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Advice given between between 1 October 2009 and 14 April 2015 has been archived.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
Dear National Infrastructure Planning, I am a resident from East Suffolk and I am opposed to the planned windfarm electrical distribution centre and underground cabling in Friston for the East Anglia Two Offshore Windfarm. Firstly I must say I attended many of the Planning Inspectorate meetings for East Anglia One power cable and sub station works at Bramford a few years ago. I was bitterly disappointed by the outcome. The project planning process seemed rushed through, the power developers seemed to control the agenda, the Planning Inspectorate adjudicators had little influence, and their final report did not comment on any requirement of mitigation for the local population and only small mention in passing of the concerns of local people. Further to this, right at the end of the process when the project had already been rubber stamped, the power in the cables was changed from DC to AC, giving little time for discussion and comment. Given this lack of visibility and chance to comment I believe this final change was implemented illegally. The whole process (or shambles) set an unfortunate precedent which has resulted in the proposals now under discussion. During the earlier EA1 planning process it was made to look like enough cable ducts would be provided underground for all further Scottish Renewables windfarm requirements. But now I realise that this wasn't true. So how can we believe anything Scottish Renewables says about future plans. So what is next on the agenda? I agree with the comments stated by government MPs and Ministers that the development of windfarms in the North Sea are being implemented in an ad-hoc fashion with cabling and substations being implemented all over East Anglia, each causing distress and annoying people who live all over the region. A proposal has been made to route all windfarm power to Bradwell power station which I agree is the correct way to go. In any case since Friston is squeezed between areas of natural beauty I would have thought that any areas not designated as such would be better preserved for developments which are associated with the local communities themselves. Not massive national infrastructure projects. Yours sincerely Thomas O'Brien
Dear Thomas, Thank you for contacting the Planning Inspectorate about the application by East Anglia TWO Limited for an Order granting development consent for the East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm. The application was submitted on 25 October 2019. The decision to accept the application was made on the 22 November 2019. The decision was published on the project webpage, here: [attachment 1] The following documents have also been published on the project webpage: • The application documents; • Any Adequacy of Consultation Representations submitted by relevant local authorities; • The Planning Inspectorate’s Acceptance Checklist. In order to make comments about the merits of the Proposed Development to an appointed Examining Authority, you will need to register as an Interested Party by making a Relevant Representation. You have until the 27 January 2020 to register as an Interested Party and can do so on the project website now: [attachment 2] For more information about how and when you can have your say, please see our Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination: [attachment 3] If you wish to have your say on East Anglia ONE North and East Anglia TWO you must register for each application separately. Kind regards, Liam

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

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

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

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

02 December 2019
Nick Winter
East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Dear Secretary of State & Minister of State I am writing to you both to draw your attention to the energy chaos affecting the Suffolk Coast. It is essential that some sense and reasoning is established concerning proposals for up to 7 NSIP energy projects in pre-planning, consultation, or, shortly to apply for a DCO. National Grid appears to have been directing all these projects to the Sizewell/Leiston area, whilst ignoring that the coast here is a designated AONB. These concerns have been highlighted many times by hundreds of people but National Grid, the network operator, seems complicit in causing maximum damage and destruction by ignoring the protected landscapes, the small vulnerable communities and pursuing the path they have chosen as network operator; one that damages the sustainability and viability of the Suffolk Heritage Coast and its AONB. This coast as a destination, is vital to the success of the tourism industry here, tourism is the biggest employment sector, the coast and tourism supports so many small & medium businesses here. National Grid are surely failing in their remit as network operator in what is increasingly being seen locally as a collaboration with energy companies to exploit and savage the Suffolk Coast & Heaths AONB. National Grid and the energy companies are ignoring the clear damage that will be done to tourism, local businesses and the communities that live here. The energy proposals could include some of Europe’s biggest industrial builds, for example EDF propose to build Sizewell C, within the Suffolk Coast & Heaths AONB and Sandlings SSSI. In the case of Scottish Power’s EA1N & EA2 cable routes, these will run across the AONB landscape with 60m wide, 10km long cable trenches, en-route to the massive onshore substations they propose to build less than 500 metres from the small village of Friston. Not only blighting residents in Friston, but other communities with years of noise, dust, light pollution and increased traffic, and longer-term: constant noise from the moisture on the power-connectors; loss of recreational land; the ever-present threat that as more Windfarms are approved, the site could grow astronomically. I am a resident, who has recently moved to retire to the tranquillity of the Suffolk Coast: a coastline that has inspired Composers, Artists, Poets and Writers alike. However, it is clear that the cumulative effects of numerous energy projects will be too great for such a fragile coastline and its sensitive ecological location which also encompasses the RSPB reserve at Minsmere. If something is not done and fast, National Grid and your government could be responsible for a man-made ecological and localised economic disaster here on the Suffolk Coast. Residents, communities and local businesses have called for a thorough investigation and a full assessment and report on the ‘cumulative impact’ that multiple energy developments will have in this relatively confined rural/coastal location; nothing has happened. Scottish Power’s consultation and EDF’s Sizewell C consultation do not adequately assess each other’s proposals, let alone, the impacts of National Grid’s own massive convertor station and National Grid Ventures euro-connectors ‘Nautilus’ & ‘Eurolink’ bringing further concrete and industrial buildings. Please act now to ensure you are not labelled as the ministers, in a government that allowed National Grid and these energy companies to destroy the once beautiful Suffolk Coast & Heaths AONB and our peaceful communities living here. Therese Coffey our local MP has, on a number of occasions, called for the National Grid and energy companies to explore brownfield options and locations. Dr Coffey and others have questioned why locations like Bradwell in Essex or other brownfield sites have not been upgraded and used. – Why was Scottish Power not forced to connect these projects EA1N & EA2 at Bramford as originally planned? – Why did Scottish Power not consider a single brownfield site? – Why is National Grid not investing in existing gird infrastructure at Bradwell and other similar locations that are not AONB or protected landscapes? – How can this be allowed to happen without any form of alternative being explored like an ‘offshore ring main’ or developing brownfield locations? – Why destroy an AONB and greenfield sites here in Suffolk? – Who polices the decisions and actions of National Grid? – Why are the cumulative impacts not being assessed and acted upon now with 7 projects muted? National Grid make billions in annual profit but they are not investing in old redundant brownfield sites, they are complicit by encouraging Scottish Power and other energy companies to join them in systematic destruction of the Suffolk AONB and surrounding countryside. It seems hypocritical that Designated Land/Greenfield sites are even allowed to be considered as an option when planning to build a Green-Energy site? I am in fully agreement that we need to provide sustainable, low/non-CO2 generated source of power, however, it seems that we in Suffolk are going to have to pay the cost of this dearly in our everyday lives. Why should we be targeted with both Sizewell C and the EA1N & EA2 cable routes? To me it would make more sense to scrap the building of Sizewell C in Suffolk, and instead, if these substations really do warrant to be situated on the Suffolk coastline, build the substations on the 'brownfield' land intended for Sizewell C: - Minimum damage to the AONB; - Infrastructure is already there; - Important Agricultural land is saved (land that as we enter Brexit, we are going to need to rely on more and more for production of meat/crops); - Minimal effect on tourism; - And sets a precedence for future Green-Energy projects that Designated Land & Greenfield sites are not an option when considering their location for building. Yours Sincerely Robert Brundle
Dear Robert, Thank you for contacting the Planning Inspectorate about the application by East Anglia TWO Limited for an Order granting development consent for the East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm. The application was submitted on 25 October 2019. The decision to accept the application was made on the 22 November 2019. The decision was published on the project webpage, here: [attachment 1] The following documents have also been published on the project webpage: • The application documents; • Any Adequacy of Consultation Representations submitted by relevant local authorities; • The Planning Inspectorate’s Acceptance Checklist. In order to make comments about the merits of the Proposed Development to an appointed Examining Authority, you will need to register as an Interested Party by making a Relevant Representation. You have until the 27 January 2020 to register as an Interested Party and can do so on the project website now: [attachment 2] For more information about how and when you can have your say, please see our Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination: [attachment 3] If you wish to have your say on East Anglia ONE North and East Anglia TWO you must register for each application separately. Kind regards, Liam

02 December 2019
Robert Brundle
East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Dear Secretary of State & Minister of State I am writing to you both to draw your attention to the energy chaos affecting the Suffolk Coast. It is essential that some sense and reasoning is established concerning proposals for up to 7 NSIP energy projects in pre-planning, consultation, or, shortly to apply for a DCO. National Grid appears to have been directing all these projects to the Sizewell/Leiston area, whilst ignoring that the coast here is a designated AONB. These concerns have been highlighted many times by hundreds of people but National Grid, the network operator, seems complicit in causing maximum damage and destruction by ignoring the protected landscapes, the small vulnerable communities and pursuing the path they have chosen as network operator; one that damages the sustainability and viability of the Suffolk Heritage Coast and its AONB. This coast as a destination, is vital to the success of the tourism industry here, tourism is the biggest employment sector, the coast and tourism supports so many small & medium businesses here. National Grid are surely failing in their remit as network operator in what is increasingly being seen locally as a collaboration with energy companies to exploit and savage the Suffolk Coast & Heaths AONB. National Grid and the energy companies are ignoring the clear damage that will be done to tourism, local businesses and the communities that live here. The energy proposals could include some of Europe’s biggest industrial builds, for example EDF propose to build Sizewell C, within the Suffolk Coast & Heaths AONB and Sandlings SSSI. In the case of Scottish Power’s EA1N & EA2 cable routes, these will run across the AONB landscape with 60m wide, 10km long cable trenches, en-route to the massive onshore substations they propose to build less than 500 metres from the small village of Friston. Not only blighting residents in Friston, but other communities with years of noise, dust, light pollution and increased traffic, and longer-term: constant noise from the moisture on the power-connectors; loss of recreational land; the ever-present threat that as more Windfarms are approved, the site could grow astronomically. I am a resident, who has recently moved to retire to the tranquillity of the Suffolk Coast: a coastline that has inspired Composers, Artists, Poets and Writers alike. However, it is clear that the cumulative effects of numerous energy projects will be too great for such a fragile coastline and its sensitive ecological location which also encompasses the RSPB reserve at Minsmere. If something is not done and fast, National Grid and your government could be responsible for a man-made ecological and localised economic disaster here on the Suffolk Coast. Residents, communities and local businesses have called for a thorough investigation and a full assessment and report on the ‘cumulative impact’ that multiple energy developments will have in this relatively confined rural/coastal location; nothing has happened. Scottish Power’s consultation and EDF’s Sizewell C consultation do not adequately assess each other’s proposals, let alone, the impacts of National Grid’s own massive convertor station and National Grid Ventures euro-connectors ‘Nautilus’ & ‘Eurolink’ bringing further concrete and industrial buildings. Please act now to ensure you are not labelled as the ministers, in a government that allowed National Grid and these energy companies to destroy the once beautiful Suffolk Coast & Heaths AONB and our peaceful communities living here. Therese Coffey our local MP has, on a number of occasions, called for the National Grid and energy companies to explore brownfield options and locations. Dr Coffey and others have questioned why locations like Bradwell in Essex or other brownfield sites have not been upgraded and used. – Why was Scottish Power not forced to connect these projects EA1N & EA2 at Bramford as originally planned? – Why did Scottish Power not consider a single brownfield site? – Why is National Grid not investing in existing gird infrastructure at Bradwell and other similar locations that are not AONB or protected landscapes? – How can this be allowed to happen without any form of alternative being explored like an ‘offshore ring main’ or developing brownfield locations? – Why destroy an AONB and greenfield sites here in Suffolk? – Who polices the decisions and actions of National Grid? – Why are the cumulative impacts not being assessed and acted upon now with 7 projects muted? National Grid make billions in annual profit but they are not investing in old redundant brownfield sites, they are complicit by encouraging Scottish Power and other energy companies to join them in systematic destruction of the Suffolk AONB and surrounding countryside. It seems hypocritical that Designated Land/Greenfield sites are even allowed to be considered as an option when planning to build a Green-Energy site? I am in fully agreement that we need to provide sustainable, low/non-CO2 generated source of power, however, it seems that we in Suffolk are going to have to pay the cost of this dearly in our everyday lives. Why should we be targeted with both Sizewell C and the EA1N & EA2 cable routes? To me it would make more sense to scrap the building of Sizewell C in Suffolk, and instead, if these substations really do warrant to be situated on the Suffolk coastline, build the substations on the 'brownfield' land intended for Sizewell C: - Minimum damage to the AONB; - Infrastructure is already there; - Important Agricultural land is saved (land that as we enter Brexit, we are going to need to rely on more and more for production of meat/crops); - Minimal effect on tourism; - And sets a precedence for future Green-Energy projects that Designated Land & Greenfield sites are not an option when considering their location for building. Yours Sincerely Robert Brundle
Dear Robert, Thank you for contacting the Planning Inspectorate about the application by East Anglia ONE North Limited for an Order granting development consent for the East Anglia North Offshore Windfarm. The application was submitted on 25 October 2019. The decision to accept the application was made on the 22 November 2019. The decision was published on the project webpage, here: [attachment 1] The following documents have also been published on the project webpage: • The application documents; • Any Adequacy of Consultation Representations submitted by relevant local authorities; • The Planning Inspectorate’s Acceptance Checklist. In order to make comments about the merits of the Proposed Development to an appointed Examining Authority, you will need to register as an Interested Party by making a Relevant Representation at the appropriate time. You have until the 27 January 2020 to register as an Interested Party and can do so on the project website now: [attachment 2] For more information about how and when you can have your say, please see our Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination: [attachment 3] If you wish to have your say on East Anglia TWO and East Anglia ONE North you must register for each application separately. Kind regards

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

02 December 2019
Thomas O'Brien
East Anglia ONE North Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Dear sir/madam, I have been approached by the Emergency Planner for Suffolk County Council, Andy Osman, about ONR’s response to the Consultation regarding the DCO application for EA1N & EA2 offshore windfarms. ONR has a role as a statutory consultee under the Planning Act 2008 via the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 and the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009 (as amended) - Reg. 3 states the persons prescribed for the purposes of section 42(a) of the Planning Act (duty to consult) are those listed in column 1 of the table in Schedule 1 to these Regulations, who must be consulted in the circumstances specified in relation to each such person in column 2 of that table. Column 1 of schedule 1 includes ONR as a consultee for [column 2] ‘all proposed applications likely to affect matters relevant to the ONR's purposes within the meaning of Part 3 of the Energy Act 2013’. I have not been able to confirm whether ONR has been formally consulted regarding this application but we would wish to be, due to the proximity of the offshore cables which appear to come onshore at Thorpeness, just outside the DEPZ for Sizewell B and within the ONR 8km Outer Consultation Zone. You may find the information included on our webpage useful [attachment 1]. If a request for ONR consultation has been sent, I would be grateful if you could inform me to whom the request was sent. Best regards and many thanks.
Dear Nicola, Pre-application consultation is undertaken by the Applicant rather than the Planning Inspectorate (the Inspectorate). The documents provided by the Applicant indicate that it had consulted the ONR. The ONR should directly contact the Applicant to confirm contact details and information in regards to how it has been consulted. If you continue to have concerns about how the ONR has been consulted, after you have contacted the Applicant, then please write to the Inspectorate again. The decision to accept the application was made on the 22 November 2019. The decision was published on the project webpage, here: [attachment 2] The following documents have also been published on the project webpage: • The application documents; • Any Adequacy of Consultation Representations submitted by relevant local authorities; • The Planning Inspectorate’s Acceptance Checklist. In order to make comments about the merits of the Proposed Development to an appointed Examining Authority, you will need to register as an Interested Party by making a Relevant Representation at the appropriate time. You have until the 27 January 2020 to register as an Interested Party and can do so on the project website now: [attachment 3] For more information about how and when you can have your say, please see our Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination: [attachment 4] If you wish to have your say on East Anglia TWO and East Anglia ONE North you must register for each application separately. If you wish to contact the Inspectorate about East Anglia TWO, please email [email protected] Kind regards

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

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

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

02 December 2019
Christine Ive
East Anglia ONE North Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Subject: PINS ref: EA1N / EA2 Substations PINS Ref: EN010077 + EN010078 Please find attached a copy of my letter to Dept of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy regarding PINS ref: EA1N / EA2 Substations PINS Ref: EN010077 + EN010078. Thank you for your time. Nichola Winter
Dear Nichola, Thank you for contacting the Planning Inspectorate about the application by East Anglia TWO Limited for an Order granting development consent for the East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm. The application was submitted on 25 October 2019. The decision to accept the application was made on the 22 November 2019. The decision was published on the project webpage, here: [attachment 1] The following documents have also been published on the project webpage: • The application documents; • Any Adequacy of Consultation Representations submitted by relevant local authorities; • The Planning Inspectorate’s Acceptance Checklist. In order to make comments about the merits of the Proposed Development to an appointed Examining Authority, you will need to register as an Interested Party by making a Relevant Representation at the appropriate time. For more information about how and when you can have your say, please see our Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination: [attachment 2] If you wish to have your say on East Anglia ONE North and East Anglia TWO you must register for each application separately. Kind regards, Liam

28 November 2019
Nichola Winter
East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please see attached.
Dear Nichola, Thank you for contacting the Planning Inspectorate about the application by East Anglia ONE North Limited for an Order granting development consent for the East Anglia North Offshore Windfarm. The application was submitted on 25 October 2019. The decision to accept the application was made on the 22 November 2019. The decision was published on the project webpage, here: [attachment 1] The following documents have also been published on the project webpage: • The application documents; • Any Adequacy of Consultation Representations submitted by relevant local authorities; • The Planning Inspectorate’s Acceptance Checklist. In order to make comments about the merits of the Proposed Development to an appointed Examining Authority, you will need to register as an Interested Party by making a Relevant Representation at the appropriate time. For more information about how and when you can have your say, please see our Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination: [attachment 2] If you wish to have your say on East Anglia TWO and East Anglia ONE North you must register for each application separately. Kind regards

28 November 2019
Nichola Winter
East Anglia ONE North Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please see attached document
Please see attached document

27 November 2019
Derby City Council - Sara Claxton
General
Enquiry received via email
As there will be neither Government nor MPs as from Wednesday of this week, how might this affect the standard timetable for an NSIP application?
During the election period the Government retains its responsibility to govern, and Ministers remain in charge of their departments. The Planning Inspectorate, acting on behalf of the Secretary of State, has a statutory duty to decide whether or not to accept the applications for Examination within 28 days of submission. As you may have seen, our decision to accept the applications was issued on Friday 22 November. The Examination timetable, will not be affected by the General Election.

25 November 2019
Paul Spendlove
East Anglia ONE North Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
As there will be neither Government nor MPs as from Wednesday of this week, how might this affect the standard timetable for an NSIP application?
During the election period the Government retains its responsibility to govern, and Ministers remain in charge of their departments. The Planning Inspectorate, acting on behalf of the Secretary of State, has a statutory duty to decide whether or not to accept the applications for Examination within 28 days of submission. As you may have seen, our decision to accept the applications was issued on Friday 22 November. The Examination timetable, will not be affected by the General Election.

25 November 2019
Paul Spendlove
East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
See attached
See attached

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

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

14 November 2019
Bill Parker
Sizewell C New Nuclear Power Station
Enquiry received via email
Comments on the Equinor Scoping Report
Thanks for your email and letter, the contents of which I have noted. We have double checked the boundary of your town council, and as High Kelling Parish Council is not within the boundary of the proposed DCO application, you are not a statutory consultee and as such your response will not be appended to the Planning Inspectorate’s Scoping Opinion. However, you of course may contact the developer directly during pre-application process if you wish to get involved at that time. If an application is submitted and accepted by the Planning Inspectorate you will then have an opportunity to register as an interested party.

07 November 2019
High Kelling Parish Council - Gemma Harrison
Sheringham and Dudgeon Extension Projects
Enquiry received via email
Application by Equinor New Energy Limited (the Applicant) for an Order granting Development Consent for the Dudgeon and Sheringham Shoal Offshore Wind Farm Extensions (the Proposed Development) With reference to the above proposal the Town Council have no comment to make at the moment but would like to be added as a consultee for future information on the development Sue Lake Aylsham Town Clerk Aylsham Town Council Town Hall, Market Place Aylsham, Norwich NR11 6EL
Dear Ms Lake, Thanks for your email. We note that you currently have no comment to make. We have double checked the boundary of your town council, and as Aylsham Town Council is not within the boundary of the proposed DCO application, you are not a statutory consultee and as such your response will not be appended to the Planning Inspectorate’s Scoping Opinion. However, you of course may contact the developer directly during pre-application process if you wish to get involved at that time. We are not currently inviting interested parties to register at this early stage. However, if an application is submitted and accepted by the Planning Inspectorate you will then have an opportunity to register as an interested party. I hope this clarifies things.

05 November 2019
Aylsham Town Council - Sue Lake
Sheringham and Dudgeon Extension Projects
Enquiry received via phone
1) How are consultees, particularly Parish Councils, identified for notification and consultation on the Scoping Report? Who identifies them? 2) Can Parish Councils that are not consulted by PINS comment on the Scoping Report? 3) Will the bodies that were notified and consulted be informed when the Scoping Opinion is adopted?
1) The Planning Inspectorate identifies consultation bodies in accordance with legislation (Schedule 1 of The Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009). Any parish council within which the Proposed Development would be located (ie the ‘scoping area’ identified in the Scoping Report) would be notified and consulted. A list of all consultation bodies will be included in the Scoping Opinion, once adopted. 2) Only responses received from consultation bodies that were notified and consulted will be included in the Scoping Opinion. If a Parish Council that has not been notified and consulted wishes to comment on the Scoping Report, it is recommended that they send their comments directly to the applicant. 3) The Inspectorate has 42 days from receipt of a scoping request to adopt a Scoping Opinion and will publish it on the project page of the website. Consultation bodies will not be individually notified of its publication.

31 October 2019
Oulton Parish Council - Alison Shaw
Sheringham and Dudgeon Extension Projects
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Dear Sir/Madam, I have been liaising with a developer in respect of a potential project for electricity generation utilising compressed air which would be stored underground using pre-existing caverns which would be modified. My question is whether the proposal, in your view, falls within the definition of an NSIP. Below is the developers reasoning for why they believe it does not. Can I get your view on this please? 3/ Concerning the Planning Act 2008 and the generation threshold, it would be good to get your legal guys to check/confirm we are still within local planning jurisdiction , the following i hope helps clarify our position • In our opinion, consideration of our facility with regards planning would fall solely under section 15 of the Act (generating stations) and not under section 17 (underground gas storage) because the purpose of the facility is electricity storage (which currently has no legal definition and is therefore consumption plus generation) not gas storage. • In our opinion a 50MW generation capacity falls within local planning jurisdiction, because 14.2.c states "more than 50MW" (my emphasis). • 49MW net Generation capacity (into the distribution grid), using existing caverns (only changes to above ground equipment - all underground expected to remain exactly the same), We would use compressors for charging only (no generation) between 50-70MW. o our view is we do not fall under Part 3 clause 15.2 -> Generating Stations as our output will be less than 50MW o our view is we would be assessed under clause 15 Generating Stations if anything and not assessed under clause 17 “ Underground storage facilities” since we a/ are not storing gas (as in natural gas which is what we assume the word gas refers to) b/ we are not creating underground gas storage as the caverns already exist c/any caverns would in any case be auxiliary (or secondary) to the main purpose of generation • 49MW net Generation capacity (into the distribution grid), using NEW caverns, we would use compressors for charging only (not for generation) between 50-70MW maximum electricity consumption. o our view is we do not fall under Part 3 clause 15.2 -> Generating Stations as our output will be less than 50MW and this is regardless of consumption size o our view is we would be assessed under clause 15 Generating Stations if anything and not assessed under clause 17 “ Underground storage facilities” since we a/ are not storing gas (as in natural gas which is what we assume the word gas refers to) b/any caverns would in any case be auxiliary (or secondary) to the main purpose of generation
Dear Mr Holmes Thank you for your query regarding the proposed potential project for electricity generation utilising compressed air. As you will be aware, under Section 14(1)(a) of the Planning Act 2008, as amended (PA 2008) the construction or extension of a generating station is defined as a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (‘NSIP’). Section 15(2) of PA 2008 provides that the construction or extension of an onshore generating station in England is within section 14(1)(a) only if the generating station is, or (when constructed or extended) is expected: not to generate electricity from wind; and to have a capacity of more than 50 megawatts. The definition of extension is set out in Section 235(1) of PA 2008 which provides that, in relation to a generating station, it has the meaning given by Section 36(9) of the Electricity Act 1989. That provision of the Electricity Act states that ““extension”, in relation to a generating station, includes the use by the person operating the station of any land or area of waters (wherever situated) for a purpose directly related to the generation of electricity by that station…”. The Council will need to satisfy itself, taking its own legal advice if appropriate, as to whether or not any proposal submitted to it can be considered and determined by the local planning authority under any regime other than the development consent regime provided for by PA 2008. It should be noted that, under Section 160 of PA 2008, it is an offence if a “person carries out, or causes to be carried out, development for which development consent is required at a time when no development consent is in force in respect of the development”. If the Council are minded to conclude that the project is an NSIP, you need to explain to the Applicant why you consider this proposal to be an NSIP and suggest the Applicant contact the Inspectorate to discuss the NSIP process. However, the Applicant may choose to ignore such advice and lodge them as two separate TCPA applications. Please note that the Inspectorate has a statutory duty to record and make publicly available any advice given under s51 of the PA 2008 about: applying for an order granting development consent; or making representations about an application, or a proposed application, for such an order. The inspectorate has previously issued advised to the developer for this project which has been published on the Inspectorate’s National Infrastructure website. [attachment 1] If you wish to seek any further advice in relation to the NSIP planning regime and these proposals, please contact me using the above contact details. Thank you

29 October 2019
Cheshire West and Chester Borough Council - Steven Holmes
General
Enquiry received via email
I am writing to enquire as to whether you would accept a response from The Wildlife Trusts on the Scoping Report for Sheringham and Dudgeon Offshore Wind Farm Extension? Kind regards Tania Tania Davey Living Seas Sustainable Development Officer The Wildlife Trusts
Dear Tania Thank you for your email. In forming it’s opinion as to the scope of the information that the Applicant should include in its Environmental Statement, the Inspectorate consults with a number of consultation bodies as listed in Schedule 1 of The Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009. Wildlife Trusts are not listed as consultation bodies and therefore any comments you have would not be included in the Scoping Opinion. However, we would strongly encourage you to send any comments that you may have directly to the developer, as the Applicant has a statutory duty to take your views into account.

29 October 2019
The Wildlife Trusts - Tania Davey
Sheringham and Dudgeon Extension Projects
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Good afternoon I understand that the submission of this application by Scottish Power is imminent I think I am right in saying that you then decide in 28 days whether or not to accept the application I would submit that you should not accept this application for the following reasons - This is the first of a series of applications for bringing ashore the electricity generated by windfarms. Government has given permission for the construction of the windfarms but has not developed any strategy for how the power should be brought ashore. It is imperative that there is such a strategy otherwise each windfarm will act in isolation and the damage done to the countryside will be immense and uncontrolled. In this case, Scottish Power and National Grid have unilaterally decided upon Friston without reference to anyone else. They have not even considered a development that could be shared with the next windfarm to be completed. We need a national strategy for how best, and where, to bring power ashore taking into account all of the technical possibilities such as the offshore ringmain. And we need this fast. We all need the offshore wind power. - I am told by Scottish Power that once you have accepted their application then the public will not be allowed to argue that it is the wrong location. If this is correct then it renders the whole process meaningless. How else can the public have a say? We are supposed to live in a democracy. - The so called consultation process carried out by Scottish Power has been a farce. Many, many members of the public have commented and made suggestions. All have been ignored. I therefore ask that you refuse their application and ask the appropriate government department to put in place an urgent programme to develop a strategy in conjunction with the various windfarm developers and National Grid Thankyou David Gordon
Dear Mr Gordon Thank you for contacting the Planning Inspectorate about the application by ScottishPower Renewables for an order granting development consent for the East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm. The Acceptance stage The application was submitted on 25 October 2019. The Acceptance decision must be taken on or before 22 November 2019. The decision will be published on the project webpage, here: [attachment 1] If the application is accepted, the following documents will also be published on the project webpage: • The application documents (if they are not already published); • Any Adequacy of Consultation Representations submitted by relevant local authorities; • The Planning Inspectorate’s Acceptance Checklist. The Acceptance tests Section 55 of the Planning Act 2008 states that an application can be accepted provided: • it is an application for an order granting development consent; • that development consent is required for any of the development to which the application relates; • the applicant has, in relation to a proposed application that has become the application, complied with Chapter 2 of Part 5 (pre-application procedure); and • that the application (including accompaniments) is of a standard that the Secretary of State considers satisfactory. The following must be considered when making the decision: a) The Consultation Report received with the application; b) Any Adequacy of Consultation Representations received by the Planning Inspectorate from a local authority consultee; c) The extent to which the Applicant has had regard to government guidance. If you have sent comments about the pre-application consultation, these can be considered in addition to the statutorily required Acceptance tests when making the decision about whether or not to accept the application. However, it will be for the decision maker (the Planning Inspectorate on behalf of the Secretary of State) to decide the weight to give to the views expressed based on the individual facts of the case. However you may also wish to submit any comments you have on the consultation to your local authority as relevant local authorities have been asked to submit their views on the adequacy of the Applicant’s consultation to us by 8 November 2019. If you have sent comments about the merits of the Proposed Development (eg setting out support for or objection to the principle of the Proposed Development) these cannot be considered at the Acceptance stage. If the application is accepted for Examination, in order to make comments about the merits of the Proposed Development to an appointed Examining Authority, you will need to register as an Interested Party by making a Relevant Representation at the appropriate time. For more information about how and when you can have your say, please see our Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination: [attachment 2] Kind regards

29 October 2019
David Gordon
East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Good afternoon I understand that the submission of this application by Scottish Power is imminent I think I am right in saying that you then decide in 28 days whether or not to accept the application I would submit that you should not accept this application for the following reasons - This is the first of a series of applications for bringing ashore the electricity generated by windfarms. Government has given permission for the construction of the windfarms but has not developed any strategy for how the power should be brought ashore. It is imperative that there is such a strategy otherwise each windfarm will act in isolation and the damage done to the countryside will be immense and uncontrolled. In this case, Scottish Power and National Grid have unilaterally decided upon Friston without reference to anyone else. They have not even considered a development that could be shared with the next windfarm to be completed. We need a national strategy for how best, and where, to bring power ashore taking into account all of the technical possibilities such as the offshore ringmain. And we need this fast. We all need the offshore wind power. - I am told by Scottish Power that once you have accepted their application then the public will not be allowed to argue that it is the wrong location. If this is correct then it renders the whole process meaningless. How else can the public have a say? We are supposed to live in a democracy. - The so called consultation process carried out by Scottish Power has been a farce. Many, many members of the public have commented and made suggestions. All have been ignored. I therefore ask that you refuse their application and ask the appropriate government department to put in place an urgent programme to develop a strategy in conjunction with the various windfarm developers and National Grid Thankyou David Gordon
Dear Mr Gordon Thank you for contacting the Planning Inspectorate about the application by Scottish Power Renewables for an order granting development consent for the East Anglia ONE Offshore Windfarm. The Acceptance stage The application was submitted on 25 October 2019. The Acceptance decision must be taken on or before 22 November 2019. The decision will be published on the project webpage, here: [attachment 1] If the application is accepted, the following documents will also be published on the project webpage: • The application documents (if they are not already published); • Any Adequacy of Consultation Representations submitted by relevant local authorities; • The Planning Inspectorate’s Acceptance Checklist. The Acceptance tests Section 55 of the Planning Act 2008 states that an application can be accepted provided: • it is an application for an order granting development consent; • that development consent is required for any of the development to which the application relates; • the applicant has, in relation to a proposed application that has become the application, complied with Chapter 2 of Part 5 (pre-application procedure); and • that the application (including accompaniments) is of a standard that the Secretary of State considers satisfactory. The following must be considered when making the decision: a) The Consultation Report received with the application; b) Any Adequacy of Consultation Representations received by the Planning Inspectorate from a local authority consultee; c) The extent to which the Applicant has had regard to government guidance. If you have sent comments about the pre-application consultation, these can be considered in addition to the statutorily required Acceptance tests when making the decision about whether or not to accept the application. However, it will be for the decision maker (the Planning Inspectorate on behalf of the Secretary of State) to decide the weight to give to the views expressed based on the individual facts of the case. However you may also wish to submit any comments you have on the consultation to your local authority as relevant local authorities have been asked to submit their views on the adequacy of the Applicant’s consultation to us by 8 November 2019. If you have sent comments about the merits of the Proposed Development (eg setting out support for or objection to the principle of the Proposed Development) these cannot be considered at the Acceptance stage. If the application is accepted for Examination, in order to make comments about the merits of the Proposed Development to an appointed Examining Authority, you will need to register as an Interested Party by making a Relevant Representation at the appropriate time. For more information about how and when you can have your say, please see our Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination: [attachment 2] I note that your email below is in relation to the East Anglia ONE North application. An application for the East Anglia TWO offshore windfarm has been submitted at the same time. These are two separate applications and therefore if you wish your comments to be taken into account for both applications you should also email your comments to [email protected] Regards

28 October 2019
David Gordon
East Anglia ONE North Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via meeting
Advice regarding the status of notifications made in accordance with the 2009 EIA Regulations and the applicability with likewise requirements in the 2017 EIA Regulations.
Following our discussion last week, the Inspectorate understands that you do not intend to rely upon transitional provisions provided within the 2017 EIA Regulations. Instead you intend to submit a 2017 EIA Regulations compliant Environmental Statement (ES) to accompany the proposed Metrowest project application. You have requested advice regarding the status of notifications made in accordance with the 2009 EIA Regulations and the applicability with likewise requirements in the 2017 EIA Regulations. The Inspectorate is unable to provide legal advice, however, we do acknowledge that the notification requirements set out in Regulation 6 of the 2009 EIA Regulations (under which you have previously notified the Inspectorate of your intent to provide an ES) are essentially analogous with those specified in Regulation 8 of the 2017 EIA Regulations. The Inspectorate will have regard to these matters when the application is made. However, the Applicant should ensure that the application documents clearly explain the relationship between notifications made under the 2009 EIA Regulations and those under the 2017 EIA Regulations.

