachment 1] It is important to note that when an Applicant submits an application for development consent to the Planning Inspectorate that there then follows a period of up to 28 days for the Planning Inspectorate, on behalf of the Secretary of State, to decide whether or not the application meets the standards required to be accepted for Examination. The standards are set out in Section 55 of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended) and Regulations 5 and 6 of the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009. All parties are encouraged to sign up for Email Updates using the button on the project page or via the link below: [attachment 2];email= Email Updates will enable parties to observe what’s happening on the application after it has been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate. Should the application be accepted for Examination, it is important to note that if parties then wish to participate in the Examination they would need to register as an Interested Party at the appropriate time during the Pre-examination stage. If parties have signed up for the Email Updates they will receive a prompt when the registration period opens (the Relevant Representation period). For further information about registering as an Interested Party please see ‘Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination’. [attachment 3] The Advice Note explains that if the Planning Inspectorate decides to accept an application for Examination, it will then be the Applicant’s duty to advertise the Relevant Representation period and provide details about how to register to become an Interested Party. The Applicant has indicated that it will extend this registration period beyond the statutory minimum of thirty days, if the application is accepted, to allow all parties more time to review the application documents and register their interest before the start of the six month Examination stage. The Planning Inspectorate is mindful of the need to ensure both openness and fairness throughout all stages of the DCO process and will continue to highlight this in discussions with the Applicant. Finally, with regard to the current Coronavirus (COVID-19) situation, please refer to the Planning Inspectorate’s published guidance which will be updated as the situation develops. [attachment 4] I hope you find the above information helpful. Kind regards, Liam

17 April 2020
Louise and Derek Chadwick
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I am writing having heard that EDF intends to proceed with a DCO application in relation to Sizewell C despite the current COVID19 lockdown. It seems so obvious as hardly to need saying that in the current circumstances a proper process cannot take place. The logistical problems associated with the lockdown mean that a full public engagement and discussion cannot happen. The right course of action would of course be for EDF to delay its application until normal life has been restored. Yours sincerely Justin Dowley
Dear Mr Dowley, Thank you for your email directed at both us and the Applicant. The process for applying for a Development Consent Order (DCO) is set out in the Planning Act 2008. The timing of the application is at the discretion of the Applicant. The project page will be updated when the application is received and when the decision on whether or not to accept the application for Examination is made. It is important to note that when an Applicant submits an application for development consent to the Planning Inspectorate that there then follows a period of up to 28 days for the Planning Inspectorate, on behalf of the Secretary of State, to decide whether or not the application meets the standards required to be accepted for Examination. The standards are set out in Section 55 of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended) and Regulations 5 and 6 of the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009. All parties are encouraged to sign up for Email Updates using the button on the project page or via the link below: [attachment 1];email= Email Updates will enable parties to observe what’s happening on the application after it has been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate. Should the application be accepted for Examination, it is important to note that if parties then wish to participate in the Examination they would need to register as an Interested Party at the appropriate time during the Pre-examination stage. If parties have signed up for the Email Updates they will receive a prompt when the registration period opens (the Relevant Representation period). For further information about registering as an Interested Party please see ‘Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination’. The Advice Note explains that if the Planning Inspectorate decides to accept an application for Examination, it will then be the Applicant’s duty to advertise the Relevant Representation period and provide details about how to register to become an Interested Party. The Applicant has said that it will extend this registration period beyond the statutory minimum of thirty days. Finally, with regard to the current Coronavirus (COVID-19) situation, please refer to the Planning Inspectorate’s published guidance which will be updated as the situation develops. [attachment 2] I hope you find the above information helpful. Kind regards Liam

17 April 2020
Justin Dowley
The Sizewell C Project
response has attachments
Sizewell C Please do not submit an application for a Development Consent Order during the coronavirus lockdown (which could last most of the year). EDF wants to press ahead this month [April], but this would be unacceptable and they should not proceed until the Planning Inspectorate, Government’s Statutory Advisers, Local Authorities, Parish and Town Councils, Groups and individuals are fully resourced and able to engage properly. Pushing this through now would amount to a circumnavigation of democratic planning process. Yours, John Parsons
Dear Mr Parsons, Thank you for your email to the Inspectorate and the Applicant. The process for applying for a Development Consent Order (DCO) is set out in the Planning Act 2008. The timing of the application is at the discretion of the Applicant. The project page of the National Infrastructure Planning website will be updated when the application is received and when the decision on whether or not to accept the application for Examination is made. [attachment 1];ipcadvice=f89bb4795f It is important to note that when an Applicant submits an application for development consent to the Planning Inspectorate that there then follows a period of up to 28 days for the Planning Inspectorate, on behalf of the Secretary of State, to decide whether or not the application meets the standards required to be accepted for Examination. The standards are set out in Section 55 of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended) and Regulations 5 and 6 of the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009. All parties are encouraged to sign up for Email Updates using the button on the project page or via the link below: [attachment 2];email= Email Updates will enable parties to observe what’s happening on the application after it has been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate. Should the application be accepted for Examination, it is important to note that if parties then wish to participate in the Examination they would need to register as an Interested Party at the appropriate time during the Pre-examination stage. If parties have signed up for the Email Updates they will receive a prompt when the registration period opens (the Relevant Representation period). For further information about registering as an Interested Party please see ‘Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination’. [attachment 3] The Advice Note explains that if the Planning Inspectorate decides to accept an application for Examination, it will then be the Applicant’s duty to advertise the Relevant Representation period and provide details about how to register to become an Interested Party. The Applicant has indicated that it will extend this registration period beyond the statutory minimum of thirty days, if the application is accepted, to allow all parties more time to review the application documents and register their interest before the start of the six month Examination stage. The Planning Inspectorate is mindful of the need to ensure both openness and fairness throughout all stages of the DCO process and will continue to highlight this in discussions with the Applicant. Finally, with regard to the current Coronavirus (COVID-19) situation, please refer to the Planning Inspectorate’s published guidance which will be updated as the situation develops. [attachment 4] I hope you find the above information helpful. Kind regards, Liam

17 April 2020
John Parsons
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please see the attached letter sent on behalf of East Suffolk Council and Suffolk County Council in relation to your recent email of the 30 March 2020. Please also find attached a copy of the letter sent to EDF Energy referred to in our letter to yourselves. Please do not hesitate to contact myself or John Pitchford if you have any concerns. You can use this email address to access sus both - [email protected] Kind regards, Lisa Chandler |Energy Projects Manager East Suffolk Council
Thank you for your letter of 9 April 2020. With regard to the Councils capacity to respond to any Adequacy of Consultation request we note that the Applicant has agreed to provide a preview of their Consultation Report and that, subject to the ongoing Coronavirus (Covid-19) emergency response implications for the Councils, you could respond in the time available. We also note the concerns raised regarding any potential Section 56 notification and that you have written to the Applicant accordingly. The Inspectorate recognises the constraints around the processing of casework during these unprecedented times and is always mindful of the need to ensure both openness and fairness for all parties. The Coronavirus (Covid-19) situation is under constant review and the Planning Inspectorate’s website provides guidance which is reviewed and updated regularly: [attachment 1] If you have any further queries please do not hesitate to contact us.

17 April 2020
Suffolk County Council and East Suffolk Council - anon.
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Dear Sirs I have written to EDF to register my surprise that they are even considering putting in the application for Sizewell C at this time. There is no way it should be allowed and it could not be dealt with and discussed properly, I guess they think they can just sneak it in and it will all be agreed without much fuss, how dreadful this would be if it were allowed to happen. I hope that everyone concerned will see sense and not allow this to go ahead. Yours faithfully Sally Evans
Dear Ms Evans, Thank you for your email. The process for applying for a Development Consent Order (DCO) is set out in the Planning Act 2008. The timing of the application is at the discretion of the Applicant. The project page will be updated when the application is received and when the decision on whether or not to accept the application for Examination is made. It is important to note that when an Applicant submits an application for development consent to the Planning Inspectorate that there then follows a period of up to 28 days for the Planning Inspectorate, on behalf of the Secretary of State, to decide whether or not the application meets the standards required to be accepted for Examination. The standards are set out in Section 55 of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended) and Regulations 5 and 6 of the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009. All parties are encouraged to sign up for Email Updates using the button on the project page or via the link below: [attachment 1];email= Email Updates will enable parties to observe what’s happening on the application after it has been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate. Should the application be accepted for Examination, it is important to note that if parties then wish to participate in the Examination they would need to register as an Interested Party at the appropriate time during the Pre-examination stage. If parties have signed up for the Email Updates they will receive a prompt when the registration period opens (the Relevant Representation period). For further information about registering as an Interested Party please see ‘Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination’. The Advice Note explains that if the Planning Inspectorate decides to accept an application for Examination, it will then be the Applicant’s duty to advertise the Relevant Representation period and provide details about how to register to become an Interested Party. The Applicant has said that it will extend this registration period beyond the statutory minimum of thirty days. Finally, with regard to the current Coronavirus (COVID-19) situation, please refer to the Planning Inspectorate’s published guidance which will be updated as the situation develops. [attachment 2] I hope you find the above information helpful. Kind regards Liam

17 April 2020
Sally Evans
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I am asking the planning inspectorate to not accept EDF's DCO until at least sometime after the lockdown has ended . I alongside the Parish Council and members of FERN Farnham Environment Friends & Neighbours are having to do a lot of our own research/documentation and have employed a lawyer, experts who need access to the site and Records Office which is shut. We were told by the Suffolk Wildlife Trust only today that they would not be holding CWS meetings until the lockdown was over, so would not be able to provide us with the information we requested 5 months ago. No one is operating normal business at this time, there is also the element of sickness stalking us, the level of anxiety is high already. I am very concerned that this process cannot be undertaken fairly and fully until coronavirus has passed. Yours sincerely, Sarah Morgan FERN
Dear Ms Morgan, Thank you for your email directed at both us and the Applicant. The process for applying for a Development Consent Order (DCO) is set out in the Planning Act 2008. The timing of the application is at the discretion of the Applicant. The project page will be updated when the application is received and when the decision on whether or not to accept the application for Examination is made. It is important to note that when an Applicant submits an application for development consent to the Planning Inspectorate that there then follows a period of up to 28 days for the Planning Inspectorate, on behalf of the Secretary of State, to decide whether or not the application meets the standards required to be accepted for Examination. The standards are set out in Section 55 of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended) and Regulations 5 and 6 of the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009. All parties are encouraged to sign up for Email Updates using the button on the project page or via the link below: [attachment 1];email= Email Updates will enable parties to observe what’s happening on the application after it has been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate. Should the application be accepted for Examination, it is important to note that if parties then wish to participate in the Examination they would need to register as an Interested Party at the appropriate time during the Pre-examination stage. If parties have signed up for the Email Updates they will receive a prompt when the registration period opens (the Relevant Representation period). For further information about registering as an Interested Party please see ‘Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination’. The Advice Note explains that if the Planning Inspectorate decides to accept an application for Examination, it will then be the Applicant’s duty to advertise the Relevant Representation period and provide details about how to register to become an Interested Party. The Applicant has said that it will extend this registration period beyond the statutory minimum of thirty days. Finally, with regard to the current Coronavirus (COVID-19) situation, please refer to the Planning Inspectorate’s published guidance which will be updated as the situation develops. [attachment 2] I hope you find the above information helpful. Kind regards Liam

17 April 2020
Farnham Environment Friends & Neighbours - Sarah Morgan on behalf of
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Submission Timetable Meeting with NNB Nuclear Generation (SZC) Limited (Applicant)
Please see attached meeting note

17 April 2020
NNB Nuclear Generation (SZC) Limited (Applicant) - anon.
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please see attached
The process for applying for a Development Consent Order (DCO) is set out in the Planning Act 2008. The timing of the application is at the discretion of the Applicant. The project page of the National Infrastructure Planning website will be updated when the application is received and when the decision on whether or not to accept the application for Examination is made. It is important to note that when an Applicant submits an application for development consent to the Planning Inspectorate that there then follows a period of up to 28 days for the Planning Inspectorate, on behalf of the Secretary of State, to decide whether or not the application meets the standards required to be accepted for Examination. The standards are set out in Section 55 of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended) and Regulations 5 and 6 of the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009. All parties are encouraged to sign up for Email Updates using the button on the project page or via the link below: [attachment 1];email Email Updates will enable parties to observe what’s happening on the application after it has been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate. Should the application be accepted for Examination, it is important to note that if parties then wish to participate in the Examination they would need to register as an Interested Party at the appropriate time during the Pre-examination stage. If parties have signed up for the Email Updates they will receive a prompt when the registration period opens (the Relevant Representation period). For further information about registering as an Interested Party please see ‘Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination’. The Advice Note explains that if the Planning Inspectorate decides to accept an application for Examination, it will then be the Applicant’s duty to advertise the Relevant Representation period and provide details about how to register to become an Interested Party. With regard to the current Coronavirus (COVID-19) situation, please refer to the Planning Inspectorate’s published guidance which is updated regularly as the situation develops [attachment 2] You have also expressed concerns about the adequacy of the developers consultation and consultation material. We note that you have been in contact with the Applicant following the various stages of consultation and that you are not satisfied that the Applicant has, or will, take account of your comments. Please note that you can make such comments to the relevant local authority. The local authority can consider them as part of their Adequacy of Consultation Representation submission to the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) at the application stage of the process. The Planning Inspectorate will consider any adequacy of consultation representations received from the relevant local authorities when deciding whether or not to accept the application, as required under section 55(4)(b) of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended). It is therefore important to ensure the local authorities are informed of your concerns. Further information about Community Consultation can be found here: [attachment 3]

17 April 2020
Wickham Market Parish Council - anon.
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please see attached
We note the concerns you have raised regarding the capacity of your organisation to engage with the Sizewell C DCO application process. As you may be aware, the process for applying for a DCO application is set out in the Planning Act 2008 and the timing of submission is at the discretion of the Applicant. With regard to the DCO application documentation and your request for a copy to be provided to you during the acceptance stage, it is for the Applicant to decide whether the application material is shared with stakeholders at the time of submission. Similarly, any request for financial reparation through an existing Planning Performance Agreement (PPA) is a matter you will need to discuss with the Applicant. We therefore suggest that you contact the Applicant directly. With regard to the current Coronavirus (COVID-19) situation, please refer to the Planning Inspectorate’s published guidance which is updated regularly as the situation develops: [attachment 1]

17 April 2020
Suffolk Constabulary - anon.
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via phone
response has attachments
Draft Documents feedback review and project update
Please see attached

16 April 2020
Highways England - anon.
M25 junction 28 improvements
Enquiry received via email
Good afternoon, In light of the Covid-19 pandemic, I understand that Planning Inspectorate is cancelling all previously arranged site visits, and that staff are working from home. I would be most grateful if you can let me know if the examination timetable for the Southampton to London Pipeline Project is now likely to change. I shall look forward to hearing from you. With best wishes, Frances Frances Reynolds – Senior Parliamentary Assistant Office of the Rt Hon. Michael Gove MP ? 0207 219 8826 ? www.michaelgove.com ? House of Commons, London, SW1A 0AA
Dear Mr Reynolds, Thank you for your e-mail. The situation surrounding COVID-19 is a matter which is under constant review by the Inspectorate. We have set up a group that is dedicated to monitoring the situation, ensuring that we are operating in accordance with current Government guidelines. In relation to the Southampton to London Pipeline Project Examination, I can confirm that all public events have taken place; there are no further site inspections or hearings planned. In the absence of events necessitating social gathering, such as those listed above, there is no planned postponement of the Examination and it will continue to proceed; due to close on Thursday 9 April 2020.

09 April 2020
Office of the Rt Hon. Michael Gove MP - Frances Reynolds
Southampton to London Pipeline Project
Enquiry received via phone
Natural England wished to discuss the Planning Inspectorate’s process from the point of application with respect to the information supplied by an applicant to support an assessment under the requirements of the Habitat Regulations. In particular, it wished to understand how the Inspectorate can test the extent to where matters remain outstanding from discussions held between the Statutory Nature Conservation Bodies (SNCBs) and developers pre-application.
Discussion was held about the advice the Planning Inspectorate is able to provide at pre-application to developers, including discussion about how developers engage with statutory bodies and key stakeholders to agree an Evidence Plan to support the assessment. The Inspectorate acknowledged the absence of an overseeing organisation in relation to evidence plans and both organisations agreed to raise this point internally. The discussion continued whereby the Planning Inspectorate set out its expectations at acceptance, with reference to Advice Note 10. These expectations include the receipt of evidence of consultation with SNCBs and evidence of how its advice has been addressed. The role of Statements of Common Ground was discussed. Following on from this a discussion was held about how both organisations could work together to best assist the Examining Authority should the application be accepted for examination. The Planning Inspectorate advised that where possible Natural England should take full advantage of the opportunity to submit a Relevant Representation within the period for doing so, adding that detailed content is likely to be most helpful. Natural England highlighted that there is often a large amount of information to absorb during examination and it would be helpful to know which submissions may be of most value to the Examining Authority. The Planning Inspectorate acknowledged this and advised that while each examination is different there may be some practical advice that could be shared and that this could be the subject of further discussion.

08 April 2020
Natural England - anon.
Hornsea Project Four Offshore Wind Farm (Generating Stations)
Enquiry received via phone
Natural England wished to discuss the Planning Inspectorate’s process from the point of application with respect to the information supplied by an applicant to support an assessment under the requirements of the Habitat Regulations. In particular, it wished to understand how the Inspectorate can test the extent to where matters remain outstanding from discussions held between the Statutory Nature Conservation Bodies (SNCBs) and developers pre-application.
Discussion was held about the advice the Planning Inspectorate is able to provide at pre-application to developers, including discussion about how developers engage with statutory bodies and key stakeholders to agree an Evidence Plan to support the assessment. The Inspectorate acknowledged the absence of an overseeing organisation in relation to evidence plans and both organisations agreed to raise this point internally. The discussion continued whereby the Planning Inspectorate set out its expectations at acceptance, with reference to Advice Note 10. These expectations include the receipt of evidence of consultation with SNCBs and evidence of how its advice has been addressed. The role of Statements of Common Ground was discussed. Following on from this a discussion was held about how both organisations could work together to best assist the Examining Authority should the application be accepted for examination. The Planning Inspectorate advised that where possible Natural England should take full advantage of the opportunity to submit a Relevant Representation within the period for doing so, adding that detailed content is likely to be most helpful. Natural England highlighted that there is often a large amount of information to absorb during examination and it would be helpful to know which submissions may be of most value to the Examining Authority. The Planning Inspectorate acknowledged this and advised that while each examination is different there may be some practical advice that could be shared and that this could be the subject of further discussion.

08 April 2020
Natural England - anon.
General
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Dear Planning Inspectorate, BEIS ministers and EDF, I am writing to request you do not to accept EDF’s application to construct two new nuclear reactors at Sizewell. After 4 rounds of public consultations, EDF has still not provided enough information or adequately consulted interested parties. In particular, I would like to express the following reasons for this request: • Various statutory consultees, including Natural England, The Environment Agency and Marine Management Organisation, have serious reservations about the proposed application for a DCO for two reactors at Sizewell. They have noted defects in the work done so far by EDF, such as the failure by EDF to supply sufficient detail on important environmental aspects of the project, with the required documentation delivered late or not at all. • The Environment Agency’s report on the project is littered with various shortcomings in the consultation process. Most frightening, in light of the Fukushima disaster, is EDF’s casual attitude to safety aspects of the proposed development at Sizewell, but there has also been a woeful disregard for the potential threat to the neighbouring RSPB Nature Reserve at Minsmere and other protected sites in the area, as well as the impact on a fragile coastline. • EDF has failed to satisfactorily answer major questions about how the massive amounts of building material that will be needed for the project will be delivered to Sizewell now that EDF has abandoned plans for a jetty out to sea. EDF has not demonstrated that they plan to make significant use of rail or produced a satisfactory plan for a suitable access road that meets with local consensus. Indeed Suffolk Council has specifically contradicted EDF's claim to have chosen the best road route for a link road to the site from the A12. • EDF’s consultation process has failed to recognise the damage that will be done to the local economy, dependant as it currently is on tourism, which has been built up over several decades and replaced the jobs lost over time from agriculture. The loss of tourism revenue is in addition to other major damage likely to be suffered by the local community and environment such as clogged local roads, huge amounts of HGVs belching exhaust fumes, noise and light pollution etc. No study has been provided despite being promised “at a later stage of consultation”. • EDF has recently suggested that they will need a larger workforce at Hinkley Point than had been planned for when that project was proposed and likewise more are likely to be needed at Sizewell than EDF say they require at present. EDF’s communications about worker numbers at Sizewell have been very misleading and it seems they only plan to house a relatively small number of workers close to the site, meaning that many will need to travel to work on unsuitable local roads. • At Stage 4 consultations the two villages most adversely affected by the Sizewell link road, a major part of this consultation, were not visited with EDF’s touring exhibition. • There seems to be no sensible answer as to how the Sizewell project will be financed, without which the project cannot even get off the ground. Yours sincerely, Emma Dowley
Dear Ms Dowley, Thank you for your email outlining concerns about the Applicants Pre-application consultation. We note that you have sent your letter to the Applicant and the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. As you have concerns about the Applicant’s pre-application consultation you should contact the Applicant in the first instance to enable them to address the issues. If you are not satisfied that the Applicant has, or will, take account of your comments you can make your comments to the relevant local authority. The local authorities can consider your comments as part of their Adequacy of Consultation Representation submission to the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) at the Application Stage of the process. The Planning Inspectorate will consider any adequacy of consultation representations received from the relevant local authorities when deciding whether or not to accept the application, as required under section 55(4)(b) of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended). It is therefore important to ensure the local authorities are informed of your concerns. Further information about Community Consultation can be found here: [attachment 1] As you are aware the proposed application by EDF Energy is at the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 process. The Planning Inspectorate is unable to consider representations about the merits of any application until it is accepted for Examination. Further information about the process can be found in the link below to the National Infrastructure Planning website: [attachment 2]. Should the application be accepted the application and all the supporting documentation will be published on the project page of the National Infrastructure Planning website: [attachment 3]. The ‘Registration and Relevant Representation form’ will be made available here during the Pre-examination stage and all parties will have an opportunity to outline their views about the project. The appointed Examining Authority will then use these to carry out an initial assessment of principal issues. Further information about registering as an Interested Party can be found in the Planning Inspectorate’s ‘Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination’: [attachment 4]. Kind regards, Liam

06 April 2020
Emma Dowley
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see Attached

06 April 2020
Thurrock Powe Ltd - anon.
Thurrock Flexible Generation Plant
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached Meeting Note

06 April 2020
London Resort Company Holdings
The London Resort
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Hi there We’re acting on behalf of a number of NSIP projects looking to undertake statutory consultation over the next few month. Are you providing any guidance on pre-application consultation procedures during the Covid-19 outbreak? As far as we can see a lot, if not all consultation, can be done online, but there are a few sticking points, for example around depositing hard copies of documents. I notice the Welsh Government is looking to relax any requirements around this. Is the Planning Inspectorate aware of the position in England? I would be grateful for any guidance you have. Kind regards
Dear Mr Weaver, Thank you for your e-mail. I can confirm that the Inspectorate continues to provide a Pre-application service; all meetings are held digitally via Microsoft Teams. As you are aware, applicants are required to demonstrate that they have complied with all statutory consultation duties set out in the Planning Act 2008 and associated secondary legislation. Whilst we are aware of the current difficulties’ applicants are experiencing in seeking to discharge some of these duties, particularly in relation to making documents (hard and electronic) available at public deposit locations, the Regulations remain in force. On this basis your clients should seek their own legal advice about the effect of the current public health situation on their respective programmes. For the avoidance of doubt, any update to the Regulations amending the requirement to use public deposit locations will require Parliamentary approval. The Inspectorate is not aware of any timescales surrounding this at present. Please regularly check the advice the Planning Inspectorate has issued in relation to COVID-19, which is updated on a regular basis: [attachment 1].

03 April 2020
Andrew Weaver, Copper
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Meeting to discuss Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) related matters
Please see the attached meeting note

02 April 2020
Highways England - anon.
Lower Thames Crossing
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Re: LTC Supplementary Consultation 2020 – Coronavirus Measures I fully understand the need for H.E. to Cancel LTC Consultation Public Information Events following Government Advice. However I strongly oppose your decision to go ahead with the Consultation Response deadline as scheduled. I believe this is unfair and does not provide equal opportunity for the public to ensure that they are fully aware of all the implications and impacts of the LTC not only when it is completed, but during the Construction period which is currently estimated to be a minimum of 5 years. Every resident and road user alike should be entitled to personally access all the information available, very importantly including Large Scale Maps, and to obtain immediate answers to any resulting questions before completing the Consultation Response Forms. I believe it is the duty of Highways England to accept the consequences of the Coronavirus in relation to this Supplementary Consultation and Postpone the Consultation and the current Response deadline. I also believe that H.E. should Reschedule all the Public Information Events when it is safe to do so in fairness to the general public. These Events should also be more widely publicized via National and Local: Television, Radio and Newspapers as there is still a large percentage of the population who do not have access to the internet. The Coronavirus has had a worrying affect on many and it is highly likely that the attendance of the Events that went ahead would reflect this. Yours sincerely, Mrs. J.S. Thacker
Dear Mrs Thacker Thank you for your email expressing concerns about the adequacy of the Applicant’s Pre-application consultation in the current unprecedented public health situation. Please accept my apology for the late response. The Planning Inspectorate does not have power to intervene in an applicant’s pre-application programme. The process for applying for a Development Consent Order (DCO) is set out in the Planning Act 2008. The timing of the application is at the discretion of the Applicant. As you have concerns about the Applicant’s pre-application consultation you should contact the Applicant in the first instance to enable them to address the issues. If you have contacted the Applicant but you are not satisfied that the Applicant has, or will, take account of your comments you can make your comments to the relevant local authority. The local authorities can consider your comments as part of their Adequacy of Consultation Representation submission to the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) at the Application Stage of the process. The Planning Inspectorate will consider any adequacy of consultation representations received from the relevant local authorities when deciding whether or not to accept the application, as required under section 55(4)(b) of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended). It is therefore important to ensure the local authorities are informed of your concerns. Further information about Community Consultation can be found here: [attachment 1] As you are aware the proposed application by Highways England is at the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 process. The Planning Inspectorate is unable to consider representations about the merits of any application until it is accepted for Examination. Further information about the process can be found in the link below to the National Infrastructure Planning website: [attachment 2] Should the application be accepted then the application and all the supporting documentation will be published on the project page of the National Infrastructure Planning website: [attachment 3] The ‘Registration and Relevant Representation form’ will be made available here during the Pre-examination stage and all parties will have an opportunity to outline their views about the project. The appointed Examining Authority will then use these to carry out an initial assessment of principal issues. Further information about registering as an Interested Party can be found in the Planning Inspectorate’s ‘Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination’: [attachment 4] With regard to the current Coronavirus (COVID-19) situation, please refer to the Planning Inspectorate’s published guidance which will be updated as the situation develops. [attachment 5] I hope you find the above information helpful. Kind regards

02 April 2020
Mrs J.S. Thacker
Lower Thames Crossing
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
20th march 2020 I was about to write to you regarding your decision to go ahead with the Supplementary Consultation Response as planned when I received an email advising that Highways England have extended the response date by One Week to the 2nd April. Utterly ridiculous! It was my opinion before and still is, that Highways England made a serious error of judgment to continue with the Consultation process after the necessity of cancelling Public and Mobile Information Events due to the severity of the Coronavirus situation. This is a Major project and everyone is entitled to have the same opportunity to attend the Public Information Events etc. to see the large scale maps of the entire route, and sections of it, and get answers to any questions they might have so that they are aware of the impacts of the LTC during construction and when it is up and running. Proceeding with the Consultation at this time does not offer everyone this choice. Questions and answers online and over the phone are not sufficient. I believe the whole Consultation should be re-run at a future date when the fear of the Coronavirus is over. Sincerely, Mr. J.B. Thacker
Dear Mr Thacker, Thank you for your email expressing concerns about the adequacy of the Applicant’s Pre-application consultation in the current unprecedented public health situation. Please accept my apology for the late response. The Planning Inspectorate does not have power to intervene in an applicant’s pre-application programme. The process for applying for a Development Consent Order (DCO) is set out in the Planning Act 2008. The timing of the application is at the discretion of Highway England, the Applicant. As you have concerns about the Applicant’s pre-application consultation you should contact the Applicant in the first instance to enable them to address the issues. If you have contacted the Applicant but you are not satisfied that the Applicant has, or will, take account of your comments you can make your comments to the relevant local authority. The local authorities can consider your comments as part of their Adequacy of Consultation Representation submission to the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) at the Application Stage of the process. The Planning Inspectorate will consider any adequacy of consultation representations received from the relevant local authorities when deciding whether or not to accept the application, as required under section 55(4)(b) of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended). It is therefore important to ensure the local authorities are informed of your concerns. Further information about Community Consultation can be found here: [attachment 1] As you are aware the proposed application by Highways England is at the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 process. The Planning Inspectorate is unable to consider representations about the merits of any application until it is accepted for Examination. Further information about the process can be found in the link below to the National Infrastructure Planning website: [attachment 2] Should the application be accepted then the application and all the supporting documentation will be published on the project page of the National Infrastructure Planning website: [attachment 3] The ‘Registration and Relevant Representation form’ will be made available here during the Pre-examination stage and all parties will have an opportunity to outline their views about the project. The appointed Examining Authority will then use these to carry out an initial assessment of principal issues. Further information about registering as an Interested Party can be found in the Planning Inspectorate’s ‘Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination’: [attachment 4] With regard to the current Coronavirus (COVID-19) situation, please refer to the Planning Inspectorate’s published guidance which will be updated as the situation develops. [attachment 5] I hope you find the above information helpful. Kind regards

02 April 2020
Mr J.B. Thacker
Lower Thames Crossing
response has attachments
I would like to know if the planning Application for the lower Thames Crossing will be postponed as I have not been able to attend the consultation due to the virus and I was also looking to put forward a formal representation against the lower Thames Crossing and feel that I will now not be able to do this and that highways England will just carry on regardless . Mr S.Brace
Dear Mr Brace, Thank you for your email expressing concerns about the adequacy of the Applicant’s Pre-application consultation in the current unprecedented public health situation. Please accept my apology for the late response. The Planning Inspectorate does not have power to intervene in an applicant’s pre-application programme. The process for applying for a Development Consent Order (DCO) is set out in the Planning Act 2008. The timing of the application is at the discretion of the Applicant. As you have concerns about the Applicant’s pre-application consultation you should contact the Applicant in the first instance to enable them to address the issues. If you have contacted the Applicant but you are not satisfied that the Applicant has, or will, take account of your comments you can make your comments to the relevant local authority. The local authorities can consider your comments as part of their Adequacy of Consultation Representation submission to the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) at the Application Stage of the process. The Planning Inspectorate will consider any adequacy of consultation representations received from the relevant local authorities when deciding whether or not to accept the application, as required under section 55(4)(b) of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended). It is therefore important to ensure the local authorities are informed of your concerns. Further information about Community Consultation can be found here: [attachment 1] As you are aware the proposed application by Highways England is at the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 process. The Planning Inspectorate is unable to consider representations about the merits of any application until it is accepted for Examination. Further information about the process can be found in the link below to the National Infrastructure Planning website: [attachment 2] Should the application be accepted then the application and all the supporting documentation will be published on the project page of the National Infrastructure Planning website: [attachment 3] The ‘Registration and Relevant Representation form’ will be made available here during the Pre-examination stage and all parties will have an opportunity to outline their views about the project. The appointed Examining Authority will then use these to carry out an initial assessment of principal issues. Further information about registering as an Interested Party can be found in the Planning Inspectorate’s ‘Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination’: [attachment 4] With regard to the current Coronavirus (COVID-19) situation, please refer to the Planning Inspectorate’s published guidance which will be updated as the situation develops. [attachment 5] I hope you find the above information helpful. Kind regards