24 October 2019
Womble Bond Dickison LLP/ North Somerset Council - anon.
Portishead Branch Line - MetroWest Phase 1
Enquiry received via email
Dear Inspectorate. I am a planning officer working for the Medway Council. I am writing to seek your advice with regard to the above proposal. Medway Council is about to receive two separate planning applications for two 49.99MW gas fired electricity generating units. These two units will be located side by side within a large compound and share some facilities like site office car parking , see attached site location and layout plans. Having regard to the section 15(2)(c ) of the Planning Act 2008, it appears to us that although individually these gas fired electricity generating units will be within the threshold of the section 15(2) (c ) of the Act; due to their proximity to each other and their combined MW electricity generating powers they would exceed the Acts threshold limit and as such they should be considered under the NSIP regime. However, in response to the Medway Council challenge that the proposals together will exceed the threshold for the application to be determined under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 the applicant, SEATERA ENERGY has provided a legal opinion in support of their assertion that the proposed Gas Fired electricity generators ought to be regarded as a separate generating station and thus that the proposed development was properly to be regarded as falling below the threshold set by the section 15(2)(c ) of the Planning Act 2008. In addition the applicant has also cited decisions by Stoke on Tees Borough Council to grant planning permissions for two similar 49.9MW gas fired electricity power stations on 4th January 2019 under ref 18/2079/FUL and 18/2082/FUL. I have enclosed for your info proposed layout of the proposed 49.9MW Gas fired electricity stations. I am writing to seek your considered views as whether we should treat these applications as two separate standalone gas fired electricity power station with 49.9MW each and consider them under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 or advise the applicant that due to the proximity of the power station to each other and sharing compound and some facilities these projects should be regarded as a combined units that exceed the threshold set by the Planning Act 2008. Therefore, the proposals represent a Nationally Significant Infrastructure project and require a Development Consent Order under the Planning Act 2008. Looking forward to your considered opinion and help in this matter. Yours sincerely M. Harouni Senior Planning Officer
Dear Mr Harouni Thank you for your query regarding the proposed development of two 49.99MW gas fired electricity generating units which are due to be submitted to Medway Council. You request the Inspectorate’s view on whether they be should treated as two separate standalone gas fired electricity power stations with 49.9MW each and consider them under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, or advise the Applicant that due to the proximity of the power stations to each other and sharing compound and some facilities that they should be regarded as a combined units that exceed the threshold set by the Planning Act 2008. As you will be aware, under Section 14(1)(a) of the Planning Act 2008, as amended (PA 2008) the construction or extension of a generating station is defined as a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (‘NSIP’). Section 15(2) of PA 2008 provides that the construction or extension of an onshore generating station in England is within section 14(1)(a) only if the generating station is, or (when constructed or extended) is expected: not to generate electricity from wind; and to have a capacity of more than 50 megawatts. The definition of extension is set out in Section 235(1) of PA 2008 which provides that, in relation to a generating station, it has the meaning given by Section 36(9) of the Electricity Act 1989. That provision of the Electricity Act states that ““extension”, in relation to a generating station, includes the use by the person operating the station of any land or area of waters (wherever situated) for a purpose directly related to the generation of electricity by that station…”. You state that the Applicant, Statera Energy, have indicated that they have sought their own legal advice in support of their view that the proposal ought to be regarded as a separate generating station and that it should properly to be regarded as falling below the threshold set by the Section 15(2)(c ) of PA 2008, also citing recent decisions by Stoke on Tees Borough Council to grant planning permissions for two similar 49.9MW gas fired electricity power stations on 4 January 2019 under ref 18/2079/FUL and 18/2082/FUL. The Council will need to satisfy itself, taking its own legal advice if appropriate, as to whether or not any proposal submitted to it can be considered and determined by the local planning authority under any regime other than the development consent regime provided for by PA 2008. It should be noted that, under Section 160 of PA 2008, it is an offence if a “person carries out, or causes to be carried out, development for which development consent is required at a time when no development consent is in force in respect of the development”. If the Council are minded to conclude that these two applications are interconnected you will need to explain to the Applicant why you consider this proposal to be an NSIP and suggest the Applicant contact the Inspectorate to discuss the NSIP process. However, the Applicant may choose to ignore such advice and lodge them as two separate TCPA applications. Please note that the Inspectorate has a statutory duty to record and make publicly available any advice given under s51 of the PA 2008 about: applying for an order granting development consent; or making representations about an application, or a proposed application, for such an order. If you wish to seek any further advice in relation to the NSIP planning regime and these proposals, please contact me using the above contact details. Thank you Tracey Williams Case Manager National Infrastructure Planning The Planning Inspectorate,Temple Quay House,Temple Quay, Bristol BS1 6PN Direct Line: 0303 444 5085 Helpline: 0303 444 5000 Email: [email protected]

22 October 2019
Medway Council - Majid Harouni
General
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please see attached
Please see attached

22 October 2019
Paul Spendlove
East Anglia ONE North Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please see attached
Please see attached

22 October 2019
Paul Spendlove
East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please see attached
Please see attached

22 October 2019
Alan Bullard
East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please see attached
Please see attached

22 October 2019
Alan Bullard
East Anglia ONE North Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Dear Rt Hon. Andrea Leadsom MP, Councillors, Sir/Madam, I am writing to express my ongoing anger and disbelief at the Scottish Power Renewable EA1N and EA2 planning proposals at Friston, Suffolk. I have written before for each consultation and will be registering as relevant representation with PINs at the relevant stage. I want to reaffirm my shock at the scale; threat to the village of Friston and surrounding area; and precedent to other huge energy developments. Renewable energy is a vital part of our ongoing national commitments to delivering carbon neutral energy supplies. However it is the lack of Government planning to this development and future developments that are destroying the East Anglian Coastline. The government have a duty to protect communities, the environment and wellbeing of residents from vast onshore infrastructures related to offshore wind farms. There are many brownfield sites that could be used for onshore infrastructure but energy companies are planning to destroy pristine coastal communities, AONB land and amenity land. The Government, OFGEM and National Grid have no accountability or interest in developing a sustainable approach to onshore developments for onshore infrastructure. Outlined below are the main concerns I have in relation to building the EA1N and EA2 substations in the village Friston: - flooding. The village is build around a watercourse that has had extensive flooding over the years with many properties flooded. The scale of the substations will turn high value agricultural land into a concrete development. The flood assessments by SPR are desk based, and unconvincing given the level of historic flooding in the village. Mitigation shows further amenity and agricultural land loss but shows little evidence of mapping and investigating the whole village to address the threats from flooding. -noise pollution. The PEIR shows that there will be permanent noise pollution by the substations. Given that SPR have not included the National Grid substation and future Nautilus Substations in their cumulative impact assessment I can only see that the noise will be greater than indicated. The substations are within 350metres of the village where there is currently no background noise. This cannot be mitigated against, there is no noise in the village. -damage to the landscape. At present the proposed site is a mixture of high agricultural land, public footpaths and woodlands. The 30+ acres of industrial development 15-18metres high cannot be mitigated against. The setting of the village, listed buildings and closure of public footpaths will be damaged irreversibly. The area also contains a number of important wildlife including skylarks and bats. The skylarks have only just started reappearing on the fields where the substations will be built. Mitigation will be over 25 years as tree growth will be slow and long lasting, given the life span of the substations, I will be over 100 by the time the trees are doing their job. It is also about the generations that are yet to come. Destroying parts of the AONB for cable routes, destroying amenity land and access, and ruining the heritage and archaeological of the village cannot be mitigated against. I hope you understand the damage these piecemeal approaches to energy developments will have on local communities, with particular damage to the village of Friston. Regards Rosemary Kersey
Dear Rosemary, Planning Act 2008 (as amended) Proposals by ScottishPower Renewables (UK) Limited for the East Anglia ONE North Windfarm (EN010077). I am writing regarding your correspondence sent to the Planning Inspectorate dated 15 October 2019 in relation to the above proposal. The proposed application is at the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 process. The Planning Inspectorate is unable to consider representations about the merits of any application until it is accepted for Examination. Further information about the process can be found in the link below to the National Infrastructure Planning website: [attachment 1]. From your email I can see that you are aware that should the application be submitted and accepted the ‘Registration and Relevant Representation form’ will be made available on the project page of the National Infrastructure Planning website during the Pre-examination stage. Further information about registering as an Interested Party can be found in the Planning Inspectorate’s ‘Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination’: [attachment 2]. Please note that, should both applications be submitted and accepted, to become an Interested Party in each examination you must register for both applications separately. Kind regards, Liam

21 October 2019
Rosemary Kersey
East Anglia ONE North Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Dear sirs, We are writing to you as residents of Knodishall whose property and holiday accommodation business is situated contiguous to a section of the cable route/haul road and in close proximity to a proposed site compound. The proposed siting of the Friston sub-station is going to have a devasting effect on our holiday cottage business. Our guests, along with the majority of visitors to the Suffolk Coast, choose our properties for their tranquil location with unspoilt views, dark skies and ease of access. All of this will disappear with the above project and the siting of the haul road and compound within metres of our boundary. Access to our property, will at times be closed off whilst initially constructing the haul road and subsequently very difficult with the continual movement of construction traffic. The impact to routes leading to our property and the Suffolk Coast will be catastrophic. The addition of 100 HGV movements a day along the already overloaded A1094 Aldeburgh Road will be dangerous and off-putting to visitors. Relative ease of access to the Suffolk Coast is a contributing factor to the area being chosen as a destination. Given that EA1N and EA2 are not the only projects proposed for the area, in what seems to be a disjointed and inefficient energy plan, the cumulative effect on people’s lives, tourism and the environment is going to blight our beautiful Suffolk Coast for many years. The location and timing of these and inevitable subsequent projects needs to be carefully considered. We hope all involved are doing this. Yours faithfully Jan Packard and Mark Haines
The proposed application is at the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 process. The Planning Inspectorate is unable to consider representations about the merits of any application until it is accepted for Examination. Further information about the process can be found in the link below to the National Infrastructure Planning website: [attachment 1]. Should the application be submitted and accepted the ‘Registration and Relevant Representation form’ will be made available on the project page of the National Infrastructure Planning website during the Pre-examination stage. Further information about registering as an Interested Party can be found in the Planning Inspectorate’s ‘Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination’: [attachment 2].

21 October 2019
Jan Packard
East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Dear Secretary of State & Minister of State, I am writing to you both to draw your attention to the stupidity of siting a new sub station for the North Sea East Anglia Two and One windfarms in or near Friston. The power generated by the windfarms will far exceed the power required by the homes and businesses near Friston and consequently it will be exported to where it is needed by the National Grid. One of the reasons for choosing Friston was because it had access to the National Grid nearby. However, wherever the power is used, the losses to get it there will be in excess of the benefits of choosing Friston as a site of connection. Let me give an example with the sub station in Friston, consider 1Kw of electricity generated in the North Sea at the new windfarm. This 1Kw will travel say 70km on the Submarine High Voltage Direct Current (HVDC) cable proposed, then be converted to High Voltage Alternating Current at the Friston sub station. This conversion will cause about .7-.8% loss (3). Then the reduced power will travel 160 km on the above ground grid to where it will be used in London. For this example using the figures in National Grids document (1) Resistance is .064(2) Ohms for HVDC and 1.62(2) Ohm for the HVAC circuit, Total 1.68 Ohms. Now consider if the sub station was in the Thames estuary, The same 1 Kw of electricity will travel say 140 km via a new submarine HVDC cable to a new sub station in the Thames estuary. There will be no requirement to bury this cable in 64m wide trenches that pass through an AONB as the cable can be laid on the sea bed. Once at the substation the power can be converted with the same losses (.7%)(3) as in the Friston example and then travel 30km via HVAC overhead to be used in London. The loss figures for this example are Resistance for HVDC 1.28(2) Ohms and HVAC .3 (2) Ohms. Total Resistance 1.58 Ohms. From this example it can be seen that there is a significant saving in power losses and as importantly the destruction to the environment is substantially reduced. From National Grids own document (3) it can be seen that the submarine HVDC is preferred for an even longer route of 385 km. There is a growing need for a strategic plan to site a new UK connector sub station so that subsequent windfarms in the North Sea and International power connectors such as Viking, NueConnect and NEMO (5) can connect to The National Grid near where the power is needed and I would suggest that location should be in the Thames estuary. Yours Sincerely Alan Hatfield References (1) National Grid Strategy Paper National Grid’s Strategy Paper to address Transmission Licence Special Condition 2K: Electricity Transmission Losses Reporting Period: 1 April 2013 to 31 March 2021 (2) Given that a typical DC resistance at 90°C of a 2500mm² copper conductor is 9.18µO/m and the AC resistance is 10.25µO/m it can be seen, by comparison with the DC resistance values in the table of section 3.2.2, that the overall resistances (and therefore losses) of cable conductors are generally considerably lower than those for overhead lines outlined in section 3.2.2. (3)The major sources of losses in HVDC converter stations are; the valves, converter transformers, ac filters, other reactive compensation plant, DC smoothing reactors and auxiliaries / station service losses. Typical converter losses are 0.7 – 0.8% of the transmitted power. (4)Over long distances, DC transmission losses (including conversion Losses) are lower than AC losses at higher voltages. A typical application for the preference of HVDC connections over AC circuits are where long cable circuits are required - for example the Western HVDC Link, which provides 2.2GW capacity at 600kV, via a 385km undersea cable connection8 . Transmission of power at DC overcomes the effect of capacitive charging current, which reduces the effective rating of cables in AC applications and makes the use of AC circuits increasingly impractical for long distances. In DC applications, there is no technical limit on cable length. (5) [attachment 1]
Dear Alan, Planning Act 2008 (as amended) Proposals by ScottishPower Renewables (UK) Limited for the East Anglia TWO Windfarm (EN010078). I am writing regarding your correspondence sent to the Planning Inspectorate dated 20 October 2019 in relation to the above proposal. The proposed application is at the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 process. The Planning Inspectorate is unable to consider representations about the merits of any application until it is accepted for Examination. Further information about the process can be found in the link below to the National Infrastructure Planning website: [attachment 2]. Should the application be submitted and accepted the ‘Registration and Relevant Representation form’ will be made available on the project page of the National Infrastructure Planning website during the Pre-examination stage. Further information about registering as an Interested Party can be found in the Planning Inspectorate’s ‘Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination’: [attachment 3]. Please note that, should the applications for East Anglia ONE North and East Anglia TWO be submitted and accepted, to become an Interested Party in each examination you must register for both applications separately. Kind regards, Liam

21 October 2019
Alan Hatfield
East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Dear Rt Hon. Andrea Leadsom MP, Councillors, Sir/Madam, I am writing to express my ongoing anger and disbelief at the Scottish Power Renewable EA1N and EA2 planning proposals at Friston, Suffolk. I have written before for each consultation and will be registering as relevant representation with PINs at the relevant stage. I want to reaffirm my shock at the scale; threat to the village of Friston and surrounding area; and precedent to other huge energy developments. Renewable energy is a vital part of our ongoing national commitments to delivering carbon neutral energy supplies. However it is the lack of Government planning to this development and future developments that are destroying the East Anglian Coastline. The government have a duty to protect communities, the environment and wellbeing of residents from vast onshore infrastructures related to offshore wind farms. There are many brownfield sites that could be used for onshore infrastructure but energy companies are planning to destroy pristine coastal communities, AONB land and amenity land. The Government, OFGEM and National Grid have no accountability or interest in developing a sustainable approach to onshore developments for onshore infrastructure. Outlined below are the main concerns I have in relation to building the EA1N and EA2 substations in the village Friston: - flooding. The village is build around a watercourse that has had extensive flooding over the years with many properties flooded. The scale of the substations will turn high value agricultural land into a concrete development. The flood assessments by SPR are desk based, and unconvincing given the level of historic flooding in the village. Mitigation shows further amenity and agricultural land loss but shows little evidence of mapping and investigating the whole village to address the threats from flooding. -noise pollution. The PEIR shows that there will be permanent noise pollution by the substations. Given that SPR have not included the National Grid substation and future Nautilus Substations in their cumulative impact assessment I can only see that the noise will be greater than indicated. The substations are within 350metres of the village where there is currently no background noise. This cannot be mitigated against, there is no noise in the village. -damage to the landscape. At present the proposed site is a mixture of high agricultural land, public footpaths and woodlands. The 30+ acres of industrial development 15-18metres high cannot be mitigated against. The setting of the village, listed buildings and closure of public footpaths will be damaged irreversibly. The area also contains a number of important wildlife including skylarks and bats. The skylarks have only just started reappearing on the fields where the substations will be built. Mitigation will be over 25 years as tree growth will be slow and long lasting, given the life span of the substations, I will be over 100 by the time the trees are doing their job. It is also about the generations that are yet to come. Destroying parts of the AONB for cable routes, destroying amenity land and access, and ruining the heritage and archaeological of the village cannot be mitigated against. I hope you understand the damage these piecemeal approaches to energy developments will have on local communities, with particular damage to the village of Friston. Regards Rosemary Kersey
Dear Rosemary, Planning Act 2008 (as amended) Proposals by ScottishPower Renewables (UK) Limited for the East Anglia TWO Windfarm (EN010078). I am writing regarding your correspondence sent to the Planning Inspectorate dated 15 October 2019 in relation to the above proposal. The proposed application is at the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 process. The Planning Inspectorate is unable to consider representations about the merits of any application until it is accepted for Examination. Further information about the process can be found in the link below to the National Infrastructure Planning website: [attachment 1]. From your email I can see that you are aware that should the application be submitted and accepted the ‘Registration and Relevant Representation form’ will be made available on the project page of the National Infrastructure Planning website during the Pre-examination stage. Further information about registering as an Interested Party can be found in the Planning Inspectorate’s ‘Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination’: [attachment 2]. Kind regards, Liam Liam Fedden

21 October 2019
Rosemary Kersey
East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Dear Secretary of State & Minister of State, I am writing to you both to draw your attention to the stupidity of siting a new sub station for the North Sea East Anglia Two and One windfarms in or near Friston. The power generated by the windfarms will far exceed the power required by the homes and businesses near Friston and consequently it will be exported to where it is needed by the National Grid. One of the reasons for choosing Friston was because it had access to the National Grid nearby. However, wherever the power is used, the losses to get it there will be in excess of the benefits of choosing Friston as a site of connection. Let me give an example with the sub station in Friston, consider 1Kw of electricity generated in the North Sea at the new windfarm. This 1Kw will travel say 70km on the Submarine High Voltage Direct Current (HVDC) cable proposed, then be converted to High Voltage Alternating Current at the Friston sub station. This conversion will cause about .7-.8% loss (3). Then the reduced power will travel 160 km on the above ground grid to where it will be used in London. For this example using the figures in National Grids document (1) Resistance is .064(2) Ohms for HVDC and 1.62(2) Ohm for the HVAC circuit, Total 1.68 Ohms. Now consider if the sub station was in the Thames estuary, The same 1 Kw of electricity will travel say 140 km via a new submarine HVDC cable to a new sub station in the Thames estuary. There will be no requirement to bury this cable in 64m wide trenches that pass through an AONB as the cable can be laid on the sea bed. Once at the substation the power can be converted with the same losses (.7%)(3) as in the Friston example and then travel 30km via HVAC overhead to be used in London. The loss figures for this example are Resistance for HVDC 1.28(2) Ohms and HVAC .3 (2) Ohms. Total Resistance 1.58 Ohms. From this example it can be seen that there is a significant saving in power losses and as importantly the destruction to the environment is substantially reduced. From National Grids own document (3) it can be seen that the submarine HVDC is preferred for an even longer route of 385 km. There is a growing need for a strategic plan to site a new UK connector sub station so that subsequent windfarms in the North Sea and International power connectors such as Viking, NueConnect and NEMO (5) can connect to The National Grid near where the power is needed and I would suggest that location should be in the Thames estuary. Yours Sincerely Alan Hatfield References (1) National Grid Strategy Paper National Grid’s Strategy Paper to address Transmission Licence Special Condition 2K: Electricity Transmission Losses Reporting Period: 1 April 2013 to 31 March 2021 (2) Given that a typical DC resistance at 90°C of a 2500mm² copper conductor is 9.18µO/m and the AC resistance is 10.25µO/m it can be seen, by comparison with the DC resistance values in the table of section 3.2.2, that the overall resistances (and therefore losses) of cable conductors are generally considerably lower than those for overhead lines outlined in section 3.2.2. (3)The major sources of losses in HVDC converter stations are; the valves, converter transformers, ac filters, other reactive compensation plant, DC smoothing reactors and auxiliaries / station service losses. Typical converter losses are 0.7 – 0.8% of the transmitted power. (4)Over long distances, DC transmission losses (including conversion Losses) are lower than AC losses at higher voltages. A typical application for the preference of HVDC connections over AC circuits are where long cable circuits are required - for example the Western HVDC Link, which provides 2.2GW capacity at 600kV, via a 385km undersea cable connection8 . Transmission of power at DC overcomes the effect of capacitive charging current, which reduces the effective rating of cables in AC applications and makes the use of AC circuits increasingly impractical for long distances. In DC applications, there is no technical limit on cable length. (5) [attachment 1]
Dear Alan, Planning Act 2008 (as amended) Proposals by ScottishPower Renewables (UK) Limited for the East Anglia ONE North Windfarm (EN010077). I am writing regarding your correspondence sent to the Planning Inspectorate dated 20 October 2019 in relation to the above proposal. The proposed application is at the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 process. The Planning Inspectorate is unable to consider representations about the merits of any application until it is accepted for Examination. Further information about the process can be found in the link below to the National Infrastructure Planning website: [attachment 2]. Should the application be submitted and accepted the ‘Registration and Relevant Representation form’ will be made available on the project page of the National Infrastructure Planning website during the Pre-examination stage. Further information about registering as an Interested Party can be found in the Planning Inspectorate’s ‘Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination’: [attachment 3]. Please note that, should the applications for East Anglia ONE North and East Anglia TWO be submitted and accepted, to become an Interested Party in each examination you must register for both applications separately. Kind regards, Liam

21 October 2019
Alan Hatfield
East Anglia ONE North Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The following persons sent responses to the Applicant’s 2019 statutory consultation, including comments on the standard of consultation, to the Planning Inspectorate between August and September 2019: Mr J Alexander, Ian Rose, Carol Rose, Vicky Arlidge, Thea Ward Alsabti, Helen Storey, Dagmar Vesely, Mr and Mrs C.C. Whitbread, Dr David H.F. Robb, Bob Hoggar, Laura Bonnett, David Boden, Jessie Boden, Valeria Ward, John Walford, John Parsons and Julia Brown.
The proposed application is at the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 process. Further information about the process can be found in the link below to the National Infrastructure Planning website: [attachment 1]. The Applicant is expecting to submit the application in Q1 2020. As the application has not yet been formally submitted to the Inspectorate your first point of contact should be the Applicant and we would encourage you to contact them directly by email to - [email protected] It is important that the Applicant is made aware of your comments at the Pre-application stage of the process to enable them to consider these points before finalising their proposals and submitting the application to the Inspectorate. Please note the Applicant’s Stage 4 Consultation closed on 27 September 2019. The Inspectorate is unable to consider your comments at this time however please note that, should the application be received and accepted by the Inspectorate for Examination, the National Infrastructure Planning website will be updated accordingly and you may submit comments to us at that time: [attachment 2] If you have concerns about the Applicant’s pre-application consultation you should contact the Applicant in the first instance to enable them to address the issues ([email protected]). If you have contacted the Applicant but you are not satisfied that the Applicant has, or will, take account of your comments you can make your comments to the relevant local authority. The local authority can consider them as part of their Adequacy of Consultation Representation submission to the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) at the application stage of the process. Further information about Community Consultation can be found here: [attachment 3] The Planning Inspectorate has published a series of Advice Notes about the Planning Act 2008 process. ‘Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others’ can be found here:https://infrastructure.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/legislation-and-advice/advice-notes/

18 October 2019
Various Enquiries - anon.
Sizewell C New Nuclear Power Station
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The following persons sent responses to the Applicant’s 2019 statutory consultation, including comments on the lack on environmental information, to the Planning Inspectorate between August and September 2019: Morwenna Orton, Christina Hildrey and James Rene.
The proposed application is at the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 process. Further information about the process can be found in the link below to the National Infrastructure Planning website: [attachment 1]. The Applicant is expecting to submit the application in Q1 2020. As the application has not yet been formally submitted to the Inspectorate your first point of contact should be the Applicant and we would encourage you to contact them directly by email to - [email protected] It is important that the Applicant is made aware of your comments at the Pre-application stage of the process to enable them to consider these points before finalising their proposals and submitting the application to the Inspectorate. Please note the Applicant’s Stage 4 Consultation closed on 27 September 2019. The Inspectorate is unable to consider your comments at this time however please note that, should the application be received and accepted by the Inspectorate for Examination, the National Infrastructure Planning website will be updated accordingly and you may submit comments to us at that time: [attachment 2]. At the point you submit these comments an environmental statement will be available on the Inspectorate website, further information about this can be found in the Advice Notes linked below. The Planning Inspectorate has published a series of Advice Notes about the Planning Act 2008 process. ‘Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others’ can be found here:https://infrastructure.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/legislation-and-advice/advice-notes/

18 October 2019
Various Enquiries - anon.
Sizewell C New Nuclear Power Station
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Dear Liam, Thank you for your response. I have sent my letter to EDF and our local authority. Perhaps you could keep my response below for use by yourselves when the application arrives in your 'in tray'. I can't imagine that my response will change from what I've written! With thanks John Parsons
Hi John, We will keep your response, however you’ll still need to submit a Relevant Representation (this can just be a copy of what you’ve already submitted to us) on the prescribed form to be an Interested Party in the examination. You can sign up for alerts on the Sizewell C project page on our website which will let you know when the application is submitted to us, if we accept it for examination and when you can submit a Relevant Representation: [attachment 1] Thanks, Liam Liam Fedden Case Officer Sizewell C Case Team

18 October 2019
John Parsons
Sizewell C New Nuclear Power Station
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Dear Sir or Madam, Please find attached the response sent today on behalf of Marlesford Parish Council to EDF Energy, replying to their Stage 4 consultation on their proposals for Sizewell C. Can I draw your attention to the penultimate paragraph of our Conclusion on page 17 of our Stage 4 response in which we say, “A theme running through this response is our inability to comment constructively on many of EDF’s proposals because they have not supplied the detail that we and other consultees have asked for, neither have they engaged with local communities in any meaningful way. We want to put on record our dissatisfaction with the consultation process and we will ensure that this is made known to the Inspector when he or she is appointed”. Our own views about a lack of detail in the consultation documents and the unwillingness of EDF to engage over legitimate concerns is echoed by many consultees both statutory and non-statutory and we are fearful that the detail we have been requesting for months will only emerge at the DCO stage, by which time we will have entered a tightly scheduled timetable. Particularly for parishes, who by and large have limited resources, this will pose a massive challenge and we do not think that the consultation process will be well served by consultees having to face a welter of technical information from EDF which will have to be digested and commented upon in a short space of time. If EDF are serious about their intention to submit their DCO application in Q1 2020, we believe that they will by now have much of the technical information required to respond in detail to all the issues raised, particularly at Stage 3 and 4 consultation. We would ask PINS to put pressure on EDF to more fully address consultees concerns before they embark on the DCO process, even if this has to result in EDF having to put back their own timetable. Kind Regards, Richard Cooper (On behalf of Marlesford Parish Council)
Dear Richard, Planning Act 2008 (as amended) Proposed application by NNB Nuclear Generation (SZC) Limited (EDF Energy2) for an Order Granting Development Consent for a new nuclear power station development at Sizewell in Suffolk (Sizewell C) I am writing regarding your correspondence sent to the Planning Inspectorate (the Inspectorate) dated 26 September 2019 in relation to the above proposals. If you have concerns about the Applicant’s pre-application consultation you should contact the Applicant in the first instance to enable them to address the issues ([email protected]). If you have contacted the Applicant but you are not satisfied that the Applicant has, or will, take account of your comments you can make your comments to the relevant local authority. The local authority can consider them as part of their Adequacy of Consultation Representation submission to the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) at the application stage of the process. Further information about Community Consultation can be found here: [attachment 1] The Planning Inspectorate has published a series of Advice Notes about the Planning Act 2008 process. ‘Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others’ can be found here:https://infrastructure.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/legislation-and-advice/advice-notes/ I hope you find this information to be helpful. Yours sincerely, Liam Liam Fedden Case Officer Sizewell C Case Team

18 October 2019
Marlesford Parish Council - Richard Cooper
Sizewell C New Nuclear Power Station
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The following persons sent responses to the Applicant’s 2019 statutory consultation to the Planning Inspectorate between August and September 2019: Derek Green, Mick Purkiss, Diana Hinton, B.V. Taylor, L.J. Taylor, Carline Ogilvie, Ben Horwood, John Ward-Hunt, Jennifer Wilson, Miss K Elvin, Mr J Ward, Mrs A L Ward, Audrey West, Jac Berry, Dr Quetta Kaye, Lucy Horward, Catherine Alridge, June Holmes, Nicholas JA Ward, Hilary Ward, Virginia Storey, Dr Anna Checkley, Joan Harvey, Richard Nichols, Carolyn Nichols, Fiona Ireland, Nick Scarr, Philippe Taylor, Carole Taylor and David Snowden.
The proposed application is at the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 process. Further information about the process can be found in the link below to the National Infrastructure Planning website: [attachment 1]. The Applicant is expecting to submit the application in Q1 2020. As the application has not yet been formally submitted to the Inspectorate your first point of contact should be the Applicant and we would encourage you to contact them directly by email to - [email protected] It is important that the Applicant is made aware of your comments at the Pre-application stage of the process to enable them to consider these points before finalising their proposals and submitting the application to the Inspectorate. Please note the Applicant’s Stage 4 Consultation closed on 27 September 2019. The Inspectorate is unable to consider your comments at this time however please note that, should the application be received and accepted by the Inspectorate for Examination, the National Infrastructure Planning website will be updated accordingly and you may submit comments to us at that time: [attachment 2] The Planning Inspectorate has published a series of Advice Notes about the Planning Act 2008 process. ‘Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others’ can be found here:https://infrastructure.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/legislation-and-advice/advice-notes/

18 October 2019
Various Enquiries - anon.
Sizewell C New Nuclear Power Station
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
CPRE Warwickshire wrote on 6 October to both Examining Inspectors with several enclosures and a set of three A1 plans provided by AECOM. The package would have been received at PINS by 9 October and the covering compliments slip asked for acknowledgement and confirmation that they have been sent on to Mr Cullingford and Mr Jones. You have also received a letter dated 10 October from Catherine de Barnes Residents Association supporting CPRE Warwickshire's letter, and asking that this and other Changes to the Application be examined, and representations made possible, by means of an Issue Specific Hearing on Changes before the end of the Examination process. Can you please acknowledge receipt of CPRE's letters and attached papers? As there are some detailed papers and plans provided by AECOM, it is important to know that they have been received.
Please see attached.

18 October 2019
CPRE - Mark Sullivan
M42 Junction 6 Improvement
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached.

18 October 2019
Network Rail - anon.
Western Rail Link to Heathrow
Enquiry received via phone
Query about the type of information that should be included in the parish council's response to the consultation on the Applicant's scoping report.
The scoping opinion is issued by the Inspectorate on behalf of the Secretary of State. It advises the Applicant on what environmental aspects and matters should be covered in the environmental statement. The Applicant's scoping report and National Policy Statement EN-1 describe the aspects of the environment which will be covered in the environmental statement. It would be helpful if the parish council's response could advise on particular local issues such as construction traffic or effects on tourism which they feel should be included in the environmental statement.

17 October 2019
Weybourne Parish Council - Catherine Fletcher
Sheringham and Dudgeon Extension Projects
Enquiry received via email
Dear Sir/Madam, Ref Planning Application No DC/19/1637/FUL Relocation of Sizewell B Power Station Complex and use of Adjoining land. Please may I strongly object to the planning application for above application, as I believe this application should be part of the overall Sizewell C planning application? It appears to me that EDF are misusing the planning system and trying to sneakily get this through pretending this as merely a matter of good housekeeping and tidying up the legacy of Sizewell A & B, whereas in effect they are attempting to pre-empt the Sizewll C application and make room for the massive two new reactors. This is a cynical and manipulative way to get what they want without proper consideration to the local community, if you allow them to succeed with this application they will immediately start to destroy woodland and other areas. Why did they build all of these buildings if they knew about Sizewell C and why if there is ample room for Sizewell C do they need to process this anyway? My understanding is that Hinckley point is on a 400 acre site and bursting at the seams whereas the proposed Sizewell C nearer 200 acres, no wonder they need to demolish/destroy existing buildings to even get anywhere near a big enough site. I have asked EDF for the size of their only existing two reactor site in Taishan and (Norway) the appropriate site size and they will not reveal this to me, do you know? In my opinion you should decline this application and make them do the right thing and make it part of their full application which they will have be under the full scrutiny of the inspectorate, environment agency etc etc as well as public scrutiny. Once an environment such a woodland is destroyed it takes years to regrow and flora and fauna may never return SO PLEASE PLEASE do not let a large company with fancy lawyers and surveyors and ample resources hoodwink us by allowing this to go ahead. If they need this area to build Sizewell C then they should rightly say so and apply to the Planning Inspectorate. My concerns extend to the environmental impact of the Proposed Sizewell C, the exorbitant cost the RAB finance initiative, the prolonged clean water supply, the traffic chaos, the However I must again say this cannot be decided locally the project is too immense for us to decide, it must be looked at nationally especially as we have the other major power projects from wind farms locally too. Yours sincerely Paul Tillcock Kelsale Suffolk
Dear Paul, I am writing regarding your correspondence sent to the Planning Inspectorate (the Inspectorate) dated 14 August 2019 in relation to the above proposals. The Inspectorate is the government agency responsible for examining applications for Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects. It will, if submitted and accepted, examine the application for an Order Granting Development Consent for a new nuclear power station development at Sizewell in Suffolk (Sizewell C). You may want to contact the relevant Local Planning Authority in regards to the Sizewell B Planning Application. I hope you find this information to be helpful. Yours sincerely, Liam Liam Fedden Case Officer Sizewell C Case Team

17 October 2019
Paul Tillcock
Sizewell C New Nuclear Power Station
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Please see the attachment
Please see the attachment

17 October 2019
North Somerset Council - anon.
Portishead Branch Line - MetroWest Phase 1
Enquiry received via post
response has attachments
Please see attached correspondence
Please see attached Planning Inspectorate's response

16 October 2019
Stan Ford
Hinkley Point C New Nuclear Power Station Material Change 1
Enquiry received via post
response has attachments
Please see attached correspondence
Please see attached Planning Inspectorate's response

16 October 2019
Carol Ford
Hinkley Point C New Nuclear Power Station Material Change 1
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting.
Please see attached meeting note.

15 October 2019
London Luton Airport Limited - anon.
Expansion of London Luton Airport
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
A project update meeting with the Applicant
Please see the attached note.

11 October 2019
Highways England - Tim Wright - anon.
Lower Thames Crossing
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Dear Mr Johannson as promised my notes to the C&W planning office, just to clarify the base application uses a compressor of under 50MW and generation is under 50MW, in this case we see no problem and the jurisdiction falls under the LPA. The question we have is if and only if we increase the compressor size to around 60MW (i.e demand side) but generation remaining at under 50MW are we still under the LPA jurisdiction, the council as we thought yes but were not 100% sure. • Sizing of main equipment (including sizing of compressor - see point below in view of the 50MW threshold) • Concerning the Planning Act 2008 and the generation threshold, it would be good to get your legal guys to check/confirm we are still within local planning jurisdiction, the following i hope helps clarify our position o In our opinion, consideration of our facility with regards planning would fall solely under section 15 of the Act (generating stations) and not under section 17 (underground gas storage) because the purpose of the facility is electricity storage (which currently has no legal definition and is therefore consumption plus generation) not gas storage. o In our opinion a 50MW generation capacity falls within local planning jurisdiction, because 14.2.c states "more than 50MW" (my emphasis). o 49MW net Generation capacity (into the distribution grid), We would use compressors for charging only (no generation) between 50-70MW. § our view is we do not fall under Part 3 clause 15.2 -> Generating Stations as our output will be less than 50MW § our view is we would be assessed under clause 15 Generating Stations if anything and not assessed under clause 17 “Underground storage facilities” since we a/ are not storing gas (as in natural gas which is what we assume the word gas refers to) b/ we are not creating underground gas storage as the caverns already exist c/any caverns would in any case be auxiliary (or secondary) to the main purpose of generation Please note in all scenarios we are under 50MW generation, the compressor if slightly higher sized means we would need less hours in the early morning to compress all the air we needed and less hours means a lower price of off peak electricity can be secured improving our economics. Hope this helps Kind regards Tallat Azad
Dear Mr Tallat, Under section 14(1)(a) of the Planning Act, as amended (PA 2008), the construction or extension of a generating station is defined as a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP). Section 15 of PA 2008 clarifies that the construction or an extension of a generating station is within section 14(1)(a) only if the generating station is or (when constructed or extended) is expected to be, amongst other things, a generating station that is in England or Wales, not an offshore generating station, and its capacity is more than 50 megawatts. In your email dated 26 September 2019 you expressed a wish for legal advice whether your project would be classified as an NSIP if the compressor size was increased to 60MW but the output remained under 50MW. As mentioned during our telephone conversation the Planning Inspectorate does not have the power to give a legally binding interpretation on whether the potential generating station proposal to which you refer would be classed as a National Significant Infrastructure Project. Only the Courts can ultimately determine the interpretation of legislation, and to date there has been no case law on this point under the 2008 Planning Act. It will of course be for the developer who wants to construct the generating station to decide whether or not to apply for development consent taking their own legal advice which they can rely on. The Planning Inspectorate has previously issued advice regarding the definition of capacity which might be of benefit to you. The advice has been published here: [attachment 1] It should also be noted that the Planning Inspectorate, on behalf of the Secretary of State, is only able to decide whether development consent is required for a project, under section 44 of PA 2008, once an application has been formally submitted.

03 October 2019
Storelectric Ltd - Tallat Azad
General
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
My name is Peter Fife and I live at (Redacted) . My telephone number is (Redacted). I am writing to Register my utter dismay about the proposal to construct a massive series of linked transformer stations covering many acres of beautiful farmland in Friston for Scottish Power Renewables and National Grid. When I first heard about the proposals, I thought, naively, that the organisations – just Scottish Power initially – were proposing to construct a transformer station about the size of a double garage or a modest farm building, but I have now discovered the enormous geographical extent of the proposed development on the edge of our ancient village. The whole project would alter, permanently, the character of the village and much of the local countryside in what is now largely unspoiled farmland. I have lived in Friston for nearly 15 years and my roots are in this area, having grown up nearby where my parents lived until they died. I am a warden of our village church, a Grade II* listed building which would be overlooked by the proposed development. We are now faced with many years of wholesale disruption to our lives. There will be enormous increase in traffic and associated noise, some of which would continue indefinitely. I have been told that no regard will be given to suggestions of alternative sites for these works and so I will not do so, but I will leave it to appropriate people and bodies, none of whom live in this area, to find those out for themselves. It will be no good saying, during the wholesale destruction of this area, that nobody thought of these things. Much work has already been done,but little thought appears to have been given to the effect these proposals will have upon the lives of ordinary local people. I have deliberately made this letter short because I am aware that you must be receiving many letters of this kind about the proposals, but I would appreciate an acknowledgement and any comments you may be able to make. Yours faithfully PETER FIFE
Dear Peter Thank you for your email regarding the East Anglia ONE North and East Anglia TWO Offshore Wind Farms. The Developer ScottishPower Renewables has indicated that they expect to submit to The Planning Inspectorate a Development Consent Order application under the Planning Act 2008 (PA 2008), for the proposed East Anglia ONE North project which is currently in the pre-application stage of the process. If the application satisfies the tests, set out in PA 2008, the application will go through the process as a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project. The Developer ScottishPower Renewables has indicated that they expect to submit to The Planning Inspectorate a Development Consent Order application under the PA 2008, for the proposed East Anglia TWO project which is currently in the pre-application stage. If the application satisfies the tests, set out in PA 2008, the application will go through the process as a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project. During the pre-application stage of the process, the Developer may hold several rounds of consultation, not all of which are required to be statutory. The duties of the Developer during statutory consultation are set out in PA 2008. Any responses to pre-application consultation should be addressed to the Developer. If the application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate there will be 28 days for the Planning Inspectorate to review the application and decide whether or not to accept it for examination. If the application is accepted to proceed to examination, there will be an opportunity for people to register to participate in the examination of the application. The examination period has a statutory maximum of six months, which is followed by a three month period for the Examining Authority to prepare their recommendation, and a three month period for the relevant Secretary of State to make a decision. If you would like more information about the examination process, please see the “Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others” which can be found along with other advice and guidance on the Planning Inspectorate website, here: [attachment 1] Kind regards Kate Kate Mignano Case Manager National Infrastructure Planning The Planning Inspectorate, Temple Quay House, Temple Quay, Bristol BS1 6PN Direct Line: 0303 444 5652 Helpline: 0303 444 5000 Email: [email protected] Web: [attachment 2] (National Infrastructure Planning) Web: www.gov.uk/government/organisations/planning-inspectorate (The Planning Inspectorate) Twitter: @PINSgov This communication does not constitute legal advice. Please view our Privacy Notice before sending information to the Planning Inspectorate.

03 October 2019
Peter Fife
East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Dear Sirs East Anglia One & Two – Location of substations I wish to register my deep concern over the potential siting of the substations required in connection with your East Anglia One and Two projects. In particular, I see no rational reasons for locating one of the substations at Friston. This is unnecessarily close to the village of Friston and other small settlements. It would be a blot that would severely dominate this pleasant countryside. I believe that Sizewell is a much preferable alternative because: 1. It would be adjacent to the existing power station at Sizewell, so it would not alter the aesthetic environment in that region as dramatically as at Friston. The impact on Friston will be deeply destructive due to the visual impact and close proximity of the buildings and infrastructure, the severe damage caused by the roadworks and HGV traffic, and noise. 2. Sizewell is far and away our preferred option for the location of the buildings, etc. The great advantage of this is the already-established presence of the EDF power station, the simpler and less-disruptive adaptation of the road network and infrastructure and, above all, the minimised impact on the local communities in the entire area that is under consideration. 3. The land at Sizewell is right under the existing power lines of the National Grid, so it would be more easily and economically connected to the Grid. 4. A problem of flooding already exists in the village of Friston. Taking into account the contours of the region, and the clay substrata at the proposed site, I believe that the development at Friston is highly likely to exacerbate the problem and lead to severe and frequent flooding of the vicinity. This is not true of Sizewell. 5. The new road required to service Friston would have an even deeper impact on the communities and wildlife of the region than siting the substation at Sizewell. 6. Scottish Power raised an objection based on the AONB status that has been assigned to heathland at Sizewell. They are fond of referring to protecting the reptile population at Sizewell. As a local, I can assure you that the AONB is barely used by the public. In contrast, nearby Dunwich Heath is a large existing AONB and it would seem likely that the reptiles could be relocated from Sizewell to a section of the Heath. In short, I believe that Scottish Power are attempting to steamroller the development through for the benefit of their shareholders, with no consideration toward the interests of the community. Yours faithfully H.J. Turner
Dear Helen Thank you for your email regarding the East Anglia ONE North and East Anglia TWO Offshore Wind Farms. The Developer ScottishPower Renewables has indicated that they expect to submit to The Planning Inspectorate a Development Consent Order application under the Planning Act 2008 (PA 2008), for the proposed East Anglia ONE North project which is currently in the pre-application stage of the process. If the application satisfies the tests, set out in PA 2008, the application will go through the process as a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project. The Developer ScottishPower Renewables has indicated that they expect to submit to The Planning Inspectorate a Development Consent Order application under the PA 2008, for the proposed East Anglia TWO project which is currently in the pre-application stage. If the application satisfies the tests, set out in PA 2008, the application will go through the process as a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project. During the pre-application stage of the process, the Developer may hold several rounds of consultation, not all of which are required to be statutory. The duties of the Developer during statutory consultation are set out in PA 2008. Any responses to pre-application consultation should be addressed to the Developer. If the application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate there will be 28 days for the Planning Inspectorate to review the application and decide whether or not to accept it for examination. If the application is accepted to proceed to examination, there will be an opportunity for people to register to participate in the examination of the application. The examination period has a statutory maximum of six months, which is followed by a three month period for the Examining Authority to prepare their recommendation, and a three month period for the relevant Secretary of State to make a decision. If you would like more information about the examination process, please see the “Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others” which can be found along with other advice and guidance on the Planning Inspectorate website, here: [attachment 1] Kind regards Kate Kate Mignano Case Manager National Infrastructure Planning The Planning Inspectorate, Temple Quay House, Temple Quay, Bristol BS1 6PN Direct Line: 0303 444 5652 Helpline: 0303 444 5000 Email: [email protected] Web: [attachment 2] (National Infrastructure Planning) Web: www.gov.uk/government/organisations/planning-inspectorate (The Planning Inspectorate) Twitter: @PINSgov This communication does not constitute legal advice. Please view our Privacy Notice before sending information to the Planning Inspectorate.

03 October 2019
H J Turner
East Anglia ONE North Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Dear Sirs East Anglia One & Two – Location of substations I wish to register my deep concern over the potential siting of the substations required in connection with your East Anglia One and Two projects. In particular, I see no rational reasons for locating one of the substations at Friston. This is unnecessarily close to the village of Friston and other small settlements. It would be a blot that would severely dominate this pleasant countryside. I believe that Sizewell is a much preferable alternative because: 1. It would be adjacent to the existing power station at Sizewell, so it would not alter the aesthetic environment in that region as dramatically as at Friston. The impact on Friston will be deeply destructive due to the visual impact and close proximity of the buildings and infrastructure, the severe damage caused by the roadworks and HGV traffic, and noise. 2. Sizewell is far and away our preferred option for the location of the buildings, etc. The great advantage of this is the already-established presence of the EDF power station, the simpler and less-disruptive adaptation of the road network and infrastructure and, above all, the minimised impact on the local communities in the entire area that is under consideration. 3. The land at Sizewell is right under the existing power lines of the National Grid, so it would be more easily and economically connected to the Grid. 4. A problem of flooding already exists in the village of Friston. Taking into account the contours of the region, and the clay substrata at the proposed site, I believe that the development at Friston is highly likely to exacerbate the problem and lead to severe and frequent flooding of the vicinity. This is not true of Sizewell. 5. The new road required to service Friston would have an even deeper impact on the communities and wildlife of the region than siting the substation at Sizewell. 6. Scottish Power raised an objection based on the AONB status that has been assigned to heathland at Sizewell. They are fond of referring to protecting the reptile population at Sizewell. As a local, I can assure you that the AONB is barely used by the public. In contrast, nearby Dunwich Heath is a large existing AONB and it would seem likely that the reptiles could be relocated from Sizewell to a section of the Heath. In short, I believe that Scottish Power are attempting to steamroller the development through for the benefit of their shareholders, with no consideration toward the interests of the community. Yours faithfully H.J. Turner
Dear Helen Thank you for your email regarding the East Anglia ONE North and East Anglia TWO Offshore Wind Farms. The Developer ScottishPower Renewables has indicated that they expect to submit to The Planning Inspectorate a Development Consent Order application under the Planning Act 2008 (PA 2008), for the proposed East Anglia ONE North project which is currently in the pre-application stage of the process. If the application satisfies the tests, set out in PA 2008, the application will go through the process as a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project. The Developer ScottishPower Renewables has indicated that they expect to submit to The Planning Inspectorate a Development Consent Order application under the PA 2008, for the proposed East Anglia TWO project which is currently in the pre-application stage. If the application satisfies the tests, set out in PA 2008, the application will go through the process as a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project. During the pre-application stage of the process, the Developer may hold several rounds of consultation, not all of which are required to be statutory. The duties of the Developer during statutory consultation are set out in PA 2008. Any responses to pre-application consultation should be addressed to the Developer. If the application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate there will be 28 days for the Planning Inspectorate to review the application and decide whether or not to accept it for examination. If the application is accepted to proceed to examination, there will be an opportunity for people to register to participate in the examination of the application. The examination period has a statutory maximum of six months, which is followed by a three month period for the Examining Authority to prepare their recommendation, and a three month period for the relevant Secretary of State to make a decision. If you would like more information about the examination process, please see the “Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others” which can be found along with other advice and guidance on the Planning Inspectorate website, here: [attachment 1] Kind regards Kate Kate Mignano Case Manager National Infrastructure Planning The Planning Inspectorate, Temple Quay House, Temple Quay, Bristol BS1 6PN Direct Line: 0303 444 5652 Helpline: 0303 444 5000 Email: [email protected] Web: [attachment 2] (National Infrastructure Planning) Web: www.gov.uk/government/organisations/planning-inspectorate (The Planning Inspectorate) Twitter: @PINSgov This communication does not constitute legal advice. Please view our Privacy Notice before sending information to the Planning Inspectorate.

03 October 2019
H J Turner
East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
My name is Peter Fife and I live at (Redacted). My telephone number is (Redacted). I am writing to Register my utter dismay about the proposal to construct a massive series of linked transformer stations covering many acres of beautiful farmland in Friston for Scottish Power Renewables and National Grid. When I first heard about the proposals, I thought, naively, that the organisations – just Scottish Power initially – were proposing to construct a transformer station about the size of a double garage or a modest farm building, but I have now discovered the enormous geographical extent of the proposed development on the edge of our ancient village. The whole project would alter, permanently, the character of the village and much of the local countryside in what is now largely unspoiled farmland. I have lived in Friston for nearly 15 years and my roots are in this area, having grown up nearby where my parents lived until they died. I am a warden of our village church, a Grade II* listed building which would be overlooked by the proposed development. We are now faced with many years of wholesale disruption to our lives. There will be enormous increase in traffic and associated noise, some of which would continue indefinitely. I have been told that no regard will be given to suggestions of alternative sites for these works and so I will not do so, but I will leave it to appropriate people and bodies, none of whom live in this area, to find those out for themselves. It will be no good saying, during the wholesale destruction of this area, that nobody thought of these things. Much work has already been done, but little thought appears to have been given to the effect these proposals will have upon the lives of ordinary local people. I have deliberately made this letter short because I am aware that you must be receiving many letters of this kind about the proposals, but I would appreciate an acknowledgement and any comments you may be able to make. Yours faithfully PETER FIFE
Dear Peter Thank you for your email regarding the East Anglia ONE North and East Anglia TWO Offshore Wind Farms. The Developer ScottishPower Renewables has indicated that they expect to submit to The Planning Inspectorate a Development Consent Order application under the Planning Act 2008 (PA 2008), for the proposed East Anglia ONE North project which is currently in the pre-application stage of the process. If the application satisfies the tests, set out in PA 2008, the application will go through the process as a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project. The Developer ScottishPower Renewables has indicated that they expect to submit to The Planning Inspectorate a Development Consent Order application under the PA 2008, for the proposed East Anglia TWO project which is currently in the pre-application stage. If the application satisfies the tests, set out in PA 2008, the application will go through the process as a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project. During the pre-application stage of the process, the Developer may hold several rounds of consultation, not all of which are required to be statutory. The duties of the Developer during statutory consultation are set out in PA 2008. Any responses to pre-application consultation should be addressed to the Developer. If the application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate there will be 28 days for the Planning Inspectorate to review the application and decide whether or not to accept it for examination. If the application is accepted to proceed to examination, there will be an opportunity for people to register to participate in the examination of the application. The examination period has a statutory maximum of six months, which is followed by a three month period for the Examining Authority to prepare their recommendation, and a three month period for the relevant Secretary of State to make a decision. If you would like more information about the examination process, please see the “Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others” which can be found along with other advice and guidance on the Planning Inspectorate website, here: [attachment 1] Kind regards Kate Kate Mignano Case Manager National Infrastructure Planning The Planning Inspectorate, Temple Quay House, Temple Quay, Bristol BS1 6PN Direct Line: 0303 444 5652 Helpline: 0303 444 5000 Email: [email protected] Web: [attachment 2] (National Infrastructure Planning) Web: www.gov.uk/government/organisations/planning-inspectorate (The Planning Inspectorate) Twitter: @PINSgov This communication does not constitute legal advice. Please view our Privacy Notice before sending information to the Planning Inspectorate.

03 October 2019
Peter Fife
East Anglia ONE North Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Dear Sirs As a permanent resident for over 10 years in peaceful Friston, I am writing to express my horror and disbelief at the proposal to build a huge industrial substation here. The site chosen is totally unsuitable and unacceptable, being far too close to residential properties (at I understand in some places 200 meters) and our beautiful 12th century church. Not only will we be forced to live for many years with the construction noise and dust, but also with the large amount of extra heavy traffic and ensuing road chaos along very small country roads. This is dangerous for cyclists and pedestrians. We have always enjoyed walking in freedom on the footpaths and fields surrounding the village and this too could soon be a thing of the past. Our community is close knit and we have many activities involving residents and holiday-makers alike. The tourist industry here is an important part of village life and income. Who would want to take a holiday next to a substation? Few people I imagine. Also of great concern to me is the risk of flooding in the village. Recent plans suggest a drainage pool on the left of the project. This is sited at the top of the hill which could add greater risk to the flood problems already in the village. Following heavy rain, water and mud pour down the paths from the hill regularly causing damage to properties, something which happened again this year. Some companies will make huge profits if this project goes ahead, and we who live here will have NO benefit whatsoever, just the legacy of large very unsightly buildings and a forest of ironmongery. Our peace and village life will be destroyed FOR EVER. Please THINK VERY CAREFULLY before you impose such devastating action on our village. Yours faithfully Margaret Fife (Mrs)
Dear Margaret, Planning Act 2008 (as amended) Proposals by ScottishPower Renewables for the East Anglia ONE North and East Anglia TWO Offshore Wind farms I am writing in regard to your e-mail sent to the Planning Inspectorate on the 25 September 2019. The applications have not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, the proposals are currently at the pre-application stage of the planning process, the developer is expecting to submit the applications on the 25 October 2019. Until the applications are submitted, your first point of contact should be the developer. I would therefore encourage you to contact ScottishPower Renewables directly ([email protected] and [email protected]). It is important that the developer is made aware of your comments at the pre-application stage of the process, to enable them to consider these points before finalising their proposals and submitting the applications to the Planning Inspectorate. If you would like more information about the Planning Act 2008 process, please see “Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others” which can be found along with other advice notes, here: [attachment 1] As the applications will be submitted shortly I would particularly draw your attention to Advice Note 8.2 which will be of use if the either or both of the applications are accepted for examination. I hope you find this information to be helpful. Kind regards, Liam

27 September 2019
Margaret Fife
East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Dear Sirs As a permanent resident for over 10 years in peaceful Friston, I am writing to express my horror and disbelief at the proposal to build a huge industrial substation here. The site chosen is totally unsuitable and unacceptable, being far too close to residential properties (at I understand in some places 200 meters) and our beautiful 12th century church. Not only will we be forced to live for many years with the construction noise and dust, but also with the large amount of extra heavy traffic and ensuing road chaos along very small country roads. This is dangerous for cyclists and pedestrians. We have always enjoyed walking in freedom on the footpaths and fields surrounding the village and this too could soon be a thing of the past. Our community is close knit and we have many activities involving residents and holiday-makers alike. The tourist industry here is an important part of village life and income. Who would want to take a holiday next to a substation? Few people I imagine. Also of great concern to me is the risk of flooding in the village. Recent plans suggest a drainage pool on the left of the project. This is sited at the top of the hill which could add greater risk to the flood problems already in the village. Following heavy rain, water and mud pour down the paths from the hill regularly causing damage to properties, something which happened again this year. Some companies will make huge profits if this project goes ahead, and we who live here will have NO benefit whatsoever, just the legacy of large very unsightly buildings and a forest of ironmongery. Our peace and village life will be destroyed FOR EVER. Please THINK VERY CAREFULLY before you impose such devastating action on our village. Yours faithfully Margaret Fife (Mrs)
Dear Margaret, Planning Act 2008 (as amended) Proposals by ScottishPower Renewables for the East Anglia ONE North and East Anglia TWO Offshore Wind farms I am writing in regard to your e-mail sent to the Planning Inspectorate on the 25 September 2019. The applications have not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, the proposals are currently at the pre-application stage of the planning process, the developer is expecting to submit the applications on the 25 October 2019. Until the applications are submitted, your first point of contact should be the developer. I would therefore encourage you to contact ScottishPower Renewables directly ([email protected] and [email protected]). It is important that the developer is made aware of your comments at the pre-application stage of the process, to enable them to consider these points before finalising their proposals and submitting the applications to the Planning Inspectorate. If you would like more information about the Planning Act 2008 process, please see “Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others” which can be found along with other advice notes, here: [attachment 1] As the applications will be submitted shortly I would particularly draw your attention to Advice Note 8.2 which will be of use if the either or both of the applications are accepted for examination. I hope you find this information to be helpful. Kind regards, Liam

27 September 2019
Margaret Fife
East Anglia ONE North Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Teleconference to discuss anticipated s53 applications
Please see attached meeting note

27 September 2019
Heathrow West Limited - anon.
Heathrow West
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Meeting Note
Please see attached

24 September 2019
ScottishPower Renewables (UK) Limited and Suffolk County Council
East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Meeting Note
Please see attached

24 September 2019
ScottishPower Renewables (UK) Limited and Suffolk County Council
East Anglia ONE North Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Meeting Note
Please see attached

20 September 2019
Thurrock Power Ltd
Thurrock Flexible Generation Plant
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Meeting Note
Please see attached

19 September 2019
Equinor UK
Sheringham and Dudgeon Extension Projects
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Please see Attached
Please see Attached

11 September 2019
Boston Alternative Energy Facility Limited - anon.
Boston Alternative Energy Facility (BAEF)
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Meeting held with the Planning Inspectorate
See attached note

10 September 2019
Sunnica Limited - Sunnica Limited
Sunnica Energy Farm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached meeting note

05 September 2019
Heathrow Airport Limited - anon.
Expansion of Heathrow Airport (Third Runway)
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Meeting Note
Please see attached

04 September 2019
ScottishPower Renewables (UK) Limited
East Anglia ONE North Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Meeting Note
Please see attached

04 September 2019
ScottishPower Renewables (UK) Limited
East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Please see Attached
Please see Attached

03 September 2019
FCC Environment - anon.
Extension to Allington Energy from Waste Facility
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
At the MetroWest Phase 1 meeting with you on 25th June we asked whether PINS required notification under Regulation 8 of the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 of the Applicant's intention that the project be progressed as EIA development under the EIA Regulations 2017 rather than under the EIA Regulations 2009 by relying on the transitional arrangements. You took the question away from the meeting. Have you had a chance to consider this?
Thank you for your inquiry. The Inspectorate cannot provide legal advice, the advice contained in this email is intended to support with the preparation of the application and is regarded as being advice provided in accordance with s51 of the Planning Act 2008. The Applicant notified the Secretary of State in writing on 23 June 2016 that it proposed to provide an environmental statement in respect of the Proposed Development in accordance with Regulation 6(1)(b) of the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2009 and provided the information required under Regulation 6(3) as part of its request for a Scoping Opinion under Regulation 8(1) of the same regulations. The Inspectorate understands that the Applicant now intends to submit an environmental statement (ES) that is compliant with the requirements of the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 (the 2017 EIA Regulations) and has asked whether PINS require notification under Regulation 8 of the 2017 EIA Regulations in order for them to do so. In short the Inspectorate is aware that notification in accordance with Regulation 8 of the 2017 EIA Regulations is a necessary requirement when maintaining compliance with those Regulations and is also linked to compliance with s42 of the Planning Act 2008. However, the Applicant should be aware that the Inspectorate has previously received applications under the transitional provisions that have included a 2017 EIA Regulations compliant ES in absence of a notification made under Regulation 8 of the 2017 EIA Regulations. A typical approach in this regard is set out in the Thanet Extension Offshore Windfarm ES chapter 2 section 2.4 [attachment 1] On a precautionary basis we would advise all Applicants to adopt the publicity requirements of the 2017 EIA Regulations which impose a 30 day rather 28 day duration for publicity.

02 September 2019
Womble Bond Dickison LLP (WBD) - anon.
Portishead Branch Line - MetroWest Phase 1
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please see attached.
Dear Nick, Planning Act 2008 (as amended) Proposal by EDF Energy for the Sizewell C New Nuclear Power Station I am writing regarding your correspondence sent to the Planning Inspectorate dated 18 and 19 June 2019 in relation to the above proposals. The application has not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, the proposal is currently at the pre-application stage of the planning process, the developer is expecting to submit the applications in Q1 2020. Until the applications are submitted, your first point of contact should be the developer. As you may know consultation is ongoing. I would therefore encourage you to contact EDF Energy directly ([email protected]). It is important that the developer is made aware of your comments at the pre-application stage of the process, to enable them to consider these points before finalising their proposals and submitting the applications to the Planning Inspectorate. If you would like more information about the Planning Act 2008 process, please see “Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others” which can be found along with other advice notes, here: [attachment 1] I hope you find this information to be helpful.

30 August 2019
Nick Scarr
Sizewell C New Nuclear Power Station
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Please see attached
Please see attached

29 August 2019
Ørsted - anon.
Hornsea Project Four Offshore Wind Farm (Generating Stations)
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Material Change Process Meeting
Please see attached.

23 August 2019
Environment Agency - anon.
Hinkley Point C New Nuclear Power Station Material Change 1
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
See meeting note attached

22 August 2019
Highways England - anon.
A1 Northumberland Morpeth to Felton
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting teleconference.
Please see attached meeting note.

15 August 2019
London Luton Airport Ltd - anon.
Expansion of London Luton Airport
Enquiry received via phone
response has attachments
Telecon to discuss landowner consultation regarding the Aquind Interconnector proposal
Please see the attached meeting note

09 August 2019
AQUIND Limited
AQUIND Interconnector
Enquiry received via email
The applicant raised the following enquiries pertaining to their proposed DCO application expected for submission in September 2019: a. Could you please confirm you would like to see a revised version of the HRA and Avon Gorge Vegetation Management Plan? b. Are you happy with our proposal that we submit a Statement of Common Ground signed by both ourselves and Natural England in October/November 2019 given that we would hope by then to be just post-acceptance? c. Do you have any thoughts on our adaptive approach at this point? d. Given that the scheme is required to go into largely untested territory of IROPI and given some of the complexities of the context we have sought advice from Stephen Tromans QC on our approach to the HRA and the adaptive approach. We think it would be beneficial for all parties for us to include his advice in our application
a. The Inspectorate would be happy to review a revised draft of the HRA and Avon Gorge Vegetation Management Plan documents if the Applicant wishes to submit copies. We note previous discussions about summer leave and that our normal review timescales are up to 6 weeks from the point of submission but will endeavour to respond within your indicated timescales. b. The timescale for submission of the Statement of Common Ground is a matter for the Applicant and the relevant statutory consultee to agree, however the Inspectorate encourages early submission of Statement’s of Common Ground, where possible, to enable Interested Parties and the Examining Authority to take account of this information in their formulation of representations and examination questions. c. In the absence of the detailed approach and methodology in relation to the adaptive approach and without sight of Natural England’s comments in respect of the approach, the Inspectorate is unable to make any comment at this time. Any comments made would necessarily be without prejudice to the Examining Authority’s views during examination. d. The Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009 require submission of sufficient information that will enable the Examining Authority to make an appropriate assessment of the implications for a European Designated site. It is for the Applicant to determine whether the legal opinion comprises part of the ‘sufficient information’.

08 August 2019
Womble Bond Dickison LLP (WBD) - anon.
Portishead Branch Line - MetroWest Phase 1
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
In the context of the submissions of Highways England, multiple individual IPs and Wiltshire and the TRF, we are concerned with the section 51 advice letter does not address the submissions previously made that the changes proposed by Wiltshire and the TRF need to be accompanied by an assessment of their impact to matters such as heritage and equalities, to enable them to be considered fully by all parties – the changes are more than just a consideration of the changes to the drafting of the DCO. This is something that the Examining Authority is well placed to ask for, whether through a Procedural Decision under rule 8(3) to vary the timetable to provide for it; through rule 17 by asking for more information from Wiltshire Council in the form of such assessments, or through section 89 of the Planning Act 2008 which gives the Examining Authority wide discretion to make such procedural decisions as the Examining Authority thinks appropriate. Indeed, if felt appropriate, section 89 would also allow the Examining Authority to make a procedural decision which determines that no additional submissions are required on the point as that would still be a decision about how the Examination is carried out, in light of the submissions that have been made by various parties. As such, and in light of the proposed scope of the proposed hearing on 22 August, we would repeat our request for the ExA to make a procedural decision in some form, of how it considers that it will deal with this issue in the rest of the Examination. In respect of consultation, whilst we note the section 51 advice, we also consider that a procedural decision is able to be made by the ExA in terms of requiring consultation to be undertaken by Interested Parties, pursuant to section 89. There is nothing in the ambit of that section which requires decisions to be directed only at Applicants. We would grateful for any clarity on why it is considered that such a decision is not able to be made? In conclusion therefore, we would be assisted if an indication could be given as to whether the Examining Authority will make any form of procedural decision in respect of what further submissions it expects to see from relevant parties on this AMES 11 and 12 issue.
See attached letter.

07 August 2019
Highways England - anon.
A303 Stonehenge
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Please see Attached
Please See Attached

01 August 2019
South Humber Bank Energy Centre - anon.
South Humber Bank Energy Centre
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached meeting note

01 August 2019
Heathrow West Limited - anon.
Heathrow West
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Request for determination by the Examining Authority in respect of changes to the application proposed by Wiltshire Council.
See attached letter.

29 July 2019
Wiltshire Council - anon.
A303 Stonehenge
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

29 July 2019
WTI/EFW Holdings Limited - anon.
Wheelabrator Harewood Waste-to-Energy Facility
Enquiry received via email
Request for clarification in respect of s51 advice issued to enquirer on 19 July 2019.
The request by Stone Hill Park Ltd (SHP) to withdraw its representations was made less than five hours before the Examination closed at 23:59 on 9 July 2019. On that basis it was received too late in the Examination for the Examining Authority (ExA) to properly consider the request or the implications for other Interested Parties. SHP’s representations therefore remain part of the Examination Library. The ExA will explain how it considered the SHP representations in its Recommendation Report which will be published on the National Infrastructure Planning website at the same time as the Secretary of State’s decision.

25 July 2019
Barry James
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
As I hope you can imagine, the decision by the owners of the site to sell the land to the applicants at the eleventh hour is causing some consternation in the areas which are likely to be most seriously affected. Member of the organised group which has been campaigning for the airport to be reopened have been partying and using social media to imply that the Development Consent Order is now a "slam-dunk." One particular area causing confusion is the decision by the owners of the site to withdraw their objections to the plans. Throughout the process, the owners of the site had been adamant that they had no intention of selling and were committed to the redevelopment plans which they had submitted to Thanet District Council. Therefore, it came as something of a shock when they sold. In the course of the acceptance and examination process, the owners of the site raised numerous objections to the proposal. Where they had accurately and concisely set out an objection, many other interested parties did not bother to make the same point. I don't think anybody foresaw that they would sell and certainly did not foresee that they would be allowed to withdraw all of the evidence they had submitted at the last minute, thereby preventing anyone else from making the same objection. In addition, there is a further area of concern. Being professional developers, the owners of the site had access to funds which they were able to use to employ professional advisors. For example, they commissioned some detailed work about the viability of the proposed airport from York Aviation. Needless to say, although many local people shared their concerns about viability, they did not have the resources to commission a piece of work like this. In any event, they saw no need to commission another study when the York Aviation study had already been submitted. When the owners of the site withdrew all of their objections to the DCO, does this mean that all of the evidence they submitted will also be deleted? Many individuals used data from the York Aviation study in submitting their own objections. Will all of those objections now be ignored? In light of the decision by the owners of the site to withdraw their own objections to the DCO, will PINS be producing a summary to show which pieces of evidence will now be ignored? Will PINS be writing to all of those who have raised objections to clarify which of their objections will be taken into account and which ones will now be ignored?
The request by Stone Hill Park Ltd (SHP) to withdraw its representations was made less than five hours before the Examination closed at 23:59 on 9 July 2019. On that basis it was received too late in the Examination for the Examining Authority (ExA) to properly consider the request or the implications for other Interested Parties. SHP’s representations therefore remain part of the Examination Library. The ExA will explain how it considered the SHP representations in its Recommendation Report which will be published on the National Infrastructure Planning website at the same time as the Secretary of State’s decision.

25 July 2019
Peter Binding
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
I would be grateful if you could update me on the position with regard tot he SHP evidence submitted during the course of the Inquiry and whether this still falls to be considered by the Examining Authority following the recent withdrawal of their objection to the proposal by SHP.
The request by Stone Hill Park Ltd (SHP) to withdraw its representations was made less than five hours before the Examination closed at 23:59 on 9 July 2019. On that basis it was received too late in the Examination for the Examining Authority (ExA) to properly consider the request or the implications for other Interested Parties. SHP’s representations therefore remain part of the Examination Library. The ExA will explain how it considered the SHP representations in its Recommendation Report which will be published on the National Infrastructure Planning website at the same time as the Secretary of State’s decision.

25 July 2019
John Walker
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
Please tell us will the examiners still consider all the oral and written submissions to the DCO enquiry made by SHP as we believe most of it is still relevant to the application by RSP?
The request by Stone Hill Park Ltd (SHP) to withdraw its representations was made less than five hours before the Examination closed at 23:59 on 9 July 2019. On that basis it was received too late in the Examination for the Examining Authority (ExA) to properly consider the request or the implications for other Interested Parties. SHP’s representations therefore remain part of the Examination Library. The ExA will explain how it considered the SHP representations in its Recommendation Report which will be published on the National Infrastructure Planning website at the same time as the Secretary of State’s decision.

25 July 2019
Ian Scott
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached.

24 July 2019
Highways England - anon.
A417 Missing Link
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
A project update meeting took place on 24th July 2019
A note of that meeting is attached.

24 July 2019
Highways England - anon.
Lower Thames Crossing
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see meeting note attached

19 July 2019
IAMP LLP - anon.
International Advanced Manufacturing Park TWO (IAMP TWO)
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
We have just read SHP’s latest letter to the examiners regarding the sale to RSP in which they state they wish to withdraw their objections & representations on completion of the sale. We understand why they would want to withdraw their objection as they will no longer own the land but can they withdraw their representations at this late stage, especially as completion will be after the closure of the examination period. Please tell us will the examiners still consider all the oral & written submissions to the DCO enquiry made by SHP as we believe most of it is still relevant to the application by RSP?
Please see the recently published advice to Stone Hill Park Ltd, here: [attachment 1] When an Examining Authority accepts a request for evidence to be withdrawn, the evidence is marked as withdrawn under the ‘Documents’ tab on the project webpage and within the Examination Library document.

19 July 2019
Ian Scott
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
As per the 3rd paragraph of this letter could you confirm whether every submission from SHP and their associates will remain on the PINS website for the full 5 years as per your original response Letter here: [attachment 1]
Please see the recently published advice to Stone Hill Park Ltd, here: [attachment 2] When an Examining Authority (ExA) accepts a request for evidence to be withdrawn, the evidence is marked as withdrawn under the ‘Documents’ tab on the project webpage and within the Examination Library document. The following documents are removed from the website after the Judicial Review period has expired ie circa six weeks after the Secretary of State’s (SoS) decision: - Book of Reference. - Any tables dealing with land interests eg in this case, all iterations of the Applicant’s ‘Compulsory Acquisition Status Report’. - Relevant Representations. After five years all other documents are removed, save for: - S51 advice. - The SoS decision letter. - The ExA’s Recommendation Report. - The DCO (if made). - Any documents relating to change applications (material/non-material). - Correction notices.

19 July 2019
Barry James
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
i. Will RSP's interactions with the SoS be transparent? If not why not? ii. Can people opposed to RSP's cargo hub plans comment on RSP's submissions to the SoS and/or lobby the SoS? If so, will the SoS take any notice - will we get replies?”
i. It is for the Secretary of State (SoS) to decide how he/she handles any submissions made directly to him/her after the close of the Examination. You can refer to SoS decisions issued in relation to other NSIP applications for explanations of how the SoS treated these types of submissions in those cases: [attachment 1] (select ‘Decided’). Any submissions sent directly to the SoS will be provided to the Inspectorate with the SoS’s decision and published alongside it on the National Infrastructure Planning website. ii. The Planning Inspectorate cannot control whether an applicant, or any other Interested Party, decides to submit evidence to the Secretary of State after the close of an Examination.

19 July 2019
Alan Welcome
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I have just seen the letter from SHP in which it says that, subject to satisfactory completion of its land sale to RSP, it will withdraw its submissions/objections to the Manston DCO. Surely this cannot mean that everything submitted thus far by SHP is erased and will not be considered by the ExA? I'd be glad if you would confirm that all evidence submitted by SHP will still be taken into consideration during this final process of consideration and recommendation. If for any bizarre reason the SHP evidence/submissions/objections are now to be regarded as null and void, can you please explain the best way for residents and residents' groups to resubmit that evidence themselves at this late stage. By which I mean, how could a late submission by NNF or a resident attach all of SHP's work to date as our/their own submission to ensure that this work is included?
Please see the recently published advice to Stone Hill Park Ltd, here: [attachment 1] When an Examining Authority accepts a request for evidence to be withdrawn, the evidence is marked as withdrawn under the ‘Documents’ tab on the project webpage and within the Examination Library document.

19 July 2019
Susan Kennedy
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Can you please confirm the SHP’s submissions posted to your website are a matter of public record and cannot be withdrawn or ‘unknown’ by yourselves and will continued to be relied- upon?
Please see the recently published advice to Stone Hill Park Ltd, here: [attachment 1] When an Examining Authority (ExA) accepts a request for evidence to be withdrawn, the evidence is marked as withdrawn under the ‘Documents’ tab on the project webpage and within the Examination Library document. The following documents are removed from the website after the Judicial Review period has expired ie circa six weeks after the Secretary of State’s (SoS) decision: - Book of Reference. - Any tables dealing with land interests eg in this case, all iterations of the Applicant’s ‘Compulsory Acquisition Status Report’. - Relevant Representations. After five years all other documents are removed, save for: - S51 advice. - The SoS decision letter. - The ExA’s Recommendation Report. - The DCO (if made). - Any documents relating to change applications (material/non-material). - Correction notices.

19 July 2019
Georgina Rooke
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I have just seen the letter from SHP in which it says that, subject to satisfactory completion of its land sale to RSP, it will withdraw its objections to the DCO. What does this mean? The evidence submitted by SHP and its consultants has been a key part to this process. It has highlighted the many factual flaws in RSP’s evidence. Whether or not SHP continues to object to the DCO, that evidence has been submitted and should be material to the ExA’s consideration. Is it all just to be winked out of existence? If so, that will place the public at a tremendous disadvantage as we have been operating in the knowledge that those documents have been submitted and accepted as part of the examination process, and so we do not need to cover the same ground. Surely I have got this wrong? SHP cannot simply unsay what it has said and retract what it has submitted now that the ExA has considered it, can it?
Please see the recently published advice to Stone Hill Park Ltd, here: [attachment 1] When an Examining Authority accepts a request for evidence to be withdrawn, the evidence is marked as withdrawn under the ‘Documents’ tab on the project webpage and within the Examination Library document.

19 July 2019
Ros McIntyre
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I understand that following the sale by SHP to RSP last week, SHP are obliged to withdraw all their evidence and objections to the DCO. Can you tell me whether they are able to do this and if so does it mean that all the comments they made and evidence they provided will be ignored by the examiners and it the Secretary of State. If so this seems highly irregular as this evidence was assessed and supported by many other interested parties and would certainly be adopted and presented by many of them, including me, as their own. Surely evidence once submitted must remain evidence? I will be grateful if you can advise what action other interested parties can take to ensure the SHP evidence including that from highly respected aviation consultants York Aviation is retained for reference regarding this DCO.
Please see the recently published advice to Stone Hill Park Ltd, here: [attachment 1] When an Examining Authority accepts a request for evidence to be withdrawn, the evidence is marked as withdrawn under the ‘Documents’ tab on the project webpage and within the Examination Library document.

19 July 2019
Adem Mehmet
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Could you please confirm that a) all Stone Hill Park's submissions will stand and be used by the Examiners in making their recommendation; and b) that Stone Hill Park's submissions will still carry the same weight as they did before?
Please see the recently published advice to Stone Hill Park Ltd, here: [attachment 1] When an Examining Authority accepts a request for evidence to be withdrawn, the evidence is marked as withdrawn under the ‘Documents’ tab on the project webpage and within the Examination Library document.

19 July 2019
Samara Jones-Hall
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I am writing seeking reassurance that the written submissions by Stone Hill Park already submitted to you, and posted on your website, will remain in the public domain.
Please see the recently published advice to Stone Hill Park Ltd, here: [attachment 1] When an Examining Authority (ExA) accepts a request for evidence to be withdrawn, the evidence is marked as withdrawn under the ‘Documents’ tab on the project webpage and within the Examination Library document. The following documents are removed from the website after the Judicial Review period has expired ie circa six weeks after the Secretary of State’s (SoS) decision: - Book of Reference. - Any tables dealing with land interests eg in this case, all iterations of the Applicant’s ‘Compulsory Acquisition Status Report’. - Relevant Representations. After five years all other documents are removed, save for: - S51 advice. - The SoS decision letter. - The ExA’s Recommendation Report. - The DCO (if made). - Any documents relating to change applications (material/non-material). - Correction notices.

19 July 2019
Christabel Bradley
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I raise two important Issues on which we need clarification, as follows: 1) The ExA policy regarding, and the status of, late (post 9/7/19) submissions accepted after the close of the examination. 2) The ExA policy regarding SHP evidence presented to the ExA during the EIP, following the withdrawal of their opposition to the DCO. Is it still permissible evidence in your consideration of the DCO? Do you know of any valid legal argument, or even a legal precedent, that this evidence has now to be ignored by you or by third parties? It would be helpful to all interested parties if PINS and the ExA could make a clear statement on each of these matters.
1. Any submissions received after the 23:59 deadline on 9 July 2019 will be filed by the Inspectorate and sent to the Secretary of State with the Examining Authority’s (ExA) Recommendation Report. These submissions are not read by the ExA. 2. Please see the recently published advice to Stone Hill Park Ltd, here: [attachment 1] When an ExA accepts a request for evidence to be withdrawn, the evidence is marked as withdrawn under the ‘Documents’ tab on the project webpage and within the Examination Library document.

19 July 2019
The Ramsgate Society - anon.
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I understand that it is the intention of the Applicant to make subsequent submissions directly to the SoST. Will these submissions be published on the Project website in a timely manner? Will IPs be able to respond to and comment on any submissions so made by the Applicant directly to the SoST? If so, how? If not, what?
i. Any submissions sent directly to the Secretary of State (SoS) will be provided to the Inspectorate with the SoS’s decision and published alongside it on the National Infrastructure Planning website. ii. It is for the SoS to decide how he/she handles any submissions made directly to him/her after the close of the Examination. You can refer to SoS decisions issued in relation to other NSIP applications for explanations of how the SoS treated these types of submissions in those cases: [attachment 1] (select ‘Decided’).