02 April 2020
Mr S.Brace
Lower Thames Crossing
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Dear all 1. You cannot end a 'consultation' when everyone's attention is elsewhere. 2. How can the cost of this project be justified when the UK is going to experience huge financial difficulties for years to come? Time to pause, if not cancel, the LTC. Thank you Jane Wooders
Dear Ms Wooders, Thank you for your email expressing concerns about the adequacy of the Applicant’s Pre-application consultation in the current unprecedented public health situation. Please accept my apology for the late response. The Planning Inspectorate does not have power to intervene in an applicant’s pre-application programme. The process for applying for a Development Consent Order (DCO) is set out in the Planning Act 2008. The timing of the application is at the discretion of Highways England, the Applicant. As you have concerns about the Applicant’s pre-application consultation you should contact the Applicant in the first instance to enable them to address the issues. If you have contacted the Applicant but you are not satisfied that the Applicant has, or will, take account of your comments you can make your comments to the relevant local authority. The local authorities can consider your comments as part of their Adequacy of Consultation Representation submission to the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) at the Application Stage of the process. The Planning Inspectorate will consider any adequacy of consultation representations received from the relevant local authorities when deciding whether or not to accept the application, as required under section 55(4)(b) of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended). It is therefore important to ensure the local authorities are informed of your concerns. Further information about Community Consultation can be found here: [attachment 1] As you are aware the proposed application by Highways England is at the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 process. The Planning Inspectorate is unable to consider representations about the merits of any application until it is accepted for Examination. Further information about the process can be found in the link below to the National Infrastructure Planning website: [attachment 2] Should the application be accepted then the application and all the supporting documentation will be published on the project page of the National Infrastructure Planning website: [attachment 3] The ‘Registration and Relevant Representation form’ will be made available here during the Pre-examination stage and all parties will have an opportunity to outline their views about the project. The appointed Examining Authority will then use these to carry out an initial assessment of principal issues. Further information about registering as an Interested Party can be found in the Planning Inspectorate’s ‘Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination’: [attachment 4] With regard to the current Coronavirus (COVID-19) situation, please refer to the Planning Inspectorate’s published guidance which will be updated as the situation develops. [attachment 5] I hope you find the above information helpful. Kind regards

02 April 2020
Jane Wooders
Lower Thames Crossing
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please see attached
Please see attached

02 April 2020
Mrs Askew
Lower Thames Crossing
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please see attached
The process for applying for a Development Consent Order (DCO) is set out in the Planning Act 2008. The timing of the application is at the discretion of the Applicant. The project page will be updated when the application is received and when the decision on whether or not to accept the application for Examination is made. It is important to note that when an Applicant submits an application for development consent to the Planning Inspectorate that there then follows a period of up to 28 days for the Planning Inspectorate, on behalf of the Secretary of State, to decide whether or not the application meets the standards required to be accepted for Examination. The standards are set out in Section 55 of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended) and Regulations 5 and 6 of the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009. All parties are encouraged to sign up for Email Updates using the button on the project page or via the link below: [attachment 1] Email Updates will enable parties to observe what’s happening on the application after it has been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate. Should the application be accepted for Examination, it is important to note that if parties then wish to participate in the Examination they would need to register as an Interested Party at the appropriate time during the Pre-examination stage. If parties have signed up for the Email Updates they will receive a prompt when the registration period opens (the Relevant Representation period). For further information about registering as an Interested Party please see ‘Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination’. The Advice Note explains that if the Planning Inspectorate decides to accept an application for Examination, it will then be the Applicant’s duty to advertise the Relevant Representation period and provide details about how to register to become an Interested Party. Finally, with regard to the current Coronavirus (COVID-19) situation, please refer to the Planning Inspectorate’s published guidance which will be updated as the situation develops. [attachment 2]

31 March 2020
John Rea Price and Judith Croton
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Dear all, I think that EDFs planning application, now due for submission in April, for Sizewell C should be postponed until after Covid 19 pandemic for the following reasons: 1. This crisis will not be over ‘in a few weeks’. Government advisers indicate that there could be restrictions for the rest of the year. 2. The Planning Inspectorate is short of staff due to sickness and difficulties of getting to work. They may not have the resources to decide whether or not to accept EDF’s application within the required 28 days. 3. People who do not use the internet will be unable to go to libraries to see the documents. The same applies to anyone wanting to check the hard copy (for example the maps and diagrams which may be difficult to make out on screen). 4. While all our councils, parish, town, district and county, cannot meet, they also cannot help and advise the public. Nor can they represent us properly. Their resources are also limited due to sickness and inability of staff to get to work, so both East Suffolk and the County Council will be unable to carry out their duties fully as statutory consultees. 5. Government agencies, including the Environment Agency, Office for Nuclear Regulation and Natural England, all of whom are already short of funds and staff, will now be further compromised by Covid 19. They will not be able to respond fully to the documents, nor take full part in the Examination, nor engage with the public. The Environment Agency will be unable to hold the promised public consultations on licensing. 6. It will be impossible for the Planning Inspectorate to hold the Preliminary Meeting, whereby the public can make requests about how they would like the Examination to be carried out. Nor will the public be able to attend the Hearings. Regards Amy Rayner
Dear Ms Rayner, Thank you for your email. The process for applying for a Development Consent Order (DCO) is set out in the Planning Act 2008. The timing of the application is at the discretion of the Applicant. The project page will be updated when the application is received and when the decision on whether or not to accept the application for Examination is made. It is important to note that when an Applicant submits an application for development consent to the Planning Inspectorate that there then follows a period of up to 28 days for the Planning Inspectorate, on behalf of the Secretary of State, to decide whether or not the application meets the standards required to be accepted for Examination. The standards are set out in Section 55 of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended) and Regulations 5 and 6 of the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009. All parties are encouraged to sign up for Email Updates using the button on the project page or via the link below: [attachment 1] Email Updates will enable parties to observe what’s happening on the application after it has been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate. Should the application be accepted for Examination, it is important to note that if parties then wish to participate in the Examination they would need to register as an Interested Party at the appropriate time during the Pre-examination stage. If parties have signed up for the Email Updates they will receive a prompt when the registration period opens (the Relevant Representation period). For further information about registering as an Interested Party please see ‘Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination’. The Advice Note explains that if the Planning Inspectorate decides to accept an application for Examination, it will then be the Applicant’s duty to advertise the Relevant Representation period and provide details about how to register to become an Interested Party. Finally, with regard to the current Coronavirus (COVID-19) situation, please refer to the Planning Inspectorate’s published guidance which will be updated as the situation develops. [attachment 2] I hope you find the above information helpful.

30 March 2020
Amy Rayner
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Dear PINS I am writing on behalf of Suffolk Coastal Friends of the Earth, of which I am the Coordinator. Our members are truly appalled that EDF Energy are apparently thinking of putting in their application to build Sizewell C imminently, right during this current epidemic and national emergency. Clearly, it would be quite impossible for the public to participate in the Examination, as legally prescribed. Most immediately this would affect the Preliminary Meeting and subsequently the public Hearings, which we would not be able to attend. We ask therefore that EDF Energy's application not be accepted at this critical time, but that it be postponed until the public are able to be involved according to their democratic rights. Your sincerely, Rachel Fulcher, Coordinator Suffolk Coastal Friends of the Earth
Dear Ms Fulcher, Thank you for your email. As you may be aware The Applicant is planning to defer the submission of the Application for a few weeks. The process for applying for a Development Consent Order (DCO) is set out in the Planning Act 2008. The timing of the application is at the discretion of the Applicant. The project page will be updated when the application is received and when the decision on whether or not to accept the application for Examination is made. It is important to note that when an Applicant submits an application for development consent to the Planning Inspectorate that there then follows a period of up to 28 days for the Planning Inspectorate, on behalf of the Secretary of State, to decide whether or not the application meets the standards required to be accepted for Examination. The standards are set out in Section 55 of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended) and Regulations 5 and 6 of the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009. All parties are encouraged to sign up for Email Updates using the button on the project page or via the link below: [attachment 1] Email Updates will enable parties to observe what’s happening on the application after it has been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate. Should the application be accepted for Examination, it is important to note that if parties then wish to participate in the Examination they would need to register as an Interested Party at the appropriate time during the Pre-examination stage. If parties have signed up for the Email Updates they will receive a prompt when the registration period opens (the Relevant Representation period). For further information about registering as an Interested Party please see ‘Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination’. The Advice Note explains that if the Planning Inspectorate decides to accept an application for Examination, it will then be the Applicant’s duty to advertise the Relevant Representation period and provide details about how to register to become an Interested Party. Finally, with regard to the current Coronavirus (COVID-19) situation, please refer to the Planning Inspectorate’s published guidance which will be updated as the situation develops. [attachment 2] I hope you find the above information helpful.

30 March 2020
on behalf of Suffolk Coastal Friends of the Earth - Rachel Fulcher
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
> Re: EDF/Sizewell C consultations x 4 > > As we are led to believe that EDF will soon apply for their DCO, Covid 19 not withstanding, I want to submit some serious misgivings I have about the 4 public consultations that have taken place over the last few years. > > My basic problem is the hopeless lack of detail and evidence that has been offered around the complete transformation from the AONB and the deeply rural surrounding area of East Suffolk and the Heritage Coast to the highly industrialised wasteland that is being proposed. For 15 years or more everyone within a 40 mile radius will be adversely affected, businesses and the general public alike. RSPB Minsmere will be no more, we will lose an unknown acreage of SSSI and our unique landscape will have been irreparably altered for the worse. When asked questions about the impact on various aspects of the environment - use of fresh water (in short supply here), sewage works and related issues, danger of upsetting the water levels in the Minsmere Levels, of pollution and run off from building a permanent road right across the SSSI, danger related to sea level rise and more flooding on this famously fragile and eroding coast, EDF have too frequently said that environmental assessments have yet to be done. Obviously this makes it impossible to make truly well informed conclusions or comments. > > I object on environmental grounds. The British Government accepts we are in climate crisis, but everything about the construction of Sizewell C - actually Sizewell C and D - is extremely carbon heavy up front and much of this release of carbon will be occurring during the 10 year window of opportunity the scientific community have given us to retain life on Earth. The transport of all the necessary aggregates from one side of the country to the other, the pouring of a sea of concrete, the huge rise in traffic, air, light and noise pollution all create massive extra emissions. For example, the Yoxford junction onto the A12 will be an instant disaster. There is already often a queue to join it from the A1120, and with hundreds of extra vehicles it will become almost impossible to turn either right or left there, meaning traffic will be backed up along the High Street, with houses on either side set close to the road. There is also a primary school around which the children, staff, pedestrians and residents will have to breath in even higher levels of pollution than already exist, from backed up, idling traffic emitting toxic fumes. Families living on the east side of the A12 will have a difficult and dangerous time crossing it to reach and return from the school. > > I object on behalf of the the local economy. Far from bringing prosperity and jobs, we will lose our hard earned and lucrative tourist industry. As for boosting Leiston’s economy: as history has proven by the first two builds and by visiting the town today, that it will be a third case of boom and bust. It will take much longer, and be far more unpleasant to drive to East Suffolk and on arrival it will be difficult to find places to stay. Minsmere and the coast will no longer be attractive, suffering from 24 hour noise, light and air pollution. East Suffolk has very low unemployment levels and most of the SZC jobs will go to workers from around the world, many via Hinckley Point C. > > HPC has recently said it needs more workers than previously expected, and doubtless the same will be true at SZC. The infrastructure of the area simply cannot cope with thousands more people and no mitigation is possible for that. Jobs for locals will be largely in catering, general maintenance and similar work, which mean local hotels, restaurants, plumbers, electricians etc will inevitably lose staff to the higher wages of SZC. Local businesses will struggle and local people left without help when they need it. We have yet to be given details of exactly how or where all these previously unforeseen extra workers will be housed. > > The roadworks and roundabout building will take years, meanwhile the existing roads will have to carry hundreds of extra cars, vans, lorries, busses and some super-sized vehicles carrying special loads. Journey times could double or treble. I personally experienced a journey time of two hours to drive the seven miles around Bridgwater. East Suffolk is already one of the worst areas in the country for ambulance arrival times, and more people will suffer unnecessarily as a result - the same applies to the fire service. These extra workers will come to work and live locally but we already have a severe shortage of doctors and other medical assistance and nothing has been done to mitigate any of this We have been informed a helicopter will take injured SZC workers to hospital as it takes too long for ambulances to reach the site. What about the rest of us? We will just be left to die. During the current pandemic particularly we do not want and should not be asked to accommodate an influx of thousands to further endanger both our health and our health services, already almost at breaking point. Current thinking has the virus with us for up to two years. > > I object on financial grounds. The evidence clearly shows that new nuclear builds never come in on time or on budget, quite the reverse. In fact, that may be their only reliable quality. Every year that passes evidence piles up against nuclear, and every year renewable sources become much cheaper to build, as well as much quicker. Their carbon footprint is small in comparison to nuclear, and leaves no poisoned chalice behind. We already have a mass of radioactive waste stored at Sizewell, indefinitely it seems, but no-one asks us our opinions on that matter. Now it will be joined by much more, much ‘hotter’ waste which will be lethal for centuries - just when the world is facing huge sea level rises and more extreme weather events. Apart from the existing danger of low level radiation, this area will become even more dangerous to life. > > Government also gave consumers a choice over their power suppliers. I chose 100% renewable energy. The RAB system of payment for SZC, as suggested, is unacceptable on a personal level as well as in general. Why should the population pay to keep the bankrupt nuclear arm of EDF afloat financially? For a white elephant that we do not need and do not want? We have just left Europe, after all, and the French PM has stated he aims for France itself to become nuclear free. > > Finally I object on personal grounds. The east coast is crumbling and the build at SZC will not only adversely effect the AONB but the villages, land and residents to both north, south and inland as the sea will encroach. We are told SZC may become an island, that EDF will build their wall higher against rising sea levels (remember King Canute?) but in reality no detailed information has been given about this and many more issues that have been raised over and over again during the consultation process. Those of us who live here want to protect our precious local heritage not merely for ourselves but for future generations. We do not want to hasten the demise of some of the UK’s most highly protected and unique landscape for an unnecessary, fabulously expensive and potentially lethally dangerous white elephant that will remain just that for centuries to come. > > It has become only too clear over the past many years and four consultations that the proposed plans for SZC are ruinous both environmentally and financially. The lives of local people have already been adversely affected but ever more disruption will continue for 15 -20 years. All this before SZC generates any electricity at all. During the same period many more wind and solar farms will be built and other renewable technologies will come on stream, making the twin reactors of SZC entirely redundant. > > Jackum Brown
Dear Mr Brown, Thank you for your email expressing concerns about the Applicant’s Pre-application consultation and commenting on the merits of the Application. As you have concerns about the Applicant’s Pre-application consultation you should contact the Applicant in the first instance to enable them to address the issues. If you have contacted the Applicant but you are not satisfied that the Applicant has, or will, take account of your comments you can make your comments to the relevant local authority. The local authorities can consider your comments as part of their Adequacy of Consultation Representation submission to the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) at the Application Stage of the process. The Planning Inspectorate will consider any adequacy of consultation representations received from the relevant local authorities when deciding whether or not to accept the application, as required under section 55(4)(b) of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended). It is therefore important to ensure the local authorities are informed of your concerns. Further information about Community Consultation can be found here: [attachment 1] As you are aware the proposed application by EDF Energy is at the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 process. The Planning Inspectorate is unable to consider representations about the merits of any application until it is accepted for Examination. Further information about the process can be found in the link below to the National Infrastructure Planning website: [attachment 2]. Should the application be accepted the application and all the supporting documentation will be published on the project page of the National Infrastructure Planning website: [attachment 3]. The ‘Registration and Relevant Representation form’ will be made available here during the Pre-examination stage and all parties will have an opportunity to outline their views about the project. The appointed Examining Authority will then use these to carry out an initial assessment of principal issues. Further information about registering as an Interested Party can be found in the Planning Inspectorate’s ‘Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination’: [attachment 4]. I hope the above information is helpful.

30 March 2020
Jackum Brown
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via post
response has attachments
Please see attached
As you have concerns about the Applicant’s pre-application consultation you should contact the Applicant in the first instance to enable them to address the issues. If you have contacted the Applicant but you are not satisfied that the Applicant has, or will, take account of your comments you can make your comments to the relevant local authority. The local authorities can consider your comments as part of their Adequacy of Consultation Representation submission to the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) at the Application Stage of the process. The Planning Inspectorate will consider any adequacy of consultation representations received from the relevant local authorities when deciding whether or not to accept the application, as required under section 55(4)(b) of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended). It is therefore important to ensure the local authorities are informed of your concerns. Further information about Community Consultation can be found here: [attachment 1] As you are aware the proposed application by EDF Energy is at the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 process. The Planning Inspectorate is unable to consider representations about the merits of any application until it is accepted for Examination. Further information about the process can be found in the link below to the National Infrastructure Planning website: [attachment 2]. Should the application be accepted the application and all the supporting documentation will be published on the project page of the National Infrastructure Planning website: [attachment 3]. The ‘Registration and Relevant Representation form’ will be made available here during the Pre-examination stage and all parties will have an opportunity to outline their views about the project. The appointed Examining Authority will then use these to carry out an initial assessment of principal issues. Further information about registering as an Interested Party can be found in the Planning Inspectorate’s ‘Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination’: [attachment 4].