19 July 2019
James Chappell
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Whilst I am pleased that EDF have been forced to add an additional consultation phase to their plans for Sizewell C&D I am disappointed that the notice period for this consultation is so short and that the period for the consultation stretches over the summer holidays. Could you please use your powers to make EDF extend the consultation period to give everyone a fair chance to participate, otherwise it gives the impression that EDF are not serious about consulting and are trying to slip it in during the summer holidays.
The application has not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, the proposal is currently at the pre-application stage of the planning process, the developer is expecting to submit the applications in Q1 2020. Until the applications are submitted, your first point of contact should be the Applicant. I would therefore encourage you to contact EDF Energy directly ([email protected]). I note you have concerns about the way in which the Applicant is carrying out the pre-application consultation. You should let them know as soon as possible and allow them the opportunity to respond to any issues you raise. You can also make your local authority aware of your concerns. The Inspectorate will request the relevant local authorities’ view on the adequacy of the consultation at the point the application is submitted. Your email setting out your concerns will be kept on file. If you would like more information about the Planning Act 2008 process, please see “Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others” which can be found along with other advice notes, here: [attachment 1]

19 July 2019
Louise Fincham
Sizewell C New Nuclear Power Station
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Request for confirmation of receipt and acceptance into Examination of letters from Stone Hill Park Ltd and Kent Facilities Ltd, both dated 9 July 2019.
We confirm safe receipt of: i. the submission by Stone Hill Park Ltd dated 9 July 2019; and ii. the submission by Kent Facilities Ltd dated 9 July 2019. The Examining Authority (ExA) exercised its discretion and the two letters have been published on the Manston Airport webpage (Additional Submissions AS-437 and AS-552). The Examination Library is now finalised. It is the definitive record of the evidence submitted to, and accepted into, the Examination and which is before the ExA in preparing its report and recommendations to the Secretary of State: [attachment 1]

18 July 2019
Stone Hill Park Ltd - anon.
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
As you may be aware, there has been an active campaign on Anglesey against National Grid's proposals for a second line of pylons across Anglesey. Although the project is now officially cancelled, I am fearful that when the power station project is resurrected, or there is significant development of renewables, National Grid will return with exactly the same proposals. I want to make sure that doesn't happen, and see that the Planning Inspectorate, being ultimately responsible for making a recommendation to the Secretary of State, has a significant role to play. In general, the people of Anglesey are supportive of inward investment, so this is not a NIMBY campaign. I would like to see greater investment, so that electricity transmission does not harm other industries such as tourism and agriculture or effect house values. When you wrote the North Wales Connection Scoping Opinion, of behalf of the Secretary of State, you explicitly put impact on property value out of scope. However, when you wrote the similar Opinion for the similar project in Cumbria, there was no mention of property value being out of scope (so, therefore, was in scope). It strikes me as fundamentally unfair that you should treat Anglesey this way. The vast majority of the impact from the Wylfa Newydd project on property value derives from the grid connection. It is recognised in the Assessment of Sustainability for National Policy Statement EN-5 that electricity infrastructure can have a negative impact on property value, and this contributes to the negative socio-economic impact, estimated at £500 million. I request that in future the impact on property value is explicitly in scope. When National Grid financially appraise alternative options for the connection, they do so using a methodology of their own design. This does not follow the rigour of similar appraisals arising from Government policy. For example, the business case for the proposed deposit return scheme for plastic bottles puts a financial value to improved visual amenity from reduced littering. However, National Grid do not put a financial value to reduced visual amenity caused by pylons. If you, as the examiner of National Grid’s proposals, were to insist that the Treasury Green Book be used as the basis for all their financial analysis, I am convinced that the underground option would be selected. The public consultation was unsatisfactory. If you, as examiner, had engaged during the project development process, and understood the strength of feeling against pylons voiced during the consultation, I feel National Grid might have actually listened, and, more importantly, acted on that feedback. If you were to “host” the consultation feedback process, just as you host the Relevant and Written Representations, I think the public would have greater confidence in being given a “fair trial”. National Grid have way too much control over how they "play" the development process within existing guidelines, and I hope that you, and Ofgem, are able to rein them in, and in the process protect Anglesey.
Fel y gwyddoch, tynnwyd Prosiect Cysylltiad Gogledd Cymru (NWC) yn ôl gan yr Ymgeisydd ym mis Chwefror 2019; felly, o ganlyniad, nid yw’r Arolygiaeth Gynllunio yn cymryd unrhyw gamau pellach ar y cais hwnnw. Os bydd y Grid Cenedlaethol yn penderfynu dilyn cynnig ar gyfer Prosiect Cysylltiad Gogledd Cymru, neu gynnig tebyg, bydd Tudalen Prosiect newydd yn ymddangos ar wefan yr Arolygiaeth Gynllunio, lle bydd yr holl ddogfennau’n cael eu cyhoeddi. Bydd yn ofynnol, ymhlith pethau eraill, i’r Ymgeisydd gynnal ymgynghoriad statudol cyn cyflwyno cais i’w archwilio. Mewn perthynas â’r sylwadau sydd wedi’u cynnwys yn eich e-bost, rydym yn eich cynghori i’w codi’n uniongyrchol â’r Grid Cenedlaethol os bydd unrhyw gynnig yn codi yn y dyfodol. Nid yw Rheoliadau Cynllunio Seilwaith (Asesu Effeithiau Amgylcheddol) 2017 yn ei gwneud yn ofynnol i Ymgeisydd ofyn am Farn Gwmpasu gan yr Ysgrifennydd Gwladol. Fodd bynnag, gall Ymgeisydd ofyn am un os yw’n credu bod angen hynny. Os gwneir cais o’r fath, bydd yr Arolygiaeth Gynllunio, ar ran yr Ysgrifennydd Gwladol, yn ceisio barn ymgyngoreion statudol (megis Cyngor Sir Ynys Môn a Chyfoeth Naturiol Cymru) ynghylch yr hyn y maent yn ystyried y dylid ei gynnwys yn Natganiad Amgylcheddol yr Ymgeisydd. Rhoddir ystyriaeth lawn i’r ymatebion hyn wrth gwblhau’r Adroddiad Cwmpasu ac fe’u cynhwysir fel atodiad. Yn amlwg, gan nad oes cais gerbron yr Arolygiaeth, ni ellir gwneud unrhyw sylwadau ar gynnwys unrhyw Farn Gwmpasu yn y dyfodol, os gofynnir am un. Nid oes gan yr Arolygiaeth unrhyw awdurdodaeth i “gynnal” ymgynghoriad cyn ymgeisio gan Ymgeisydd. Mae’r gofyniad i ymgynghori, a’r holl faterion cysylltiedig, yn gorwedd gyda’r Ymgeisydd yn unig, o dan Ddeddf Cynllunio 2008, ac mae hyn yn helpu i sicrhau bod yr Ymgeisydd yn derbyn adborth uniongyrchol ar eu cynigion, gan eu galluogi, felly, i ystyried y sylwadau a wnaed. As you are aware, the North Wales Connection (NWC) Project was withdrawn by the Applicant in February 2019; therefore, as a result, no further action is being taken by the Planning Inspectorate on that application. Should National Grid decide to pursue a proposal for the North Wales Connection Project, or a similar proposal, a new Project Page will appear on the Planning Inspectorate’s website where all documents will be published. The Applicant will be required, amongst other things, to carry out statutory consultation before an application is submitted for examination. In relation to the comments included in your email, we advise you to raise them directly with National Grid if any future proposal arises. The Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 do not require an Applicant to request a Scoping Opinion from the Secretary of State (SoS). However, an Applicant may seek one if it considers necessary. If such a request is made, the Planning Inspectorate, on behalf of the SoS, will seek the views of statutory consultees (such as the Isle of Anglesey County Council and Natural Resources Wales) about what they consider should be included in the Applicant’s Environmental Statement. These responses are fully considered when finalising the Scoping Report and are included as an appendix. Clearly, as there is no application before the Inspectorate, no comments can be made on the contents of any future Scoping Opinion, if one is requested. The Inspectorate has no jurisdiction to “host” an Applicant’s pre-application consultation. The requirement to consult, and all associated matters, lies solely with the Applicant, under the Planning Act 2008, this helps to ensure that the Applicant receives direct feedback on their proposals, therefore enabling them to take account of the comments made.

16 July 2019
Anglesey Says No to Pylons - Various Parties
North Wales Connection
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

16 July 2019
ScottishPower Renewables (UK) Limited - anon.
East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

16 July 2019
ScottishPower Renewables (UK) Limited - anon.
East Anglia ONE North Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I am contacting you about the timing of the Stage 4 Consultation. Not only have Public Exhibitions been left out in Theberton, Middleton, Darsham and Saxmundham but the main thrust of the Consultation coincides with the start of the School Holidays. Many people will have already booked Holidays who should be at the Public Exhibitions and will most likely be away due to the announcement of the Consultation occurring with almost no notice. This will mean that there will be reduced involvement by local Residents, Parish and Town Councillors, The Environment Agency, RSPB etc etc. The timing makes a very clear statement that EDF does not have a serious Commitment to hearing peoples views and also is not holding to Good Practices that underpins the Consultation process. Please register and listen to my concerns.
The application has not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, the proposal is currently at the pre-application stage of the planning process, the developer is expecting to submit the applications in Q1 2020. Until the applications are submitted, your first point of contact should be the developer. I would therefore encourage you to contact EDF Energy directly ([email protected]). It is important that the developer is made aware of your comments at the pre-application stage of the process, to enable them to consider these points before finalising their proposals and submitting the applications to the Planning Inspectorate. I note you have concerns about the way in which the developer is carrying out the pre-application consultation. You should let them know as soon as possible and allow them the opportunity to respond to any issues you raise. You can also make your local authority aware of your concerns. The Inspectorate will request the relevant local authorities’ view on the adequacy of the consultation at the point the application is submitted. Your email setting out your concerns will be kept on file. If you would like more information about the Planning Act 2008 process, please see “Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others” which can be found along with other advice notes, here: [attachment 1]

11 July 2019
Nicola Pilkington
Sizewell C New Nuclear Power Station
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please see attached.
I note you have concerns about the way in which the Applicant is carrying out the pre-application consultation. You should let them know as soon as possible and allow them the opportunity to respond to any issues you raise. You can also make your local authority aware of your concerns. The Inspectorate will request the relevant local authorities’ view on the adequacy of the consultation at the point the application is submitted. When deciding whether to accept an application for examination, the Inspectorate considers whether an Applicant has complied with the Pre-application procedure. In making this decision the Inspectorate takes into account any Adequacy of Consultation Representations from relevant local authorities Further to this, as you may be aware the Applicant is now undertaking a further round of consultation from 18 July 2019 to 27 September 2019.

11 July 2019
Minsmere Levels Stakeholders Group - anon.
Sizewell C New Nuclear Power Station
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Advice sought in relation to the applicant’s proposed approach for the draft DCO and Works Plans.
Please see the attachment

10 July 2019
DHA Planning - David Harvey
Wheelabrator Kemsley Generating Station (K3) and Wheelabrator Kemsley North (WKN) Waste to Energy Facility
Enquiry received via post
response has attachments
See attached letter
See attached letter

09 July 2019
Parliament for South Northamptonshire - Andrea Leadsom MP
Rail Central (Strategic Rail Freight Interchange)
Enquiry received via email
Further clarification sought on the restructuring of the Environmental Statement relating to the Wheelabrator Kemsley Generating Station (K3) and Wheelabrator Kemsley North (WKN) Waste to Energy Facility application.
As previously discussed it is not appropriate for the Inspectorate to provide an opinion on the scope of the ES outside of the formal process for doing so, which is established in accordance with the EIA Regulations. On that basis and for the avoidance of doubt the information contained in this email is not a formal scoping opinion on which you can rely but is provided in accordance with s51 of the Planning Act 2008. At the meeting held on 19 June 2019 the Inspectorate explained that it would be necessary to ensure that the ES submitted with the application for Wheelabrator Kemsley (K3) and Wheelabrator Kemsley North (WKN) includes an assessment which robustly assesses the likely significant effects associated with the execution of powers included within the DCO. Due to the nuances of the PA2008 it is important that the application DCO includes powers to both construct and operate K3 even though in reality the construction of K3 is already underway and largely complete (albeit through consent under the Town and Country Planning Act (TCPA)). It is therefore necessary that the ES assesses the likely significant effects occurring during the construction (accepting that this will quite likely be a theoretical exercise) and the operation of K3 since they need to be examined and considered by the decision maker. You have suggested including the K3 2010 ES (as amended) as an assessment of the construction related significant effects for K3 and supplementing this assessment with the relevant additional aspects occurring in response to the EIA Regulations 2017. This appears to be a pragmatic approach and I note the reference to human health and climate change as being additional aspects not previously considered, you may also want/need to consider addressing the vulnerability of the proposed development to major accidents or disasters. I also understand that the DCO application may include powers to construct features associated with or ancillary to K3 and which were not included in the previous TCPA application, assuming this is the case the ES should assess any significant effects associated with such features again with reference to the theoretical baseline position. Your enquiry also proposes an approach to addressing what is (I appreciate) a tricky position with regard to environmental baseline for the purposes of the assessment. The Inspectorate has already advised that since the application requires the inclusion of powers to construct K3 it is necessary to include an assessment of the likely significant effects associated with that construction. The ES should therefore assess impacts that occur from a pre K3 baseline this would include the construction and operational effects associated with K3 operating at 75MW, however since the assessment must include the theoretical baseline prior to the TCPA consent the ES may also benefit from also including an assessment using the more representative operational baseline of K3 operating at 49.9MW. This would perhaps enable the examination and decision maker to focus on matters which may be considered of most relevance to those participating in the process. I appreciate that the approach is complicated and slightly irregular when compared with more traditional applications. I think the description of the development and overall approach to the assessment usually contained in the front end of the ES is probably of key importance since this will act to frame the approach and explain the structure of the assessment. On that basis we would be happy to have a look at those sections through our review of draft docs and provide comments and feedback as appropriate.

09 July 2019
DHA Planning - Tim Spicer
Wheelabrator Kemsley Generating Station (K3) and Wheelabrator Kemsley North (WKN) Waste to Energy Facility
Enquiry received via email
I note that RSP have said they will make further representations directly to the Secretary of State after the 9 July closing. Is this possible and if so are other interested parties also able to make further representations in the same way ?
The Planning Inspectorate cannot control whether an applicant, or any other Interested Party, decides to submit evidence to the Secretary of State after the close of an Examination. I would emphasise however that an Examining Authority’s Recommendation Report can only be based on the evidence submitted before the close of an Examination. Any evidence received by the Inspectorate in the period after the close of an Examination and before a Recommendation Report is submitted to the Secretary of State (during the three-month ‘Recommendation stage’) is collated and submitted to the Secretary of State at the same time as the Report. It is for the Secretary of State to decide how to handle this evidence in the course of the three-month ‘Decision stage’. Similarly, any evidence sent directly to the Secretary of State during either the ‘Recommendation stage’ or the ‘Decision stage’ is for the Secretary of State to decide how to handle.

09 July 2019
Adem Mehmet
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting and site visit.
Please see attached meeting note.

09 July 2019
Gatwick Airport Limited - anon.
Gatwick Airport Northern Runway
Enquiry received via email
On further reading of BDB’s letter to PINS regarding the sale of Manston to RSP they seem to be inferring RSP will be dealing with the Secretary of State directly. Could you tell me if that is a correct understanding of the situation and is this acceptable as part of an on going DCO application.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot control whether an applicant, or any other Interested Party, decides to submit evidence to the Secretary of State after the close of an Examination. I would emphasise however that an Examining Authority’s Recommendation Report can only be based on the evidence submitted before the close of an Examination. Any evidence received by the Inspectorate in the period after the close of an Examination and before a Recommendation Report is submitted to the Secretary of State (during the three-month ‘Recommendation stage’) is collated and submitted to the Secretary of State at the same time as the Report. It is for the Secretary of State to decide how to handle this evidence in the course of the three-month ‘Decision stage’. Similarly, any evidence sent directly to the Secretary of State during either the ‘Recommendation stage’ or the ‘Decision stage’ is for the Secretary of State to decide how to handle.

08 July 2019
Ian Scott
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
How long do submissions stay up on the Planning Inspectorate website? And, secondly is it all submissions that stay up?
The following documents are removed from the website after the Judicial Review period has expired ie six weeks after the SoS decision: - Book of Reference. - Any tables dealing with land interests eg in this case, all iterations of the Applicant’s ‘Compulsory Acquisition Status Report’. - Relevant Representations. After five years all other documents are removed, save for: - S51 advice. - The SoS decision letter. - The ExA’s Recommendation Report. - The DCO (if made). - Any documents relating to change applications (material/non-material). - Correction notices. Note if a DCO is made, the documents certified within it remain available at the location specified in the Explanatory Note at the end of the DCO.

08 July 2019
Samara Jones-Hall
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project and Local Area Impact Update Meeting with NNB Nuclear Generation (SZC) Limited and Suffolk County Council and East Suffolk Council
Please see attached.

02 July 2019
Applicant and local Authorities - anon.
Sizewell C New Nuclear Power Station
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Comments regarding the ASI due to take place on 3 and 4 July 2019
Please see attachment

28 June 2019
Mr M Sullivan, CPRE Warwickshire
M42 Junction 6 Improvement
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached.

27 June 2019
Ørsted - anon.
Hornsea Project Four Offshore Wind Farm (Generating Stations)
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

25 June 2019
North Somerset Council - anon.
Portishead Branch Line - MetroWest Phase 1
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Evidence Plan Steering Group meeting with Ørsted, East Riding of Yorkshire Council, Natural England and the Marine Management Organisation
Please see attached

25 June 2019
Ørsted et al - anon.
Hornsea Project Four Offshore Wind Farm (Generating Stations)
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

19 June 2019
ScottishPower Renewables (UK) Limited - anon.
East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

19 June 2019
Wheelabrator Technologies Holdings Inc - anon.
Wheelabrator Kemsley Generating Station (K3) and Wheelabrator Kemsley North (WKN) Waste to Energy Facility
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

19 June 2019
ScottishPower Renewables (UK) Limited - anon.
East Anglia ONE North Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see the attached meeting note

18 June 2019
AQUIND Limited
AQUIND Interconnector
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached meeting note

06 June 2019
Heathrow Airport Limited - anon.
Expansion of Heathrow Airport (Third Runway)
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached

29 May 2019
Planning Inspectorate, BEIS and the Applicant - anon.
Wheelabrator Kemsley Generating Station (K3) and Wheelabrator Kemsley North (WKN) Waste to Energy Facility
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Please see attached
Please see attached

24 May 2019
NNB Generation Company (HPC) Limited - anon.
Hinkley Point C New Nuclear Power Station Material Change 1
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Dear Sir/Madame, Further to my email sent on the 26th of April, there is one additional item I would wish to bring to your attention when considering the SPR application for EA1N & EA2 wind farms. There are two additional energy infrastructure project under consideration for this immediate area. One is EDF’s Sizewell C nuclear power station and the other is The National Grid Interconnector project (the later which may not be considered as a DCO). There is also talk of a requirement for battery storage units for when there is excess energy generated off shore. It remains unclear to us if the battery storage units will be under SPR’s or National Grid’s remit. While under construction the Sizewell C project will have an enormous effect on the local area for well over a decade. The interconnector project appears to have a direct relationship to the on shore wind farm infrastructure and will mean more cable trenching and further structures on shore to be located adjacent to SPR's sub-stations. Any proposals for batter storage units will also need to be located in the vicinity of the sub-stations. To be able to evaluate the EAST ANGLIA 1N & EAST ANGLIA 2 WIND FARMS PROPOSALS you need to take into account all of the other proposal concurrently under consideration for this area. You will need to understand the magnitude of all these developments on the local area in order to evaluate SPR’s proposal. One can not pretend that they do not exist and view each proposal in isolation. I kindly ask that you urge central government in conjunction with the local authorities to devise a coherent and comprehensive energy strategy for the infrastructure developments required to serve the nation's future energy needs. If these projects are left to private companies to prescribe in a free-for-all manor vast sections of the countryside and local communities will be needlessly devastated. I trust that you will not be able to accept for Examination the SPR application, until the cumulative impact of all the projects proposed for this area have been understood. Kind regards, Mya Manakides
The energy National Policy Statements (NPS) set out mitigation for cumulative negative effects by requiring the Secretary of State to consider accumulation of effects as a whole in their decision-making on individual applications for development consent. I would draw your attention to NPS EN-1 which provides more information in relation to relevant policy, particularly chapter 4.2 Environmental Statement. And to Advice Note 17, which is available with the other advice notes linked below, which provides more information on the legal context and obligations for cumulative effects assessment (CEA). As well as an overview of the CEA process the developer may adopt. If you would like more information about the Planning Act 2008 process, please see “Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others” which can be found along with other advice notes, here: [attachment 1]

22 May 2019
Mya Manakides
East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Dear Sir/Madame, Further to my email sent on the 26th of April, there is one additional item I would wish to bring to your attention when considering the SPR application for EA1N & EA2 wind farms. There are two additional energy infrastructure project under consideration for this immediate area. One is EDF’s Sizewell C nuclear power station and the other is The National Grid Interconnector project (the later which may not be considered as a DCO). There is also talk of a requirement for battery storage units for when there is excess energy generated off shore. It remains unclear to us if the battery storage units will be under SPR’s or National Grid’s remit. While under construction the Sizewell C project will have an enormous effect on the local area for well over a decade. The interconnector project appears to have a direct relationship to the on shore wind farm infrastructure and will mean more cable trenching and further structures on shore to be located adjacent to SPR's sub-stations. Any proposals for batter storage units will also need to be located in the vicinity of the sub-stations. To be able to evaluate the EAST ANGLIA 1N & EAST ANGLIA 2 WIND FARMS PROPOSALS you need to take into account all of the other proposal concurrently under consideration for this area. You will need to understand the magnitude of all these developments on the local area in order to evaluate SPR’s proposal. One can not pretend that they do not exist and view each proposal in isolation. I kindly ask that you urge central government in conjunction with the local authorities to devise a coherent and comprehensive energy strategy for the infrastructure developments required to serve the nation's future energy needs. If these projects are left to private companies to prescribe in a free-for-all manor vast sections of the countryside and local communities will be needlessly devastated. I trust that you will not be able to accept for Examination the SPR application, until the cumulative impact of all the projects proposed for this area have been understood. Kind regards, Mya Manakides
The energy National Policy Statements (NPS) set out mitigation for cumulative negative effects by requiring the Secretary of State to consider accumulation of effects as a whole in their decision-making on individual applications for development consent. I would draw your attention to NPS EN-1 which provides more information in relation to relevant policy, particularly chapter 4.2 Environmental Statement. And to Advice Note 17, which is available with the other advice notes linked below, which provides more information on the legal context and obligations for cumulative effects assessment (CEA). As well as an overview of the CEA process the developer may adopt. If you would like more information about the Planning Act 2008 process, please see “Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others” which can be found along with other advice notes, here: [attachment 1]

22 May 2019
Mya Manakides
East Anglia ONE North Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Alongside my colleague, Mr Kaye Squires, I wish to register as an Interested Party in wishing to be a participant in the above Planning Process Inquiry. You should also receive a register of interest from the Heronscourt Residents' Association, of which Kaye Squires and I are members. I am aware that you are not concerned with the content of our challenge to decisions made, but in case you are asked, our reasons are: 1. Our properties directly impinge upon the recently revised pipeline route; in my case for 140 metres. 2. Even though a properly structured consultation has taken place, we believe that it was inefficiently communicated, by the applicants and our elected representatives, and as such, did not constitute an open public consultation. 3. In choosing the newly revised route alongside our properties, the balance between the SSSI and the Public Amenity that is Turfhill Park in Lightwater, has been inadequately debated, and has arrived at the wrong conclusion.
The application for the Southampton to London Pipeline project, submitted on 14th May 2019, is currently being reviewed. The acceptance decision will be made by 11th June 2019. Registration to become an Interested Party to any application opens only when / if an application is accepted for an Examination. Advice Note 8.2 provides further information on how to register to participate in an Examination: [attachment 1] The following paragraphs from the Advice Note 8.2 should be helpful: 2. When can I become an Interested Party to an application? 2.1 Once the Planning Inspectorate has accepted an application for Examination, it is the applicant’s duty to advertise the Relevant Representation period and provide details about how to register to become an Interested Party. The Relevant Representation period is the time you have to register to become an Interested Party. The registration period must be at least 28 days and the publicity notice will tell you when the deadline is ? An applicant’s newspapers advert; ? An applicant’s site notice; ? Information on the relevant project page of the National Infrastructure Planning website; ? Via Twitter or email alert if you have signed up for this service on the relevant project page of the National Infrastructure Planning website. 3. How do I become an Interested Party? 3.1 During the registration period you must fill in a Relevant Representation form in full. It is not possible to participate in this process anonymously if you are registering as an individual. The easiest way to become an Interested Party is to complete the form online via the relevant project page of the National Infrastructure Planning website. If you would prefer to fill in a paper form you can contact the Planning Inspectorate during the registration period to request one. Please make sure there is enough time for the form to be sent to you and for you to post it back to the Planning Inspectorate before the deadline for responding expires. 3.2 The Examining Authority will be appointed soon after the application is accepted and will use the views put forward in the Relevant Representations, to carry out an initial assessment of the principal issues. Therefore, even if you are automatically an Interested Party because you have an interest in land affected by the application or your organisation is on a list of prescribed bodies, you should still complete a Relevant Representation form so that your views can be made available to the Examining Authority at an early stage. 3.3 If you are interested in more than one project, you will need to register for each project separately. You may also wish to register to receive e-mail updates which will ensure that you are kept up to date on the progress of the application. You can register your e-mail address on the project page, on the link here: [attachment 2]

21 May 2019
Clive H Thompson CBE
Southampton to London Pipeline Project
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached Meeting Note

21 May 2019
Highways England
M25 junction 28 improvements
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please See attached

21 May 2019
ScottishPower Renewables (UK) Limited - anon.
East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

21 May 2019
ScottishPower Renewables (UK) Limited - anon.
East Anglia ONE North Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached

16 May 2019
Planning Inspectorate, BEIS and the Applicant - anon.
Wheelabrator Kemsley Generating Station (K3) and Wheelabrator Kemsley North (WKN) Waste to Energy Facility
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
We are writing to express our interest in, and concerns over, this proposal. We live in the centre of Cawston and our house fronts onto the B1145, very close to the traffic. The impact of this scheme, together with the Vattenfall Vanguard scheme and Orsted’s Hornsea 3, will be devastating to our quality of life and enjoyment of our property. In principle we are strongly in favour of schemes such as renewable energy which serve to protect and improve the environment, but we do feel that the philosophy of protecting the wider environment should not rest on destroying some local environments, which is what will happen if this proposal goes ahead in its current form. We do not feel that alternative approaches, and routes avoiding Cawston have been properly assessed. The B1145 and other roads in this area are simply unsuitable for the types and volumes of traffic proposed. The levels of noise and vibration in the centre of the village will be intolerable and there are real road safety concerns. Several of these houses date from the 18th Century, some are subject to Preservation Orders, and there has to be a likelihood of major structural damage. there is a village junior school, buses, school buses collecting senior pupils, and a busy centre with shops, pub and houses close to the narrow road - a constant need for pedestrians to be able to cross the road throughout the day. air quality in the centre of the village would be another concern, as is light pollution this is a twisty B road, unsuitable for HGVs, narrow and very difficult in many places for two vehicles to pass one another safely. in the village there are narrow pavements and several blind junctions, where traffic on the side road has to creep into the main road to see what is coming. The old railway bridge near the village hall is also on a blind bend with no pavement for pedestrians. a double bend between Cawston and Salle is exceptionally tight, you often need to stop and back up to allow a non HGV lorry to get round. We get no sense that factors like these have been considered sufficiently in the proposal. We note that Vattenfall suggest that some mitigation can be achieved by driver training; this is absurd. Surely drivers should be properly trained in any event, and in fact a failure to adhere to high standards would be an exacerbation. We hope that you are able to include these views in your assessments, and look forward to hearing from you. Kind regards Helen & Chris Monk
Dear Helen and Chris Monk Thank you for your email in relation to the proposed Norfolk Boreas Wind Farm proposed application. I apologise for the delay in this email reaching you as it would appear that you did not receive a direct response from us at the time. Please note, this application is due to be submitted to the Planning Inspectorate in mid-June 2019. Upon receipt there will be a 28 day acceptance period and should the application be accepted for examination, there will be an opportunity for interested parties to submit a relevant representation. I would encourage you to monitor the project webpage and sign up to email updates. As the application has not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, the proposal is currently at pre-application stage of the planning process and therefore until the application is submitted, your first point of contact should be the developer. You may have already done so however I would encourage you to contact Vattenfall Offshore Wind Ltd directly ([email protected]) as it is important that the developer is made aware of your comments at the pre-application stage of the process, to enable them to consider these points before finalising their proposals and submitting the applications to the Planning Inspectorate. If you would like more information about the Planning Act 2008 process, please see “Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others” which can be found along with other advice notes, here: [attachment 1] Kind regards Kay Kay Sully (This advice was also given to – Matthew Attewell)

15 May 2019
Chris and Helen Monk
Norfolk Boreas
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Dear Sir / Madam, The purpose of my email is following a recent document received through the post regarding the Vallenhall Boreas Project outlining public consultation times and deadlines regarding this project. Due to recently moving to the area I was not aware of either the Boreas or Vanguard Projects and subsequently I have investigated on your website regarding the proposed onshore works for both Boreas and Vanguard projects. Upon my initial investigation it appears that the proposed works would be within approximately 150m of our property and the subsequent increase in HGV traffic and the proposed access route both during and after the initial construction will be within 20m of our dwelling. Due to this I would therefore like to formally register my interest regarding Vanguard and its sister project Boreas. I thank you for your understanding regarding this matter. I am aware that the registration for interested parties has closed but do hope that due to our circumstance you will be able to assist. I awaiting your response by return of email.
Dear Mr Attewell Thank you for your email in relation to the proposed Norfolk Boreas Wind Farm proposed application. I apologise for the delay in this email reaching you as it would appear that you did not receive a direct response from us at the time in relation this project. Norfolk Vanguard is a separate application and so I have removed their email address from this thread. Please note, this application is due to be submitted to the Planning Inspectorate in mid-June 2019. Upon receipt there will be a 28 day acceptance period and should the application be accepted for examination, there will be an opportunity for interested parties to submit a relevant representation. I would encourage you to monitor the project webpage and sign up to email updates. As the application has not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, the proposal is currently at pre-application stage of the planning process and therefore until the application is submitted, your first point of contact should be the developer. You may have already done so however I would encourage you to contact Vattenfall Offshore Wind Ltd directly ([email protected]) as it is important that the developer is made aware of your comments at the pre-application stage of the process, to enable them to consider these points before finalising their proposals and submitting the applications to the Planning Inspectorate. If you would like more information about the Planning Act 2008 process, please see “Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others” which can be found along with other advice notes, here: [attachment 1]

15 May 2019
Mr M J Attewell
Norfolk Boreas
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see the attachment

15 May 2019
Highways England
A1 Birtley to Coal House Improvement Scheme
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see the attached note.

10 May 2019
Network Rail - anon.
Western Rail Link to Heathrow
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Please see attached
Please see attached

10 May 2019
Intertek - anon.
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting Note
Please see Attached

09 May 2019
Vattenfall Wind Power Ltd - anon.
Norfolk Boreas
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
We respond to Phase 4 of SPR's windfarm consultation, objecting very strongly to proposals to site Substations for the windfarms in Friston. Our letter of objection is attached, together with our responses to earlier consultations. The most important points we make now are that the Planning Inspectorate should assess the cumulative impact of multiple energy related projects proposed for this part of east Suffolk, and that all developments should take place in Sizewell. We respond to Phase 4 of SPR's windfarm consultation, objecting very strongly to proposals to site Substations for the windfarms in Friston. Our letter of objection is attached, together with our responses to earlier consultations. The most important points we make now are that the Planning Inspectorate should assess the cumulative impact of multiple energy related projects proposed for this part of east Suffolk, and that all developments should take place in Sizewell. We trust you will take our views and those of local people and authorities into account.
In reference to your e-mail of 20 March 2019. I draw your attention to Advice Note 17 ([attachment 1]) on the Planning Inspectorate website. This provides more information about cumulative effects assessment.

07 May 2019
Louise and Derek Chadwick Chadwick
East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
We respond to Phase 4 of SPR's windfarm consultation, objecting very strongly to proposals to site Substations for the windfarms in Friston. Our letter of objection is attached, together with our responses to earlier consultations. The most important points we make now are that the Planning Inspectorate should assess the cumulative impact of multiple energy related projects proposed for this part of east Suffolk, and that all developments should take place in Sizewell. We trust you will take our views and those of local people and authorities into account.
In reference to your e-mail of 20 March 2019. I draw your attention to Advice Note 17 ([attachment 1]) on the Planning Inspectorate website. This provides more information about cumulative effects assessment.

07 May 2019
Louise and Derek Chadwick
East Anglia ONE North Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached.

07 May 2019
ScottishPower Renewables (UK) Limited - anon.
East Anglia ONE North Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached.

07 May 2019
ScottishPower Renewables (UK) Limited - anon.
East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
My question is what is the range of issues that the Planning Inspectorate will consider in the course of the examination of Heathrow's application? Is it just any potential impact, or are is their jurisdiction limited in any way? For example, we would want I am sure to raise issues regarding noise and air quality, compensation for adverse impacts, and compliance with airspace design principles. Would all of these fall within the Planning Inspectorate's jurisdiction? If not, which would?
Firstly, the Examining Authority (ExA) that will be appointed to examine the application for the expansion of Heathrow Airport (Third Runway) will do so in an inquisitorial manner. This means that they are not restricted to only considering what is included in representations made to them. Once an application has been formally submitted and accepted for examination, members of the public will have the opportunity to register to become ‘Interested Parties’ by completing the registration form and submitting a ‘Relevant Representation’; a provisional written representation setting out the key issues they believe the ExA should consider as part of the Examination. Following a review of the issues raised in the suite of Relevant Representations, alongside the contents of the application itself (what is actually being applied for) and the content of the Airports National Policy Statement (ANPS), the ExA will prepare it’s ‘Initial Assessment of Principal Issues’ which will then act to frame the six-month Examination period. There will then be further opportunity to expand on those issues/ arguments set out by submitting Written Representations once the Examination formally begins. However, there will not be scope to dispute of the contents of the ANPS/ other policy framework or discuss compensation with regards to Compulsory Acquisition during the Examination. If you register to become an Interested Party, you will be able to raise such issues as noise, air quality and compliance with airspace design principles within your Relevant Representation. As the application is currently anticipated for submission in 2020, I recommend you register for the email update feature (on the right-hand side of the overview page of the project website) to be notified of the registration period when the time comes.

03 May 2019
Raj Parkash
Expansion of Heathrow Airport (Third Runway)
Enquiry received via post
response has attachments
Please see attached letter.
Please see attached response.

03 May 2019
Leigh Day - anon.
Expansion of Heathrow Airport (Third Runway)
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
My wife and I live at {Redacted} We are concerned that the proposed plans to replace the old roundabout with the new signalled junction will bring traffic closer to our house leading to increased noise and devalue our property. In particular the proposed new "slipway" from Skippool Road onto the Amounderness way-will it be constructed nearer to us? Will the house Throstles Nest be demolished to use its land? Would you let me have detailed plans of the proposed new junction-the plans I can see online are not detailed enough.
Dear Mr and Mrs Evans, Thank you for your email in relation to the above project. All application plans submitted by Highways England, the Applicant, have been published on the project’s page, please see the link: [attachment 1];stage=app&filter1=Plans If you require further information on the proposed development we would suggest that you approach the Applicant who is copied in this email.

02 May 2019
Graham and Heather Evans
A585 Windy Harbour to Skippool Improvement Scheme
Enquiry received via email
Clarification on how the transmission system issue will be represented to the Secretary of State In the early stages of this enquiry N2RS - along with North Norfolk District Council, Norfolk County Council, the CPRE and others – asked the applicant to counteract suggestions that the HVDC transmission system which formed part of the project design might not be deliverable. Reassurances were subsequently given along with confirmation that any U-turn back to the more environmentally damaging HVAC system would require a material change and interested parties were left in little doubt about the applicant’s intention to honour its much welcomed commitment to HVDC. As the examination nears an end N2RS would like to understand whether the final report to be submitted to the Secretary of State will include reference to the choice of transmission system and the discussions that ensued? We feel it is important that the Secretary of State is fully aware of the extent to which this decision to use HVDC technology has informed public opinion, increased acceptability and shaped the examination. Although a number of other unresolved issues are now, quite rightly, taking centre stage, we should not lose sight of the significance of this commitment to less environmentally damaging technology and the role it will play in mitigation. Conversely if its importance is not appreciated, the impact of any reversal to HVAC could not be fully understood by the Secretary of State. Could the Planning Inspectorate also advise whether the final report with its recommendations and accompanying detail will be in the public domain?
The Examining Authority’s (ExA) report will consider the application as submitted, along with proposed changes to the application accepted by the ExA on 25 April 2019, as well as submissions from parties made throughout the Examination. The ExA’s Recommendation Report will be published on the Norfolk Vanguard project page of the National Infrastructure Planning website at the same time as the Secretary of State’s decision.

02 May 2019
N2RS - Beverley Wigg
Norfolk Vanguard
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I am writing to raise my concerns about the number of examiners assigned to the Cleve Hill Solar Park case. I have checked the Manston Airport case and notice that 4 examiners are assigned to that case, yet only 2 have been assigned to the Cleve Hill case. The reason for my concerns are: 1. The application for Manston Airport is, as I understand it, to reopen it as an airport. Manston has for many years been an airport, albeit with periods of time where it was unused. I can't see the comparison to the number of examiners needed for that to the situation at Cleve Hill which: a. is a completely new development on valued landscape, b. adjacent to three important wildlife designated areas, c. adjacent to an important walking path that is shortly going to be designated as a National Path, d. will be the largest solar park in Europe with an east-west orientation which is unprecedented in the UK, e. will have huge battery storage with untested technology on this scale, f. will cause serious disturbance to the wildlife and local areas for two and half years during the construction period and during the life of its operation g. is on land identified by the Environment Agency as being required for managed retreat when they cease maintaining the sea defences along that stretch of coast 2. Having only 2 examiners does not allow for consensus and a majority decision on the recommendation that will be put to the Secretary of State. As you will be aware, most panels in business and law are made up on an uneven number of panelists to allow a majority decision to be made, e.g. magistrates. 3. Having only 2 examiners makes it appear that the decision is an easy one to make with limited investigations and reviews needed. Is this application considered to be a 'done-deal' simply because it is for 'green' energy? I am sure I will not be the only person concerned about this situation so would appreciate your explanation on: 1. how the number of examiners is decided, and 2. how they will come to a majority decision which is the right decision for the local area.
Thank you for your email dated 25th April 2019 in relation to the appointment of the Examining Authority for the Cleve Hill Solar Park project. Each Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP) submitted to the Planning Inspectorate under the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) is assessed on its own merits. The Examining Authority (ExA) prepares a Recommendation Report for the relevant Secretary of State who is the decision maker; it is important to note that the ExA is not the decision maker. The appointment of the ExA is based on the assessment of the each project and specific issues relating to it, such as complexity of the case, the level of public interest, analysis of policy and any novel issues. Whilst it is considered that a panel of 2 is an appropriate ExA for this case, section 68 of the PA2008 provides for the additional appointments to the Panel, at any time, should it become necessary. In appointing a Panel of two members for the Cleve Hill Solar Park project the SoS considered the CLG Guidance which identifies criteria relevant to appointing an Examining Authority. Further information on the CLG Guidance for the examination of applications for development consent for nationally significant infrastructure projects March 2015, particularly paragraphs12-14, can be found here: [attachment 1] . In regards to the environmental issues that you have listed, please be assured that all matters will be carefully considered, tested and probed during the six-month examination of the application. The Rule 6 letter issued on 18th April 2019 includes the draft timetable for the Examination of the application. The letter also includes the Initial Assessment of Principal Issues (Annex B) which at this stage is not a comprehensive or exclusive list of all relevant matters. However, they relate to the Environmental Statement in general; landscape and visual effects, noise; water, flooding and coastal defences; and socio-economic amongst others. The proposed timetable (Annex C) provides for the Issue Specific Hearings (ISHs) on Biodiversity / Nature Conservation Matters (ISH1 on 17th July) and on Landscape and Visual Amenity Matters (ISH3 on 23rd July). This will allow all parties to fully engage in the process and can make written and oral representations about the application to the Examining Authority on all matters that they are concerned about. Additionally, all documents submitted by the Applicant and Interested Parties will be published on project page. In conclusion, the Planning Inspectorate is satisfied that the appointment of a panel of 2 is appropriate for this case. However, if it transpires at a later date that it is not suitable, additional resources can be allocated.

01 May 2019
Tom King
Cleve Hill Solar Park
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The following persons sent responses to the Applicant’s 2019 statutory consultation, including comments on the standard of consultation, to the Planning Inspectorate between January and April 2019: Vivienne Saunders, Alison Norman, Gerard Linehan, James and Gihan Burch, Charles Courage, Susan Jackson, David Jackson, Anthony and Louise Fincham, Nick Matthew, Kevin and Joanna Hoffman, Ian Cook, Tony and Christine Munden, Rosamond Castle, Christopher Matthew, Michael Allen, Lesley Walduck, Lin Patrick, Richard Bertram, Ellen Nall, Linda Grover, John Brown, Emma Chichester Clark, Karen Flower and Amanda Churchill.
The applications have not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, the proposals are currently at the pre-application stage of the planning process, the developer is expecting to submit the applications in Q4 2019. Until the applications are submitted, your first point of contact should be the developer. I would therefore encourage you to contact ScottishPower Renewables directly ([email protected] and [email protected]). It is important that the developer is made aware of your comments at the pre-application stage of the process, to enable them to consider these points before finalising their proposals and submitting the applications to the Planning Inspectorate. If you have concerns about the way in which the developer is carrying out the pre-application consultation, you should let them know as soon as possible and allow them the opportunity to respond to any issues you raise. You can also make your local authority aware of your concerns. The Inspectorate will request the relevant local authorities’ view on the adequacy of the consultation at the point the application is submitted. If you would like more information about the Planning Act 2008 process, please see “Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others” which can be found along with other advice notes, here: [attachment 1]

30 April 2019
Various Enquiries - Anon - anon.
East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The following persons sent responses to the Applicant’s 2019 statutory consultation, including comments on the standard of consultation, to the Planning Inspectorate between January and April 2019: Vivienne Saunders, Alison Norman, Gerard Linehan, James and Gihan Burch, Charles Courage, Susan Jackson, David Jackson, Anthony and Louise Fincham, Nick Matthew, Kevin and Joanna Hoffman, Ian Cook, Tony and Christine Munden, Rosamond Castle, Christopher Matthew, Michael Allen, Lesley Walduck, Lin Patrick, Richard Bertram, Ellen Nall, Linda Grover, John Brown, Emma Chichester Clark, Karen Flower and Amanda Churchill.
The applications have not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, the proposals are currently at the pre-application stage of the planning process, the developer is expecting to submit the applications in Q4 2019. Until the applications are submitted, your first point of contact should be the developer. I would therefore encourage you to contact ScottishPower Renewables directly ([email protected] and [email protected]). It is important that the developer is made aware of your comments at the pre-application stage of the process, to enable them to consider these points before finalising their proposals and submitting the applications to the Planning Inspectorate. If you have concerns about the way in which the developer is carrying out the pre-application consultation, you should let them know as soon as possible and allow them the opportunity to respond to any issues you raise. You can also make your local authority aware of your concerns. The Inspectorate will request the relevant local authorities’ view on the adequacy of the consultation at the point the application is submitted. If you would like more information about the Planning Act 2008 process, please see “Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others” which can be found along with other advice notes, here: [attachment 1]

30 April 2019
Various Enquiries - Anon - anon.
East Anglia ONE North Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The following persons sent responses to the Applicant’s 2019 statutory consultation to the Planning Inspectorate and to the Applicant between January and April 2019: Michael Mahony on behalf of Substation Action Save East Suffolk, Mark Saunders, James Kemp, Brian Roger and Mark Hopkins.
The applications have not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, the proposals are currently at the pre-application stage of the planning process, the developer is expecting to submit the applications in Q4 2019. I note you have contacted ScottishPower Renewables. It is important that the developer is made aware of your comments at the pre-application stage of the process, to enable them to consider these points before finalising their proposals and submitting the applications to the Planning Inspectorate. If you would like more information about the Planning Act 2008 process, please see: “Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others” which can be found along with other advice notes, here: [attachment 1]

30 April 2019
Various Enquiries - Anon - anon.
East Anglia ONE North Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The following persons sent responses to the Applicant’s 2019 statutory consultation to the Planning Inspectorate and to the Applicant between January and April 2019: Michael Mahony on behalf of Substation Action Save East Suffolk, Mark Saunders, James Kemp, Brian Roger and Mark Hopkins.
The applications have not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, the proposals are currently at the pre-application stage of the planning process, the developer is expecting to submit the applications in Q4 2019. I note you have contacted ScottishPower Renewables. It is important that the developer is made aware of your comments at the pre-application stage of the process, to enable them to consider these points before finalising their proposals and submitting the applications to the Planning Inspectorate. If you would like more information about the Planning Act 2008 process, please see: “Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others” which can be found along with other advice notes, here: [attachment 1]

30 April 2019
Various Enquiries - anon - anon.
East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The following persons sent responses to the Applicant’s 2019 statutory consultation to the Planning Inspectorate between January and April 2019: Mary Shipman, Tony Morley, Alan Bullard, Jan Bullard, Michael Shorrock, Elizabeth Clark, Josef Wondrak, Julie Tooke, Edmond Fivet, David Worrall, Nichola J Winter, Elizabeth Jarret, Nicholas Winter, Kay and Karl Moore, Jennifer Joyce, Andrew Bell, Jill Hills, John Walker and Kate Drayton.
The applications have not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, the proposals are currently at the pre-application stage of the planning process, the developer is expecting to submit the applications in Q4 2019. Until the applications are submitted, your first point of contact should be the developer. I would therefore encourage you to contact ScottishPower Renewables directly ([email protected] and [email protected]). It is important that the developer is made aware of your comments at the pre-application stage of the process, to enable them to consider these points before finalising their proposals and submitting the applications to the Planning Inspectorate. If you have concerns about the way in which the developer is carrying out the pre-application consultation, you should let them know as soon as possible and allow them the opportunity to respond to any issues you raise. You can also make your local authority aware of your concerns. The Inspectorate will request the relevant local authorities’ view on the adequacy of the consultation at the point the application is submitted. If you would like more information about the Planning Act 2008 process, please see “Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others” which can be found along with other advice notes, here: [attachment 1]

30 April 2019
Various enquiries - anon - anon.
East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The following persons sent responses to the Applicant’s 2019 statutory consultation to the Planning Inspectorate and to the Applicant, including comments on the standard of consultation, between January and April 2019: William Matthew, Leonard and Anita Johnson, Martin Cotter and John Grover.
The applications have not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, the proposals are currently at the pre-application stage of the planning process, the developer is expecting to submit the applications in Q4 2019. I note you have contacted ScottishPower Renewables. It is important that the developer is made aware of your comments at the pre-application stage of the process, to enable them to consider these points before finalising their proposals and submitting the applications to the Planning Inspectorate. If you have concerns about the way in which the developer is carrying out the pre-application consultation, you should let them know as soon as possible and allow them the opportunity to respond to any issues you raise. You can also make your local authority aware of your concerns. The Inspectorate will request the relevant local authorities’ view on the adequacy of the consultation at the point the application is submitted. If you would like more information about the Planning Act 2008 process, please see: “Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others” which can be found along with other advice notes, here: [attachment 1]

30 April 2019
Various Enquiries - anon.
East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The following persons sent responses to the Applicant’s 2019 statutory consultation to the Planning Inspectorate and to the Applicant, including comments on the standard of consultation, between January and April 2019: William Matthew, Leonard and Anita Johnson, Martin Cotter and John Grover.
The applications have not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, the proposals are currently at the pre-application stage of the planning process, the developer is expecting to submit the applications in Q4 2019. I note you have contacted ScottishPower Renewables. It is important that the developer is made aware of your comments at the pre-application stage of the process, to enable them to consider these points before finalising their proposals and submitting the applications to the Planning Inspectorate. If you have concerns about the way in which the developer is carrying out the pre-application consultation, you should let them know as soon as possible and allow them the opportunity to respond to any issues you raise. You can also make your local authority aware of your concerns. The Inspectorate will request the relevant local authorities’ view on the adequacy of the consultation at the point the application is submitted. If you would like more information about the Planning Act 2008 process, please see: “Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others” which can be found along with other advice notes, here: [attachment 1]

30 April 2019
Various Enquiries - anon - anon.
East Anglia ONE North Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The following persons sent responses to the Applicant’s 2019 statutory consultation to the Planning Inspectorate between January and April 2019: Mary Shipman, Tony Morley, Alan Bullard, Jan Bullard, Michael Shorrock, Elizabeth Clark, Josef Wondrak, Julie Tooke, Edmond Fivet, David Worrall, Nichola J Winter, Elizabeth Jarret, Nicholas Winter, Kay and Karl Moore, Jennifer Joyce, Andrew Bell, Jill Hills, John Walker and Kate Drayton.
The applications have not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, the proposals are currently at the pre-application stage of the planning process, the developer is expecting to submit the applications in Q4 2019. Until the applications are submitted, your first point of contact should be the developer. I would therefore encourage you to contact ScottishPower Renewables directly ([email protected] and [email protected]). It is important that the developer is made aware of your comments at the pre-application stage of the process, to enable them to consider these points before finalising their proposals and submitting the applications to the Planning Inspectorate. If you have concerns about the way in which the developer is carrying out the pre-application consultation, you should let them know as soon as possible and allow them the opportunity to respond to any issues you raise. You can also make your local authority aware of your concerns. The Inspectorate will request the relevant local authorities’ view on the adequacy of the consultation at the point the application is submitted. If you would like more information about the Planning Act 2008 process, please see “Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others” which can be found along with other advice notes, here: [attachment 1]

30 April 2019
Various enquiries - anon - anon.
East Anglia ONE North Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The following persons sent responses to the Applicant’s 2019 statutory consultation, including comments on the standard of consultation, to the Planning Inspectorate between January and April 2019: Paul Collins, Mrs CA and Mr GR Morling, Roy Dowding on behalf of Middleton Parish Council, Philippe Taylor, Kate Thompson, Mary Anne Woolf, Helen Isaac, Ian and Carol Rose, Anne Macdowell, Simon Ilet, Peter Macintosh, John Parsons and Audrey West.
The application has not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, the proposal is currently at the pre-application stage of the planning process, the developer is expecting to submit the applications in Q1 2020. Until the applications are submitted, your first point of contact should be the developer. I would therefore encourage you to contact EDF Energy directly ([email protected]). It is important that the developer is made aware of your comments at the pre-application stage of the process, to enable them to consider these points before finalising their proposals and submitting the applications to the Planning Inspectorate. If you have concerns about the way in which the developer is carrying out the pre-application consultation, you should let them know as soon as possible and allow them the opportunity to respond to any issues you raise. You can also make your local authority aware of your concerns. The Inspectorate will request the relevant local authorities’ view on the adequacy of the consultation at the point the application is submitted. If you would like more information about the Planning Act 2008 process, please see “Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others” which can be found along with other advice notes, here: [attachment 1]

30 April 2019
Various Enquiries - Anon - Catherine Aldridge
Sizewell C New Nuclear Power Station
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The following persons sent responses to the Applicant’s 2019 statutory consultation to the Planning Inspectorate between January and April 2019: Clive Tickner, Barry N and Monica J Osborn, Dave Robb, Sue Manning, Peter and June Smith, Sharon Quilter, Virginia Stanley, Sue Tugwell, Stuart Brown, P.V.J Sanders and C.D. Sanders, Charles Macdowell, Chris Fox, Bryn Raven, Mrs Crouch, D.A. Surfling, Brian Lowry, Dawn Lacey, Harry Smith, Chris Macdowell, Joyce and Alana Griffiths, Laurence,Maggie Frith ,John Rea Price and Judith Croton.
The application has not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, the proposal is currently at the pre-application stage of the planning process, the developer is expecting to submit the applications in Q1 2020. Until the applications are submitted, your first point of contact should be the developer. I would therefore encourage you to contact EDF Energy directly ([email protected]), as you may have done. It is important that the developer is made aware of your comments at the pre-application stage of the process, to enable them to consider these points before finalising their proposals and submitting the applications to the Planning Inspectorate. If you would like more information about the Planning Act 2008 process, please see “Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others” which can be found along with other advice notes, here: [attachment 1]

30 April 2019
Various enquiries - anon - anon.
Sizewell C New Nuclear Power Station
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The Planning Inspectorate Dear Sir/Madam, SCOTTISHPOWER RENEWABLE- EAST ANGLIA 1N & EAST ANGLIA 2 WIND FARMS I understand that you are not in a position to respond to our concerns regarding the proposal to build the required sub-stations for the off shore wind farms of EA1N & EA2 in the village of Friston until an application has been made. However, as you meet with SPR on a regular basis, there is certain information that I want to make sure you are aware of: 1. On the 11th of March the House of Commons discussed the fact that the free-for-all siting of these sub-stations causes needless damage to large swathes of the country side. Proposals for a strategic policy in order to coordinate a rational program for the siting of sub-stations are under discussion. You can listen to this session on George Freeman MP web site, link below. [attachment 1] 2. Phase 4 of the consultation period revealed that EA1N & EA2 may not be developed simultaneously the consequence being that the construction process could be extended from 3 to 6 years. Add onto this the interconnector projects and you could be talking about 9-10 years of construction and disruption from the coast to Friston. 3. Phase 4 consultation period presented the traffic plan for the proposal. This plan will have a seriously detrimental effect on the access roads into Aldeburgh, Snape and particularly Thorpness. These areas are the heart of and vital to the tourist economy of the area. SPR is not taking this effect into consideration. 4. The Friston site has received universal objection from all authorities. 5. The accepted Rochdale model allows for SPR’s proposals to remain vague until after permission is received. This opens up the potential for all sorts of changes to be made by SPR post permission. Exemplar to this is the change SPR made at Bawdsey. By changing the to the transmission system SPR rendered the cable routing facilities extremely limited in capacity and created the requirement for additional land fall, trenching and sub-stations site, hardly a non-material change. What could they get up to in and around Friston? Due to the DCO procedure you alone sit in judgement of SPR’s proposal. This is an arduous and unenviable position that is now being questioned by Parliament. As it stands the consultation procedure appears to be a box ticking exercise leading to a predetermined conclusion. I trust that this is not the case and that you are truly in a position to scrutinise SPR’s proposal. I have a few questions that SPR has not been able to answer. They are with regards to how the land-fall and on-shore site was chosen. I believe that it is important that you, too have answers to these questions. 1. Why did SPR decide that the sub-stations should be to the south of the pillions closest to the village of Friston as opposed to the north of the pillions and further away from the village? 2. What is the relationship between landowners in the Bawdsey area and Friston? 3. With regards to the initial search areas 1-7 what contact did SPR make with landowners in these zones and to what result? 4. How and when did they meet the owner of the property they are proposing to purchase in Friston? When was the deal made? 5. Who controls the site to the north of the pillions and what is proposed for this area? 6. We know in that in phase 3.5 SPR rejected the Broom Covert site because of what can be summarised as possible unacceptable commercial terms. The fact the area is deemed an AONB is not particularly relevant as permissible with-in the AONB are projects of national importance. The advantages of the Broom Covert site are well known: adjacent to a nuclear power plant & other sub-stations, road access, security facilities, very limited cable trenching required, etc. EDF obviously finds it difficult to ‘share’ the Broom Covert site but what has SPR done to secure land with-in their original zones 1-2? These too, have the advantage of the Broom Covert site but are not under EDF’s control. 7. The proposed Land Fall site is now in question. It was originally deemed by National Grid that SPR could make land fall at Sizewell. We now know that this is not Sizwell but the cliffs of Thorpness Heath and that access to this area is proposed through the holiday village of Thorpness. The stability of these cliffs are questionable. Throughout this process SPR has used the National Grid as an excuse for many of its proposals. To whom is National Grid accountable? Does the National Grid or SPR understand the effect that the construction traffic will have to Thorpness for a period of 3 - 9 years? Has there been a study to show how long it will take Thorpness to recover its reputation as a holiday destination once the works are finally completed? 8. I trust that before SPR submits its application in the 4th quarter of this year, that there will be a change in legislation and that a strategy will emerge for the location of the of sub-stations and items related to them that is not needlessly devastating to the country side. However, could you please make it evident to us how we register as an interested party once an application has been made, as I understand that there is a limited period for us to do so. I hope that part of your remit is to visit the area. It would be very nice for you to meet with the local community. Our concerns will then be very obvious to you. I attach my comments to SPR and our MP’s subsequent to the Stage 4 of the Consultation period. Kind regards, Mya Manakides
Dear Mya Manakides As you are aware the proposed applications by ScottishPower Renewables are at the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 process. The Planning Inspectorate is unable to consider representations about the merits of any application until it is accepted for Examination. Further information about the process can be found in the link below to the National Infrastructure Planning website: [attachment 2] Further information about Community Consultation, including who you should contact if you are not satisfied that the Applicant has or will take account of your comments (FAQ 2) can be found here: [attachment 3] As the applications have not yet been formally submitted at this time we are unable to consider your comments however please note that, should the application be received, the National Infrastructure Planning website will be updated accordingly and you may submit comments to us at that time. Should the application be accepted the ‘Registration and Relevant Representation form’ will be made available on the project page of the National Infrastructure Planning website during the Pre-examination stage. Further information about registering as an Interested Party can be found in the Planning Inspectorate’s ‘Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination’: [attachment 4] Finally, I can confirm that should the application be accepted the appointed Examining Authority will visit the site of the proposed development in order to fully understand the proposal. Please see the link below to ‘Advice Note 8.5: The Examination; hearings and site inspections’ which provides further information: [attachment 5] Kind regards

29 April 2019
Mya Manakides
East Anglia ONE North Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The following persons sent responses to the Applicant’s 2019 statutory consultation to the Planning Inspectorate between January and April 2019: Mary Shipman, Tony Morley, Alan Bullard, Jan Bullard, Michael Shorrock, Elizabeth Clark, Josef Wondrak, Julie Tooke, Edmond Fivet, David Worrall, Nichola J Winter, Elizabeth Jarret, Nicholas Winter, Kay and Karl Moore, Jennifer Joyce, Andrew Bell, Jill Hills, John Walker and Kate Drayton.
The applications have not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, the proposals are currently at the pre-application stage of the planning process, the developer is expecting to submit the applications in Q4 2019. Until the applications are submitted, your first point of contact should be the developer. I would therefore encourage you to contact ScottishPower Renewables directly ([email protected] and [email protected]). It is important that the developer is made aware of your comments at the pre-application stage of the process, to enable them to consider these points before finalising their proposals and submitting the applications to the Planning Inspectorate. If you would like more information about the Planning Act 2008 process, please see “Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others” which can be found along with other advice notes, here: [attachment 1]

29 April 2019
Various enquiries - anon - anon.
East Anglia ONE North Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The following persons sent responses to the Applicant’s 2019 statutory consultation to the Planning Inspectorate between January and April 2019: Mary Shipman, Tony Morley, Alan Bullard, Jan Bullard, Michael Shorrock, Elizabeth Clark, Josef Wondrak, Julie Tooke, Edmond Fivet, David Worrall, Nichola J Winter, Elizabeth Jarret, Nicholas Winter, Kay and Karl Moore, Jennifer Joyce, Andrew Bell, Jill Hills, John Walker and Kate Drayton.
The applications have not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, the proposals are currently at the pre-application stage of the planning process, the developer is expecting to submit the applications in Q4 2019. Until the applications are submitted, your first point of contact should be the developer. I would therefore encourage you to contact ScottishPower Renewables directly ([email protected] and [email protected]). It is important that the developer is made aware of your comments at the pre-application stage of the process, to enable them to consider these points before finalising their proposals and submitting the applications to the Planning Inspectorate. If you would like more information about the Planning Act 2008 process, please see “Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others” which can be found along with other advice notes, here: [attachment 1]

29 April 2019
Various enquiries - anon - anon.
East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The Planning Inspectorate Dear Sir/Madam, SCOTTISHPOWER RENEWABLE- EAST ANGLIA 1N & EAST ANGLIA 2 WIND FARMS I understand that you are not in a position to respond to our concerns regarding the proposal to build the required sub-stations for the off shore wind farms of EA1N & EA2 in the village of Friston until an application has been made. However, as you meet with SPR on a regular basis, there is certain information that I want to make sure you are aware of: 1. On the 11th of March the House of Commons discussed the fact that the free-for-all siting of these sub-stations causes needless damage to large swathes of the country side. Proposals for a strategic policy in order to coordinate a rational program for the siting of sub-stations are under discussion. You can listen to this session on George Freeman MP web site, link below. [attachment 1] 2. Phase 4 of the consultation period revealed that EA1N & EA2 may not be developed simultaneously the consequence being that the construction process could be extended from 3 to 6 years. Add onto this the interconnector projects and you could be talking about 9-10 years of construction and disruption from the coast to Friston. 3. Phase 4 consultation period presented the traffic plan for the proposal. This plan will have a seriously detrimental effect on the access roads into Aldeburgh, Snape and particularly Thorpness. These areas are the heart of and vital to the tourist economy of the area. SPR is not taking this effect into consideration. 4. The Friston site has received universal objection from all authorities. 5. The accepted Rochdale model allows for SPR’s proposals to remain vague until after permission is received. This opens up the potential for all sorts of changes to be made by SPR post permission. Exemplar to this is the change SPR made at Bawdsey. By changing the to the transmission system SPR rendered the cable routing facilities extremely limited in capacity and created the requirement for additional land fall, trenching and sub-stations site, hardly a non-material change. What could they get up to in and around Friston? Due to the DCO procedure you alone sit in judgement of SPR’s proposal. This is an arduous and unenviable position that is now being questioned by Parliament. As it stands the consultation procedure appears to be a box ticking exercise leading to a predetermined conclusion. I trust that this is not the case and that you are truly in a position to scrutinise SPR’s proposal. I have a few questions that SPR has not been able to answer. They are with regards to how the land-fall and on-shore site was chosen. I believe that it is important that you, too have answers to these questions. 1. Why did SPR decide that the sub-stations should be to the south of the pillions closest to the village of Friston as opposed to the north of the pillions and further away from the village? 2. What is the relationship between landowners in the Bawdsey area and Friston? 3. With regards to the initial search areas 1-7 what contact did SPR make with landowners in these zones and to what result? 4. How and when did they meet the owner of the property they are proposing to purchase in Friston? When was the deal made? 5. Who controls the site to the north of the pillions and what is proposed for this area? 6. We know in that in phase 3.5 SPR rejected the Broom Covert site because of what can be summarised as possible unacceptable commercial terms. The fact the area is deemed an AONB is not particularly relevant as permissible with-in the AONB are projects of national importance. The advantages of the Broom Covert site are well known: adjacent to a nuclear power plant & other sub-stations, road access, security facilities, very limited cable trenching required, etc. EDF obviously finds it difficult to ‘share’ the Broom Covert site but what has SPR done to secure land with-in their original zones 1-2? These too, have the advantage of the Broom Covert site but are not under EDF’s control. 7. The proposed Land Fall site is now in question. It was originally deemed by National Grid that SPR could make land fall at Sizewell. We now know that this is not Sizwell but the cliffs of Thorpness Heath and that access to this area is proposed through the holiday village of Thorpness. The stability of these cliffs are questionable. Throughout this process SPR has used the National Grid as an excuse for many of its proposals. To whom is National Grid accountable? Does the National Grid or SPR understand the effect that the construction traffic will have to Thorpness for a period of 3 - 9 years? Has there been a study to show how long it will take Thorpness to recover its reputation as a holiday destination once the works are finally completed? 8. I trust that before SPR submits its application in the 4th quarter of this year, that there will be a change in legislation and that a strategy will emerge for the location of the of sub-stations and items related to them that is not needlessly devastating to the country side. However, could you please make it evident to us how we register as an interested party once an application has been made, as I understand that there is a limited period for us to do so. I hope that part of your remit is to visit the area. It would be very nice for you to meet with the local community. Our concerns will then be very obvious to you. I attach my comments to SPR and our MP’s subsequent to the Stage 4 of the Consultation period. Kind regards, Mya Manakides
Dear Mya Manakides As you are aware the proposed applications by ScottishPower Renewables are at the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 process. The Planning Inspectorate is unable to consider representations about the merits of any application until it is accepted for Examination. Further information about the process can be found in the link below to the National Infrastructure Planning website: [attachment 2] Further information about Community Consultation, including who you should contact if you are not satisfied that the Applicant has or will take account of your comments (FAQ 2) can be found here: [attachment 3] As the applications have not yet been formally submitted at this time we are unable to consider your comments however please note that, should the application be received, the National Infrastructure Planning website will be updated accordingly and you may submit comments to us at that time. Should the application be accepted the ‘Registration and Relevant Representation form’ will be made available on the project page of the National Infrastructure Planning website during the Pre-examination stage. Further information about registering as an Interested Party can be found in the Planning Inspectorate’s ‘Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination’: [attachment 4] Finally, I can confirm that should the application be accepted the appointed Examining Authority will visit the site of the proposed development in order to fully understand the proposal. Please see the link below to ‘Advice Note 8.5: The Examination; hearings and site inspections’ which provides further information: [attachment 5] Kind regards

26 April 2019
Mya Manakides
East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting.
Please see attachment.

25 April 2019
Arora Group - anon.
Heathrow West
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Response to the Applicants 2019 consultation sent to the Planning Inspectorate with a request for comments.
The applications have not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, the proposals are currently at the pre-application stage of the planning process, the developer is expecting to submit the applications in Q4 2019. Until the applications are submitted, your first point of contact should be the developer. I note that you have already contacted ScottishPower Renewables. It is important that the developer is made aware of your comments at the pre-application stage of the process, to enable them to consider these points before finalising their proposals and submitting the applications to the Planning Inspectorate. In reference to your point about cumulative impact, the energy National Policy Statements (NPS) set out mitigation for cumulative negative effects by requiring the Secretary of State to consider accumulation of effects as a whole in their decision-making on individual applications for development consent. I would draw your attention to NPS EN-1 which provides more information in relation to policy, particularly chapter 4.2 Environmental Statement. And to Advice Note 17 on the Planning Inspectorate website, which is available with the other advice notes linked below, which provides more information on the legal context and obligations for cumulative effects assessment (CEA). As well as an overview of the CEA process the developer may adopt. If you would like more information about the Planning Act 2008 process, please see “Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others” which can be found along with other advice notes, here: [attachment 1]

24 April 2019
Mark Lowthers
East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Response to the Applicants 2019 consultation sent to the Planning Inspectorate with a request for comments.
The applications have not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, the proposals are currently at the pre-application stage of the planning process, the developer is expecting to submit the applications in Q4 2019. Until the applications are submitted, your first point of contact should be the developer. I note that you have already contacted ScottishPower Renewables. It is important that the developer is made aware of your comments at the pre-application stage of the process, to enable them to consider these points before finalising their proposals and submitting the applications to the Planning Inspectorate. In reference to your point about cumulative impact, the energy National Policy Statements (NPS) set out mitigation for cumulative negative effects by requiring the Secretary of State to consider accumulation of effects as a whole in their decision-making on individual applications for development consent. I would draw your attention to NPS EN-1 which provides more information in relation to policy, particularly chapter 4.2 Environmental Statement. And to Advice Note 17 on the Planning Inspectorate website, which is available with the other advice notes linked below, which provides more information on the legal context and obligations for cumulative effects assessment (CEA). As well as an overview of the CEA process the developer may adopt. If you would like more information about the Planning Act 2008 process, please see “Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others” which can be found along with other advice notes, here: [attachment 1]

24 April 2019
Mark Lowthers
East Anglia ONE North Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Please see the Attachment
Please see the Attachment

18 April 2019
Orstead Hornsea Project Four Limited - anon.
Hornsea Project Four Offshore Wind Farm (Generating Stations)
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please see my personal response to the Sizewell C third stage consultation. I am particularly concerned that we are still waiting for the revised EN6 Nuclear Policy and understand that the Government intends to bring out an energy white paper and yet I note that the developer intends to apply for a DCO Q1 next year.
We have recently responded to a query in relation to the continuing application of EN-6, which can be found here: [attachment 1];ipcadvice=66ee8866cc

17 April 2019
Mike Taylor
Sizewell C New Nuclear Power Station
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
My name is Thomas Sweet and I am a local resident and long-standing member of the local community in Aldeburgh, Suffolk. I have a number of objections and concerns on Scottish Power Renewables proposed construction and operation of 2 further windfarms namely East Anglia ONE North and East Anglia TWO offshore windfarm and the onshore facilities that support the supply and transport of power onshore and onward connection to the National Grid at Friston in Suffolk. I have sent my concerns in this email to the relevant depts. of Scottish Power Renewables, Therese Coffey MP, the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, East Suffolk council memebers and Aldeburgh Town Council to consider and revise the proposals being touted by SPR as a Nationally Signficant Infrastructure Project (NSIP). I have read all of the relevant information and attended Phase 3 and 4 consultative presentations by Scottish Power Renewables (SPR) and various local action groups with the conclusion that I am completely against the development proposals for East Anglia ONE North and East Anglia TWO onshore development proposals The lengthy construction and operation of this facility will cause significant damage and disruption to our local communities and our unique and valuable asset, the Suffolk Coast & Heaths AONB which is a nationally protected landscape enjoyed by human and animal visitors and residents. These proposals are totally unacceptable and present serious risks which will undermine and destroy our local economic and ecological endeavours in the region to the extent the impacted area will suffer extensive damage and decline to the point it effectively becomes a coastal wasteland and forgotten backwater like, it seems, many of our other coastal communities. The impact of these proposals will destroy the local business and social infrastructure which the local communities have worked long and hard to establish and which, coupled with the AONB we all enjoy, make for a unique, attractive, enjoyable, well-managed and balanced environment which sustains a significant level of active interest and tourism with all that it brings with it. In my opinion the early stage consultation for project was poorly managed by SPR with inadequate and misleading communciation to our communities and other interested parties. Failures in scoping, consultation and significant discrepancies in the RAG risk management methodology deployed in the early stages have resulted in an unfair, biased and inconistent onshore appraisal presented in the Preliminary Environmental Information Report (PEIR) which underpins the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). My view is that the published assessment and presentations are skued towards a low-impact proposal hoping to get through the approval process under the guise of a "green Initiative" of renewable energy initiatives or Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIP) as stated by SPR in response to a request from Secretary of State for Busines, Energy and Industrial Strategy The impact is significant and needs to be considered as a whole with serious attention paid to other energy developments scheduled to occur simultaneously namely additional SPR initiatives, National Grid, NGV Inter-connectors and Sizewell C. Over the next 10 years or more, the local region will be laid waste and made dangerous with increased construction traffic as it is industrialised on a major scale. There have been unreasonable, broad assumptions made and the absence of mitigating risks have resulted in a totally unsuitable set of development sites and locations.My main concerns are: 1. SPR have continually failed to acknowledge the views, concerns and objections of the the residents of the affected areas of development namely, the residents of Friston affected by siting fof the substation and connection to National Grid and those along the areas of landfall, onshore cable corridor and road / routing alterations. It also appears that the statements from local authorities and MP questioning the rationale behind SPR indiviual and cumulative proposals have also been ignored or skimmed over in any consultation reports or assessments. 2. Construction traffic and proposed access via minor roads and by-ways is extremely disruptive and poses an unacceptable increase in danger to life and limb of local people and especially visitors to the area. Proposed changes to roads and environment to accommodate cable routes and large numbers of HGVs over a lengthy period of time will create immediate and ongoing danger and risks to the daily lives of residents, tourists and local businesses 3. SPR have failed to adequately consider and identify the cumulative combined impact that this proposal will have when the other simultaneous overlapping developments for other SPR initiatives, National Grid, NGV Inter-connectors and Sizewell C are taken into account. The overall impact is a damaging, shameful industrialisation of the Suffolk Heritage Coast. 4.The onshore components of this proposal would not have had to be pursued if SPR had successfully managed the existing Bawdsey to Bramford cable routes and substations in such a way that additional requirements and capacity arising from East Anglia ONE North and TWO could have been absorbed and integrated within the existing infrastructure. If SPR had real structured plans and strategy for renewable energy projects in the region then the Bawdsey to Bramford cabe route and substations could and should have been designed and implemented to accommodate all of the current and future SPR wind farm projects and output. SPR must be held accountable for this lack of foresight and planning and held to task by the Planning Inspectorate at the appropriate phase in the planning process for these new sets of proposals. From the information I have received from SPR and other relevant balanced sources, I believe this proposal displays SPR's opportunistic approach and lack of strategic planning of renewables projects from the start with submission of commercial bids and economic analysis for the relevant government bodies along with the contents of the PEIR and the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process for this development proposal whilst showing total disregard for the local environment AONB and its residents, visitors and supporters. I request that my concerns and objections are carefully considered and SPR take appropriate actions to revise the plans in response to the Secretary of State's request and develop and use the existing newly-built facilities between Bawdsey and Bramford.
I am writing in regard to your e-mail sent to the Planning Inspectorate on 26 March 2019. The applications have not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, the proposals are currently at the pre-application stage of the planning process, the developer is expecting to submit the applications in Q4 2019. I note you have contacted the developer as well as a number of other parties. It is important that the developer is made aware of your comments at the pre-application stage of the process, to enable them to consider these points before finalising their proposals and submitting the applications to the Planning Inspectorate. In reference to your point about cumulative impact, the energy National Policy Statements (NPS) set out mitigation for cumulative negative effects by requiring the Secretary of State to consider accumulation of effects as a whole in their decision-making on individual applications for development consent. I would draw your attention to NPS EN-1 which provides more information in relation to policy, particularly chapter 4.2 Environmental Statement. And to Advice Note 17, which is available with the other advice notes linked below, which provides more information on the legal context and obligations for cumulative effects assessment (CEA). As well as an overview of the CEA process the developer may adopt. If you would like more information about the Planning Act 2008 process, please see “Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others” which can be found along with other advice notes, here: [attachment 1]

16 April 2019
Thomas Sweet
East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
My name is Thomas Sweet and I am a local resident and long-standing member of the local community in Aldeburgh, Suffolk. I have a number of objections and concerns on Scottish Power Renewables proposed construction and operation of 2 further windfarms namely East Anglia ONE North and East Anglia TWO offshore windfarm and the onshore facilities that support the supply and transport of power onshore and onward connection to the National Grid at Friston in Suffolk. I have sent my concerns in this email to the relevant depts. of Scottish Power Renewables, Therese Coffey MP, the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, East Suffolk council memebers and Aldeburgh Town Council to consider and revise the proposals being touted by SPR as a Nationally Signficant Infrastructure Project (NSIP). I have read all of the relevant information and attended Phase 3 and 4 consultative presentations by Scottish Power Renewables (SPR) and various local action groups with the conclusion that I am completely against the development proposals for East Anglia ONE North and East Anglia TWO onshore development proposals The lengthy construction and operation of this facility will cause significant damage and disruption to our local communities and our unique and valuable asset, the Suffolk Coast & Heaths AONB which is a nationally protected landscape enjoyed by human and animal visitors and residents. These proposals are totally unacceptable and present serious risks which will undermine and destroy our local economic and ecological endeavours in the region to the extent the impacted area will suffer extensive damage and decline to the point it effectively becomes a coastal wasteland and forgotten backwater like, it seems, many of our other coastal communities. The impact of these proposals will destroy the local business and social infrastructure which the local communities have worked long and hard to establish and which, coupled with the AONB we all enjoy, make for a unique, attractive, enjoyable, well-managed and balanced environment which sustains a significant level of active interest and tourism with all that it brings with it. In my opinion the early stage consultation for project was poorly managed by SPR with inadequate and misleading communciation to our communities and other interested parties. Failures in scoping, consultation and significant discrepancies in the RAG risk management methodology deployed in the early stages have resulted in an unfair, biased and inconistent onshore appraisal presented in the Preliminary Environmental Information Report (PEIR) which underpins the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). My view is that the published assessment and presentations are skued towards a low-impact proposal hoping to get through the approval process under the guise of a "green Initiative" of renewable energy initiatives or Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIP) as stated by SPR in response to a request from Secretary of State for Busines, Energy and Industrial Strategy The impact is significant and needs to be considered as a whole with serious attention paid to other energy developments scheduled to occur simultaneously namely additional SPR initiatives, National Grid, NGV Inter-connectors and Sizewell C. Over the next 10 years or more, the local region will be laid waste and made dangerous with increased construction traffic as it is industrialised on a major scale. There have been unreasonable, broad assumptions made and the absence of mitigating risks have resulted in a totally unsuitable set of development sites and locations.My main concerns are: 1. SPR have continually failed to acknowledge the views, concerns and objections of the the residents of the affected areas of development namely, the residents of Friston affected by siting fof the substation and connection to National Grid and those along the areas of landfall, onshore cable corridor and road / routing alterations. It also appears that the statements from local authorities and MP questioning the rationale behind SPR indiviual and cumulative proposals have also been ignored or skimmed over in any consultation reports or assessments. 2. Construction traffic and proposed access via minor roads and by-ways is extremely disruptive and poses an unacceptable increase in danger to life and limb of local people and especially visitors to the area. Proposed changes to roads and environment to accommodate cable routes and large numbers of HGVs over a lengthy period of time will create immediate and ongoing danger and risks to the daily lives of residents, tourists and local businesses 3. SPR have failed to adequately consider and identify the cumulative combined impact that this proposal will have when the other simultaneous overlapping developments for other SPR initiatives, National Grid, NGV Inter-connectors and Sizewell C are taken into account. The overall impact is a damaging, shameful industrialisation of the Suffolk Heritage Coast. 4.The onshore components of this proposal would not have had to be pursued if SPR had successfully managed the existing Bawdsey to Bramford cable routes and substations in such a way that additional requirements and capacity arising from East Anglia ONE North and TWO could have been absorbed and integrated within the existing infrastructure. If SPR had real structured plans and strategy for renewable energy projects in the region then the Bawdsey to Bramford cabe route and substations could and should have been designed and implemented to accommodate all of the current and future SPR wind farm projects and output. SPR must be held accountable for this lack of foresight and planning and held to task by the Planning Inspectorate at the appropriate phase in the planning process for these new sets of proposals. From the information I have received from SPR and other relevant balanced sources, I believe this proposal displays SPR's opportunistic approach and lack of strategic planning of renewables projects from the start with submission of commercial bids and economic analysis for the relevant government bodies along with the contents of the PEIR and the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process for this development proposal whilst showing total disregard for the local environment AONB and its residents, visitors and supporters. I request that my concerns and objections are carefully considered and SPR take appropriate actions to revise the plans in response to the Secretary of State's request and develop and use the existing newly-built facilities between Bawdsey and Bramford.
I am writing in regard to your e-mail sent to the Planning Inspectorate on 26 March 2019. The applications have not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, the proposals are currently at the pre-application stage of the planning process, the developer is expecting to submit the applications in Q4 2019. I note you have contacted the developer as well as a number of other parties. It is important that the developer is made aware of your comments at the pre-application stage of the process, to enable them to consider these points before finalising their proposals and submitting the applications to the Planning Inspectorate. In reference to your point about cumulative impact, the energy National Policy Statements (NPS) set out mitigation for cumulative negative effects by requiring the Secretary of State to consider accumulation of effects as a whole in their decision-making on individual applications for development consent. I would draw your attention to NPS EN-1 which provides more information in relation to policy, particularly chapter 4.2 Environmental Statement. And to Advice Note 17, which is available with the other advice notes linked below, which provides more information on the legal context and obligations for cumulative effects assessment (CEA). As well as an overview of the CEA process the developer may adopt. If you would like more information about the Planning Act 2008 process, please see “Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others” which can be found along with other advice notes, here: [attachment 1]

16 April 2019
Thomas Sweet
East Anglia ONE North Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting.
Please see attached.

16 April 2019
Highways England - anon.
M54 to M6 Link Road
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Query about updates to the DCO and opportunities to respond
Please see Attached

12 April 2019
Lut Stewart
Cleve Hill Solar Park
Enquiry received via email
I am unclear as to how the published documents display the new scoping request information and previous scoping opinion and in particular “ the interaction between the previous opinion and the new scoping exercise. “ Can you also confirm the following has taken place? The Developer confirmed it will provide narrative and justification in the scoping request “ This is after all a response to the PI’s own requirement and so an answer to both these questions must surely be to hand?
I am unclear as to how the published documents display the new scoping request information and previous scoping opinion and in particular “ the interaction between the previous opinion and the new scoping exercise. “ Can you also confirm the following has taken place? The Developer confirmed it will provide narrative and justification in the scoping request “ This is after all a response to the PI’s own requirement and so an answer to both these questions must surely be to hand?