27 March 2020
on behalf of Yoxford Parish Council - John Walford
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I hear that the public meetings about this application have been cancelled due to the present Covid-19 criss. It would be undemocratic to proceed without the meetings and the right course of action would be for EDFE to postpone the application until the crisis is over and the meetings can take place. Yours sincerely, Catherine Northover
Ms Northover, Thank you for your email. The process for applying for a Development Consent Order (DCO) is set out in the Planning Act 2008, the timing of the application is at the discretion of the Applicant. Whilst we are aware that the latest Sizewell C Community Forum meeting has been cancelled please note that the National Infrastructure Planning website provides a significant amount of information about the DCO process and how parties can get involved. Advice Note Eight provides an overview followed by five sections which take you step by step through the planning process for Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects: [attachment 1] The Planning Inspectorate has produced a series of short films explaining the process and how parties can take part: [attachment 2] For information that is specific to the Sizewell C project there is a project page on the National Infrastructure Planning website: [attachment 3] The project page will be updated when the application is received and when the decision on whether or not to accept the application for Examination is made. It is important to note that when an Applicant submits an application for development consent to the Planning Inspectorate that there then follows a period of up to 28 days for the Planning Inspectorate, on behalf of the Secretary of State, to decide whether or not the application meets the standards required to be accepted for Examination. The standards are set out in Section 55 of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended) and Regulations 5 and 6 of the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009. All parties are encouraged to sign up for Email Updates using the button on the project page or via the link below: [attachment 4] Email Updates will enable parties to observe what’s happening on the application after it has been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate. Should the application be accepted for Examination, it is important to note that if parties then wish to participate in the Examination they would need to register as an Interested Party at the appropriate time during the Pre-examination stage. If parties have signed up for the Email Updates they will receive a prompt when the registration period opens (the Relevant Representation period). For further information about registering as an Interested Party please see ‘Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination’. The Advice Note explains that if the Planning Inspectorate decides to accept an application for Examination, it will then be the Applicant’s duty to advertise the Relevant Representation period and provide details about how to register to become an Interested Party. Finally, with regard to the current Coronavirus (COVID-19) situation, please refer to the Planning Inspectorate’s published guidance which will be updated as the situation develops. [attachment 5] I hope you find the above information helpful.

27 March 2020
Catherine Northover
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached meeting note

26 March 2020
NNB Nuclear Generation (SZC) Limited (Applicant) - anon.
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached.

26 March 2020
Highways England - anon.
A1 in Northumberland - Morpeth to Ellingham
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
REF: Response to Scoping Opinion Proposed Medworth Energy from Waste Combined Heat and Power Facility (Wisbech) EN010110 [attachment 1] Can you please confirm that the public response to the above published Scoping Opinion is required by the end of March.
In light of your concerns I have contacted the Applicant to fully understand their consultation processes and changes they have made in response to the Governments approach the coronavirus pandemic. As you are aware the public consultation events for Medworth have been cancelled, however, the public consultation itself is still underway. It was launched on 16th March and is currently proposed to run until Monday 4th May. I think perhaps this may be where the mix up regarding consultation on the Scoping Opinion may have come from. The Applicant has information regarding the proposals on their website – [attachment 2]. You can raise your concerns, including those you have on the Scoping Opinion, using the ‘general enquiry form’ here [attachment 3]. Alternatively you can email [email protected] or call 01945 232 231. Furthermore if you have comments regarding the consultation itself you may provide feedback here [attachment 3] using the ‘consultation feedback form’ tab, or in hard copy to ‘Freepost MVV’. All consultation feedback will be reviewed and considered as the project progresses. The Applicant will continue to review the coronavirus situation in relation to their ability to hold community events. Engaging with affected communities is their key priority and they will assess how and when events can be held as the situation progresses.

26 March 2020
Mo Stewart
Medworth Energy from Waste Combined Heat and Power Facility
Enquiry received via email
Dear Sirs/Madams, In light of the current public health situation surrounding COVID-19 and the Planning Inspectorate’s recent decision to postpone all local plan, appeal and NSIP hearings and enquiries until further notice we write to ask whether any postponement or delay is envisaged in relation to the Southampton to London Pipeline Project. We note that the close of examination is to be the 9 April 2020 and our client, Thames Water Utilities Limited have issues and comments still outstanding. We may need to make final representations before the close of the examination if these are not satisfied by ongoing discussions with the We also wish to manage our clients expectations if there are likely to be delays in the examination and decision periods. Any information you may have in this regard would be welcomed. Kind regards Beth Youngs | Solicitor | Planning and Environmental Team | Birketts LLP
Dear Ms Youngs, Thank you for your e-mail below. The situation surrounding COVID-19 is a matter which is under constant review by the Inspectorate. We have set up a group that is dedicated to monitoring the situation, ensuring that we are operating in accordance with current Government guidelines. In relation to the Southampton to London Pipeline Project Examination, I can confirm that all public events have taken place; there are no further site inspections or hearings planned. In the absence of events necessitating social gathering, such as those listed above, there is no planned postponement of the Examination and it will continue to proceed; due to close on Thursday 9 April 2020. Your comments in relation to your client’s position are noted. There is an opportunity for all Interested Parties to submit their respective positions by the final Examination deadline (Deadline 7 – 2 April 2020). Please note that if any representations are submitted after this deadline, but before the close of the Examination, it will be for the Examining Authority (ExA) to decide whether to exercise its discretion to accept. Any representations submitted after the close of the Examination will not be seen by the ExA and will be passed to BEIS, alongside the ExA’s Recommendation Report. Finally, I regret to inform you that the Inspectorate is not in a position to confirm whether there will be any delay to the decision period; that is a matter for BEIS and will depend on a number of factors such as whether any consultation is required.

24 March 2020
Thames Water Utilities Limited - Beth Youngs ,Birketts LLP
Southampton to London Pipeline Project
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Dear Michele, In these days of crisis with Covid 19 I am very concerned with the situation that may occur concerning the NSIP EDF Energy proposal for Sizewell C. We have been told locally that EDFE are considering putting in their DCO to PINs in the near future ( before the end of March 2020) I am aware that it is entirely in the hands of the Developer as to the timing of their application. However we have received notification that the SZC Community Forum has been cancelled for obvious reasons therefore there will be no opportunity to ask final questions of the EDFE Team before the DCO is submitted. Nor the ability to give people any information as to how the DCO process will work neither will they be instructed as to how to be involved with the DCO process. Which I understood was part of the Consultation process. Understanding the present situation brings into question how can the democratic process work if EDFE decide to put in their DCO, when the Country is dealing with such difficulties. Local Authorities large and small and Regulators are all under pressure such as ability to travel, lack of staff and time scales and the involvement with so many difficult urgent matters. How will members of the public be notified if EDFE decide to submit their DCO for SZC in the present climate ? What measures will be undertaken to ensure democracy is complied with? Does PINS have the ability to suspend any procedure on EDFE DCO until such time as the Covid 19 situation is resolved? I note with interest that the EA1North and EA2 Wind Farms NSIP Planning Examinations have been suspended. Will the same criterion apply to any new NSIP Application? Yours Sincerely Joan Girling
Dear Joan Girling Thank you for your email. The process for applying for a Development Consent Order (DCO) is set out in the Planning Act 2008. As you are aware the timing of the application is at the discretion of the Developer. Whilst we are aware that the latest Sizewell C Community Forum meeting has been cancelled please note that the National Infrastructure Planning website provides a significant amount of information about the DCO process and how parties can get involved. Advice Note Eight provides an overview followed by five sections which take you step by step through the planning process for Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects: [attachment 1] The Planning Inspectorate has produced a series of short films explaining the process and how parties can take part: [attachment 2] For information that is specific to the Sizewell C project there is a project page on the National Infrastructure Planning website: [attachment 3] The project page will be updated when the application is received and when the decision on whether or not to accept the application for Examination is made. It is important to note that when an Applicant submits an application for development consent to the Planning Inspectorate that there then follows a period of up to 28 days for the Planning Inspectorate, on behalf of the Secretary of State, to decide whether or not the application meets the standards required to be accepted for Examination. The standards are set out in Section 55 of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended) and Regulations 5 and 6 of the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009. All parties are encouraged to sign up for Email Updates using the button on the project page or via the link below: [attachment 4] Email Updates will enable parties to observe what’s happening on the application after it has been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate. Should the application be accepted for Examination, it is important to note that if parties then wish to participate in the Examination they would need to register as an Interested Party at the appropriate time during the Pre-examination stage. If parties have signed up for the Email Updates they will receive a prompt when the registration period opens (the Relevant Representation period). For further information about registering as an Interested Party please see ‘Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination’. The Advice Note explains that if the Planning Inspectorate decides to accept an application for Examination, it will then be the Applicant’s duty to advertise the Relevant Representation period and provide details about how to register to become an Interested Party. Finally, with regard to the current Coronavirus (COVID-19) situation, please refer to the Planning Inspectorate’s published guidance which will be updated as the situation develops. [attachment 5] I hope you find the above information helpful.

24 March 2020
Joan Girling
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please see attached.
As you have concerns about the Applicant’s pre-application consultation you should contact the Applicant in the first instance to enable them to address the issues. If you have contacted the Applicant but you are not satisfied that the Applicant has, or will, take account of your comments you can make your comments to the relevant local authority. The local authorities can consider your comments as part of their Adequacy of Consultation Representation submission to the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) at the Application Stage of the process. The Planning Inspectorate will consider any adequacy of consultation representations received from the relevant local authorities when deciding whether or not to accept the application, as required under section 55(4)(b) of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended). It is therefore important to ensure the local authorities are informed of your concerns. Further information about Community Consultation can be found here: [attachment 1]. As you are aware the proposed application by EDF Energy is at the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 process. The Planning Inspectorate is unable to consider representations about the merits of any application until it is accepted for Examination. Further information about the process can be found in the link below to the National Infrastructure Planning website: [attachment 2]. Should the application be accepted the application and all the supporting documentation will be published on the project page of the National Infrastructure Planning website: [attachment 3]. The ‘Registration and Relevant Representation form’ will be made available here during the Pre-examination stage and all parties will have an opportunity to outline their views about the project. The appointed Examining Authority will then use these to carry out an initial assessment of principal issues. Further information about registering as an Interested Party can be found in the Planning Inspectorate’s ‘Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination’: [attachment 4].

19 March 2020
Jane Page on behalf of Hacheston Parish Council
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Please see attached.
Changes to red line boundary and supplementary consultation

19 March 2020
Highways England
A428 Black Cat to Caxton Gibbet Road Improvement scheme
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Dear Sir/Madam I write to express my dissatisfaction with the consultation process which EDF has undertaken in respect of Sizewell C&D. In view of the social and environmental sensitivity of this scheme, the consultations, exhibitions and information available have been a long way short of what I would consider acceptable. When I attended the exhibitions I found the displays lacking in detail, particularly from an environmental point of view and my questions on the impact on the local environment, wildlife and on the health risks to local residents were dismissed. I was told to wait until the Environmental Impact Assessment was published. To leave these questions unanswered until the DCO is submitted is totally unacceptable. One of the most misleading parts of the exhibition was the huge model of the completed development showing all the countryside around the power station. There was no model showing the extent of the actual development site, the Sites of Special Scientific Interest which will be lost or the impact on the beach. There was no indication of the scale and location of the workers’ accommodation blocks and as the display boards failed to show the potential visual impact, there was no way that people could get a real perception of the extent of the construction site, the environmental damage that will be caused and the resulting long-term impact. When I asked why such a model hadn’t been created, my observation was dismissed as (and I quote) ‘unnecessary'. Furthermore there was insufficient detail on the location and extent of the nuclear waste storage which the site will be subject to over its lifetime or indeed on the time which this dangerous nuclear waste will be there. The information was lacking in honesty as the truth is that no one knows what to do with the nuclear waste or what danger it presents when buried in a location which is at severe risk of flooding due to anticipated rise in sea levels in the years to come. Today environmental impacts should be at the top of every list of considerations when development schemes are being planned. EDF has been less than open, indeed I would argue that they have been negligent, in the way and in the extent of information provided with no indication of the levels of pollution which the construction process, traffic and construction materials will produce. Whilst it is (incorrectly) argued that once completed the production of electricity will be carbon free, during the long construction period considerable air and light pollution will be generated - this flies in the face of the Government’s targets for CO2 reduction and will pose a real threat to local people’s health. EDF have totally ignored these aspects during their public exhibitions. EDF’s consultation process had been misleading and insufficient and I would ask the Planning Inspectorate to dismiss the DCO application. Yours faithfully Alan Collett
Dear Mr Collett, Thank you for your email expressing concerns about the adequacy of the Applicants Pre-application consultation and the consultation material. We note that you have sent your letter to the the local authorities. As you have concerns about the Applicant’s pre-application consultation you should contact the Applicant in the first instance to enable them to address the issues. If you have contacted the Applicant but you are not satisfied that the Applicant has, or will, take account of your comments you can make your comments to the relevant local authority. The local authorities can consider your comments as part of their Adequacy of Consultation Representation submission to the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) at the Application Stage of the process. The Planning Inspectorate will consider any adequacy of consultation representations received from the relevant local authorities when deciding whether or not to accept the application, as required under section 55(4)(b) of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended). It is therefore important to ensure the local authorities are informed of your concerns. Further information about Community Consultation can be found here: [attachment 1]. As you are aware the proposed application by EDF Energy is at the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 process. The Planning Inspectorate is unable to consider representations about the merits of any application until it is accepted for Examination. Further information about the process can be found in the link below to the National Infrastructure Planning website: [attachment 2]. Should the application be accepted the application and all the supporting documentation will be published on the project page of the National Infrastructure Planning website: [attachment 3]. The ‘Registration and Relevant Representation form’ will be made available here during the Pre-examination stage and all parties will have an opportunity to outline their views about the project. The appointed Examining Authority will then use these to carry out an initial assessment of principal issues. Further information about registering as an Interested Party can be found in the Planning Inspectorate’s ‘Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination’: [attachment 4]. Kind regards, Liam

18 March 2020
Alan Collett
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please see attached
Thank you for the attached letter expressing concerns about the adequacy of the Applicants Pre-application consultation and the consultation material. As you have concerns about the Applicant’s pre-application consultation you should contact the Applicant in the first instance to enable them to address the issues. If you have contacted the Applicant but you are not satisfied that the Applicant has, or will, take account of your comments you can make your comments to the relevant local authority. The local authorities can consider your comments as part of their Adequacy of Consultation Representation submission to the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) at the Application Stage of the process. The Planning Inspectorate will consider any adequacy of consultation representations received from the relevant local authorities when deciding whether or not to accept the application, as required under section 55(4)(b) of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended). It is therefore important to ensure the local authorities are informed of your concerns. Further information about Community Consultation can be found here: [attachment 1]. As you are aware the proposed application by EDF Energy is at the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 process. The Planning Inspectorate is unable to consider representations about the merits of any application until it is accepted for Examination. Further information about the process can be found in the link below to the National Infrastructure Planning website: [attachment 2]. Should the application be accepted the application and all the supporting documentation will be published on the project page of the National Infrastructure Planning website: [attachment 3]. The ‘Registration and Relevant Representation form’ will be made available here during the Pre-examination stage and all parties will have an opportunity to outline their views about the project. The appointed Examining Authority will then use these to carry out an initial assessment of principal issues. Further information about registering as an Interested Party can be found in the Planning Inspectorate’s ‘Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination’: [attachment 4].

18 March 2020
on behalf of Great Bealings Parish Council - Dee Knights
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
A project update took place on 18 March 2020
A note of that meeting is attached

18 March 2020
The Net Zero Teesside Project - anon.
The Net Zero Teesside Project
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Please see attached.
Please see attached.

18 March 2020
Highways England
A417 Missing Link
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Dear Planning Inspectorate, BEIS Ministers and EDF I urge you not to accept EDF’s application to construct two new nuclear reactors at Sizewell. Despite 4 rounds of public consultations, EDF has not provided enough information or adequately consulted people about: • The threat to RSPB Minsmere Nature Reserve and other protected sites. The company has provided no assurances that Minsmere and Sizewell Marsh SSSI will be protected from any potential harm as a result of Sizewell C. The amount of information about environmental impacts has been woeful. • The way in which EDF plans to deliver 10m tonnes of material without a jetty, significant use of rail, or an adequate road route that will protect local communities. Councils dispute EDF's claim to have chosen the best road route. • Community Impacts - no study has been provided despite being promised “at a later stage of consultation” • Health Impacts - no study has been provided despite being promised “at a later stage of consultation” • Worker numbers and accommodation. Reports from Hinkley Point that EDF has underestimated the workers it needs suggests more will be needed at Sizewell C too. EDF’s communications about worker numbers at Sizewell have been very misleading and its uncertain where everyone would live. • At Stage 4 consultations the two villages most affected by the Sizewell Link Road, a major part of this consultation, were not visited with EDF’s touring exhibition. Yours sincerely, Anna Liberadzki
Dear Ms Liberadzki, Thank you for your email outlining concerns about the Applicants Pre-application consultation. We note that you have sent your letter to the Applicant and the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. As you have concerns about the Applicant’s pre-application consultation you should contact the Applicant in the first instance to enable them to address the issues. If you have contacted the Applicant but you are not satisfied that the Applicant has, or will, take account of your comments you can make your comments to the relevant local authority. The local authorities can consider your comments as part of their Adequacy of Consultation Representation submission to the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) at the Application Stage of the process. The Planning Inspectorate will consider any adequacy of consultation representations received from the relevant local authorities when deciding whether or not to accept the application, as required under section 55(4)(b) of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended). It is therefore important to ensure the local authorities are informed of your concerns. Further information about Community Consultation can be found here: [attachment 1] As you are aware the proposed application by EDF Energy is at the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 process. The Planning Inspectorate is unable to consider representations about the merits of any application until it is accepted for Examination. Further information about the process can be found in the link below to the National Infrastructure Planning website: [attachment 2]. Should the application be accepted the application and all the supporting documentation will be published on the project page of the National Infrastructure Planning website: [attachment 3]. The ‘Registration and Relevant Representation form’ will be made available here during the Pre-examination stage and all parties will have an opportunity to outline their views about the project. The appointed Examining Authority will then use these to carry out an initial assessment of principal issues. Further information about registering as an Interested Party can be found in the Planning Inspectorate’s ‘Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination’: [attachment 4]. Kind regards, Liam

17 March 2020
Anna Liberadzki
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please see attached
Thank you for the attached letter on behalf of Theberton and Eastbridge Action Group on Sizewell expressing concerns about the adequacy of the Applicants consultation, consultation material and the information contained in the Scoping Report. We note that you have sent your letter to the Applicant and the local authorities. The local authorities can consider your comments as part of their Adequacy of Consultation Representation submission to the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) at the Application Stage of the process. The Planning Inspectorate will consider any adequacy of consultation representations received from the relevant local authorities when deciding whether or not to accept the application, as required under section 55(4)(b) of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended). It is therefore important to ensure the local authorities are informed of your concerns. Further information about Community Consultation can be found here: [attachment 1] As you are aware the proposed application by EDF Energy is at the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 process. The Planning Inspectorate is unable to consider representations about the merits of any application until it is accepted for Examination. Further information about the process can be found in the link below to the National Infrastructure Planning website: [attachment 2]. Should the application be accepted the application and all the supporting documentation will be published on the project page of the National Infrastructure Planning website: [attachment 3]. The ‘Registration and Relevant Representation form’ will be made available here during the Pre-examination stage and all parties will have an opportunity to outline their views about the project. The appointed Examining Authority will then use these to carry out an initial assessment of principal issues. Further information about registering as an Interested Party can be found in the Planning Inspectorate’s ‘Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination’: [attachment 4].

17 March 2020
Theberton and Eastbridge Action Group on Sizewell - Alison Downes
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please see attached
Thank you for the attached letter on behalf of Minsmere Levels Stakeholders Group expressing concerns about the adequacy of the Applicants Pre-application consultation and the consultation material. We note that you have sent your letter to the Applicant and the local authorities. The local authorities can consider your comments as part of their Adequacy of Consultation Representation submission to the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) at the Application Stage of the process. The Planning Inspectorate will consider any adequacy of consultation representations received from the relevant local authorities when deciding whether or not to accept the application, as required under section 55(4)(b) of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended). It is therefore important to ensure the local authorities are informed of your concerns. Further information about Community Consultation can be found here: [attachment 1]. As you are aware the proposed application by EDF Energy is at the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 process. The Planning Inspectorate is unable to consider representations about the merits of any application until it is accepted for Examination. Further information about the process can be found in the link below to the National Infrastructure Planning website: [attachment 2]. Should the application be accepted the application and all the supporting documentation will be published on the project page of the National Infrastructure Planning website: [attachment 3]. The ‘Registration and Relevant Representation form’ will be made available here during the Pre-examination stage and all parties will have an opportunity to outline their views about the project. The appointed Examining Authority will then use these to carry out an initial assessment of principal issues. Further information about registering as an Interested Party can be found in the Planning Inspectorate’s ‘Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination’: [attachment 4].

17 March 2020
on behalf of Minsmere Levels Stakeholders Group - Paul Collins
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please see attached
Thank you for the email and attached letter on behalf of Farnham with Stratford St Andrews Parish Council expressing concerns about the adequacy of the developers consultation, consultation material and the information contained in the Scoping Report. We note that you have sent your letter to the Applicant and the local authorities. The local authorities can consider your comments as part of their Adequacy of Consultation Representation submission to the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) at the Application Stage of the process. The Planning Inspectorate will consider any adequacy of consultation representations received from the relevant local authorities when deciding whether or not to accept the application, as required under section 55(4)(b) of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended). It is therefore important to ensure the local authorities are informed of your concerns. Further information about Community Consultation can be found here: [attachment 1]. As you are aware the proposed application by EDF Energy is at the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 process. The Planning Inspectorate is unable to consider representations about the merits of any application until it is accepted for Examination. Further information about the process can be found in the link below to the National Infrastructure Planning website: [attachment 2]. Should the application be accepted the application and all the supporting documentation will be published on the project page of the National Infrastructure Planning website: [attachment 3]. The ‘Registration and Relevant Representation form’ will be made available here during the Pre-examination stage and all parties will have an opportunity to outline their views about the project. The appointed Examining Authority will then use these to carry out an initial assessment of principal issues. Further information about registering as an Interested Party can be found in the Planning Inspectorate’s ‘Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination’: [attachment 4].

17 March 2020
Farnham with Stratford St Andrew Parish Council - Debbi Tayler
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Dear Planning Inspectorate, BEIS Ministers and EDF I urge you not to accept EDF’s application to construct two new nuclear reactors at Sizewell. Despite 4 rounds of public consultations, EDF has not provided enough information or adequately consulted people about: • The threat to RSPB Minsmere Nature Reserve and other protected sites. The company has provided no assurances that Minsmere and Sizewell Marsh SSSI will be protected from any potential harm as a result of Sizewell C. The amount of information about environmental impacts has been woeful. • The way in which EDF plans to deliver 10m tonnes of material without a jetty, significant use of rail, or an adequate road route that will protect local communities. • Community Impacts - no study has been provided despite being promised “at a later stage of consultation” • Health Impacts - no study has been provided despite being promised “at a later stage of consultation” • Worker numbers and accommodation. Reports from Hinkley Point that EDF has underestimated the workers it needs suggests more will be needed at Sizewell C too. EDF’s communications about worker numbers at Sizewell have been very misleading and its uncertain where everyone would live. • At Stage 4 consultations the two villages most affected by the Sizewell Link Road, a major part of this consultation, were not visited with EDF’s touring exhibition. Yours sincerely, Alison Downes
Dear Ms Downes, Thank you for your email outlining concerns about the Applicants pre-application consultation. We note that you have sent your letter to the Applicant and the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. As you have concerns about the Applicant’s pre-application consultation you should contact the Applicant in the first instance to enable them to address the issues. If you have contacted the Applicant but you are not satisfied that the Applicant has, or will, take account of your comments you can make your comments to the relevant local authority. The local authorities can consider your comments as part of their Adequacy of Consultation Representation submission to the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) at the Application Stage of the process. The Planning Inspectorate will consider any adequacy of consultation representations received from the relevant local authorities when deciding whether or not to accept the application, as required under section 55(4)(b) of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended). It is therefore important to ensure the local authorities are informed of your concerns. Further information about Community Consultation can be found here: [attachment 1] As you are aware the proposed application by EDF Energy is at the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 process. The Planning Inspectorate is unable to consider representations about the merits of any application until it is accepted for Examination. Further information about the process can be found in the link below to the National Infrastructure Planning website: [attachment 2]. Should the application be accepted the application and all the supporting documentation will be published on the project page of the National Infrastructure Planning website: [attachment 3]. The ‘Registration and Relevant Representation form’ will be made available here during the Pre-examination stage and all parties will have an opportunity to outline their views about the project. The appointed Examining Authority will then use these to carry out an initial assessment of principal issues. Further information about registering as an Interested Party can be found in the Planning Inspectorate’s ‘Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination’: [attachment 4]. Kind regards, Liam

17 March 2020
Alison Downes
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please see attached
Thank you for the attached letter on behalf of Westleton Parish Council expressing concerns about the adequacy of the Applicants Pre-application consultation and the consultation material. We note that you have sent your letter to the Applicant and the local authorities. The local authorities can consider your comments as part of their Adequacy of Consultation Representation submission to the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) at the Application Stage of the process. The Planning Inspectorate will consider any adequacy of consultation representations received from the relevant local authorities when deciding whether or not to accept the application, as required under section 55(4)(b) of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended). It is therefore important to ensure the local authorities are informed of your concerns. Further information about Community Consultation can be found here: [attachment 1]. As you are aware the proposed application by EDF Energy is at the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 process. The Planning Inspectorate is unable to consider representations about the merits of any application until it is accepted for Examination. Further information about the process can be found in the link below to the National Infrastructure Planning website: [attachment 2]. Should the application be accepted the application and all the supporting documentation will be published on the project page of the National Infrastructure Planning website: [attachment 3]. The ‘Registration and Relevant Representation form’ will be made available here during the Pre-examination stage and all parties will have an opportunity to outline their views about the project. The appointed Examining Authority will then use these to carry out an initial assessment of principal issues. Further information about registering as an Interested Party can be found in the Planning Inspectorate’s ‘Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination’: [attachment 4].

17 March 2020
Westleton Parish Council - Ian Haines
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Draft document feedback discussion and project update meeting
Please see attached meeting note

17 March 2020
EP Waste Management Limited - anon.
South Humber Bank Energy Centre
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Nodyn o gyfarfod rhithwir rhwng yr Arolygiaeth Gynllunio â’r Ymgeisydd ynglyn â Chwmpasu AEA - Note of virtual meeting between the Planning Inspectorate and Applicant relating to EIA Scoping
Gweler yr atodiad - Please see attached

17 March 2020
Awel y Môr Offshore Wind Farm Limited - anon.
Awel y Môr Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please see attached
As you are aware the Planning Inspectorate has published Advice Note Eleven which explains the general principles around effective working relationships with relevant public bodies and includes information about consents and licencing. Annex D provides specific information about the Environment Agency’s role in relation to Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects. Annex F provides specific information about the role of the Office for Nuclear Regulation and states that: “It is the applicant’s responsibility to comply with both regulatory and DCO requirements and applicants are strongly encouraged to liaise with ONR, EA and NRW prior to and during the examination to ensure consistency with the requirements/conditions that ONR/EA/NRW may impose on any licence or consent.” All Advice Notes are available to view on the National Infrastructure Planning website: [attachment 1] Please note that the Planning Inspectorate has held meetings with the Applicant, the Environment Agency and the Defra group (Natural England, The Marine Management Organisation and The Environment Agency) where the co-ordination of permit, licence and consent applications was discussed and advice provided. Notes of these meetings are available to view on the project page of the National Infrastructure Planning website: [attachment 2] With regard to site location and suitability please note that the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) has responsibility for reviewing and designating National Policy Statements, including EN-6. The link below provides the latest information about the designation of the new National Policy Statement for Energy for nuclear power generation including the siting criteria (NPS EN-6): [attachment 3] Page 6 provides details of the timeline towards designating the new NPS.

16 March 2020
Mike Taylor
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via phone
response has attachments
Evidence Plan Teleconference with Ørsted, East Riding of Yorkshire Council, Natural England, Historic England, the Marine Management Organisation, GoBe Consultants, RHDHV
Please see attached

16 March 2020
Ørsted,ERYC,NE,HE,MMO,GoBe Consultants, RHDHV - anon.
Hornsea Project Four Offshore Wind Farm (Generating Stations)
Enquiry received via email
Dear Sir/Madam, We have had an EIA Screening Request relating to the addition of a 50MW black start facility to an existing 900MW gas fired power station. Given the scale of the project, could you advise whether this is something that the National Infrastructure Planning Unit would deal with please? Kind regards,
Dear Ms Hanlon Under section 14(1) of the Planning Act 2008, as amended (PA 2008), the construction or extension of a generating station is defined as a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (‘NSIP’). Section 15(2) of PA2008 provides that the construction or extension of an onshore generating station in England is within section 14(1)(a) only if the generating station is, or (when constructed or extended) does not generate electricity from wind; and its capacity is more than 50 megawatts. The project would therefore appear to fall under PA2008 however the Council will need to satisfy itself, taking its own legal advice if appropriate, as to whether or not any proposal submitted to it can be considered and determined by the local planning authority under any regime other than the development consent regime provided for by PA2008. It should be noted that, under Section 160 of PA2008, it is an offence if a “person carries out, or causes to be carried out, development for which development consent is required at a time when no development consent is in force in respect of the development”. If the Council are minded to conclude that the project is an NSIP, you need to explain to the Applicant why you consider this proposal to be an NSIP and suggest the Applicant contact the Inspectorate to discuss the NSIP process. Please note that the Inspectorate has a statutory duty to record and make publicly available any advice given under s51 of the PA 2008. If you wish to seek any further advice in relation to the NSIP planning regime and these proposals, please contact us at this email address. Regards

13 March 2020
West Devon Borough Council - anon.
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached.

13 March 2020
Highways England - anon.
A1 in Northumberland - Morpeth to Ellingham
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please see attached
Thank you for your email, I apologise for the significant delay in response. The proposed application is at the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 process. Further information about the process can be found in the link below to the National Infrastructure Planning website: [attachment 1]. The Applicant is expecting to submit the application in Q2 2020. As the application has not yet been formally submitted to the Inspectorate your first point of contact should be the Applicant and we would encourage you to contact them directly by email at [email protected] It is important that the Applicant is made aware of your comments at the Pre-application stage of the process to enable them to consider these points before finalising their proposals and submitting the application to the Inspectorate. The Inspectorate is unable to consider your comments at this time however please note that, should the application be received and accepted by the Inspectorate for Examination, the National Infrastructure Planning website will be updated accordingly and you may submit comments to us at that time: [attachment 2] The Planning Inspectorate has published a series of Advice Notes about the Planning Act 2008 process. ‘Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others’ can be found here: [attachment 3]

12 March 2020
Alison Shireff
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Dear all, I am writing to object to the very unsatisfactory nature of the Sizewell C consultation. I have spoken to over 50 Suffolk residents who overwhelmingly say that their petition signing and objection letters against Sizewell C have been quietly swept aside. Out of those 50 only 4 were in favour of Sizewell C (mainly because they believed the much peddled notion that the 'lights will go out without nuclear power',but they were nevertheless very concerned about nuclear power) The rest were strongly against and it is my belief if the people of Suffolk were laid out the facts and figures clearly and honestly , the majority of Suffolk would be against Sizewell C. We really don't believe the lights will go out. How does one explain that the following counties either don't have nuclear power or are confident enough to begin the phase out of it and replace it with renewables ?: Italy, Australia, Austria, Estonia, Greece, Ireland, Latvia, Lichtenstein, Luxembourg, Malta, Portugal, Israel, Serbia, Malaysia, Norway, Japan, Scotland , New Zealand, Belgium, Germany, Spain, Switzerland, Denmark, Sweden etc. The objectors felt strongly that nuclear power is far too unsafe in terms of the legacy of toxic waste, rising sea levels, terrorism etc. In Suffolk we object strongly to the large scale destruction of AONB and SSSI's. Beleagered nature/wildlife must be prioritised for preservation.The severe damage to Minsmere in terms of road and infrastructure building ,light pollution etc etc. Also the severe effect that will have on the successful Suffolk tourism economy based on Heritage and Nature. Finally we see all this destruction as unneccessary, we have renewables growing rapidly. We need to see solar panels on buildings-everywhere.There are some good large scale domestic shemes which can bring down the installment costs. Wind farms, solar farms, tidal. Also bringing local jobs. Personally, I think also we all need to view energy as a far more precious resource. In my childrens school windows are flung open regularly to let out the heat, in the middle of winter-I think this is common place in businesses etc. We need to put on a jumper rather than reaching to turn up the heating dial. If people feel they can make a difference with their own panels or as part of a scheme, I believe they start to use energy more responsibly. In short ,we the people of Suffolk are overwhelmingly against Sizewell C , and we do not feel that our voices are being heard. Yours suncerely, Clare Rizzo
Dear Ms Rizzo, Thank you for your email expressing concerns about the adequacy of the developers consultation and consultation material. We note that you have sent your letter to the developer and the local authorities. The local authorities can consider your comments as part of their Adequacy of Consultation Representation submission to the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) at the Application Stage of the process. The Planning Inspectorate will consider any adequacy of consultation representations received from the relevant local authorities when deciding whether or not to accept the application, as required under section 55(4)(b) of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended). It is therefore important to ensure the local authorities are informed of your concerns. Further information about Community Consultation can be found here: [attachment 1] As you are aware the proposed application by EDF Energy is at the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 process. The Planning Inspectorate is unable to consider representations about the merits of any application until it is accepted for Examination. Further information about the process can be found in the link below to the National Infrastructure Planning website: [attachment 2]. Should the application be accepted the application and all the supporting documentation will be published on the project page of the National Infrastructure Planning website: [attachment 3]. The ‘Registration and Relevant Representation form’ will be made available here during the Pre-examination stage and all parties will have an opportunity to outline their views about the project. The appointed Examining Authority will then use these to carry out an initial assessment of principal issues. Further information about registering as an Interested Party can be found in the Planning Inspectorate’s ‘Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination’: [attachment 4]. I hope the above information is useful to you. Kind regards, Liam