12 April 2019
Chris Edwards
Sizewell C New Nuclear Power Station
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
See Attached
See Attached

10 April 2019
Emma Bateman
Sizewell C New Nuclear Power Station
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
To whom it may concern, I am writing to you on behalf of my constituent Miss Emma Bateman, who has raised concerns regarding the planning of Sizewell C. Miss Bateman is concerned that the National Policy Statements for Energy, namely EN1 and EN6, that are the basis for the planning of Sizewell C conflict with the National Infrastructure Commission’s recommendation that only one nuclear station after Hinkley should be commissioned before 2025. The reason that the planning of Sizewell C and the National Infrastructure Commission’s recommendation may conflict is due to the fact that EDF and China General Nuclear Power Corporation are planning Sizewell C alongside a site at Bradwell. The National Infrastructure Commission had also recommended that any further sites commissioned should be done on a one by one basis rather than planning for a set. Hence, Miss Bateman is concerned about the impact this may have on the proposed Sizewell C site. I would be grateful if you could outline what steps are being taken by the Sizewell Planning Inspectorate to resolve this seeming dilemma, of having plans for two nuclear sites but only the ability to build one.
Thank you for your email. Ms Bateman also wrote directly to us on this matter and we responded today with the information below, including an apology for the delay in our response: We note that the Government has committed to making a response in 2019 to the recommendations outlined in the National Infrastructure Assessment (NIA) dated July 2018, this will be ahead of an application being made by EDF Energy for the Sizewell C New Nuclear Power Station, which is due to be submitted in Q1 2020. In the meantime, ahead of the Government’s response to the NIA, it is for the Environment Agency and other statutory consultees to decide how they wish to consider the NIA recommendations within their responses. As you may be aware, the Government is working to produce a new National Policy Statement for Nuclear Power, and in December 2017 it published a ‘consultation on the siting criteria and process for a new national policy statement for nuclear power with single reactor capacity over 1 gigawat beyond 2025’ which can be found on this link: [attachment 1] In July 2018, the Government published its response to this consultation, which can be found on this link: [attachment 2] on page 40 of this document it states: ‘3.9 Government continues to believe nuclear has an important role to play in the UK’s energy future as we transition to the low-carbon economy. The public will have an opportunity to comment on the ongoing need for nuclear as part of the consultation on the draft new nuclear NPS. Continuing application of EN-6 3.10 EN-6 remains in force in its entirety for use in development consent applications for new nuclear power stations on sites listed in EN-6 that are capable of deployment before the end of 2025. Sites listed in EN-6 on which a new nuclear power station is anticipated to deploy after 2025 will continue to be considered appropriate sites and retain strong Government support during the designation of the new NPS. 3.11 The owners of such sites are able to make development consent applications, and a decision on whether to grant consent will be made under section 105 of the Planning Act 2008. Government is confident that both EN-1 and EN-6 incorporate information, assessments and statements which will continue to be important and relevant to the Secretary of State’s development consent decision for projects which will deploy after 2025. This includes statements of the need for nuclear power, as well as environmental and other assessments that continue to be relevant for projects which will deploy after 2025. As such, in deciding whether or not to grant consent to such a development the Secretary of State would, under section 105(2)(c) of the Planning Act 2008 , have regard to the content of EN1 and EN-6. Where there is no relevant change in circumstances it is likely that significant weight would be given to the policy in EN-1 and EN-6. 3.12 When designated, the new NPS will have effect for the purposes of section 104 of the Planning Act 2008 for listed sites capable of deploying between 2026-2035. Furthermore, a published new NPS in draft form would be an important and relevant consideration under section 105(2)(c) of the Planning Act 2008 in relation to any a decision is taken on an application for Development Consent before the new NPS is designated.’ I hope you find this information to be helpful.

10 April 2019
Peter Aldous MP
Sizewell C New Nuclear Power Station
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
To whom it may concern. I copy below an email i have just sent to SPR with regard to their controversial planning process for on shore sub stations in East Suffolk. There is little point in me writing huge amounts about this as its a simple matter. This project will KILL this part of the country...which may not be of concern to some but it is to the people who live here. The cumulative effect of this and 6 repeat 6 other projects condensed into one region by dint of a combination of a cynical or disinterested private sector and Government inefficiency on a grand scale is beyond belief or tolerance of our society ( or should be !) I hope most sincerely that in the execution of your public duty you will find time to appreciate that common sense should prevail , and prevent what will be one of the largest destructions of our country since the Second World War- the difference here being that this will be permanent !! Yours sincerely
Advice given: I am writing in regard to your e-mail sent to the Planning Inspectorate on 25 March 2019. The applications have not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, the proposals are currently at the pre-application stage of the planning process, the developer is expecting to submit the applications in Q4 2019. Until the applications are submitted, your first point of contact should be the developer. I note that you have already contacted ScottishPower Renewables. It is important that the developer is made aware of your comments at the pre-application stage of the process, to enable them to consider these points before finalising their proposals and submitting the applications to the Planning Inspectorate. If you would like more information about the Planning Act 2008 process, please see “Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others” which can be found along with other advice notes, here: [attachment 1] Of the advice notes linked above of particular interest to you may be “Advice Note 17: Cumulative Effects Assessment”. This provides a description of the legal context and obligations placed on an applicant, with respect to cumulative effects under national planning policy and the Environmental Impact Assessments Regulations.

08 April 2019
Graeme Murray
East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
To whom it may concern. I copy below an email i have just sent to SPR with regard to their controversial planning process for on shore sub stations in East Suffolk. There is little point in me writing huge amounts about this as its a simple matter. This project will KILL this part of the country...which may not be of concern to some but it is to the people who live here. The cumulative effect of this and 6 repeat 6 other projects condensed into one region by dint of a combination of a cynical or disinterested private sector and Government inefficiency on a grand scale is beyond belief or tolerance of our society ( or should be !) I hope most sincerely that in the execution of your public duty you will find time to appreciate that common sense should prevail , and prevent what will be one of the largest destructions of our country since the Second World War- the difference here being that this will be permanent !! Yours sincerely
I am writing in regard to your e-mail sent to the Planning Inspectorate on 25 March 2019. The applications have not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, the proposals are currently at the pre-application stage of the planning process, the developer is expecting to submit the applications in Q4 2019. Until the applications are submitted, your first point of contact should be the developer. I note that you have already contacted ScottishPower Renewables. It is important that the developer is made aware of your comments at the pre-application stage of the process, to enable them to consider these points before finalising their proposals and submitting the applications to the Planning Inspectorate. If you would like more information about the Planning Act 2008 process, please see “Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others” which can be found along with other advice notes, here: [attachment 1] Of the advice notes linked above of particular interest to you may be “Advice Note 17: Cumulative Effects Assessment”. This provides a description of the legal context and obligations placed on an applicant, with respect to cumulative effects under national planning policy and the Environmental Impact Assessments Regulations.

08 April 2019
Graeme Murray
East Anglia ONE North Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
This is now my third response to the consultations. I do not feel any of my detailed concerns have been addressed to my satisfaction. The consultation process is clearly regarded as nothing more than a box ticking exercise. Furthermore, the Sizewell Cx2 phase 4 consultations are ongoing, adding a very concrete dimension to the cumulative impacts which have not been addressed. To be brief: 1. I do not agree with the landfall site at Sizewell / Thorpeness selected for connection to the National Grid. This must be urgently reviewed. 2. No brownfield sites have been proposed. National Grid must be held to account for their grid connection proposal. There appears to be absolutely no oversight of their role in these proposals. 3. No consideration has been given to the cumulative impacts of the proposed new nuclear Sizewell Cx2. 4. There is a petition for an offshore ringmain to connect all North Sea windfarms to the grid. The original proposal in 2012 could not justify the cost for just a few windfarms. This has now dramatically changed and the proposal must be reconsidered and taken forward. 5. The Bawdsey to Bramford fiasco is a disgrace. SPR explanation of why this route was rejected is not satisfactory. 6. Scottish Power has not given sufficient consideration to all the responses that say Friston is not a suitable site. In conclusion I would like to say that the Government needs to take charge of the all the various energy proposals and provide a coherent strategic plan. It is simply not acceptable to allow rampant and uncontrolled industrialisation of our increasingly precious countryside and protected nature reserves. There are clear alternatives and in this area the costs do not justify any benefits. I sincerely hope that these proposals will be reconsidered.
I am writing in regard to your e-mail sent to the Planning Inspectorate on 26 March 2019. The applications have not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, the proposals are currently at the pre-application stage of the planning process, the developer is expecting to submit the applications in Q4 2019. Until the applications are submitted, your first point of contact should be the developer. I note that you have already contacted ScottishPower Renewables. It is important that the developer is made aware of your comments at the pre-application stage of the process, to enable them to consider these points before finalising their proposals and submitting the applications to the Planning Inspectorate. If you would like more information about the Planning Act 2008 process, please see “Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others” which can be found along with other advice notes, here: [attachment 1] Of the advice notes linked above of particular interest to you may be “Advice Note 17: Cumulative Effects Assessment”. This provides a description of the legal context and obligations placed on an applicant, with respect to cumulative effects under national planning policy and the Environmental Impact Assessments Regulations.

08 April 2019
Andrea Smith
East Anglia ONE North Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
This is now my third response to the consultations. I do not feel any of my detailed concerns have been addressed to my satisfaction. The consultation process is clearly regarded as nothing more than a box ticking exercise. Furthermore, the Sizewell Cx2 phase 4 consultations are ongoing, adding a very concrete dimension to the cumulative impacts which have not been addressed. To be brief: 1. I do not agree with the landfall site at Sizewell / Thorpeness selected for connection to the National Grid. This must be urgently reviewed. 2. No brownfield sites have been proposed. National Grid must be held to account for their grid connection proposal. There appears to be absolutely no oversight of their role in these proposals. 3. No consideration has been given to the cumulative impacts of the proposed new nuclear Sizewell Cx2. 4. There is a petition for an offshore ringmain to connect all North Sea windfarms to the grid. The original proposal in 2012 could not justify the cost for just a few windfarms. This has now dramatically changed and the proposal must be reconsidered and taken forward. 5. The Bawdsey to Bramford fiasco is a disgrace. SPR explanation of why this route was rejected is not satisfactory. 6. Scottish Power has not given sufficient consideration to all the responses that say Friston is not a suitable site. In conclusion I would like to say that the Government needs to take charge of the all the various energy proposals and provide a coherent strategic plan. It is simply not acceptable to allow rampant and uncontrolled industrialisation of our increasingly precious countryside and protected nature reserves. There are clear alternatives and in this area the costs do not justify any benefits. I sincerely hope that these proposals will be reconsidered.
I am writing in regard to your e-mail sent to the Planning Inspectorate on 26 March 2019. The applications have not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, the proposals are currently at the pre-application stage of the planning process, the developer is expecting to submit the applications in Q4 2019. Until the applications are submitted, your first point of contact should be the developer. I note that you have already contacted ScottishPower Renewables. It is important that the developer is made aware of your comments at the pre-application stage of the process, to enable them to consider these points before finalising their proposals and submitting the applications to the Planning Inspectorate. If you would like more information about the Planning Act 2008 process, please see “Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others” which can be found along with other advice notes, here: [attachment 1] Of the advice notes linked above of particular interest to you may be “Advice Note 17: Cumulative Effects Assessment”. This provides a description of the legal context and obligations placed on an applicant, with respect to cumulative effects under national planning policy and the Environmental Impact Assessments Regulations.

08 April 2019
Andrea Smith
East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Comments on the draft Development Consent Order (DCO)
Please see attached

05 April 2019
DB Symmetry (Hinckley) Limited - anon.
Hinckley National Rail Freight Interchange
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
See meeting note attached

03 April 2019
Highways England - anon.
M3 Junction 9 Improvement
response has attachments
s51 advice to the Applicant
Please see attached

27 March 2019
Immingham B Ltd - anon.
VPI Immingham OCGT
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please can you guide me to the new scoping information request and explanation of difference, and also the Planning Inspectorate’s response to this? I understand this is a requirement for the pre consultation process.
The S46 Notification and the Acknowledgment of this, both published on the website: [attachment 1] should provide the necessary information.

27 March 2019
Chris Edwards
Sizewell C New Nuclear Power Station
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
response to the Applicant’s 2019 statutory consultation, including comments on the standard of consultation, sent to the Planning Inspectorate on 25 March 2019
The applications have not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, the proposals are currently at the pre-application stage of the planning process, the developer is expecting to submit the applications in Q4 2019. Until the applications are submitted, your first point of contact should be the developer. I would therefore encourage you to contact ScottishPower Renewables directly ([email protected] and [email protected]). It is important that the developer is made aware of your comments at the pre-application stage of the process, to enable them to consider these points before finalising their proposals and submitting the applications to the Planning Inspectorate. If you have concerns about the way in which the developer is carrying out the pre-application consultation, you should let them know as soon as possible and allow them the opportunity to respond to any issues you raise. You can also make your local authority aware of your concerns. The Inspectorate will request the relevant local authorities’ view on the adequacy of the consultation at the point the application is submitted. If you would like more information about the Planning Act 2008 process, please see: “Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others” which can be found along with other advice notes, here: [attachment 1]

26 March 2019
E Thomas
East Anglia ONE North Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached meeting notes

26 March 2019
Wheelabrator Technologies Inc (WTI) - anon.
Wheelabrator Kemsley Generating Station (K3) and Wheelabrator Kemsley North (WKN) Waste to Energy Facility
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
See attached meeting note

26 March 2019
Highways England - anon.
M25 junction 10/A3 Wisley interchange improvement
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
response to the Applicant’s 2019 statutory consultation, including comments on the standard of consultation, sent to the Planning Inspectorate on 25 March 2019
The applications have not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, the proposals are currently at the pre-application stage of the planning process, the developer is expecting to submit the applications in Q4 2019. Until the applications are submitted, your first point of contact should be the developer. I would therefore encourage you to contact ScottishPower Renewables directly ([email protected] and [email protected]). It is important that the developer is made aware of your comments at the pre-application stage of the process, to enable them to consider these points before finalising their proposals and submitting the applications to the Planning Inspectorate. If you have concerns about the way in which the developer is carrying out the pre-application consultation, you should let them know as soon as possible and allow them the opportunity to respond to any issues you raise. You can also make your local authority aware of your concerns. The Inspectorate will request the relevant local authorities’ view on the adequacy of the consultation at the point the application is submitted. If you would like more information about the Planning Act 2008 process, please see: “Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others” which can be found along with other advice notes, here: [attachment 1]

26 March 2019
E Thomas
East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting regarding the proposed London Resort
See meeting note attached

22 March 2019
London Resort Company Holdings - anon.
The London Resort
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update Meeting.
Please see attached meeting note

22 March 2019
DB Symmetry (Hinckley) Limited - anon.
Hinckley National Rail Freight Interchange
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Pre-Submission Meeting with Norfolk County Council
Please see attached

21 March 2019
Norfolk County Council - anon.
Great Yarmouth Third River Crossing
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I wish to object to the following project, could you please help me as how I can do this
Thank you for contacting the Planning Inspectorate regarding the Wheelabrator Harewood Waste to Energy Facility.

The application has not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate for examination and as such we don’t hold any jurisdiction over it.

Please, at this stage, make your views available to the developer whose details are on the letter you enclosed with your email dated 14 March 2019.

If the application is accepted by the Planning Inspectorate for examination, the public will be able to register with the Planning Inspectorate and provide a summary of their views of the application in writing by submitting a ‘Relevant Representation’ in order to inform the Examining Authority.

Advice Note 8 on the Planning Inspectorate’s website provides an overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public. The Advice Note can be accessed following the below link:
[attachment 1]

20 March 2019
Michael Prydderch
Wheelabrator Harewood Waste-to-Energy Facility
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached meeting note.

19 March 2019
Highways England - anon.
A38 Derby Junctions
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Meeting Note
Please see attached

18 March 2019
Equinor UK
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see meeting note attached

15 March 2019
Heathrow Airport Limited - anon.
Expansion of Heathrow Airport (Third Runway)
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting.
Please see attachment.

12 March 2019
London Luton Airport Limited - anon.
Expansion of London Luton Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I have received a slew of documents, apparently from Heathrow Airport Limited, insisting that I complete a questionnaire and return it to an obscure company which hides behinds the initials WSP. Their website ([attachment 1]) reveals nothing. A Wikipedia page ([attachment 2]) states that they are based in Canada, and have a breathtaking history of mergers and takeovers since 2012, but fails to disclose either the work they do (if any) or their reputation. I am told they will publish my personal data in a "Book of Reference" for public inspection, and that examples may be found on your website. However, they do not say where on your website: and neither your FAQ page nor your search engine have been of any assistance. 1. Please can you point me at something which explains (for the general public) what your understanding of these "books" is? 2. Do you consider it acceptable for a company (Heathrow Airport Ltd.) to insist that UK residents supply personal data to companies outside the European Economic Area (EEA), with NO assurance about data protection? 3. What is your estimation of WSP's reputation, reliability, and trustworthiness? 4. Where would you advise members of the public to check the trustworthiness and probity of companies, whether based in the UK or elsewhere, demanding personal data? 5. Can you clarify to what extent Heathrow Airport is a British company, since the takeover by the Spanish firm Ferrovial, and how this will be affected by Brexit?
By way of background, where a Development Consent Order (DCO) would seek powers of Compulsory Acquisition and/ or Temporary Possession, sections 44, 57 and 59 of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) establish that in seeking to identify all land interests and persons who may be entitled to make a relevant claim an applicant must make diligent inquiry. Paragraph 50 of the Department for Communities and Local Government’s Planning Act 2008: Guidance on the pre-application process explains (available here: [attachment 3] “It is the applicant’s responsibility to demonstrate at submission of the application that due diligence has been undertaken in identifying all land interests and applicants should make every reasonable effort to ensure that the Book of Reference (which records and categorises those land interests) is up to date at the time of submission.” In this respect, issuing land referencing questionnaires in the format provided by Heathrow Airport Ltd is one of a number of approaches routinely applied by DCO applicants in seeking to identify all land interests and therefore satisfy the due diligence test set out in the PA2008. In consideration of this test, the land referencing process, from an applicant’s perspective, has an important role in the preparation of an application for a DCO which would seek powers of Compulsory Acquisition and/ or Temporary Possession. From the perspective of a person with an interest in the land, volunteering details about their interest(s) in land to a DCO applicant will help to ensure that their interest(s) are reflected accurately in any application, and ensure that their ability to engage in the examination of that application is not compromised. Notwithstanding this, questionnaire recipients are not mandated to volunteer information about their interest(s) in land to a DCO applicant, if they do not wish to do so. Importantly choosing not to volunteer land interest information to a DCO applicant would have no implications for a person’s status and ability to take part in the examination of an application for a DCO, or for any future claims by a person for compensation under the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965; the Land Compensation Act 1973; and/ or s152 of the PA2008. The term ‘Book of Reference’ is defined in Regulation 7 of The Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009 (available here: [attachment 4]) and at Annex D of the Department for Communities and Local Government’s Planning Act 2008: guidance related to procedures for the compulsory acquisition of land (available here: [attachment 5]). There are examples of this type of document attached to each relevant live project on the National Infrastructure Planning website, for example: • A303 Amesbury to Berwick Down (‘A303 Stonehenge’): [attachment 6] • Thanet Extension Offshore Wind Farm: [attachment 7] Please contact Heathrow Airport Ltd directly with any questions about its (i) status, (ii) data protection policies and (iii) consultants.

12 March 2019
John Hunt
Expansion of Heathrow Airport (Third Runway)
response has attachments
a meeting was held between the applicant and the Inspectorate to discuss a delay to the preliminary meeting
please see attached meeting note

01 March 2019
Gazeley and Ashfield - anon.
Rail Central (Strategic Rail Freight Interchange)
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Inception meeting
Please see attached note

28 February 2019
Invicta - Yasin Ramadan
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting with Thurrock Council
Please see the attached meeting note

28 February 2019
Thurrock Council - anon.
Lower Thames Crossing
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting.
Please see attached.

28 February 2019
Highways England - anon.
M54 to M6 Link Road
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting Note
Please see attached.

28 February 2019
Highways England - anon.
A1 Birtley to Coal House Improvement Scheme
response has attachments
Please see attached
Please see attached

27 February 2019
Substation Action Save East Suffolk - anon.
East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm
response has attachments
Please see attached
Please see attached

27 February 2019
Substation Action Save East Suffolk - anon.
East Anglia ONE North Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
You wrote the following in your email below. “Please note, the Planning Inspectorate had a meeting last week with EDF, a copy of the note for this meeting will be shortly be published on the Sizewell C project webpage. “ However I cannot find this. I am writing directly because on previous occasions I did not receive a response when addressing the mailbox and had to press for one. Please can you provide this not of the meeting above? Many thanks
I can confirm that the meeting note you refer to has now been published. It can be found here: [attachment 1];ipcadvice=29da8ba7a2

27 February 2019
Chris Edwards
Sizewell C New Nuclear Power Station
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

26 February 2019
Norfolk County Council - anon.
Great Yarmouth Third River Crossing
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached

25 February 2019
Ørsted Hornsea Project Four Limited - anon.
Hornsea Project Four Offshore Wind Farm (Generating Stations)
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting with ScottishPower Renewables, East Suffolk Council and Suffolk County Council
Please see Attached

25 February 2019
anon.
East Anglia ONE North Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting with ScottishPower Renewables, East Suffolk Council and Suffolk County Council
Please see attached

25 February 2019
anon.
East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
EN010012 - EDF Sizewell C/D EN010077 & EN010078 - Scottish Power EA1N & EA2 I am writing to request extensions to consultations for the above Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects in East Suffolk All projects are in final stage consultation and all consulting February & March 2019. I am a tourism business manager (Beach View Holiday Park) and local resident at Friston. It is physically impossible to have fair consultation and fair feedback for these NSIPs as there is simply too much going on, too much to digest and too much to consider. Please advise how this request can/will be considered? These proposals and the stress of these consultations are making people ill. All this while the local authority is also consulting on a final draft Local Plan, which, by the way I have not had a chance to fully digest or comment on either. Please take this as a formal complaint on final stage NSIP consultations listed above.
Dear Mr Thorp Request to Extend NSIP Pre-Application Consultations Thank you for your email dated 23 February 2019 addressed to Sarah Richards, the Planning Inspectorate’s Chief Executive. Your email has been passed to myself for response, as I am part of the Planning Inspectorate’s case team. I apologise for the delay in our response. The Planning Inspectorate is aware that several Developers are currently undertaking pre-application consultation in the area. In respect of the duration of the consultation period, section 45 of the Planning Act 2008 prescribes that a Developer’s statutory pre-application consultation must run for a minimum of 28 days. We are aware of the following consultation periods: - Sizewell C: 4th January 2019 – 29th March 2019 - East Anglia One North: 11th February 2019 – 26th March 2019 - East Anglia Two: 11th February 2019 – 26th March 2019. In this instance we therefore advise you to contact the Developers directly with your request for an extension. Once an application for a Development Consent Order is submitted (following the pre- application stage), the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State), has a statutory duty to invite comments from all relevant Local Authorities about whether a Developer has complied with its statutory pre-application consultation duties (see sections 42, 47 and 48 of the Planning Act 2008). Responses received are referred to as ‘Adequacy of Consultation Representations’. All applications for a Development Consent Order must be accompanied by a ‘Consultation Report’. The Consultation Report is prepared under section 37 of the Planning Act 2008 and must give details of: a) what has been done in compliance with sections 42, 47 and 48 of the Planning Act 2008 in relation to a proposed application that has become the application; b) any relevant responses; and c) the account taken of any relevant responses. In the Acceptance period (ie the 28 days following the formal submission of an application) the Planning Inspectorate will scrutinise all the application documents, including the evidence provided in the Consultation Report, applying the statutory tests set out in the Planning Act 2008. By the end of the Acceptance period the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) must decide, in accordance with the tests in section 55 of the Planning Act 2008, whether or not to accept an application for examination. In reaching this decision, section 55(4) makes explicit that the Planning Inspectorate must have regard to the Consultation Report and any Adequacy of Consultation Representations made by Local Authority consultees. In this instance it is normal practise for the Planning Inspectorate to advise you to also provide your comments on the consultation undertaken to the Local Authority, to make them aware of your points, ahead of providing their Adequacy of Consultation Representation; however we note that you have already copied the Local Authorities into your email. I hope you find the above information to be helpful. Yours sincerely Kathryn Dunne Infrastructure Planning Lead

23 February 2019
Nicholas Thorp
East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
EN010012 - EDF Sizewell C/D EN010077 & EN010078 - Scottish Power EA1N & EA2 I am writing to request extensions to consultations for the above Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects in East Suffolk All projects are in final stage consultation and all consulting February & March 2019. I am a tourism business manager (Beach View Holiday Park) and local resident at Friston. It is physically impossible to have fair consultation and fair feedback for these NSIPs as there is simply too much going on, too much to digest and too much to consider. Please advise how this request can/will be considered? These proposals and the stress of these consultations are making people ill. All this while the local authority is also consulting on a final draft Local Plan, which, by the way I have not had a chance to fully digest or comment on either. Please take this as a formal complaint on final stage NSIP consultations listed above.
Dear Mr Thorp Request to Extend NSIP Pre-Application Consultations Thank you for your email dated 23 February 2019 addressed to Sarah Richards, the Planning Inspectorate’s Chief Executive. Your email has been passed to myself for response, as I am part of the Planning Inspectorate’s case team. I apologise for the delay in our response. The Planning Inspectorate is aware that several Developers are currently undertaking pre-application consultation in the area. In respect of the duration of the consultation period, section 45 of the Planning Act 2008 prescribes that a Developer’s statutory pre-application consultation must run for a minimum of 28 days. We are aware of the following consultation periods: - Sizewell C: 4th January 2019 – 29th March 2019 - East Anglia One North: 11th February 2019 – 26th March 2019 - East Anglia Two: 11th February 2019 – 26th March 2019. In this instance we therefore advise you to contact the Developers directly with your request for an extension. Once an application for a Development Consent Order is submitted (following the pre- application stage), the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State), has a statutory duty to invite comments from all relevant Local Authorities about whether a Developer has complied with its statutory pre-application consultation duties (see sections 42, 47 and 48 of the Planning Act 2008). Responses received are referred to as ‘Adequacy of Consultation Representations’. All applications for a Development Consent Order must be accompanied by a ‘Consultation Report’. The Consultation Report is prepared under section 37 of the Planning Act 2008 and must give details of: a) what has been done in compliance with sections 42, 47 and 48 of the Planning Act 2008 in relation to a proposed application that has become the application; b) any relevant responses; and c) the account taken of any relevant responses. In the Acceptance period (ie the 28 days following the formal submission of an application) the Planning Inspectorate will scrutinise all the application documents, including the evidence provided in the Consultation Report, applying the statutory tests set out in the Planning Act 2008. By the end of the Acceptance period the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) must decide, in accordance with the tests in section 55 of the Planning Act 2008, whether or not to accept an application for examination. In reaching this decision, section 55(4) makes explicit that the Planning Inspectorate must have regard to the Consultation Report and any Adequacy of Consultation Representations made by Local Authority consultees. In this instance it is normal practise for the Planning Inspectorate to advise you to also provide your comments on the consultation undertaken to the Local Authority, to make them aware of your points, ahead of providing their Adequacy of Consultation Representation; however we note that you have already copied the Local Authorities into your email. I hope you find the above information to be helpful. Yours sincerely Kathryn Dunne Infrastructure Planning Lead

23 February 2019
Nicholas Thorp
Sizewell C New Nuclear Power Station
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
EN010012 - EDF Sizewell C/D EN010077 & EN010078 - Scottish Power EA1N & EA2 I am writing to request extensions to consultations for the above Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects in East Suffolk All projects are in final stage consultation and all consulting February & March 2019. I am a tourism business manager (Beach View Holiday Park) and local resident at Friston. It is physically impossible to have fair consultation and fair feedback for these NSIPs as there is simply too much going on, too much to digest and too much to consider. Please advise how this request can/will be considered? These proposals and the stress of these consultations are making people ill. All this while the local authority is also consulting on a final draft Local Plan, which, by the way I have not had a chance to fully digest or comment on either. Please take this as a formal complaint on final stage NSIP consultations listed above.
Dear Mr Thorp Request to Extend NSIP Pre-Application Consultations Thank you for your email dated 23 February 2019 addressed to Sarah Richards, the Planning Inspectorate’s Chief Executive. Your email has been passed to myself for response, as I am part of the Planning Inspectorate’s case team. I apologise for the delay in our response. The Planning Inspectorate is aware that several Developers are currently undertaking pre-application consultation in the area. In respect of the duration of the consultation period, section 45 of the Planning Act 2008 prescribes that a Developer’s statutory pre-application consultation must run for a minimum of 28 days. We are aware of the following consultation periods: - Sizewell C: 4th January 2019 – 29th March 2019 - East Anglia One North: 11th February 2019 – 26th March 2019 - East Anglia Two: 11th February 2019 – 26th March 2019. In this instance we therefore advise you to contact the Developers directly with your request for an extension. Once an application for a Development Consent Order is submitted (following the pre- application stage), the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State), has a statutory duty to invite comments from all relevant Local Authorities about whether a Developer has complied with its statutory pre-application consultation duties (see sections 42, 47 and 48 of the Planning Act 2008). Responses received are referred to as ‘Adequacy of Consultation Representations’. All applications for a Development Consent Order must be accompanied by a ‘Consultation Report’. The Consultation Report is prepared under section 37 of the Planning Act 2008 and must give details of: a) what has been done in compliance with sections 42, 47 and 48 of the Planning Act 2008 in relation to a proposed application that has become the application; b) any relevant responses; and c) the account taken of any relevant responses. In the Acceptance period (ie the 28 days following the formal submission of an application) the Planning Inspectorate will scrutinise all the application documents, including the evidence provided in the Consultation Report, applying the statutory tests set out in the Planning Act 2008. By the end of the Acceptance period the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) must decide, in accordance with the tests in section 55 of the Planning Act 2008, whether or not to accept an application for examination. In reaching this decision, section 55(4) makes explicit that the Planning Inspectorate must have regard to the Consultation Report and any Adequacy of Consultation Representations made by Local Authority consultees. In this instance it is normal practise for the Planning Inspectorate to advise you to also provide your comments on the consultation undertaken to the Local Authority, to make them aware of your points, ahead of providing their Adequacy of Consultation Representation; however we note that you have already copied the Local Authorities into your email. I hope you find the above information to be helpful. Yours sincerely Kathryn Dunne Infrastructure Planning Lead

23 February 2019
Nicholas Thorp
East Anglia ONE North Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
See meeting note attached

22 February 2019
Highways England - anon.
M3 Junction 9 Improvement
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached.

18 February 2019
ScottishPower Renewables (UK) Limited - anon.
East Anglia ONE North Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached.

18 February 2019
ScottishPower Renewables (UK) Limited - anon.
East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Inception Meeting Note
Please see attached

14 February 2019
Island Green Power
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
A meeting was held between Highways England and the Inspectorate.
A note of the meeting is attached.

12 February 2019
Highways England - anon.
A38 Derby Junctions
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting

11 February 2019
IRNG Solar (Little Crow) Ltd - anon.
Little Crow Solar Park
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting and Draft Documents review
Please see attached

08 February 2019
Norfolk Boreas Limited - anon.
Norfolk Boreas
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
PINS comments on draft application documents
See attached

31 January 2019
Esso Petroleum Company, Limited - anon.
Southampton to London Pipeline Project
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see document attached.

31 January 2019
Thurrock Power Ltd - anon.
Thurrock Flexible Generation Plant
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Draft documents and submission meeting
Please see the attached note of the meeting

31 January 2019
Highways England - anon.
M25 junction 10/A3 Wisley interchange improvement
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached meeting note

31 January 2019
Arora Group - anon.
Heathrow West
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Inception meeting.
Please see attached meeting note.

31 January 2019
Gatwick Airport Limited - anon.
Gatwick Airport Northern Runway
Enquiry received via email
I read that failure to adhere to a voluntary scoping opinion is conclusively fatal to a DCO in terms of the new EU settlement. Is that PINS's understanding too?
The Inspectorate is unable to provide any further comment on this matter, which relates to the current examination process and would rightly be addressed by the Examining Authority. Noting your status as an Interested Party to the Manston Airport examination, if you wish to make further representations on this matter the Inspectorate would encourage you to make such representations at the appropriate time, to the Examining Authority, through the examination process.

25 January 2019
Mark de Pulford
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
In a previous question, I asked whether a development consent obligation could be imposed upon the applicant during or as a result of the examination.

Could you also tell me whether it might be PINS that would initiate this or whether other parties could do so such as local authorities?
An Examining Authority (ExA) may consider that a development consent obligation is necessary to make a development acceptable (eg in order to mitigate impacts) and could ask an Applicant during an Examination to enter into/provide one. If the Applicant refused to enter into/provide one, and the ExA considered it so material to the acceptability of the development, then this could lead to a recommendation for refusal of development consent.

Other parties such as local authorities could make representations to an ExA about the need for an obligation which would be considered during the Examination.

24 January 2019
David Green
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached meeting note

24 January 2019
Boston Energy Alternative Facility - anon.
Boston Alternative Energy Facility (BAEF)
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Meeting with the No Third Runway Coalition to discuss the Planning Act 2008 process.
Please see meeting note.

22 January 2019
No Third Runway Coalition - anon.
Expansion of Heathrow Airport (Third Runway)
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
A project update meeting took place on 22nd January 2019
A note of that meeting is attached

22 January 2019
OGCI - anon.
Teesside Cluster Carbon Capture and Usage project
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

18 January 2019
Sunnica Ltd - anon.
Sunnica Energy Farm
response has attachments
Inception meeting between Cierco ,The Planning Inspectorate and The Welsh Government
See attached meeting note

17 January 2019
Cierco and the Welsh Government - anon.
General
Enquiry received via email
Dear Adem,

Thank you for your enquiry regarding statutory requirements for applicants.

Statutory requirements are in regards to funding. Please see Regulation 5 (h) — ‘Applications for orders granting development consent’, of The Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009.

You may also wish to review DCLG guidance:
•https://infrastructure.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/legislation-and-advice/guidance/
•https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/236454/Planning_Act_2008_-_Guidance_related_to_procedures_for_the_compulsory_acquisition_of_land.pdf

Best wishes,
Dear Sirs,

I am considering making an application for a DCO for what I consider to be a nationally important strategic project. Please can you tell me the statutory requirements that I/my company will need to fulfil as an applicant (e.g. financial standing, relevant experience in the sector etc.).

Regards

15 January 2019
Adem Mehmet
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Site visit and project update meeting
Please see attached

15 January 2019
Arora Group - anon.
Heathrow West
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Meeting Update
Please see attached

10 January 2019
Highways England - anon.
M25 junction 10/A3 Wisley interchange improvement
Enquiry received via email
I am writing to ask about the stage 3 consultation for sizewell C which is due to begin on January 4th 2019. EDF have a statutory obligation to adhere to the Statement of Community Consultation (SoCC) during the Sizewell C preparations. "Section 47 of the PA2008 requires applicants to conduct its consultation in line with the SoCC. " In the SOCC, it says " It is intended that all stakeholders (i.e. local community, statutory stakeholders and other interested parties) will be consulted at each of the three formal stages of consultation." It goes on to say that "Public and stakeholder engagement will also be undertaken in the Outer Area " . The outer area plan for the Sizewell C development has a 20 mile radius around the site and includes lowestoft, felixtowe and ipswich . These towns were consulted with during the first 2 stages of the consultation, but there are no plans to hold any public exhibitions in any of these 3 towns during the 3rd stage of the consultation. I think that this is remiss of EDF as they have not answered many of the questions that have been asked by residents during the first 2 stages of the consultation. Please can I ask what the statutory requirement is in accordance with the SoCC. Are EDF obliged to consult in all the areas they suggested in the SoCC.
As you note the statutory requirement for an Applicant in regards to its Statement of Community Consultation (SoCC) is set out in section(s) 47 of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008). Specifically s47(7) states the applicant must carry out consultation in accordance with the proposals set out in the statement. Further to this, in the Acceptance period (i.e. the 28 days following the formal submission of an application) the Planning Inspectorate will scrutinise all of the application documents, including the evidence provided in the Consultation Report, applying the statutory tests set out in s55 of the PA2008. By the end of the Acceptance period the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) must decide, in accordance with the tests in s55 of the PA2008, whether or not an application should be accepted for Examination. In reaching the above decision, s55(4) of the PA2008 makes explicit that the Planning Inspectorate must have regard to the Consultation Report and any Adequacy of Consultation Representations made by local authority consultees. Adequacy of Consultation Representations are defined by s55(5) of the PA2008 as representations about whether the Applicant complied with its duties under sections 42, 47 and 48. They are requested from all relevant local authorities on receipt of an application for development consent

21 December 2018
Emma Bateman
Sizewell C New Nuclear Power Station
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Enquiry from Sim Evan-Jones by email on 25 November 2018:

Hi,

I live in faversham and I’m really not happy about Cleve Hill Solar ‘Park’. It an amazing unspoilt location that will be devastated. Its way too big a development and Faversham is already losing acres and acres of farm land to the building of 1000 homes across 4 massive Greenfield sites.
Advice given by email on 19 December 2018:

Dear Sim Evan-Jones,

Thank you for your recent email where you indicate that you are not happy about the Cleve Hill Solar Park application.

On the 14 December the 2018 the Secretary of State decided that the application for the proposed Cleve Hill Solar Park satisfied the acceptance tests under section 55 of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) and was accepted for Examination.

If you would like to register your views on this application we recommend that you register as an Interested Party (IP). This means that you will be invited to the Preliminary Meeting where you can ask to speak about the timetable for the Examination and other important organisational details.

Once the examination of the application has started, as an Interested Party, you will also then have an opportunity to provide further written evidence on any issues that concern you and will be able to speak at hearings. If registered as an Interested Party you will be informed of the progress of the examination, and once it is concluded, you will be notified of the decision.

If you do not register as an Interested Party, there is no guarantee that your representation will be taken into account. Whilst the Examining Authority does have discretion to accept written representations even from people who have not submitted a valid relevant representation, this should not be relied upon because people who are not Interested Parties have no legal entitlement to participate.

We strongly advise that the registration process is used by all persons wishing to be involved in the examination. Unfortunately it is not possible for us to register on your behalf therefore we recommend that you register online through our website:

[attachment 1]

Please note that the deadline to submit a relevant representation is on Monday 28 January 2019.

Further information on how to get involved in the planning process, and register and become an interested party, can be found in the Planning Inspectorate’s Advice Note 8.3 available at: [attachment 2].

Advice on participating in the examination can also be found in Advice Note 8.5 available at: [attachment 3].

DCLG Guidance Planning Act 2008: Guidance for the examination of applications for development consent is also available at:

[attachment 4].

This guidance sets out in paragraphs 15-34 guidance on who can take part in examining the application

If you have any further queries please do not hesitate to contact the Cleve Hill Solar Park Case team at the project's mailbox at the following email address [email protected]

19 December 2018
Sim Evan-Jones
Cleve Hill Solar Park
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Enquiry from Michael Wilcox by email on 13 December 2018:

Hi,

I have a few questions about registering as an Interested Party. I know the registration period is not yet open pending acceptance.

1. If the project is accepted (tomorrow), am I right in thinking that the registration period is likely to open within a couple of days?

2. I have noticed that on some NSIPs the registration period doesn't open until a few weeks after acceptance. What is the most likely timescale for this project?

3. Please can you tell me about registering as an Interested Party for the CHSP project by post? Does everyone who wants to do it by post have to call the phone number on the site, or can you make a printable form available online?

4. Will paper forms be returnable by freepost or will people have to pay for stamps?

5. What consideration will be given if the period of registration spans the Christmas break? Does the 28 days include bank holidays?