12 March 2020
Clare Rizzo
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Dear Sir/Madam I have read that EDF are imminently planning to submit their application for a DCO for the proposed Sizewell C. I feel it is necessary, despite four consultations, to voice my concern at the inadequacies of information that has been shared with the public. I am aware that planning rules for major infrastructure projects are that the consultation should be carried out in an open and transparent way to all consultees and should contain as much detail and information as possible. EDF’s Sizewell C four consultations have failed to do this. I personally have been left with many unanswered questions. 1. I have repeatedly expressed my concerns that the site is too small for the two proposed EPR reactors. After four consultations there is still no floor plan indicating where the buildings will be located on a map which includes visible grid lines, contour lines and road numbering. This means it is also impossible to fully understand where roads, rail lines, auxiliary buildings, borrow pits, stockpiles etc etc are located, how much land take is required and what environmental damage will be caused. The maps supplied in the consultation document are small and the key so tiny it is almost impossible to read. 2. I am particularly concerned on the impact on the AONB, Sizewell Marshes SSSI, RSPB Minsmere with its European and International designated habitats so have contacted all the environmental NGO’s and the Environment Agency to find out their opinions. All have told me that they have not had the necessary information from EDF to make an informed response. After four consultations EDF have not supplied Environmental Impact Assessments to the public. Is this because they are yet to do them or they have and are not being transparent, either way this is totally unacceptable. 3. At EDF stage three exhibition I asked how much mains water would be needed during construction and once Sizewell C was operational and the source of that water. Three out of the four EDF representatives I asked where unaware that Sizewell C would use mains water! The fourth took my email address and said he would let me know. To date I have heard nothing. East Anglia is one of the driest counties in the country. Sizewell C’s water consumption must not take priority over farms, businesses and residents. 4. The proposed permanent access road to Sizewell C will take up 12 hectares of Sizewell Marsh SSSI and will require a culvert over the SSSI and water courses. This is likely to cause pollutants to run off into the delicate water system. Throughout all the consultations many have asked for other options or alternative routes, none have been considered. 5. Sizewell was nominated as a potential site in 2008. I am aware that the siting criteria for new nuclear EN6 is out of date. The consultation for EN6 ended March 2018 the Environment Agency and the Office for Nuclear regulation have yet to submit their responses. I therefore do not understand how the Planning Inspectorate can consider EDF Sizewell C’s planning application as there is no valid siting criteria. This is particularly important as since Sizewell was originally nominated as a potential site the impacts of climate change are predicted to be far more severe. Please can you explain. 6. The site is on an eroding coast in flood zones 2 and 3 and will require radioactive waste to be stored 150 years on site (or maybe indefinitely as there is still no geological disposal facility in UK). Surely EDF should have provided information about sea level rise, storm surges and more extreme weather events for both coastal and fluvial flooding. When I asked about this I was told by an EDF representative that to protect the site EDF will just increase the height of the sea wall and that it is likely that the Sizewell site will become a nuclear island. My home is at risk of flooding and [redacted]. EDF have provided no information about how their hard sea defences will affect neighbouring properties, businesses and farms. Protecting the Sizewell site will result in damage to the extended coast yet there is no mention of how coastal erosion will be managed or paid for. If EDF Sizewell C’s hard sea defence results in surrounding properties being flooded, policy should be put in place that EDF must pay for damage caused, burden should not be on the taxpayer. 7. The Government has declared a Climate Emergency. EDF Sizewell C’s 10/12 year build will create a huge upfront carbon footprint and will need to operate for 60 years to become what is deemed low carbon. At a Sizewell C stakeholders meeting EDF claimed the carbon footprint of Sizewell C will be similar to that of Hinkley C 4gC02/kWh (even though IPCC claims nuclear is 12gC02/kWh) Where is the supporting documentation for this? How can Hinkley C and Sizewell C have the same carbon footprint? Hinkley has a marine led strategy Sizewell is most likely to be entirely road driven. EDF have been unable to state how much material is needed for construction of Sizewell C or where materials will come from, precise location of road and rail needed yet can say what the carbon footprint will be! EDF are claiming Sizewell C is needed to help generate low carbon electricity yet in the decade of its construction it will hinder UK climate goals. Who in government is responsible for checking the carbon footprint of major infrastructure projects and their impact on climate goals. EDF must provide supporting documentation that can be verified by an independent party. 8. Little is said about storage of the spent fuel for the EPR reactors. This fuel will be high burn up fuel. Where are the storage ponds and Dry fuel store sited? This is extremely important as radioactive waste will be on site for decades after the plant is operational and maybe indefinitely. French Govt owned EDF finances are in dire straits, how can UK Government be sure EDF will take responsibility for the waste which will need protecting possibly indefinitely, on an eroding coast at risk from flooding and sea level rise. Is there any documentation to say they can and will? EDF when asked have implied the waste is not an issue as a GDF will be available but as yet there is little supporting evidence that there ever will be. The Government has made a big deal about consulting communities regarding the siting of a geological disposal facility yet it is allowing EDF to foist radioactive waste on communities indefinitely without proper consultation. 9. Where is the new sewage works? How is the sewage to be managed and where is the discharge point? Also dewatering of the site where is the water going? 10. At the stage three consultation EDF realised four pylons are necessary, apparently to feed the National Grid these will scar the landscape in the AONB. The height and siting of these are still unknown. There are still so many unanswered questions. The Fish entrainment at the cooling water intakes still unknown. Social-economic case only mentions perceived gains but gives no assessments of the losses on health, tourism and other businesses or house values. Footpaths and bridleways particularly the Heritage Coast Path, soon to become the English Coast Path. The beach frontage the green line agreed for Sizewell B is not being adhered to. Etc etc. The fact that there is still so many unanswered questions and the total lack of supporting documentation highlights the Duty of Regard for the Suffolk Coast and Heaths AONB and the integrity of the Sizewell Marshes SSSI has not been taken into account. Consultees must have this information in order for them to arrive at an informed opinion. Crucial information like this must not be wrapped up in the Rochdale envelope at DCO stage. I feel EDF’s four stages of consultation show little detail or supporting evidence on that basis it renders the process inadequate and invalid. I hope this information will be taken into consideration when EDF submits it’s DCO application to PINS and for the reasons above I urge you to reject the application. Yours Sincerely J. Wilson
Dear Ms Wilson, Thank you for your email expressing concerns about the adequacy of the developers consultation and consultation material. We note that you have sent your letter to the developer and the local authorities. The local authorities can consider your comments as part of their Adequacy of Consultation Representation submission to the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) at the Application Stage of the process. The Planning Inspectorate will consider any adequacy of consultation representations received from the relevant local authorities when deciding whether or not to accept the application, as required under section 55(4)(b) of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended). It is therefore important to ensure the local authorities are informed of your concerns. Further information about Community Consultation can be found here: [attachment 1] As you are aware the proposed application by EDF Energy is at the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 process. The Planning Inspectorate is unable to consider representations about the merits of any application until it is accepted for Examination. Further information about the process can be found in the link below to the National Infrastructure Planning website: [attachment 2]. Should the application be accepted the application and all the supporting documentation will be published on the project page of the National Infrastructure Planning website: [attachment 3]. The ‘Registration and Relevant Representation form’ will be made available here during the Pre-examination stage and all parties will have an opportunity to outline their views about the project. The appointed Examining Authority will then use these to carry out an initial assessment of principal issues. Further information about registering as an Interested Party can be found in the Planning Inspectorate’s ‘Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination’: [attachment 4]. Please note that the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) have responsibility for reviewing and designating National Policy Statements, including EN-6. The link below provides the latest information about the designation of the new National Policy Statement for Energy for nuclear power generation (NPS EN-6): [attachment 5] Please note that page 6 provides details of the timeline towards designating the new NPS. I hope you find the above information useful. Kind regards Liam Fedden

12 March 2020
Jen Wilson
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please see attached
Thank you for your email expressing concerns about the adequacy of the Applicants consultation, consultation material and the information contained in the Scoping Report. We note that you have sent your letter to the Applicant and the local authorities. The local authorities can consider your comments as part of their Adequacy of Consultation Representation submission to the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) at the Application Stage of the process. The Planning Inspectorate will consider any adequacy of consultation representations received from the relevant local authorities when deciding whether or not to accept the application, as required under section 55(4)(b) of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended). It is therefore important to ensure the local authorities are informed of your concerns. Further information about Community Consultation can be found here: [attachment 1] As you are aware the proposed application by EDF Energy is at the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 process. The Planning Inspectorate is unable to consider representations about the merits of any application until it is accepted for Examination. Further information about the process can be found in the link below to the National Infrastructure Planning website: [attachment 2]. Should the application be accepted the application and all the supporting documentation will be published on the project page of the National Infrastructure Planning website: [attachment 3]. The ‘Registration and Relevant Representation form’ will be made available here during the Pre-examination stage and all parties will have an opportunity to outline their views about the project. The appointed Examining Authority will then use these to carry out an initial assessment of principal issues. Further information about registering as an Interested Party can be found in the Planning Inspectorate’s ‘Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination’: [attachment 4].

12 March 2020
Kelsale-cum-Carlton Parish Council - anon.
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please see attached
Thank you for your email and attachment expressing concerns about the adequacy of the developers consultation, consultation material and the information contained in the Scoping Report. Apologies for the significant delay in response to this email. We note that you have sent your letter to the developer and the local authorities. The local authorities can consider your comments as part of their Adequacy of Consultation Representation submission to the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) at the Application Stage of the process. The Planning Inspectorate will consider any adequacy of consultation representations received from the relevant local authorities when deciding whether or not to accept the application, as required under section 55(4)(b) of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended). It is therefore important to ensure the local authorities are informed of your concerns. Further information about Community Consultation can be found here: [attachment 1] As you are aware the proposed application by EDF Energy is at the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 process. The Planning Inspectorate is unable to consider representations about the merits of any application until it is accepted for Examination. Further information about the process can be found in the link below to the National Infrastructure Planning website: [attachment 2]. Should the application be accepted the application and all the supporting documentation will be published on the project page of the National Infrastructure Planning website: [attachment 3]. The ‘Registration and Relevant Representation form’ will be made available here during the Pre-examination stage and all parties will have an opportunity to outline their views about the project. The appointed Examining Authority will then use these to carry out an initial assessment of principal issues. Further information about registering as an Interested Party can be found in the Planning Inspectorate’s ‘Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination’: [attachment 4].

12 March 2020
Theberton and Eastbridge Parish Council - anon.
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached.

11 March 2020
Bradwell B - anon.
Bradwell B new nuclear power station
Enquiry received via email
Dear Sirs Many thanks for your e-mail dated Monday, 10th February. I note under 'COMPULSORY ACQUISITION' it is stated: "The Applicant explained that the company’s in the nearby industrial estate have all banded together and are now represented by a professional adviser." I must stress that this is a totally inaccurate statement and, subject to their own decisions, each business will be individually represented by professional advisers. Furthermore I should stress there are four separate industrial estates, all in separate single or multi party ownership, along with infrastructure and other land holdings which are also in separate ownership. I also note that in the project overview it states: "The application is expected to be submitted to the Planning Inspectorate Q4 2020.". However, in the meeting minutes final paragraph it refers to DCO submission in Q2 2020 - which is correct? I should also be grateful if you could forward me a list of those people who attended the meeting. Finally, the last occasion on which the businesses had any communication or contact from LRCH, applicants for The London Resort Project, was in July 2018. Best wishes Dan Bramwell On behalf of PMG
Dear Mr Bramwell, Thank you for your email in relation to the note of the meeting held between the Planning Inspectorate’s (the Inspectorate) and the London Resort Company Holdings (LRCH) (the Applicant) on 8 October 2019. The information on the Compulsory Acquisition (CA) progress was provided by the Applicant and whilst we are able to highlight any concerns raised with us to Applicants, it is not for the Inspectorate to examine the CA during the pre-application stage of the project. Once an Application is submitted for a Development Consent Order (DCO), if accepted for Examination, the appointed Examining Authority will assess the information and ensure that the relevant tests are met to allow the Applicant to obtain any land for the development. The submission date given in the meeting note (Q2 2020) was correct at the time of the meeting. The Applicant has subsequently updated the Inspectorate on the intended submission date, which they have now advised will be Q4 2020. It is not uncommon for Applicants to change the estimated submission date throughout the pre-application stage due to a host of factors. When the Inspectorate is provided with an updated submission date, it is reflected on the project webpage. Please note we no longer publish a list of attendees in meeting notes (for Inspectorate staff or other attendees). Our use and disclosure of personal information is governed by the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the Data Protection Act 2018. Please see the Inspectorate’s privacy notice for further details on how we process personal data. The Applicant may be inclined to divulge which parties attended the meeting from their team, but it is not for the Inspectorate to provide this information. As the project is still in the pre-application stage, I would strongly encourage you to continue to contact the Applicant directly with regard to your concerns as they have a statutory duty to have regard to all consultation responses which should be demonstrated in the Consultation Report as part of their DCO application. If you feel your comments are not being taken into account, I would advise you to also write to your local authority and set out why you think the Applicant is failing to conduct its consultation properly. Your comments will be considered by the local authority when sending the Inspectorate its representations on whether the Applicant has fulfilled its consultation duties which will be taken into account when deciding whether the application can be accepted for Examination. Kind regards,

09 March 2020
Bramwell Associates on behalf of the Peninsula Management Group
The London Resort
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project inception meeting.
Please see the attached note.

09 March 2020
SSE Generation Limited - anon.
Keadby 3 Low Carbon Gas Power Station Project
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Inception meeting.
Please see attached.

09 March 2020
SSE - anon.
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Meeting to discuss Airspace matters specifically in respect of NSIP aviation projects
Please see attached meeting note

05 March 2020
Civil Aviation Authority - anon.
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update and draft documents feedback meeting
Please see attached note with appended table of the Inspectorate’s detailed comments at Appendix A

27 February 2020
Highways England - anon.
Lower Thames Crossing
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Re: ‘Sizewell as a potentially suitable site for new nuclear’ EN-6 Please would you consider the following two statements when reviewing EN-6, ‘potential site suitability for new nuclear’: 1) According to the Institution of Mechanical Engineers (IME) “…in the UK, nuclear sites such as Sizewell, which is based on the coastline, may need considerable investment to protect it against rising sea levels, or even abandonment/relocation” IME (Institution of Mechanical Engineers) (2009): Climate Change: Adapting to the inevitable, Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Westminster, London. 2) A Dutch government scientist has proposed building two mammoth dams to completely enclose the North Sea and protect an estimated 25 million Europeans from the consequences of rising sea levels as a result of global heating. Sjoerd Groeskamp, an oceanographer at the Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research, said a 475km dam between north Scotland and west Norway and another 160km one between west France and south-west England was “a possible solution”. In a paper to be published this month in the American Journal of Meteorology, Groeskamp and Joakim Kjellsson of the Geomar centre for ocean research in Kiel, Germany, say the idea is affordable and technically feasible – if intended more as “a warning of the immensity of the problem hanging over our heads”. Regards Nick Scarr
Dear Mr Scarr Thank you for your email sent to the Planning Inspectorate. Please note that the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) have responsibility for reviewing and designating National Policy Statements, including EN-6. The link below provides the latest information about the designation of the new National Policy Statement for Energy for nuclear power generation (NPS EN-6): [attachment 1] Please note that page 6 provides details of the timeline towards designating the new NPS. Kind regards Michele Gregory

26 February 2020
Nick Scarr
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via email
With regards to your query regarding the proposed draft DCO requirement to secure mitigation identified by the Water Framework Directive (WFD) Assessment. Our Environmental Services Team has come back with the following advice;
After reviewing the dDCO, the only thing that can be seen relating to WFD is that the applicant has listed the WFD assessment in the documents to be certified. This is not something we see as a common practice and it is hard to comment without reviewing the document but on the face on it, there is no issue in doing this. As with all documents listed in the certification requirement, it adds security, which is a good thing.

20 February 2020
Atkins - anon.
M25 junction 28 improvements
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Dear Sir or Madam, This is with respect to the expected DCO application by Highways England and the Lower Thames Crossing. My question is whether our Parish Council can become an Interested Party and that the route to achieve that is to submit a Relevant Representation. The context is that Cobham village is within a Conservation Area, in the immediate proximity of the LTC development (within a 2 mile radius), and with many parts of the parish within the Designated Development Area. The issue of relevance is not to do with land acquisition, but traffic flows through the village and the local impact that would result from higher volumes of traffic due to the LTC development. The local roads are all minor rural roads and unfit for increased traffic volumes and this would be the basis of the representation. Does the Parish Council qualify to apply to be an Interested Party, would that be automatic in this case, or would it be required to submit a Relevant Representation application? Thank you for your help. Kind Regards Tony Rice
Dear Cllr Rice The Parish Council would not be deemed an Interested Party automatically. However, you can register as an Interested Party, following acceptance of the application. If the application is submitted and accepted to proceed to Examination, the Applicant will notify of the period within which people have to register. I hope this information is helpful. Please see the Advice Notes below which may also be of assistance: [attachment 1] [attachment 2] Kind regards

17 February 2020
Cllr Tony Rice
Lower Thames Crossing
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please see attached
Thank you for your email and attachment expressing concerns about the adequacy of the developers consultation and consultation material. We note that you have sent your letter to the developer and the local authorities. The local authorities can consider your comments as part of their Adequacy of Consultation Representation submission to the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) at the Application Stage of the process. The Planning Inspectorate will consider any adequacy of consultation representations received from the relevant local authorities when deciding whether or not to accept the application, as required under section 55(4)(b) of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended). It is therefore important to ensure the local authorities are informed of your concerns. Further information about Community Consultation can be found here: [attachment 1] As you are aware the proposed application by EDF Energy is at the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 process. The Planning Inspectorate is unable to consider representations about the merits of any application until it is accepted for Examination. Further information about the process can be found in the link below to the National Infrastructure Planning website: [attachment 2]. Should the application be accepted the application and all the supporting documentation will be published on the project page of the National Infrastructure Planning website: [attachment 3]. The ‘Registration and Relevant Representation form’ will be made available here during the Pre-examination stage and all parties will have an opportunity to outline their views about the project. The appointed Examining Authority will then use these to carry out an initial assessment of principal issues. Further information about registering as an Interested Party can be found in the Planning Inspectorate’s ‘Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination’: [attachment 4].

17 February 2020
On behalf of Together Against Sizewell - Joan Girling
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting and review of draft documents
Please see attached

14 February 2020
IAMP LLP - anon.
International Advanced Manufacturing Park TWO (IAMP TWO)
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached meeting note

14 February 2020
Heathrow Airport Limited - anon.
Expansion of Heathrow Airport (Third Runway)
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Please see attached.
Overview of statutory consultation

13 February 2020
Highways England
A428 Black Cat to Caxton Gibbet Road Improvement scheme
response has attachments
Received: 23 December 2019 Dear Sirs I understand there was a meeting between the Planning Inspectorate and the above development team (LRCH) on 8th October 2019 or thereabouts but the minutes are yet to be published. It is now nearly three months since that meeting and I find it somewhat incredible that, despite several requests, these minutes have not been made available to interested parties and that there have been no responses to e-mails to yourselves within a reasonable timeframe. Thus I am asking the Secretary of State for an explanation of why there has been a total breakdown in communication from The Planning Inspectorate. Furthermore I am submitting an FoI request for the original unredacted minutes to be released as a matter of urgency. Unfortunately the developer cannot be trusted and has no financial or business credibility but holds many interested parties to ransom jeopardising investment, jobs and the future of many businesses. Your urgent attention to this matter is much appreciated. Received: 14 January 2020 Under the Freedom of Information Act, I would be grateful for answers to the following requests in relation to a meeting about The London Resort Project, an NSIP designated project, held between The Planning Inspectorate and representatives/agents for the above company: 1. A meeting was held on 8th October between agents/representatives for The London Resort Project and The Planning Inspectorate. I should be grateful if you can confirm this and, if so; 2. I should be grateful to receive a copy of the original meeting notes as produced by The Planning Inspectorate; 3. I should be grateful to receive a copy of the final notes to be published on the website which I have been requesting for many weeks; 4. I should be grateful if you could advise me when the next planned meeting is scheduled to take place. Please confirm this request and if you have any queries please do not hesitate to contact me.
Please see attached documents

10 February 2020
Bramwell Associates - Dan Bramwell
The London Resort
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Draft documents feedback meeting
Please see attached.

06 February 2020
EdF Energy - anon.
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Draft Application Documents submitted by EP Waste Management Limited for the Planning Inspectorate review – February 2020
Please see Attached

05 February 2020
EP Waste Management Limited - anon.
South Humber Bank Energy Centre
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Meeting with the Heathrow Community Engagement Board to discuss the Planning Act 2008 process
Please see attached note

30 January 2020
Heathrow Community Engagement Board - anon.
Heathrow West
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Meeting with the Heathrow Community Engagement Board to discuss the Planning Act 2008 process
Please see attached note

30 January 2020
Heathrow Community Engagement Board - anon.
Expansion of Heathrow Airport (Third Runway)
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please See Attached

28 January 2020
Ørsted - anon.
Hornsea Project Four Offshore Wind Farm (Generating Stations)
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Please see attached.
Please see attached.

27 January 2020
Allington EfW Project
Extension to Allington Integrated Waste Management Facility
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Advice following issue of decision to accept the application for Examination
Please see attached.

24 January 2020
North Somerset District Council - anon.
Portishead Branch Line - MetroWest Phase 1
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Nodyn cyfarfod sefydlu - Inception meeting note
Gweler yr atodiad - Please see attached

23 January 2020
Awel y Môr Offshore Wind Farm Limited - anon.
Awel y Môr Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Update on engagement with the Applicant
Please see attached meeting note

20 January 2020
The Defra Group - anon.
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting teleconference
Please see attached meeting note

15 January 2020
Heathrow West Limited - anon.
Heathrow West
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please see attached
Planning Act 2008 (as amended) Proposal by NNB Nuclear Generation (SZC) Limited I am writing regarding your correspondence sent to the Planning Inspectorate dated 11 December 2019, 13 December 2019 and 5 January 2020 in relation to the above proposals. As we have previously advised, the proposed application by NNB Nuclear Generation (SZC) Limited is at the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 process. Further information about the process can be found in the link below to the National Infrastructure Planning website: [attachment 1] As the application has not yet been formally submitted to the Inspectorate your first point of contact should be the Applicant and we would encourage you to contact them directly by email: [email protected] It is important that the Applicant is made aware of your comments at the Pre-application stage of the process to enable them to consider these points before finalising their proposals and submitting the application to the Inspectorate. The Inspectorate is unable to consider your comments at this time however please note that, should the application be received and accepted by the Inspectorate for Examination, the National Infrastructure Planning website will be updated accordingly and you may submit comments to us at that time: [attachment 2] The Planning Inspectorate has published a series of Advice Notes about the Planning Act 2008 process. ‘Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others’ can be found here:https://infrastructure.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/legislation-and-advice/advice-notes/

15 January 2020
Nick Scarr
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Post Acceptance advice on concerns related to the Flood Risk Assessment (FRA)
Please see attached

14 January 2020
North Somerset Council - anon.
Portishead Branch Line - MetroWest Phase 1
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please see attached
Thank you for your email expressing concerns about the adequacy of the developers consultation and consultation material. We note that you have sent your letter to the developer and the local authorities. The local authorities can consider your comments as part of their Adequacy of Consultation Representation submission to the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) at the Application Stage of the process. The Planning Inspectorate will consider any adequacy of consultation representations received from the relevant local authorities when deciding whether or not to accept the application, as required under section 55(4)(b) of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended). It is therefore important to ensure the local authorities are informed of your concerns. Further information about Community Consultation can be found here: [attachment 1] As you are aware the proposed application by EDF Energy is at the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 process. The Planning Inspectorate is unable to consider representations about the merits of any application until it is accepted for Examination. Further information about the process can be found in the link below to the National Infrastructure Planning website: [attachment 2]. Should the application be accepted the application and all the supporting documentation will be published on the project page of the National Infrastructure Planning website: [attachment 3]. The ‘Registration and Relevant Representation form’ will be made available here during the Pre-examination stage and all parties will have an opportunity to outline their views about the project. The appointed Examining Authority will then use these to carry out an initial assessment of principal issues. Further information about registering as an Interested Party can be found in the Planning Inspectorate’s ‘Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination’: [attachment 4].

14 January 2020
On behalf of Suffolk Coastal Friend of the Earth - Rachel Fulcher
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please see attached.
Please see attached.

13 January 2020
Trowers and Hamlins
East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please see attached.
Please see attached.

13 January 2020
Trowers and Hamlins
East Anglia ONE North Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Introduction and general process meeting specifically in respect of NSIP aviation projects
Please see note attached

09 January 2020
Independent Commission on Civil Aviation Noise - anon.
General
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Draft Application Documents by Highways England for PINS review
Please see attached.

31 December 2019
Highways England - anon.
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Please see attached.
Discussion on design changes, and DMRB updates

17 December 2019
Highways England
A428 Black Cat to Caxton Gibbet Road Improvement scheme
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached meeting note

17 December 2019
Heathrow Airport Limited - anon.
Expansion of Heathrow Airport (Third Runway)
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Post-Scoping and project update meeting
See attached meeting note

16 December 2019
London Luton Airport Limited - anon.
Expansion of London Luton Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Advice to the Applicant following issue of decision to accept the application for Examination
Please see attached.

12 December 2019
North Somerset Council - anon.
Portishead Branch Line - MetroWest Phase 1
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
A project update meeting took place on 12 December 2019
A note of that meeting is attached.

12 December 2019
Highways England - anon.
Lower Thames Crossing
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
PINS REF: EN010078 East Anglia Two Dear Case Officer I am writing to put in a formal complaint about the pre-application work and consultations carried out by Scottish Power & by SPR for National Grid. I have previously raised many of these issues with both The Planning Inspectorate and developer Scottish Power Renewables and separately with National Grid who appear to feel they operate outside of the realms of the Planning Act. I am aware some of these issues have been covered by the local group SASES but these are my own views which I hope PINS will also review and take into consideration. 1. Failure to effectively assess and explore connection possibilities It is not clear as to who majority blame lies with, but it is clear both National Grid & Scottish Power did not explore 'all options' when considering how and where to connect EA1N & EA2 projects to the grid. There was NO consideration of brownfield locations, there was a complete disregard for the Suffolk Coast & Heaths AONB (protected landscape) and it appears virtually no 'on the ground' knowledge of the typography of the chosen location at Grove Wood for substation buildings infrastructure and grid connections. Subsequently cables are intended to land in one of the Suffolk Coast's most vulnerable sand cliff locations north of Thorpeness, the proposed cable route will plough up acres of AONB & Sandlings SSI landscape (possibly twice), the substations if located at Grove Wood are in undulating land that has ongoing problems with surface water 'run-off' which has contributed to flooding in Friston village twice in the month of October alone. 2. Failure to effectively engage, especially those residents living in Friston A key issue for residents living in Friston is that intentionally or unintentionally, Scottish Power failed to generate fair local awareness of the projects or the shortlist of 'onshore' development locations until well into Phase 3 consultation. SPR did not include Friston addresses in early leafleting in the lead up to phase 3, even though postal addresses in other parishes Knodishall, Leiston, Aldringham and Thorpeness were all sent leaflets, or leafleting was made available via the parish councils in these villages. Then, the projects were not effectively advertised SoCC advertisements published March 2018 (see attached image) in the local press contained NO mention whatsoever of onshore development requirements for either of the projects EA1N & EA2. Unless you have significant experience and knowledge of offshore wind projects, the majority of residents would have had NO idea from these advertisements of the significance & potential for these projects to have a major impact on their life and surroundings. I believe these advertisements failed 100% to achieve the necessary local awareness of the scale of EA1N & EA2's 'onshore' and 'permanent' development requirements. We now know the projects each require many acres (circa 35) for industrial buildings and unsightly electrical equipment, transformers etc. which if these projects move forward as intended by SPR will be built at Grove Wood, within in 200 metres of the nearest homes in the north of Friston village. 3. Muddled & confusing consultations, ineffective Public information Days (PIDs), poor local knowledge The consultations were muddled, the public has been confused by the nature of these 'dual projects' and by duplicate information released. It has been hard to assess propsals fairly as it has been unclear if these were one or two projects, or even three (if you take into account the National Grid substation). As the process has moved forward things have become more complicated and confusing. The so called experts on hand at PID's seemed to lack important information and were often unable to answer answer questions, especially about the National Grid substation and NG's requirements. It has and continues to be hard to work out if key details are specific to one project, or the other, or both. Fair and effective consultation for National Grid's substation/connection buildings etc has been virtually non-existent. 4. National Grid Substation - has not been consulted for in accordance with the Planning Act SPR have apparently been consulting for National Grid's Substation & requirements, however essential information has been lacking and at the PIDs no one from National Grid was available to discuss details or answer questions. Many questions raised with Scottish Power about the NG substation raised blank looks and a familiar response along the lines of "that's a National Grid facility.... we are not sure, details will follow". Recently it has been brought to the attention of Friston residents that National Grid's substation could be used for one or both inter-connector projects (Nautilus & Eurolink). The shady nature of Scottish Power & National Grids behind closed doors relationship, seems to be designed to provide National Grid with a new connection facility, that can be used to circumvent planning for future projects. Surely this is NOT legal or acceptable? National Grid appears to have offered a connection point in a questionable and wrong location in order to save money and obtain a new grid connection facility. There has been no consideration of cumulative effects of numerous projects directed to what is a small rural/coastal area just a few miles from Sizewell, which could be the location of one of Europes largest construction projects if plans to build Sizewell C (2 nuclear reactors) go ahead. There has been unacceptable consideration given to the damaging effects on the Suffolk Coast & Heaths AONB and ecology of a supposedly protected landscape. Likewise the effects on the communities and vital tourism industry (the biggest employer in the area) appear to all have been ignored by National Grid and Scottish Power & EDF for that matter. I am aware that the Secretary of State Andrea Leadsom and Energy Minister Kwarsi Kwarteng will be facilitating an investigation into the environmental impacts of energy projects on the Norfolk & Suffolk Coasts. I am a local resident in Friston and a tourism business manager (Beach View, Sizewell), this area faces a real threat of decades of damaging projects and complete devastation of the Suffolk Coast & Heaths AONB, all of which will lead to the questionable viability and future success of many business providers in our local tourism sector. I feel The Planning Inspectorate must reject these applications until environmental and community impacts have been fully and independently assessed, as has been promised by the Secretary of State at BEIS. Yours Sincerely, Nicholas Thorp
Dear Nick, Thank you for contacting the Planning Inspectorate about the application by East Anglia TWO Limited for an Order granting development consent for the East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm. The application was submitted on 25 October 2019. The decision to accept the application was made on the 22 November 2019. The decision was published on the project webpage, here: [attachment 1] The following documents have also been published on the project webpage: • The application documents; • Any Adequacy of Consultation Representations submitted by relevant local authorities; • The Planning Inspectorate’s Acceptance Checklist. If you have sent comments about the pre-application consultation, these can be considered in addition to the statutorily required Acceptance tests when making the decision about whether or not to accept the application. However, it will be for the decision maker (the Planning Inspectorate on behalf of the Secretary of State) to decide the weight to give to the views expressed based on the individual facts of the case. The comments you sent were, as you mention, also raised in correspondence from SASES and therefore were considered in making the acceptance decision. In order to make comments about the merits of the Proposed Development to an appointed Examining Authority, you will need to register as an Interested Party by making a Relevant Representation. You have until the 27 January 2020 to register as an Interested Party and can do so on the project website now: [attachment 2] For more information about how and when you can have your say, please see our Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination: [attachment 3] If you wish to have your say on East Anglia ONE North and East Anglia TWO you must register for each application separately. Kind regards, Liam