6. Do you have any examples of what the paper form looks like?
Advice given by email on 19 December 2018:

Dear Mr Wilcox,

Thank you for your email of 13 December 2018 where you enquired about how to submit a Relevant Representation on a paper form.

As you are aware the Application was submitted to the Planning Inspectorate on the 16 November 2019. On the 14 December 2018 the Secretary of State decided that the application for the proposed Cleve Hill Solar Park satisfied the acceptance tests under section 55 of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) and it was accepted for Examination.

If you would like to register your views on this application we recommend that you register as an Interested Party (IP). This means that you will be invited to the Preliminary Meeting where you can ask to speak about the timetable for the Examination and other important organisational details.

Once the Examination of the application has started, as an IP, you will also then have an opportunity to provide further written evidence on any issues that concern you and will be able to speak at hearings. If registered as an IP you will be informed of the progress of the examination, and once it is concluded, you will be notified of the decision.

If you do not register as an IP there is no guarantee that your representation will be taken into account. Whilst the Examining Authority does have discretion to accept written representations even from people who have not submitted a valid relevant representation, this should not be relied upon because people who are not Interested Parties have no legal entitlement to participate.

We strongly advise that the registration process is used by all persons wishing to be involved in the examination. You can submit a Relevant Representation and request as an IP either electronically or by post. If you wish to register online you can do this through our website see link below;

[attachment 1]

If you wish to submit a Relevant Representation and register as an IP on a paper form you will need to either call the Planning Inspectorate on 0303 444 5000, or contact the Cleve Hill Case Team via the project mailbox [email protected] Then a paper form containing a unique reference will be sent to you. The form askes the same questions as the online form.

If you wish to have a paper form sent to you please can you submit your let us have your address. The Planning Inspectorate does not provide a Freepost envelope.

The Relevant Representation period ends on Monday 28 January 2019.

Further information on how to get involved in the planning process, and register and become an interested party, can be found in the Planning Inspectorate’s Advice Note 8.3 available at: [attachment 2].

Advice on participating in the examination can also be found in Advice Note 8.5 available at: [attachment 3].

DCLG Guidance Planning Act 2008: Guidance for the examination of applications for development consent is also available at:

[attachment 4].

This guidance sets out in paragraphs 15-34 guidance on who can take part in examining the application

If you have any further queries please do not hesitate to contact the Cleve Hill Solar Park Case team at the project's mailbox at the following email address:
[email protected]

19 December 2018
Michael Wilcox
Cleve Hill Solar Park
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Enquiry from Stephen Ledger by email on 08 December 2018:

Dear Sir/Madam,

I have attended open sessions and read the November 2018 Cleve Hill Solar Park Community Newsletter with their final changes and have concluded that I am against their proposals based on the following:-

In summary the proposal takes away agricultural land which is used for growing grain and creates an inappropriate industrial type site on the Internationally important North Kent Marshes. These two strategic disadvantages outweigh the benefits gained from solar power which are more appropriately sited on land which has less agricultural production capabilities and do not impact on such an Internationally important wildlife area.

I farm on some of the other North Kent Marshes and the new Agricultural Bill is all about increasing productivity, which I have planned to do. To take away so much agricultural land from grain production works against the strategy being established by the new Agricultural Bill.

The proposed area has Ramsar Wetlands to its West, North and East with designations of Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and Special Protection Area (SPA). Taking an overview, by looking at a the map of the wider area, the site forms part of the North Kent Marshes unbroken rural landscape. This extends to the east of the Ramsar designation even though not included in its designation. If approved it will mean that this unbroken rural landscape will be fragmented with too large an industrial area.

I find the late inclusion of the seawall area in the proposal inappropriate. Undue influence may/has be/been put on the Environment Agency (EA) who had already published their Medway Estuary and Swale Strategy (MEASS). There is now a mention of a plan B which was not in the EA's original plan. The EA must remain totally independent to follow through on their own plans rather than now come under undue pressure to work with the narrower needs of a Solar Farm.

The Cleve Hill Solar Park newsletter reads as though many local concerns have been taken into consideration, which no doubt some have. However, to extend the area and then state that the area to be covered by solar panels is reduced to 45.5% of the development area is simply a play on words and does not change the fact that, if approved, an enormous rural/wildlife area will be covered by solar panels which, in my view, is simply too high a cost. The benefit is only around half a percentage of the UK's energy needs, for houses, and less when other energy needs are taken into consideration.

We need to increase renewable energy but to use the capacity of the Cleve Hill station for solar power is perhaps the wrong strategy when this capacity should be reserved for the needs of a future off-shore wind farm as that technology develops.

In more detail I believe that the type of solar panels are far too high for such a flat area and hence will have a significant adverse impact on the rural area.
Advice given by email on 19 December 2018:

Dear Mr Ledger

Thank you for your recent email in which you give your reasons why you are against the Cleve Hill Solar Park proposals.

The Application was submitted to the Planning Inspectorate on the 16 November 2019, and on the 14 December the 2018 the Secretary of State decided that the application for the proposed Cleve Hill Solar Park satisfied the acceptance tests under section 55 of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) and was accepted for Examination.

If you would like to register your views on this application we recommend that you register as an Interested Party (IP). This means that you will be invited to the Preliminary Meeting where you can ask to speak about the timetable for the Examination and other important organisational details.

Once the examination of the application has started, as an Interested Party, you will also then have an opportunity to provide further written evidence on any issues that concern you and will be able to speak at hearings. If registered as an Interested Party you will be informed of the progress of the examination, and once it is concluded, you will be notified of the decision.

If you do not register as an Interested Party, there is no guarantee that your representation will be taken into account. Whilst the Examining Authority does have discretion to accept written representations even from people who have not submitted a valid relevant representation, this should not be relied upon because people who are not Interested Parties have no legal entitlement to participate.

We strongly advise that the registration process is used by all persons wishing to be involved in the examination. Unfortunately it is not possible for us to register on your behalf therefore we recommend that you register online through our website:

[attachment 1]

Please note that the deadline to submit a relevant representation is on Monday 28 January 2019.

Further information on how to get involved in the planning process, and register and become an interested party, can be found in the Planning Inspectorate’s Advice Note 8.3 available at: [attachment 2].

Advice on participating in the examination can also be found in Advice Note 8.5 available at: [attachment 3].

DCLG Guidance Planning Act 2008: Guidance for the examination of applications for development consent is also available at:

[attachment 4].

This guidance sets out in paragraphs 15-34 guidance on who can take part in examining the application

If you have any further queries please do not hesitate to contact the Cleve Hill Solar Park Case team at the project's mailbox at the following email address:
[email protected]

19 December 2018
Stephen Ledger
Cleve Hill Solar Park
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Inception and project overview meeting
Please see attached

18 December 2018
Highways England and representatives - anon.
M3 Junction 9 Improvement
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

18 December 2018
Highways England - anon.
Great Yarmouth Third River Crossing
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
A meeting was held between the Applicant and the Inspectorate
Please see that attached note of the meeting

18 December 2018
AQUIND Limited
AQUIND Interconnector
Enquiry received via post
The enquirer asked why she had received correspondence from the Planning Inspectorate and made reference to potential claims for compensation.
You have received a letter from the Planning Inspectorate inviting you to the Preliminary Meeting because the Applicant (Suffolk County Council) has identified you as a person who may be entitled to make a relevant claim as a result of the Development Consent Order being implemented.

Claims for compensation are dealt with outside of the Planning Act 2008 process and therefore do not fall within the remit of the Planning Inspectorate.

In order to make an enquiry about a claim for compensation, please contact Suffolk County Council directly using the details below:

Jon Barnard
Suffolk County Council
8 Russell Road
Ipswich
Suffolk
IP1 2DH

Tel. 01473 264279

Notwithstanding the issue of compensation, because you have been identified by Suffolk County Council on the basis described above, you have the right to participate in the Examination of the application for the Lake Lothing Third Crossing. Our letter confirming the Examination Timetable has been sent to you today under cover of a separate letter. Please do not hesitate to contact us again if you need advice about the decision-making process under the Planning Act 2008, and in particular the opportunities for you to engage.

17 December 2018
Jean Read
Lake Lothing Third Crossing
response has attachments
Project meeting update
Please see attached

17 December 2018
Ørsted Hornsea Project Four Limited - anon.
Hornsea Project Four Offshore Wind Farm (Generating Stations)
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer wrote to the Planning Inspectorate setting out an objection to the Proposed Development.
The proposed application by Norfolk County Council is at the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 process. Please see our website for information about the process including how, when and with whom to engage: [attachment 1]

The Planning Inspectorate cannot consideration representations about the merits of an application until it is accepted for Examination and the ‘Registration and Relevant Representation Form’ is made available in the Pre-examination stage. For more information in this respect see in particular our ‘Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination’: [attachment 2]. Based on current information we expect the application to be submitted to the Inspectorate in Q1 2019.

In the meantime please engage with Norfolk County Council directly in respect of any concerns you have about the Proposed Development.

13 December 2018
UK Power Networks - anon.
Great Yarmouth Third River Crossing
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Evidence Plan Steering Group Meeting with Ørsted, East Riding of Yorkshire Council, Natural England and the Marine Management Organisation, GoBe Consultants, Royal HaskoningDHV
Please see attached

12 December 2018
anon.
Hornsea Project Four Offshore Wind Farm (Generating Stations)
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Meeting Update
Please see attached

11 December 2018
EDF Energy - anon.
Hinkley Point C New Nuclear Power Station Material Change 1
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Enquiry sent to the Secretary of State
I am writing in regard to your correspondence sent to the Secretary of State dated 17 November 2018 in relation to the above proposals. Your letter has been passed to the Planning Inspectorate for response as we administer the Planning Act 2008 process under which these proposals will be considered.
The applications have not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, the proposals are currently at the pre-application stage of the planning process, the developer is expecting to submit the applications in Q4 2019.
Until the applications are submitted, your first point of contact should be the developer. I would therefore encourage you to contact Scottish Power Renewables directly ([email protected] and [email protected]). It is important that the developer is made aware of your comments at the pre-application stage of the process, to enable them to consider these points before finalising their proposals and submitting the applications to the Planning Inspectorate.
If you would like more information about the Planning Act 2008 process, please see “Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning
process for members of the public and others” which can be found along with other advice notes, here: [attachment 1]

10 December 2018
Elaine Hunt
East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Enquiry sent to the Secretary of State
I am writing in regard to your correspondence sent to the Secretary of State dated 17 November 2018 in relation to the above proposals. Your letter has been passed to the Planning Inspectorate for response as we administer the Planning Act 2008 process under which these proposals will be considered.
The applications have not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, the proposals are currently at the pre-application stage of the planning process, the developer is expecting to submit the applications in Q4 2019.
Until the applications are submitted, your first point of contact should be the developer. I would therefore encourage you to contact Scottish Power Renewables directly ([email protected] and [email protected]). It is important that the developer is made aware of your comments at the pre-application stage of the process, to enable them to consider these points before finalising their proposals and submitting the applications to the Planning Inspectorate.
If you would like more information about the Planning Act 2008 process, please see “Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning
process for members of the public and others” which can be found along with other advice notes, here: [attachment 1]

10 December 2018
Elaine Hunt
East Anglia ONE North Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting 10 December 2018
See attached meeting note

10 December 2018
Scottish Power Renewables - anon.
East Anglia ONE North Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting 10 December 2018
See attached meeting note

10 December 2018
Scottish Power Renewables - anon.
East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please see attached
Dear Mr Edwards

Thank you for your emails dated 23 November, 29 November and 3 December regarding EDF Energy’s proposal for Sizewell C, and Suffolk Coastal District Council’s (SCDC) Local Plan consultation.

In your emails you refer to Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) screening. The purpose of the screening process is to establish whether a proposal is considered to be EIA development or not. Under the 2009 and 2017 EIA regulations, nuclear power stations are ‘Schedule 1’ developments and are therefore automatically considered to be EIA development, therefore these types of development do not require to be ‘screened’ at the pre-application stage.

The EIA Regulations require a developer, prior to undertaking their statutory (section 42 of the Planning Act 2008) consultation, to either request a screening opinion, or to notify the Secretary of State that their proposal is EIA development. The Planning Inspectorate acknowledged (in paragraph 1.2 of the EIA Scoping Opinion dated June 2014), that EDF Energy made this notification.

EIA is a process which developers undertake at the pre-application stage, the result of which is an Environmental Statement (ES) which is submitted with their application. Therefore the environmental work/assessments are an ongoing process at this stage, however the developer is required to consult on their Preliminary Environmental Information which will be included in their consultation documents at the start of 2019.

The Planning Inspectorate does not host developer’s pre-application consultation material on our website, we publish EIA screening and scoping documents in addition to requests for advice and our responses, however you are advised to use the developer’s website and to liaise directly with the developer at the pre-application stage to inform them of the comments you have on their proposal, this will enable them to consider your comments prior to finalising their proposal and submitting their application.

In regard to the land which you refer to in your email which is included in both EDF Energy’s and SCDC’s consultations, both parties will have the opportunity to provide comments to each other on their proposals.

Please note, the Planning Inspectorate had a meeting last week with Edf, a copy of the note for this meeting will be shortly be published on the Sizewell C project webpage.

As per your previous emails, I would be grateful if you could please ensure that all future correspondence continues to be sent to the Sizewell C mailbox rather than individual mailboxes.

I hope you find this information to be helpful.

07 December 2018
Leave the Layers Alone - Chris Edwards
Sizewell C New Nuclear Power Station
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Enquiry sent to the Secretary of State
I am writing in regard to your email sent to the Secretary of State dated 11 November 2018 in relation to the above proposals. Your email has been passed to the Planning Inspectorate for response as we administer the Planning Act 2008 process under which these proposals will be considered.
The applications have not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, the proposals are currently at the pre-application stage of the planning process, the developer is expecting to submit the applications in Q4 2019.
I note you have already submitted your comments to ScottishPower Renewables ( the developer ), this is important to enable your views to be considered before their proposals are finalised and the applications submitted. As you may already be aware, the developer is intending to undertake further pre-application consultation in early 2019.
If you would like more information about the Planning Act 2008 process, please see the “Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others” which can be found along with other advice notes, here: [attachment 1]

06 December 2018
Karen and Andrew Lewis
East Anglia ONE North Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Enquiry sent to the Secretary of State.
I am writing in regard to your email sent to the Secretary of State dated 11 November 2018 in relation to the above proposals. Your email has been passed to the Planning Inspectorate for response, as we administer the Planning Act 2008 process under which these proposals will be considered.
The Applications have not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, the proposals are currently at the pre-application stage of the planning process, the developer is expecting to submit the applications in Q4 2019.
It is important that the developer is made aware of your comments at the pre-application stage, to enable them to consider these points before finalising their proposals and submitting the applications. I therefore strongly encourage you to contact Scottish Power Renewables directly on [email protected] and [email protected] if you haven’t already done so, with your comments on their proposals.
If you would like more information about the Planning Act 2008 process, please see the “Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others” which can be found along with other advice, here: [attachment 1]

06 December 2018
Jennifer Hall
East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Enquiry sent to the Secretary of State
I am writing in regard to your email sent to the Secretary of State and others dated 11 November 2018 in relation to the above proposals. Your email has been passed to the Planning Inspectorate for response as we administer the Planning Act 2008 process under which these proposals will be considered.
The applications have not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, the proposals are currently at the pre-application stage of the planning process, the developer is expecting to submit the applications in Q4 2019.
I note you have already submitted your comments to ScottishPower Renewables (the developer), this is important to enable your views to be considered before their proposals are finalised and the applications submitted. As you may already be aware, the developer is intending to undertake further pre-application consultation in early 2019.
If you would like more information about the Planning Act 2008 process, please see the “Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others” which can be found along with other advice notes, here: [attachment 1]

06 December 2018
Peter Mayo
East Anglia ONE North Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Enquiry sent to the Secretary of State.
I am writing in regard to your email sent to the Secretary of State and others dated 11 November 2018 in relation to the above proposals. Your email has been passed to the Planning Inspectorate for response as we administer the Planning Act 2008 process under which these proposals will be considered.
The applications have not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, the proposals are currently at the pre-application stage of the planning process, the developer is expecting to submit the applications in Q4 2019.
I note you have already submitted your comments to ScottishPower Renewables (the developer), this is important to enable your views to be considered before their proposals are finalised and the applications submitted. As you may already be aware, the developer is intending to undertake further pre-application consultation in early 2019.
If you would like more information about the Planning Act 2008 process, please see the “Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others” which can be found along with other advice notes, here: [attachment 1]

06 December 2018
Peter Mayo
East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Enquiry sent to the Secretary of State
I am writing in regard to your email sent to the Secretary of State dated 11 November 2018 in relation to the above proposals. Your email has been passed to the Planning Inspectorate for response as we administer the Planning Act 2008 process under which these proposals will be considered.
The applications have not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, the proposals are currently at the pre-application stage of the planning process, the developer is expecting to submit the applications in Q4 2019.
I note you have already submitted your comments to ScottishPower Renewables, this is important to enable your views to be considered before their proposals are finalised and the applications submitted. As you may already be aware, the developer is intending to undertake further pre-application consultation in early 2019.
If you would like more information about the Planning Act 2008 process, please see the “Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others” which can be found along with other advice notes, here: [attachment 1]

06 December 2018
Karen and Andrew Lewis
East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Enquiry sent to the Secretary of State
I am writing in regard to your email sent to the Secretary of State dated 11 November 2018 in relation to the above proposals. Your email has been passed to the Planning Inspectorate for response, as we administer the Planning Act 2008 process under which these proposals will be considered.
The Applications have not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, the proposals are currently at the pre-application stage of the planning process, the developer is expecting to submit the applications in Q4 2019.
It is important that the developer is made aware of your comments at the pre-application stage, to enable them to consider these points before finalising their proposals and submitting the applications. I therefore strongly encourage you to contact Scottish Power Renewables directly on [email protected] and [email protected] if you haven’t already done so, with your comments on their proposals.
If you would like more information about the Planning Act 2008 process, please see the “Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others” which can be found along with other advice, here: [attachment 1]

06 December 2018
Michael Bowkis
East Anglia ONE North Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Enquiry sent to the Secretary of State
I am writing in regard to your email sent to the Secretary of State dated 11 November 2018 in relation to the above proposals. Your email has been passed to the Planning Inspectorate for response as we administer the Planning Act 2008 process under which these proposals will be considered.
The applications have not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, the proposals are currently at the pre-application stage of the planning process, the developer is expecting to submit the applications in Q4 2019.
I note you have already submitted your comments to ScottishPower Renewables ( the developer ), this is important to enable your views to be considered before their proposals are finalised and the applications submitted. As you may already be aware, the developer is intending to undertake further pre-application consultation in early 2019.
If you would like more information about the Planning Act 2008 process, please see the “Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others” which can be found along with other advice notes, here: [attachment 1]

06 December 2018
Bridget Barclay
East Anglia ONE Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Enquiry sent to the Secretary of State
I am writing in regard to your email sent to the Secretary of State dated 11 November 2018 in relation to the above proposals. Your email has been passed to the Planning Inspectorate for response as we administer the Planning Act 2008 process under which these proposals will be considered.
The applications have not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, the proposals are currently at the pre-application stage of the planning process, the developer is expecting to submit the applications in Q4 2019.
I note you have already submitted your comments to Scottish Power Renewables (the developer), this is important to enable your views to be considered before their proposals are finalised and the applications submitted. As you may already be aware, the developer is intending to undertake further pre-application consultation in early 2019.
If you would like more information about the Planning Act 2008 process, please see the “Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others” which can be found along with other advice notes, here: [attachment 1]

06 December 2018
Oka Last
East Anglia ONE North Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Enquiry sent to the Secretary of State.
I am writing in regard to your email sent to the Secretary of State dated 11 November 2018 in relation to the above proposals. Your email has been passed to the Planning Inspectorate for response as we administer the Planning Act 2008 process under which these proposals will be considered.
The applications have not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, the proposals are currently at the pre-application stage of the planning process, the developer is expecting to submit the applications in Q4 2019.
I note you have already submitted your comments to ScottishPower Renewables (the developer), this is important to enable your views to be considered before their proposals are finalised and the applications submitted. As you may already be aware, the developer is intending to undertake further pre-application consultation in early 2019.
If you would like more information about the Planning Act 2008 process, please see the “Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others” which can be found along with other advice notes, here: [attachment 1]

06 December 2018
Deborah Bowkis
East Anglia ONE North Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Enquiry sent to the Secretary of State
I am writing in regard to your correspondence sent to the Secretary of State dated 12 November 2018 in relation to the above proposals. Your e-mail has been passed to the Planning Inspectorate for response as we administer the Planning Act 2008 process under which these proposals will be considered.
The applications have not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, the proposals are currently at the pre-application stage of the planning process, the developer is expecting to submit the applications in Q4 2019.
I note you have already submitted your comments to ScottishPower Renewables, this is important to enable your views to be considered before their proposals are finalised and the applications submitted. As you may already be aware, the developer is intending to undertake further pre-application consultation in early 2019.
If you would like more information about the Planning Act 2008 process, please see “Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others” which can be found along with other advice notes, here: [attachment 1]

06 December 2018
Graham Noye
East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Enquiry sent to the Secretary of State
I am writing in regard to your email sent to the Secretary of State dated 11 November 2018 in relation to the above proposals. Your email has been passed to the Planning Inspectorate for response, as we administer the Planning Act 2008 process under which these proposals will be considered.
The Applications have not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, the proposals are currently at the pre-application stage of the planning process, the developer is expecting to submit the applications in Q4 2019.
It is important that the developer is made aware of your comments at the pre-application stage, to enable them to consider these points before finalising their proposals and submitting the applications. I therefore strongly encourage you to contact Scottish Power Renewables directly on [email protected] and [email protected] if you haven’t already done so, with your comments on their proposals.
If you would like more information about the Planning Act 2008 process, please see the “Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others” which can be found along with other advice, here: [attachment 1]

06 December 2018
Michael Bowkis
East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Enquiry sent to the Secretary of State.
I am writing in regard to your email sent to the Secretary of State dated 12 November 2018 in relation to the above proposals. Your email has been passed to the Planning Inspectorate for response as we administer the Planning Act 2008 process under which these proposals will be considered.
The applications have not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, the proposals are currently at the pre-application stage of the planning process, the developer is expecting to submit the applications in Q4 2019.
I note you have already submitted your comments to ScottishPower Renewables (the developer), this is important to enable your views to be considered before their proposals are finalised and the applications submitted. As you may already be aware, the developer is intending to undertake further pre-application consultation in early 2019.
If you would like more information about the Planning Act 2008 process, please see the “Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others” which can be found along with other advice notes, here: [attachment 1]

06 December 2018
Meg Amsden
East Anglia ONE Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Enquiry sent to the Secretary of State
I am writing in regard to your correspondence sent to the Secretary of State dated 5 November 2018 in relation to the above proposals. Your letter has been passed to the Planning Inspectorate for response as we administer the Planning Act 2008 process under which these proposals will be considered.
The applications have not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, the proposals are currently at the pre-application stage of the planning process, the developer is expecting to submit the applications in Q4 2019.
Until the applications are submitted, your first point of contact should be the developer. I would therefore encourage you to contact ScottishPower Renewables directly ([email protected] and [email protected]). It is important that the developer is made aware of your comments at the pre-application stage of the process, to enable them to consider these points before finalising their proposals and submitting the applications to the Planning Inspectorate.
If you would like more information about the Planning Act 2008 process, please see “Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others” which can be found along with other advice notes, here: [attachment 1]

06 December 2018
Ann Townell
East Anglia ONE North Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Enquiry sent to the Secretary of State.
I am writing in regard to your email sent to the Secretary of State dated 10 November 2018 in relation to the above proposals. Your email has been passed to the Planning Inspectorate for response as we administer the Planning Act 2008 process under which these proposals will be considered.
The applications have not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, the proposals are currently at the pre-application stage of the planning process, the developer is expecting to submit the applications in Q4 2019.
I note you have already submitted your comments to ScottishPower Renewables (the developer), this is important to enable your views to be considered before their proposals are finalised and the applications submitted. As you may already be aware, the developer is intending to undertake further pre-application consultation in early 2019.
If you would like more information about the Planning Act 2008 process, please see the “Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others” which can be found along with other advice notes, here: [attachment 1]

06 December 2018
Jenny Labbett
East Anglia ONE North Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Enquiry sent to the Secretary of State.
I am writing in regard to your email sent to the Secretary of State dated 11 November 2018 in relation to the above proposals. Your email has been passed to the Planning Inspectorate for response, as we administer the Planning Act 2008 process under which these proposals will be considered.
The Applications have not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, the proposals are currently at the pre-application stage of the planning process, the developer is expecting to submit the applications in Q4 2019.
It is important that the developer is made aware of your comments at the pre-application stage, to enable them to consider these points before finalising their proposals and submitting the applications. I therefore strongly encourage you to contact Scottish Power Renewables directly on [email protected] and [email protected] if you haven’t already done so, with your comments on their proposals.
If you would like more information about the Planning Act 2008 process, please see the “Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others” which can be found along with other advice, here: [attachment 1]

06 December 2018
Jennifer Hall
East Anglia ONE North Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Enquiry sent to the Secretary of State
I am writing in regard to your email sent to the Secretary of State dated 11 November 2018 in relation to the above proposals. Your email has been passed to the Planning Inspectorate for response as we administer the Planning Act 2008 process under which these proposals will be considered.
The applications have not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, the proposals are currently at the pre-application stage of the planning process, the developer is expecting to submit the applications in Q4 2019.
I note you have already submitted your comments to Scottish Power Renewables (the developer), this is important to enable your views to be considered before their proposals are finalised and the applications submitted. As you may already be aware, the developer is intending to undertake further pre-application consultation in early 2019.
If you would like more information about the Planning Act 2008 process, please see the “Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others” which can be found along with other advice notes, here: [attachment 1]

06 December 2018
Oka Last
East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Enquiry sent to the Secretary of State.
I am writing in regard to your email sent to the Secretary of State and others, dated 11 November 2018 in relation to the above proposals. Your email has been passed to the Planning Inspectorate for response as we administer the Planning Act 2008 process under which these proposals will be considered.
The applications have not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, the proposals are currently at the pre-application stage of the planning process, the developer is expecting to submit the applications in Q4 2019.
I note you have already submitted your comments to ScottishPower Renewables, this is important to enable your views to be considered before their proposals are finalised and the applications submitted. The developer is intending to undertake further pre-application consultation in early 2019, I therefore hope this addresses your concerns in relation to the consultation undertaken to date. I note you have also sent your comments to the local authority, who will have the opportunity to submit a representation on the adequacy of the developer’s consultation, once the applications are submitted.
If you would like more information about the Planning Act 2008 process, please see the “Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others” which can be found along with other advice notes, here: [attachment 1]

06 December 2018
Peter Chadwick
East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Enquiry sent to the Secretary of State
I am writing in regard to your email sent to the Secretary of State and others dated 11 November 2018 in relation to the above proposals. Your email has been passed to the Planning Inspectorate for response as we administer the Planning Act 2008 process under which these proposals will be considered.
The applications have not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, the proposals are currently at the pre-application stage of the planning process, the developer is expecting to submit the applications in Q4 2019.
I note you have already submitted your comments to ScottishPower Renewables (the developer), this is important to enable your views to be considered before their proposals are finalised and the applications submitted. As you may already be aware, the developer is intending to undertake further pre-application consultation in early 2019.
If you would like more information about the Planning Act 2008 process, please see the “Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others” which can be found along with other advice notes, here: [attachment 1]

06 December 2018
William Haward Patricia Davidson
East Anglia ONE Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Enquiry sent to the Secretary of State
I am writing in regard to your correspondence sent to the Secretary of State dated 11 November 2018 in relation to the above proposals. Your e-mail has been passed to the Planning Inspectorate for response as we administer the Planning Act 2008 process under which these proposals will be considered.
The applications have not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, the proposals are currently at the pre-application stage of the planning process, the developer is expecting to submit the applications in Q4 2019.
Until the applications are submitted, your first point of contact should be the developer. I would therefore encourage you to contact ScottishPower Renewables directly ([email protected] and [email protected]). It is important that the developer is made aware of your comments at the pre-application stage of the process, to enable them to consider these points before finalising their proposals and submitting the applications to the Planning Inspectorate. As you may already be aware, the developer is proposing to undertake further pre-application consultation in early 2019.
If you would like more information about the Planning Act 2008 process, please see “Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others” which can be found along with other advice notes, here: [attachment 1]

06 December 2018
Nicola Turland-Noble
East Anglia ONE North Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Enquiry sent to the Secretary of State
I am writing in regard to your correspondence sent to the Secretary of State dated 12 November 2018 in relation to the above proposals. Your e-mail has been passed to the Planning Inspectorate for response as we administer the Planning Act 2008 process under which these proposals will be considered.
The applications have not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, the proposals are currently at the pre-application stage of the planning process, the developer is expecting to submit the applications in Q4 2019.
I note you have already submitted your comments to ScottishPower Renewables, this is important to enable your views to be considered before their proposals are finalised and the applications submitted. As you may already be aware, the developer is intending to undertake further pre-application consultation in early 2019.
If you would like more information about the Planning Act 2008 process, please see “Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others” which can be found along with other advice notes, here: [attachment 1]

06 December 2018
Graham Noye
East Anglia ONE North Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Enquiry sent to the Secretary of State
I am writing in regard to your correspondence sent to the Secretary of State dated 5 November 2018 in relation to the above proposals. Your letter has been passed to the Planning Inspectorate for response as we administer the Planning Act 2008 process under which these proposals will be considered.
The applications have not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, the proposals are currently at the pre-application stage of the planning process, the developer is expecting to submit the applications in Q4 2019.
Until the applications are submitted, your first point of contact should be the developer. I would therefore encourage you to contact ScottishPower Renewables directly ([email protected] and [email protected]). It is important that the developer is made aware of your comments at the pre-application stage of the process, to enable them to consider these points before finalising their proposals and submitting the applications to the Planning Inspectorate.
If you would like more information about the Planning Act 2008 process, please see “Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others” which can be found along with other advice notes, here: [attachment 1]

06 December 2018
Ann Townell
East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Enquiry sent to the Secretary of State.
I am writing in regard to your email sent to the Secretary of State dated 11 November 2018 in relation to the above proposals. Your email has been passed to the Planning Inspectorate for response as we administer the Planning Act 2008 process under which these proposals will be considered.
The applications have not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, the proposals are currently at the pre-application stage of the planning process, the developer is expecting to submit the applications in Q4 2019.
I note you have already submitted your comments to ScottishPower Renewables (the developer), this is important to enable your views to be considered before their proposals are finalised and the applications submitted. As you may already be aware, the developer is intending to undertake further pre-application consultation in early 2019.
If you would like more information about the Planning Act 2008 process, please see the “Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others” which can be found along with other advice notes, here: [attachment 1]

06 December 2018
Deborah Bowkis
East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Enquiry sent to the Secretary of State
I am writing in regard to your correspondence sent to the Secretary of State dated 11 November 2018 in relation to the above proposals. Your e-mail has been passed to the Planning Inspectorate for response as we administer the Planning Act 2008 process under which these proposals will be considered.
The applications have not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, the proposals are currently at the pre-application stage of the planning process, the developer is expecting to submit the applications in Q4 2019.
Until the applications are submitted, your first point of contact should be the developer. I would therefore encourage you to contact ScottishPower Renewables directly ([email protected] and [email protected]). It is important that the developer is made aware of your comments at the pre-application stage of the process, to enable them to consider these points before finalising their proposals and submitting the applications to the Planning Inspectorate. As you may already be aware, the developer is proposing to undertake further pre-application consultation in early 2019.
If you would like more information about the Planning Act 2008 process, please see “Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others” which can be found along with other advice notes, here: [attachment 1]

06 December 2018
Nicola Turland-Noble
East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Enquiry sent to the Secretary of State.
I am writing in regard to your email sent to the Secretary of State dated 12 November 2018 in relation to the above proposals. Your email has been passed to the Planning Inspectorate for response as we administer the Planning Act 2008 process under which these proposals will be considered.
The applications have not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, the proposals are currently at the pre-application stage of the planning process, the developer is expecting to submit the applications in Q4 2019.
I note you have already submitted your comments to ScottishPower Renewables (the developer), this is important to enable your views to be considered before their proposals are finalised and the applications submitted. As you may already be aware, the developer is intending to undertake further pre-application consultation in early 2019.
If you would like more information about the Planning Act 2008 process, please see the “Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others” which can be found along with other advice notes, here: [attachment 1]

06 December 2018
Meg Amsden
East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Enquiry sent to the Secretary of State.
I am writing in regard to your email sent to the Secretary of State and others dated 11 November 2018 in relation to the above proposals. Your email has been passed to the Planning Inspectorate for response as we administer the Planning Act 2008 process under which these proposals will be considered.
The applications have not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, the proposals are currently at the pre-application stage of the planning process, the developer is expecting to submit the applications in Q4 2019.
I note you have already submitted your comments to ScottishPower Renewables (the developer), this is important to enable your views to be considered before their proposals are finalised and the applications submitted. As you may already be aware, the developer is intending to undertake further pre-application consultation in early 2019.
If you would like more information about the Planning Act 2008 process, please see the “Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others” which can be found along with other advice notes, here: [attachment 1]

06 December 2018
William Haward Patricia Davidson
East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Enquiry sent to the Secretary of State.
I am writing in regard to your email sent to the Secretary of State dated 10 November 2018 in relation to the above proposals. Your email has been passed to the Planning Inspectorate for response as we administer the Planning Act 2008 process under which these proposals will be considered.
The applications have not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, the proposals are currently at the pre-application stage of the planning process, the developer is expecting to submit the applications in Q4 2019.
I note you have already submitted your comments to ScottishPower Renewables (the developer), this is important to enable your views to be considered before their proposals are finalised and the applications submitted. As you may already be aware, the developer is intending to undertake further pre-application consultation in early 2019.
If you would like more information about the Planning Act 2008 process, please see the “Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others” which can be found along with other advice notes, here: [attachment 1]

06 December 2018
Jenny Labbett
East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Enquiry sent to the Secretary of State
I am writing in regard to your email sent to the Secretary of State and others, dated 11 November 2018 in relation to the above proposals. Your email has been passed to the Planning Inspectorate for response as we administer the Planning Act 2008 process under which these proposals will be considered.
The applications have not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, the proposals are currently at the pre-application stage of the planning process, the developer is expecting to submit the applications in Q4 2019.
I note you have already submitted your comments to ScottishPower Renewables, this is important to enable your views to be considered before their proposals are finalised and the applications submitted. The developer is intending to undertake further pre-application consultation in early 2019, I therefore hope this addresses your concerns in relation to the consultation undertaken to date. I note you have also sent your comments to the local authority, who will have the opportunity to submit a representation on the adequacy of the developer’s consultation, once the applications are submitted.
If you would like more information about the Planning Act 2008 process, please see the “Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others” which can be found along with other advice notes, here: [attachment 1]

06 December 2018
Peter Chadwick
East Anglia ONE Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Enquiry sent to the Secretary of State
I am writing in regard to your email sent to the Secretary of State dated 11 November 2018 in relation to the above proposals. Your email has been passed to the Planning Inspectorate for response as we administer the Planning Act 2008 process under which these proposals will be considered.
The applications have not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, the proposals are currently at the pre-application stage of the planning process, the developer is expecting to submit the applications in Q4 2019.
I note you have already submitted your comments to ScottishPower Renewables ( the developer ), this is important to enable your views to be considered before their proposals are finalised and the applications submitted. As you may already be aware, the developer is intending to undertake further pre-application consultation in early 2019.
If you would like more information about the Planning Act 2008 process, please see the “Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others” which can be found along with other advice notes, here: [attachment 1]

06 December 2018
Bridget Barclay
East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via phone
response has attachments
Project update meeting
please see attached

05 December 2018
Highways England - anon.
M42 Junction 6 Improvement
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
To Planning Inspectorate, Case Officer for Sizewell C.

Dear Officer PINs

We have just learnt that EDFE are running their Sizewell C 3rd Consultation for 12 weeks from 4th Jan 2019. Also that they intend to submit their DCO to PINS end of 2019 beginning of 2020. and hope to start building operations in 2021.

During this time BEIS are undertaking a Consultation on NPS for Energy EN6 and we are told that the second round will be in 2019 possibly summer/ autumn.

My question to you is as follows.
1) As SZC cannot be deployed to create electricity by 2025 as required in EN6 am I correct in thinking it will be decided by criteria in the revised EN6 ?


Yours Sincerely

Joan Girling
[Redacted]
The following text has been taken from the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy’s July 2018 document titled: ‘ Government Response: Consultation on the siting criteria and process for a new national policy statement for nuclear power with single reactor capacity over 1 gigawat beyond 2025’, which is available on this link:
[attachment 1]

‘Continuing application of EN-6

3.10 EN-6 remains in force in its entirety for use in development consent applications for new nuclear power stations on sites listed in EN-6 that are capable of deployment before the end of 2025. Sites listed in EN-6 on which a new nuclear power station is anticipated to deploy after 2025 will continue to be considered appropriate sites and retain strong Government support during the designation of the new NPS.
3.11 The owners of such sites are able to make development consent applications, and a decision on whether to grant consent will be made under section 105 of the Planning Act 2008. Government is confident that both EN-1 and EN-6 incorporate information, assessments and statements which will continue to be important and relevant to the Secretary of State’s development consent decision for projects which will deploy after 2025. This includes statements of the need for nuclear power, as well as environmental and other assessments that continue to be relevant for projects which will deploy after 2025. As such, in deciding whether or not to grant consent to such a development the Secretary of State would, under section 105(2)(c) of the Planning Act 2008 , have regard to the content of EN-1 and EN-6. Where there is no relevant change in circumstances it is likely that significant weight would be given to the policy in EN-1 and EN-6.
3.12 When designated, the new NPS will have effect for the purposes of section 104 of the Planning Act 2008 for listed sites capable of deploying between 2026-2035. Furthermore, a published new NPS in draft form would be an important and relevant consideration under section 105(2)(c) of the Planning Act 2008 in relation to any a decision is taken on an application for Development Consent before the new NPS is designated.’

Page 4 of the document states that the Government is proposing to carry over the list of suitable sites from EN-6 to the new NPS, this list includes the Sizewell proposal.