11 December 2019
Nicholas Thorp
East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
PINS REF: EN010077 East Anglia One North Dear Case Officer I am writing to put in a formal complaint about the pre-application work and consultations carried out by Scottish Power & by SPR for National Grid. I have previously raised many of these issues with both The Planning Inspectorate and developer Scottish Power Renewables and separately with National Grid who appear to feel they operate outside of the realms of the Planning Act. I am aware some of these issues have been covered by the local group SASES but these are my own views which I hope PINS will also review and take into consideration. 1. Failure to effectively assess and explore connection possibilities It is not clear as to who majority blame lies with, but it is clear both National Grid & Scottish Power did not explore 'all options' when considering how and where to connect EA1N & EA2 projects to the grid. There was NO consideration of brownfield locations, there was a complete disregard for the Suffolk Coast & Heaths AONB (protected landscape) and it appears virtually no 'on the ground' knowledge of the typography of the chosen location at Grove Wood for substation buildings infrastructure and grid connections. Subsequently cables are intended to land in one of the Suffolk Coast's most vulnerable sand cliff locations north of Thorpeness, the proposed cable route will plough up acres of AONB & Sandlings SSI landscape (possibly twice), the substations if located at Grove Wood are in undulating land that has ongoing problems with surface water 'run-off' which has contributed to flooding in Friston village twice in the month of October alone. 2. Failure to effectively engage, especially those residents living in Friston A key issue for residents living in Friston is that intentionally or unintentionally, Scottish Power failed to generate fair local awareness of the projects or the shortlist of 'onshore' development locations until well into Phase 3 consultation. SPR did not include Friston addresses in early leafleting in the lead up to phase 3, even though postal addresses in other parishes Knodishall, Leiston, Aldringham and Thorpeness were all sent leaflets, or leafleting was made available via the parish councils in these villages. Then, the projects were not effectively advertised SoCC advertisements published March 2018 (see attached image) in the local press contained NO mention whatsoever of onshore development requirements for either of the projects EA1N & EA2. Unless you have significant experience and knowledge of offshore wind projects, the majority of residents would have had NO idea from these advertisements of the significance & potential for these projects to have a major impact on their life and surroundings. I believe these advertisements failed 100% to achieve the necessary local awareness of the scale of EA1N & EA2's 'onshore' and 'permanent' development requirements. We now know the projects each require many acres (circa 35) for industrial buildings and unsightly electrical equipment, transformers etc. which if these projects move forward as intended by SPR will be built at Grove Wood, within in 200 metres of the nearest homes in the north of Friston village. 3. Muddled & confusing consultations, ineffective Public information Days (PIDs), poor local knowledge The consultations were muddled, the public has been confused by the nature of these 'dual projects' and by duplicate information released. It has been hard to assess propsals fairly as it has been unclear if these were one or two projects, or even three (if you take into account the National Grid substation). As the process has moved forward things have become more complicated and confusing. The so called experts on hand at PID's seemed to lack important information and were often unable to answer answer questions, especially about the National Grid substation and NG's requirements. It has and continues to be hard to work out if key details are specific to one project, or the other, or both. Fair and effective consultation for National Grid's substation/connection buildings etc has been virtually non-existent. 4. National Grid Substation - has not been consulted for in accordance with the Planning Act SPR have apparently been consulting for National Grid's Substation & requirements, however essential information has been lacking and at the PIDs no one from National Grid was available to discuss details or answer questions. Many questions raised with Scottish Power about the NG substation raised blank looks and a familiar response along the lines of "that's a National Grid facility.... we are not sure, details will follow". Recently it has been brought to the attention of Friston residents that National Grid's substation could be used for one or both inter-connector projects (Nautilus & Eurolink). The shady nature of Scottish Power & National Grids behind closed doors relationship, seems to be designed to provide National Grid with a new connection facility, that can be used to circumvent planning for future projects. Surely this is NOT legal or acceptable? National Grid appears to have offered a connection point in a questionable and wrong location in order to save money and obtain a new grid connection facility. There has been no consideration of cumulative effects of numerous projects directed to what is a small rural/coastal area just a few miles from Sizewell, which could be the location of one of Europes largest construction projects if plans to build Sizewell C (2 nuclear reactors) go ahead. There has been unacceptable consideration given to the damaging effects on the Suffolk Coast & Heaths AONB and ecology of a supposedly protected landscape. Likewise the effects on the communities and vital tourism industry (the biggest employer in the area) appear to all have been ignored by National Grid and Scottish Power & EDF for that matter. I am aware that the Secretary of State Andrea Leadsom and Energy Minister Kwarsi Kwarteng will be facilitating an investigation into the environmental impacts of energy projects on the Norfolk & Suffolk Coasts. I am a local resident in Friston and a tourism business manager (Beach View, Sizewell), this area faces a real threat of decades of damaging projects and complete devastation of the Suffolk Coast & Heaths AONB, all of which will lead to the questionable viability and future success of many business providers in our local tourism sector. I feel The Planning Inspectorate must reject these applications until environmental and community impacts have been fully and independently assessed, as has been promised by the Secretary of State at BEIS. Yours Sincerely, Nicholas Thorp
Dear Nick, Thank you for contacting the Planning Inspectorate about the application by East Anglia ONE North Limited for an Order granting development consent for the East Anglia North Offshore Windfarm. The application was submitted on 25 October 2019. The decision to accept the application was made on the 22 November 2019. The decision was published on the project webpage, here: [attachment 1] The following documents have also been published on the project webpage: • The application documents; • Any Adequacy of Consultation Representations submitted by relevant local authorities; • The Planning Inspectorate’s Acceptance Checklist. If you have sent comments about the pre-application consultation, these can be considered in addition to the statutorily required Acceptance tests when making the decision about whether or not to accept the application. However, it will be for the decision maker (the Planning Inspectorate on behalf of the Secretary of State) to decide the weight to give to the views expressed based on the individual facts of the case. The comments you sent were, as you mention, also raised in correspondence from SASES and therefore were considered in making the acceptance decision In order to make comments about the merits of the Proposed Development to an appointed Examining Authority, you will need to register as an Interested Party by making a Relevant Representation at the appropriate time. You have until the 27 January 2020 to register as an Interested Party and can do so on the project website now: [attachment 2] For more information about how and when you can have your say, please see our Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination: [attachment 3] If you wish to have your say on East Anglia TWO and East Anglia ONE North you must register for each application separately. Kind regards, Liam

11 December 2019
Nicholas Thorp
East Anglia ONE North Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Please see attached meeting note
Please see attached meeting note

10 December 2019
EdF Energy and Environment Agency - anon.
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached

03 December 2019
EDF Energy - anon.
The Sizewell C Project
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Dear National Infrastructure Planning, I am a resident from East Suffolk and I am opposed to the planned windfarm electrical distribution centre and underground cabling in Friston for the East Anglia Two Offshore Windfarm. Firstly I must say I attended many of the Planning Inspectorate meetings for East Anglia One power cable and sub station works at Bramford a few years ago. I was bitterly disappointed by the outcome. The project planning process seemed rushed through, the power developers seemed to control the agenda, the Planning Inspectorate adjudicators had little influence, and their final report did not comment on any requirement of mitigation for the local population and only small mention in passing of the concerns of local people. Further to this, right at the end of the process when the project had already been rubber stamped, the power in the cables was changed from DC to AC, giving little time for discussion and comment. Given this lack of visibility and chance to comment I believe this final change was implemented illegally. The whole process (or shambles) set an unfortunate precedent which has resulted in the proposals now under discussion. During the earlier EA1 planning process it was made to look like enough cable ducts would be provided underground for all further Scottish Renewables windfarm requirements. But now I realise that this wasn't true. So how can we believe anything Scottish Renewables says about future plans. So what is next on the agenda? I agree with the comments stated by government MPs and Ministers that the development of windfarms in the North Sea are being implemented in an ad-hoc fashion with cabling and substations being implemented all over East Anglia, each causing distress and annoying people who live all over the region. A proposal has been made to route all windfarm power to Bradwell power station which I agree is the correct way to go. In any case since Friston is squeezed between areas of natural beauty I would have thought that any areas not designated as such would be better preserved for developments which are associated with the local communities themselves. Not massive national infrastructure projects. Yours sincerely Thomas O'Brien
Dear Thomas, Thank you for contacting the Planning Inspectorate about the application by East Anglia TWO Limited for an Order granting development consent for the East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm. The application was submitted on 25 October 2019. The decision to accept the application was made on the 22 November 2019. The decision was published on the project webpage, here: [attachment 1] The following documents have also been published on the project webpage: • The application documents; • Any Adequacy of Consultation Representations submitted by relevant local authorities; • The Planning Inspectorate’s Acceptance Checklist. In order to make comments about the merits of the Proposed Development to an appointed Examining Authority, you will need to register as an Interested Party by making a Relevant Representation. You have until the 27 January 2020 to register as an Interested Party and can do so on the project website now: [attachment 2] For more information about how and when you can have your say, please see our Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination: [attachment 3] If you wish to have your say on East Anglia ONE North and East Anglia TWO you must register for each application separately. Kind regards, Liam

02 December 2019
Thomas O'Brien
East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Subject: Suffolk Coastal Energy Projects Letter attached to Andrea Leadsom but please be noted by the Planning Inspectorate. Christine Ive
Dear Christine, Thank you for contacting the Planning Inspectorate about the application by East Anglia TWO Limited for an Order granting development consent for the East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm. The application was submitted on 25 October 2019. The decision to accept the application was made on the 22 November 2019. The decision was published on the project webpage, here: [attachment 1] The following documents have also been published on the project webpage: • The application documents; • Any Adequacy of Consultation Representations submitted by relevant local authorities; • The Planning Inspectorate’s Acceptance Checklist. In order to make comments about the merits of the Proposed Development to an appointed Examining Authority, you will need to register as an Interested Party by making a Relevant Representation. You have until the 27 January 2020 to register as an Interested Party and can do so on the project website now: [attachment 2] For more information about how and when you can have your say, please see our Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination: [attachment 3] If you wish to have your say on East Anglia ONE North and East Anglia TWO you must register for each application separately. Kind regards, Liam

02 December 2019
Christine Ive
East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Subject: Scottish Power Renewables - Proposed Friston substations Please note my objections to the above proposals as set out in the attached copy letter. Tony Morley
Dear Tony, Thank you for contacting the Planning Inspectorate about the application by East Anglia TWO Limited for an Order granting development consent for the East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm. The application was submitted on 25 October 2019. The decision to accept the application was made on the 22 November 2019. The decision was published on the project webpage, here: [attachment 1] The following documents have also been published on the project webpage: • The application documents; • Any Adequacy of Consultation Representations submitted by relevant local authorities; • The Planning Inspectorate’s Acceptance Checklist. In order to make comments about the merits of the Proposed Development to an appointed Examining Authority, you will need to register as an Interested Party by making a Relevant Representation. You have until the 27 January 2020 to register as an Interested Party and can do so on the project website now: [attachment 2] For more information about how and when you can have your say, please see our Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination: [attachment 3] If you wish to have your say on East Anglia ONE North and East Anglia TWO you must register for each application separately. Kind regards, Liam

02 December 2019
Tony Morley
East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Subject: SPR East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm - Non-Technical Summary This document brutally exposes the injustice of the planning process for this and the accompanying East Anglia ONE North Windfarm. - The brutality is all on pages 33 and 34 of the Summary. This is the very first time that the vulnerable community of Friston have been shown the sheer scale and magnitude of the disfigurement of their landscape. - The landscape visuals seem deliberately to obscure the proximity of the site to the village. - There is not the slightest acknowledgment of the potential human impact on the community. - It is dismissive of the potential impact on tourism and employment. - It refers to scoping reports in 2017, yet the first Friston heard of the proposals was Spring 2018. - Since then we have been aware of discussions covered by confidentiality agreements with our local councils. - Alarmingly the Strategic Planning Committee of East Suffolk Council is meeting on 9th December presumably to formulate its recommendations to the full Council in the New Year. Meanwhile, the community is expected to wade through some 17,000 pages for each project to assess the real issues over Christmas and submit first representations by the end of January. At the time of writing physical copies of the documentation have not been delivered. Instead we have to rely on the PINS website which is not easy to navigate for such complex developments. Simon Ive Secretary and Treasurer, Friston Parochial Church Council
Dear Simon, Thank you for contacting the Planning Inspectorate about the application by East Anglia TWO Limited for an Order granting development consent for the East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm. The application was submitted on 25 October 2019. The decision to accept the application was made on the 22 November 2019. The decision was published on the project webpage, here: [attachment 1] The following documents have also been published on the project webpage: • The application documents; • Any Adequacy of Consultation Representations submitted by relevant local authorities; • The Planning Inspectorate’s Acceptance Checklist. In order to make comments about the merits of the Proposed Development to an appointed Examining Authority, you will need to register as an Interested Party by making a Relevant Representation. You have until the 27 January 2020 to register as an Interested Party and can do so on the project website now: [attachment 2] For more information about how and when you can have your say, please see our Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination: [attachment 3] If you wish to have your say on East Anglia ONE North and East Anglia TWO you must register for each application separately. Kind regards, Liam

02 December 2019
Friston Parochial Church Council - Simon Ive
East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Dear Secretary of State, Please find attached letter concerning the above. Nick Winter
Dear Nick, Thank you for contacting the Planning Inspectorate about the application by East Anglia TWO Limited for an Order granting development consent for the East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm. The application was submitted on 25 October 2019. The decision to accept the application was made on the 22 November 2019. The decision was published on the project webpage, here: [attachment 1] The following documents have also been published on the project webpage: • The application documents; • Any Adequacy of Consultation Representations submitted by relevant local authorities; • The Planning Inspectorate’s Acceptance Checklist. In order to make comments about the merits of the Proposed Development to an appointed Examining Authority, you will need to register as an Interested Party by making a Relevant Representation. You have until the 27 January 2020 to register as an Interested Party and can do so on the project website now: [attachment 2] For more information about how and when you can have your say, please see our Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination: [attachment 3] If you wish to have your say on East Anglia ONE North and East Anglia TWO you must register for each application separately. Kind regards, Liam

02 December 2019
Nick Winter
East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Dear Secretary of State & Minister of State I am writing to you both to draw your attention to the energy chaos affecting the Suffolk Coast. It is essential that some sense and reasoning is established concerning proposals for up to 7 NSIP energy projects in pre-planning, consultation, or, shortly to apply for a DCO. National Grid appears to have been directing all these projects to the Sizewell/Leiston area, whilst ignoring that the coast here is a designated AONB. These concerns have been highlighted many times by hundreds of people but National Grid, the network operator, seems complicit in causing maximum damage and destruction by ignoring the protected landscapes, the small vulnerable communities and pursuing the path they have chosen as network operator; one that damages the sustainability and viability of the Suffolk Heritage Coast and its AONB. This coast as a destination, is vital to the success of the tourism industry here, tourism is the biggest employment sector, the coast and tourism supports so many small & medium businesses here. National Grid are surely failing in their remit as network operator in what is increasingly being seen locally as a collaboration with energy companies to exploit and savage the Suffolk Coast & Heaths AONB. National Grid and the energy companies are ignoring the clear damage that will be done to tourism, local businesses and the communities that live here. The energy proposals could include some of Europe’s biggest industrial builds, for example EDF propose to build Sizewell C, within the Suffolk Coast & Heaths AONB and Sandlings SSSI. In the case of Scottish Power’s EA1N & EA2 cable routes, these will run across the AONB landscape with 60m wide, 10km long cable trenches, en-route to the massive onshore substations they propose to build less than 500 metres from the small village of Friston. Not only blighting residents in Friston, but other communities with years of noise, dust, light pollution and increased traffic, and longer-term: constant noise from the moisture on the power-connectors; loss of recreational land; the ever-present threat that as more Windfarms are approved, the site could grow astronomically. I am a resident, who has recently moved to retire to the tranquillity of the Suffolk Coast: a coastline that has inspired Composers, Artists, Poets and Writers alike. However, it is clear that the cumulative effects of numerous energy projects will be too great for such a fragile coastline and its sensitive ecological location which also encompasses the RSPB reserve at Minsmere. If something is not done and fast, National Grid and your government could be responsible for a man-made ecological and localised economic disaster here on the Suffolk Coast. Residents, communities and local businesses have called for a thorough investigation and a full assessment and report on the ‘cumulative impact’ that multiple energy developments will have in this relatively confined rural/coastal location; nothing has happened. Scottish Power’s consultation and EDF’s Sizewell C consultation do not adequately assess each other’s proposals, let alone, the impacts of National Grid’s own massive convertor station and National Grid Ventures euro-connectors ‘Nautilus’ & ‘Eurolink’ bringing further concrete and industrial buildings. Please act now to ensure you are not labelled as the ministers, in a government that allowed National Grid and these energy compani