03 December 2018
Joan Girling
Sizewell C New Nuclear Power Station
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Enquiry sent to the Secretary of State
I am writing in regard to your email sent to the Secretary of State dated 8 November 2018 in relation to the above proposals. Your email has been passed to the Planning Inspectorate for response, as we administer the Planning Act 2008 process under which these proposals will be considered. The applications have not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, the proposals are currently at the pre-application stage of the planning process, the developer is expecting to submit the applications in Q4 2019. I note that you have already submitted your comments to ScottishPower Renewables, this is important to enable your views to be considered before their proposals are finalised and the applications submitted. As you may already be aware, the developer is intending to undertake further pre-application consultation in early 2019. If you would like more information about the Planning Act 2008 process, please see “Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others” which can be found, along with other advice notes, here: [attachment 1]

30 November 2018
John Heald
East Anglia ONE North Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Enquiry sent to the Secretary of State
I am writing in regard to your email sent to the Secretary of State dated 8 November 2018 in relation to the above proposals. Your email has been passed to the Planning Inspectorate for response, as we administer the Planning Act 2008 process under which these proposals will be considered. The Applications have not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, they are currently at the pre-application stage of the planning process. We note that the developer is expecting to submit the applications in Q4 2019. It is important that the developer is made aware of your comments at the pre-application stage, to enable them to consider these points before finalising their proposals and submitting the applications. I therefore strongly encourage you to contact ScottishPower Renewables directly on [email protected] and [email protected] if you haven’t already done so, with your comments on their proposals. If you would like more information about the Planning Act 2008 process, please see “Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others” which can be found, along with other advice notes, here: [attachment 1]

30 November 2018
Andrew Plant
East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Enquiry sent to the Secretary of State
I am writing in regard to your email sent to the Secretary of State dated 8 November 2018 in relation to the above proposals. Your email has been passed to the Planning Inspectorate for response, as we administer the Planning Act 2008 process under which these proposals will be considered. The applications have not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, the proposals are currently at the pre-application stage of the planning process, the developer is expecting to submit the applications in Q4 2019. I note that you have already submitted your comments to ScottishPower Renewables, this is important to enable your views to be considered before their proposals are finalised and the applications submitted. As you may already be aware, the developer is intending to undertake further pre-application consultation in early 2019. If you would like more information about the Planning Act 2008 process, please see “Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others” which can be found, along with other advice notes, here: [attachment 1]

30 November 2018
John Heald
East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Enquiry sent to the Secretary of State
I am writing in regard to your email sent to the Secretary of State dated 8 November 2018 in relation to the above proposals. Your email has been passed to the Planning Inspectorate for response, as we administer the Planning Act 2008 process under which these proposals will be considered. The Applications have not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, they are currently at the pre-application stage of the planning process. We note that the developer is expecting to submit the applications in Q4 2019. It is important that the developer is made aware of your comments at the pre-application stage, to enable them to consider these points before finalising their proposals and submitting the applications. I therefore strongly encourage you to contact ScottishPower Renewables directly on [email protected] and [email protected] if you haven’t already done so, with your comments on their proposals. If you would like more information about the Planning Act 2008 process, please see “Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others” which can be found, along with other advice notes, here: [attachment 1]

30 November 2018
Andrew Plant
East Anglia ONE North Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting.
Please see attached note.

30 November 2018
Heathrow Airport Ltd - anon.
Expansion of Heathrow Airport (Third Runway)
Enquiry received via email
Enquiry from Les Stevens by email on 23 November 2018:

Could you clarify a couple of points on the Inspectors request for interested parties to work with the Applicant to draw up SoCG please?

One area requires the Applicant to draw up a SoCG with the Parish Councils of Queen Camel, Sparkford and West Camel on a number of issues raised in our formal joint submission or separate individual submissions.

Could you please provide clarification on two areas please -
1) Mott-MacDonald have contacted all three PCs separately offering to draft a SoCG with each - is the Inspectors expectation that this should be a single joint document rather than three separate ones?

2) The Hazelgrove junction appears to be missing from the list of items the Joint PCs are expected to draw up a SoCG with the Applicant - is this an omission or is the Inspectors expectation that this junction would be covered under the SoCG with Heritage England?

Clarification on these points would be helpful.

Many thanks.
Advice given by email on 29 November 2018:

Dear Les Stevens

I can confirm that the Examining Authority are content to receive either a joint SoCG or three individual SoCG’s. There is considerable overlap between the three Parish Councils and therefore a joint SoCG may be the most efficient way forward, this could include any points specific to the individual Parish Councils. The ExA however is content to receive individual SoCG if that proves more efficient for the Parish Councils.

Please note that the matters indicated in Annex G of the Rule 6 letter, dated 14 November 2018, are not the only matters that can be included in the SoCG(s). Should the parties be in a position to agree matters in relation to the Hazelgrove Junction (including identifying areas where there is disagreement), or any other matters, this would be helpful to the examination and should be included in the SoCG.

Kind regards

29 November 2018
Queen Camel, Sparkford & West Camel Parish Council - Les Stevens
A303 Sparkford to Ilchester Dualling
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Inception Meeting
Please see note attached.

28 November 2018
Arora Group - anon.
Heathrow West
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached

27 November 2018
Womble Bond Dickinson LLP (WBD) - anon.
Portishead Branch Line - MetroWest Phase 1
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project meeting update
Please see attached

27 November 2018
EDF Energy - anon.
Sizewell C New Nuclear Power Station
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Good afternoon.


I feel it is appropriate to bring to your attention the attached letter
that has been sent to our County and District Council leaders and senior
officers, as well as relevant departments in central Government.


Not only has EDFE failed dismally to provide cogent information for us
to meaningfully respond to their consultations at Stage 1 and 2, but the
Councils' Task Group have clearly been discussing some of the most
important issues that will affect the local population in camera. They
are unwilling to share any of the topics discussed or possible outcomes.


Allied to what is now recognised will be a head-on clash between the
building of Sizewell C and the onshore infrastructure for the Scottish
Power Renewables (SPR) windfarms East Anglia ONE north and TWO, we are
very concerned.


SPR are being equally secretive concerning the release of any useful
information, to permit potentially affected residents to effectively
respond to their latest Consultation Stage 3.5. See the Parish Council
notice that Middleton has circulated, also attached.


East Suffolk is already on the verge of being overburdened with the
support of existing major infrastructure that currently overloads our
local roads (particularly the B1122) on a regular basis to the detriment
of everyday life and livelihood. Yet the two power companies are
attempting to simply ride roughshod over us in their quest to build even
more using existing roads - in order to save them expense? In the long
run, they will each get in each others' way and cause both projects to
lose time - and that would be more expensive!


Kind regards,


Cllr Roy Dowding

Middleton Parish Council

On behalf of the B1122 Action Group
Dear Sir,


Thank you for your email and apologies for the delayed reply.


As the project has not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate
(the Inspectorate), the Inspectorate has no formal powers to intervene
on consultees’ behalf and therefore I would encourage you to contact the
developer directly to make your concerns heard as they have a statutory
duty to take your views into account.


Your comments sent to local authorities (LA) should be considered when
the LA’s provide Adequacy of Consultation responses to the Inspectorate
on whether the Applicant has fulfilled its consultation duties.


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


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


For information, please see link below to Advice Note 8 which sets out
an overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning
process for members of the public and others.

[attachment 1]


A copy of your email and attachments and this response will be published
to the project webpages.


Yours faithfully

26 November 2018
Middleton Parish Council - anon.
Sizewell C New Nuclear Power Station
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Further to our telephone conversation this morning ,for completeness I would be grateful if you could kindly confirm -:

1. that affected parties (i.e owners and occupiers ) are interested parties and don’t need to register with the Planning Inspectorate (and accordingly will be directly contacted by the Planning Inspectorate to be informed of timescales and given the opportunity to make representations and attend at hearings ? Also, will such contact be made by ordinary post? )

2. whether there is guidance on the requirement for a DCO applicant to -:
a)act reasonably when approaching affected parties and to meaningfully engage to seek consensus on achieving voluntary agreements (on a consensual basis) without any attempt to influence in respect of specifying/imposing time limits (or in any other way) in advance of a DCO being granted (to seek to achieve such voluntary agreements)
b) continue to meaningfully seek reasonable voluntary agreements for a specific period in the event of (and subsequent to ) a DCO being granted (instead of merely going through the motions of issuing voluntary document templates so as to indicate an attempt to comply with the process requirements with little or no intention of entering into purposeful discussions to achieve reasonable consensus on the same, and in the event of no agreement being completed with the premediated aim of imposing compulsory purposes as soon as possible in the event of being granted a Development Consent Order.
c) to duly recompense affected parties (such as landowners & occupiers) in respect of any reasonable loss or expense (including professional fees) incurred in respect of the DCO application (and in the event of the DCO being granted in consequence of scheme operations) without imposing or specifying limits .

3. whether there is any redress /sanctions that are available to be imposed (and/or a dispute resolution process other than in respect of Compensation ) in the event of a DCO being granted and the “applicant “ subsequently acting unreasonably (potentially abusing powers) e.g. by not seeking to achieve voluntary agreements within a specific period on a consensual & reasonable basis.
In relation to point 1, the definition of an Interested Party (IP) is contained within Section 102 of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended). The Planning Inspectorate will write to anyone who it considers to be an IP to invite them to the Preliminary Meeting (PM). We will also provide IP’s with the confirmed timetable following the PM, which will set out the deadlines for the submission of evidence, and they will be invited to attend hearings. Where possible, we will send notification by e-mail. If we do not have an e-mail address we will issue correspondence by post.

In relation to point 2, please see attached guidance issued by the Department of Communities and Local Government relating to procedures for Compulsory Acquisition: [attachment 1].

Finally, in relation to point 3, neither the Planning Inspectorate nor the Secretary of State become involved in disputes relating to the compensation or the implementation of any Compulsory Acquisition powers that may be granted in a Development Consent Order. We would suggest that your clients obtain their own legal advice on such matters if they are of concern.

I hope this is of assistance.

22 November 2018
Davis Meade Property Consultants - Eifion Bibby
North Wales Connection
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached Meeting Note

22 November 2018
Highways England
M25 junction 28 improvements
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
See attached letter.
With the application being accepted for examination last Friday 16 November 2018, the next step in the process for Highways England to provide notice of, and to publicise, the Inspectorate’s decision. That notice will include the dates for the period within which anybody can register with the Inspectorate to become an Interested Party in the future Examination by making a Relevant Representation. The Relevant Representations period must last for a minimum of 30 days. More information is available in our ‘Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination’: [attachment 1]

The Examining Authority, once appointed, will read all Relevant Representations received and consider all relevant and important matters in establishing an Initial Assessment of Principal Issues that will frame the statutory six months Examination.

19 November 2018
Amesbury Museum Heritage Trust - anon.
A303 Stonehenge
Enquiry received via email
I have had very little time to examine the 11,000 pages of the DCO application since it was submitted. My old school, Lord Mayor Treloar College for the Disabled, is implicated in the current infected blood public enquiry and such spare time I have has been focused on this. I guess if I had read all of it that would have been over 600 pages a week from the publication date to now.

I have focused on the main area that I have been asking the applicant about since the first consolation, which is the particulate air pollution as this seems to have potential for a disturbingly high mortality rate.

As far as I can see the applicant has made an error in the dispersion rate for pm2.5 particulates, it may be they have used the dispersion figure, i.e. the distance from the point of aviation fuel burn to the point the level of airborne particulates return to the existing background level, for pm10 particulates or it may be they haven't counted the pm2.5s at all.

This is a fairly technical issue so I wonder if you could be kind enough to put me in touch with the right person to discuss it with.
If you are seeking clarification about the content of the environmental assessment, please contact the Applicant.

Otherwise, there will be various opportunities for you to make representations to the Examining Authority in the course of the six month examination.

We will write to you in due course with your invitation to the Preliminary Meeting which will include a draft Examination Timetable.

16 November 2018
Michael Child
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
Enquiry from Mark Redding by email on 15 November 2018:

Thank you Robert. When I phoned PINs last with a query I was told that there would be another 28 day period to assess whether or not to accept the revised application. 28 days has not passed. Could you please advise why it has been accepted in less than 28 days? Was I given incorrect information?
Advice given by email on 15 November 2018:

Dear Mr Redding,

No, your information was correct. We have a maximum of 28 days to consider whether or not to accept an application. On this occasion, it did not take the full 28 days; we had already seen much of the documentation, from the first application.

If you would like to discuss the process going forward, please do not hesitate to contact me.

15 November 2018
Stop Rail Central Ltd - Mark Redding
Rail Central (Strategic Rail Freight Interchange)
Enquiry received via email
Enquiry from Mark Redding by email on 14 November 2018:

Dear Sirs,

As you know the Rail Central application has been resubmitted and on the current timelines the registration period has the potential to clash with the Christmas holiday period. I would therefore ask whether it is possible to delay that registration period until the new year to give all those who wish to participate a fair chance to do so. December is a time when people are away or their minds are on other things. The Christmas of 2016 was completely ruined by the arrival of Rail Central on our radar so I would ask that we are at least given 2018 in relative peace before we have to recommence our fight in earnest.
Advice given by email on 15 November 2018:

Dear Mr Redding,

Thank you for your email. We do not control when the registration period begins or ends.

The applicant is required to publicise the acceptance of their application and set a deadline for registration. I suggest you contact them urgently, and make your request directly to them.

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

15 November 2018
Stop Rail Central Ltd - Mark Redding
Rail Central (Strategic Rail Freight Interchange)
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please See Attached

15 November 2018
Equinor UK - anon.
General
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
What is the process for considering the aggregate impact of non material change requests that may, in aggregate, become material?

Many thanks
Jonathan
Dear Mr Dean

Thank you for your email.

In relation to your query, there is no legal definition of ‘material’ but the tests to apply are whether the change is substantial or whether the development now being proposed is not in substance that which was originally applied for. The former constitutes a material change which – provided there is sufficient time remaining in the Examination stage - can be accommodated as part of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) process. The latter constitutes a different project for which a new application would be required.

Whether a proposed change falls within either of these categories is a question of planning judgment which may be based on criteria including, for example, whether the change would generate a new or different likely significant environmental effect(s). Similarly, whether (and if so the extent to which) a change request involves an extension to the Order land, particularly where this would require additional Compulsory Acquisition powers eg for new plots of land and/ or interests. Further information about making a material change request can be found in paragraphs 109 to 115 of the Examination Guidance.

[attachment 1]

The submission of new or revised information before the Examination starts or during the Examination does not necessarily constitute a request to materially change an application. For example, following a decision to accept an application for examination, applicants are often issued with advice by the Planning Inspectorate which may identify errors, omissions and qualitative issues relating to the submitted application documentation. In response applicants may submit errata, amended application documents, plans or environmental information. During the course of the Examination the Examining Authority (ExA) may also request further information or written comments from an applicant or any Interested Party; new information may also be provided in response to an ExA’s written questions. Changes to the application documents may not necessarily result in changes to the underlying project.

The ExA is ultimately responsible for deciding whether new information submitted into the Examination by an applicant constitutes a material change to the application.

Further information about change requests can be found in the Inspectorate’s Advice Note Sixteen: How to request a change which may be material

14 November 2018
Jonathan Dean
Wylfa Newydd Nuclear Power Station
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please see attached
Dear Mr Wilcox,

Thank you for your email and attached letter of 10 October 2018. Please accept my apologies for the delay in replying.

As explained in our previous reply to you of 13 July 2018 as the project has not yet been submitted to the Inspectorate, the Inspectorate has no formal powers to intervene on consultees’ behalf and we are therefore not in a position to supervise the statutory consultation process conducted by the Applicant.

As you have raised concerns over the Applicant’s consultation, and as the Inspectorate advised previously, if you have not already done so, write to your local authority and set out why you think the Applicant is failing/or has failed to conduct is consultation properly. Your comments sent to local authorities should be considered when they provide Adequacy of Consultation responses to the Inspectorate on whether the Applicant has fulfilled its consultation duties. The local authority’s comments on the Applicant’s consultation will be taken into account when the Examining Inspectors makes his/her decision whether to accept the Application for examination.

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

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

For information, please see link below to Advice Note 8 which sets out an overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others. [attachment 1].

We understand that the application is due to be submitted to the Planning Inspectorate on Friday 16 November 2018.

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

Thank you

13 November 2018
Graveney Rural Environment Action Team - anon.
Cleve Hill Solar Park
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
A meeting was held between Network Rail and the Inspectorate.
Please see attached

13 November 2018
Network Rail - anon.
Western Rail Link to Heathrow
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update meeting
Please see Attached

08 November 2018
Vattenfall Wind Power Ltd - anon.
Norfolk Boreas
Enquiry received via email
What action has or will be taken to ensure that representations (from both sides) are above board and genuine? I sincerely have no problem with genuine representations opposed to the Airport – we live in a democracy and people are entitled to their opinion – provided it is genuine!
What constitutes a Relevant Representation is defined in s102 of the Planning Act 2008:

(4) A representation is a relevant representation for the purposes of subsection (1) to the extent that—
(a) it is a representation about the application,
(b) it is made to the [ Secretary of State ] in the prescribed form and manner,
(c) it is received by the [ Secretary of State ] no later than the deadline that applies under section 56 to the person making it,
(d) it contains material of a prescribed description, and
(e) it does not contain—
(i) material about compensation for compulsory acquisition of land or of an interest in or right over land,
(ii) material about the merits of policy set out in a national policy statement, or
(iii) material that is vexatious or frivolous.

It is not within the remit of the Planning Inspectorate to investigate the source of representations made. The inquisitorial nature of the Planning Act 2008 process means that Examining Authorities examine evidence through questioning. In the examination process, it is the relevance and importance of the issues which carry weight – not the volume of submissions received. On that basis duplicated representations (in support or objection to a Proposed Development) cannot serve to manipulate the decision-making process.

25 October 2018
Michael Grantham
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached meeting note

24 October 2018
Cleve Hill Solar Park Ltd
Cleve Hill Solar Park
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I notice that some of the Wylfa Newydd RRs are over 500 words - is this not a hard limit?
Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination ([attachment 1]) states on page 3 that:

There is no word limit on how much to include in your Relevant Representation; however, the Examining Authority may only have a short period of time to read all the Relevant Representations before the Preliminary Meeting. As such, you should make sure your main points are clearly set out. We recommend the use of bullet points and headings to highlight your main points.

While information on the online registration form states:

Here you must provide an outline of the main points you intend to make in relation to the application. Failure to provide this will mean that we are unable to register you as an Interested Party. Please aim to limit this section to no more than 500 words.

Taking this information in to consideration, there is no maximum word limit; however we encourage parties to provide a concise summary of their opinions.

22 October 2018
Jonathan Dean
North Wales Connection
Enquiry received via phone
response has attachments
Telephone enquiry from Mr Walton on 17 October 2018 regarding Relevant Representations.
Advice given by email on 18 October 2018:

Dear Mr Walton,

Following our telephone conversation yesterday I am emailing to confirm that the relevant representations period for the above mentioned project closes tomorrow Friday 19 October 2018 at 23:59. For information please refer to the project page on the National Infrastructure Planning website, see link below:

[attachment 1]

I also attach a link below to the Planning Inspectorate Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination. This advice note provides practical advice about registering a Relevant Representation in order to become an Interested Party. It also explains that once the Examination has started, you can continue to rely on the Relevant Representation you submitted in order to register as an Interested Party or you can submit a further written representation by the deadline that will be set out in the Examination Timetable. This can expand on the matters included in your Relevant Representation.

[attachment 2]

I hope you find the above information useful. Please note the Project Mailbox email address is [email protected]

18 October 2018
Mr Walton
A303 Sparkford to Ilchester Dualling
Enquiry received via phone
response has attachments
A series of telephone calls took place on 16 to 19 October 2018 in order for the Planning Inspectorate to set out some concerns identified with the application, and in order to give the applicant the opportunity to direct the Inspectorate within the application to documents which may address the concerns.
The Planning Inspectorate highlighted some inconsistencies between certain documents and plans, conflicting internal references between and within documents and some inconsistencies between the hard and electronic copy of the submitted application in regard to the following documents:
- Works plans
- Draft DCO
- Environmental Statement
- Parameters plan
Please see the letter confirming that the application was not accepted:
[attachment 1]

16 October 2018
Ashfield Land Management Limited and Gazeley GLP N - anon.
Rail Central (Strategic Rail Freight Interchange)
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
On your web page for this project it states that "The Applicant (RiverOak Strategic Partners Ltd) must certify to the Planning Inspectorate that it has complied with its application notification requirements." Can you please detail exactly what this requirement refers to, what the applicant has to do in order to certify, how long the applicant has to certify, whether he has yet done so and any other information you think would be relevant to the process.
The certificates are published on the project webpage: [attachment 1]

The certificates themselves set out what the Applicant is certifying.

Applicants must provide these certificates within ten working days following the close of the registration (Relevant Representations) period. The registration period closed on 8 October 2018 and the applicant certified two days later on 10 October 2018.

16 October 2018
Adem Mehmet
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Query from Paul Gripton by email on 24 September 2018:

Please find attached a letter detailing the issues and advice sought, mentioned in our previous phone conversation. It is lengthy but evidenced.
Response by email on 15 October 2018:

With apologies for the delay, please see our response to your queries below:

Query 1: Are the discharging authorities and EDF Energy, non-compliant with the DCO and/or the EIA Regulations and Directive if they failed to comply with DCO provisions involving Discharge of Requirement PW 10 (TIMP) Traffic Incident Management Plan?

Response: In the event that requirements of a DCO have not been correctly discharged, and the applicant proceeds with a development, then the applicant may be proceeding to construct an NSIP in the absence of Development Consent. Section 160 of the Planning Act 2008 is clear that a ‘person commits an offence if the person carries out, or causes to be carried out, development for which development consent is required at a time when no development consent is in force in respect of the development.’

Query 2: If it were shown that the Councils (as discharging authorities) and the undertaker were non-compliant, would West Somerset and Sedgemoor District Councils be responsible for ‘enforcement’ against themselves and EDF Energy?

Response: The local planning authority would be responsible for enforcing compliance with the requirements of the DCO. If you have raised a matter relating to non-compliance with them, and they have not responded to your satisfaction, you should first exhaust their complaints procedure. If having done that and you are still dissatisfied, you may wish to refer the matter to the Local Government Ombudsman.

Query 3: Do the updated EIA Regulations 2017, apply to change/Requirement Discharges (involving HPC) undertaken after 16th May 2017, including the new provisions regarding ‘risk to human health’ and part 12 concerning ‘objectivity and bias’ regarding an authorities duty including the need for ‘functional separation’ and conflict of interest measures?

Response: The Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 (the EIA Regulations 2017) came into force on the 16th May 2017. At that point and in accordance with Regulation 37 of the EIA Regulations 2017 the previous Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations and Amending legislation were revoked (see Regulation 37 of the EIA Regulations 2017). The EIA Regulations 2017 include a transitional provision (Regulation 37 (2)) which would allow for previous Regulations (as specified) to continue to apply where certain circumstances are met (Regulation 37 (2) (a & b)). The extent to which the transitional provisions apply is a matter for the Competent Authority (for the purposes of the Regulations) in determining their duties in accordance with the EIA Regulations 2017 it will be relevant for any such decision to take into account the specific details of the application as made.

Query 4: Should, the possibility of materially new or materially different environmental effects other than those assessed in the Environmental Statement be identified under subsequent requests for change/discharge, what response is required by the undertaker/authorities, including public involvement?

Response: Section 153 and Schedule 6 of the Planning Act 2008 include provision for changes to, and revocation of, orders granting development consent. An Applicant seeking to make any such change is required to follow the process prescribed by the Planning Act 2008 and any other relevant secondary legislation including the EIA Regulations 2017. The discharge of requirements in a Development Consent Order (DCO) is a matter for the relevant discharging authority. A proposed change to an Order Granting Development consent or request to discharge specific DCO requirement(s) may engage the EIA Regulations 2017 ‘subsequent application’ regulations (Regulation 22-25) although the extent to which they apply will depend upon the specific nature of proposal and decisions to be taken by the relevant Competent Authority for the purposes of the Regulations.

Query 5: When considering if there are materially new or different effects,(with respect to EIA impacts/regulations) do the discharging authorities take mitigation into account or is the ‘test’ as stated in the DCO (Schedule 2 para 4) just to identify (unmitigated?) new or different effects than those included in the Environmental Statement? Whilst identifying and applying mitigation is important, basically is consideration of effects including mitigation preventing identification of significant effects and circumventing the EIA regulations and Directive, including the need for subsequent public participation and possibility to comment?

Response: The approach to be taken to determine the applicability of the EIA Regulations 2017 to the discharge of requirements in a Development Consent Order (DCO) is a matter for the relevant discharging authority.

Query 6: With regard to the updated TIMP and the ‘new’ Section 5 - Which now includes Significant Road Works as an incident and exceptional circumstance, consequently involving compensatory extended HGV delivery periods outside the normal permitted limits during unsocial hours. – The Transport Review Group, (which contains significant EDF Energy representation and voting rights that they have used previously when deciding change on their own proposals) appear to have usurped the role of the discharging authorities contrary to the DCO, carrying out the role and decisions designated to the recognised discharging authorities. Basically are the discharging authorities (West Somerset and Sedgemoor District Councils) allowed to transfer their role and responsibilities for granting agreement or approval designated to them under the DCO to a group under which the proposer has a significant voting right (with a history of using it) on their own proposal?

Response: The Planning Inspectorate does not comment on the role of a local planning authority when performing functions required as a discharging authority. Please see the answer to point 2 regarding the opportunity to raise the matter with the Local Government Ombudsman.

Query 7: The TRG through the S 106 agreement appear to have a different, lower standard than that undertaken by discharging authorities under the DCO requirements when ‘testing’ their satisfaction that there are unlikely to be materially new or different environmental effects . Under the DCO authorities must be ‘satisfied’, which is an absolute obligation. The TRG under the S 106 agreement are required to be ‘reasonably satisfied’ which is a lower qualified obligation. Should the TRG test to the higher standard prescribed under the DCO if they are allowed to grant agreement/approval of exceptional circumstances under Requirement PW10?

Response: The Planning Inspectorate does not comment on the role of the local planning authority when performing functions required as a discharging authority.

15 October 2018
Paul Gripton
Hinkley Point C New Nuclear Power Station
Enquiry received via email
The National Planning Guidance states that section 106 agreements should be used to mitigate the effects of otherwise unacceptable developments.
I know that RSP have argued against a 106 agreement for Manston but this is not unusual from developers. 106 agreements are often imposed upon them
What I don’t understand is at what point PINS would consider such an approach in this case, and what input interested parties would have into any potential 106 agreement.
Under the Planning Act 2008, agreements/ undertakings pursuant to s106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 are known as Development Consent Obligations.

In this case, a Development Consent Obligation does not form part of the application documentation. If a Development Consent Obligation were subsequently submitted to the examination, it would have the same status as all other Examination Documents insofar as Interested Parties would be able to make representations about its content to the Examining Authority.

12 October 2018
David Green
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I have a question regarding whether pins can limit a sponsors project plans when granting a DCO.
All interested parties whether for or against the airport, SMA, SMAA, SUMA, NNF, Craig Mackinlay MP and Sir Roger Gale MP have all stated they are against night flights with both Mr Gale and Mr Mackinlay (in recent letters to his constituents), confirming that RSP do not require night flights. However in their application RSP have specified they would like night flights. Given this wholesale objection, that national policy is considering banning night flights (as they will be at Heathrow), does the inspector have the legal powers to ban them, even though RSP have specified they want them, as a condition of the DCO should they be convinced they would be detrimental to the local community or for any other reason ?
Section 120 of the Planning Act 2008 explains that Development Consent Orders (DCO) may impose Requirements (analogous to ‘conditions’ in conventional planning decisions). The draft Requirements provided in Schedule 2 of the draft Manston Airport DCO are available to view here: [attachment 1];stage=app&filter1=Draft+Development+Consent+Orders

The Examining Authority (ExA) will examine the draft DCO submitted with the application and consider any relevant and important matters raised in representations made about its content. This process can lead to changes being made to a draft DCO (including the Requirements) in the course of an Examination by the Applicant itself or as recommended by the ExA.

In all cases, the Secretary of State (SoS) will take the final decision about whether or not development consent should be granted and finalise the form of the DCO, if it is made. Whether or not an ExA recommends to the SoS that development consent should be granted, its Recommendation Report to the SoS must be accompanied by a final draft DCO. The final draft DCO will include any changes made to the draft DCO in the course of the Examination, and may also include further recommended changes applied by the ExA in the process of reporting. In turn, in consideration of the Recommendation Report and the final draft DCO accompanying it, the SoS may decide to delete or amend certain provisions or make any other changes in order to make the Proposed Development acceptable in planning terms.

12 October 2018
Adem Mehmet
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Meeting Note
Please see Attached

02 October 2018
Highways England - anon.
A417 Missing Link
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please see attached letter from Chris Wheeler (dated 01 August 2018)
Please see attached response from The Planning Inspectorate (dated 27 September 2018)

27 September 2018
Substation Action - Save East Suffolk (SASES) - Chris Wheeler
East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please see attached letter from Chris Wheeler (dated 01 August 2018)
Please see attached response from The Planning Inspectorate (dated 27 September 2018)

27 September 2018
Substation Action - Save East Suffolk (SASES) - Chris Wheeler
East Anglia ONE North Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via post
response has attachments
Please see attached letter from Paul Collins (dated 07 September 2018)
Please see attached response letter from The Planning Inspectorate (dated 27 September 2018)

27 September 2018
Minsmere Levels Stakeholder Group - Paul Collins
Sizewell C New Nuclear Power Station
Enquiry received via email
Mock up land plans
Susannah has passed your email to me for response, I will be the Case Manager for this project and my contact details are below. Please accept our apologies for the delay in responding, our initial response to the Land Plans issue is below.

Firstly, in reviewing the plans electronically, the potential ‘cluttered’ appearance is perhaps less that it appears on the hard copy plans.

Secondly, whilst we understand why you have sought to present the Land Plans and Book of Reference in the proposed form we do have some significant reservations about the approach and would like to check some of the following points:

• Are you satisfied that the approach complies with the requirement in the APFP regulations - 5(2)(i)?

• Are you satisfied that the approach complies with the MHCLG guidance? In particular Annex C of the ‘Guidance related to procedures for the compulsory acquisition of land’ provides the following useful tips for dealing with this not uncommon issue, namely:

? In general, the map scale should not be smaller than 1/1250, and for land in a densely populated urban area, the scale should be at least 1/500 and preferably larger. Where the order involves the acquisition of a considerable number of small plots, the use of insets on a larger scale is often helpful.
? It is also important that the plan should show such details as are necessary to relate it to the description of each parcel of land (including land affected by temporary occupation) described in the book of reference. This may involve marking on the map the names of roads and places or local landmarks not otherwise shown.
? The boundaries between plots should be clearly delineated and each plot separately numbered to correspond with the book of reference.
? There should be no discrepancy between the description of the land in the book of reference and the plan, and no room for doubt on anyone’s part as to the precise areas of land which are to be compulsorily acquired. Where uncertainty over the true extent of the land to be acquired causes or may cause difficulties, the Secretary of State may refuse to make the order until this is made clear.
? The descriptions of each plot of land included in parts 1-5 of the book of reference where it is intended that all or part of the proposed development and works shall be carried out, should include the area in square metres of each plot.

We do note that other Highways England project teams have submitted Land Plans which also had a large number of small plots and used scale and insets effectively (A30 Temple to Higher Carblake):https://infrastructure.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/wp-content/ipc/uploads/projects/TR010014/TR010014-000126-2.02%20Land%20Plans.pdf

Finally, have you considered:

• how an Examining Authority would determine which bit of the plot was owned by each person, or the relative size of the sub-plot;
• how owners of the different plots could identify which bits they owned; and
• how compensation claims might be considered without clarity about the individual plots.

In light of the above queries/questions/reservations, this could call in to question the satisfactory nature of the plans if they were to be submitted in the proposed form.

I hope the above is helpful, please let me know if you have any further queries.

27 September 2018
Highways England - David Hopkin
A585 Windy Harbour to Skippool Improvement Scheme
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting and review of the draft application documents
Please see attached

27 September 2018
Cory Riverside Energy – Rob Gully - anon.
Riverside Energy Park
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
From the information in the public domain it is not clear what has changed with regard to RSP's submission that allowed this change of stance where the previous advice, regarding RSP's withdrawn Application of May 2018, was clearly that in PINS view there was insufficient evidence provided by RSP to base any such assessment on. Can this omission be clarified?

On the JR point I understand that an acceptance decision could not actually be JR'd until the examination is concluded. Is this not correct?
In its resubmitted application, RSP provided additional evidence (for example in its updated NSIP Justification Document (Doc 2.3)) which enabled the Planning Inspectorate to reach the conclusion expressed in Box 3 of the Acceptance of Applications Checklist.

Section 118 of the Planning Act 2008 sets out the statutory periods associated with legal challenges. If you require further assistance in respect of this matter, please contact the Administrative Court Office on 0207 947 6655 or follow this link: [attachment 1]

26 September 2018
S Alvers
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
However, you have failed to address the two points I raised, these being :

1. Whether the Planning Inspectorate is concerned about DCO applicants lying about their applications, apparently with the deliberate intention of misleading local residents with regards to the potential impacts of their proposals; and
2. Whether the Planning Inspectorate consider the statement made by Tony Freudmann on KMTV to constitute a "misrepresentation of the Planning Act 2008 process"
The purpose of the forthcoming examination is to investigate the potential impacts of the Proposed Development. If you feel any statements made by the Applicant, either within the application documents or elsewhere, do not accurately represent the potential impacts of the Proposed Development, please articulate your concern and provide supporting evidence in the form of a Relevant Representation: [attachment 1]

26 September 2018
Jon Fowler
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via phone
The enquirer requested information on how a group of persons could register and make representations.
• The Planning Inspectorate encourages individuals with shared interests to form groups, and to register and make representations in the name of the group
• On that basis, it necessary for a group name to be provided and for a named individual to be identified as the leader/ spokesperson for the group
• Only the name of the group leader/ spokesperson needs to be provided on the registration form – all correspondence for the attention of the group in the course of the examination will be sent to the group leader/ spokesperson
• The naming of a group leader/ spokesperson will not preclude other group members from making representations on behalf of the group in the course of the examination
• The above advice is enshrined in the principle that it is the quality of the issues/ evidence put before an examination that will carry weight – not the amount of times the same issue is repeated

26 September 2018
Alan Welcome
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Now that the Manston DCO is entering the examination stage can you tell me if PINS will be calling on experts in the various fields needed to test RSP’s application claims, i.e. their business plan, noise & pollution levels, ATMs, impact on local residents & ecology etc. or is it entirely up to interested parties to do so. It also seems to me that their proposal does not qualify as an NSIP until at least year 2 looking at ATM forecasts. There is a lot of very technical claims that the man on the street will not understand. From what I have been able to understand a lot of RSPs claims seem to have been pulled out of the air with very little evidence to back them up. In many cases there is a lot of evidence to the contrary. There also seems to be information in their application that was not presented to the public.
The application will be examined by an Examining Authority (ExA): either a single appointed person or a Panel of 2, 3, 4 or 5 Examining Inspectors, dependent on the particular circumstances of each the case in question. The ExA for the examination of RSP’s application is yet to be appointed. When the appointment is made by the Secretary of State, notice will published on the project page on the National Infrastructure Planning website.

The way in which the application will be examined will be discussed at the Preliminary Meeting. For more information please read Advice Note 8.3: Influencing how an application is examined – the Preliminary Meeting: [attachment 1]

Section 100 of the Planning Act 2008 sets out the circumstances in which an assessor(s) with specific expertise may be appointed to assist an ExA. Paragraphs 66 to 69 of ‘Planning Act 2008: Guidance for the examination of applications for development consent’ provide more information: [attachment 2]

In respect your comments about ATMs, please consider making these in a Relevant Representation, which will be read by the ExA once appointed: [attachment 3]

26 September 2018
Ian Scott
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
I would like to register as an interested party in the Manston Airport Application for a national infrastructure project and note on your guidance that all contact details that you receive as part of the registration process will be made publicly available, in particular the element in bold below:

In particular, please be aware that we are required by law to make the information that you provide publicly available. Details published on our website will be restricted to your name and the text of your representation. However, any copies made available for inspection at public locations will contain your contact details.

I would like to know how this relates to the new General Data Protection Regulation and your policy?
I write to confirm that none of our current processes would result in your contact information entering the public domain. We will only publish (i) your name and (ii) the text of your representation on the National Infrastructure Planning website. Copies of the Relevant Representations made available for inspection at public locations will be made available via the National Infrastructure Planning website and will therefore contain the same information. If any Relevant Representations are for any reason reproduced in hard copy, that hard copy would comprise a printout from the website.

Our GDPR officer is in the process of updating the wording on the Relevant Representation Form, the latter part of which (bold below) I understand reflects how hard copy Relevant Representations were handled historically.

“In particular, please be aware that we are required by law to make the information that you provide publicly available. Details published on our website will be restricted to your name and the text of your representation. However, any copies made available for inspection at public locations will contain your contact details.” [my emphasis]

24 September 2018
Cathy Rogers
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
We have missed the official deadline (yesterday!) to register as an interested party for the Norfolk Vanguard project.

Equinor is the operator of the Dudgeon windfarm and as such, we have significant interest in the project - in land owned in Necton. And the Dudgeon cable that will be crossed by Vanguard project.

Many thanks and I look forward to hearing back from you.
I confirm receipt of your submission.

As you are aware the opportunity to register and submit a relevant representation has passed.

Your current status in the examination as a party with land affected by the development is an ‘affected person’. As such, you will automatically become registered as an Interested Party.

Details of the land affected by the proposed development can be found in the applicants Book of Reference document.

As this submission was received after the close of the relevant representation period (16 September 2018) it will be presented to the Examining Authority, who has discretion to accept the information into the examination as an additional submission.

Details of the examination process can be found in our advice notes. You may find Advice Note 8.4: The Examination, to be useful as an overview of the examination process.

24 September 2018
Equinor UK Ltd - Hannah Mary Goodlad
Norfolk Vanguard
Enquiry received via phone
response has attachments
Project update meeting - Teleconference
Please see attached meeting note

24 September 2018
SSE Generation Limited - anon.
Ferrybridge D Combined Cycle Gas Turbine (CCGT) Power Station Project
Enquiry received via email
I spoke to a Planning Inspectorate advisor this morning to apologise for Great Yarmouth BC missing last night’s deadline for submitting a registration of interest in the examination (due to an internal misunderstanding). She indicated that it would likely be acceptable for the Council to send its submission this morning, which I am extremely grateful for, and it is attached.
As you are aware the opportunity to register and submit a relevant representation has passed.

Your current status in the examination is a ‘statutory party’ (a Local Authority bordering the Local Authorities in which the development is proposed aka an ‘a’ authority), as such you will not automatically become an Interested Party.

However, as a statutory party you will receive an invitation to the Preliminary Meeting (PM) and a copy of the examination timetable. Following the PM, you will have a further opportunity to notify the ExA that you wish to be treated as an Interested Party. You will then receive all correspondence during the examination.

As this submission was received after the close of the relevant representation period (16 September 2018) it will be presented to the Examining Authority, who has discretion to accept the information into the examination as an additional submission.

21 September 2018
Great Yarmouth Borough Council - Adam Nicholls
Norfolk Vanguard
Enquiry received via email
I have noticed that the relevant representations letter sent 7th Sept was not formatted as I would expect. Please find attached a revised letter which, although the points made are unchanged formatting has been corrected for ease of the reader. I would like to withdraw the earlier letter submitted Sept 7th and replace it with the one attached if this is acceptable?
As this submission was received after the close of the relevant representations period (16 September 2018) it will be presented to the Examining Authority, who has discretion to accept information in to the examination as an additional submission.

21 September 2018
Environment Agency - Barbara Moss-Taylor
Norfolk Vanguard
Enquiry received via email
Query 1 (from Jonathan Dean by e-mail on 12 September 2018)

Many thanks for starting to load the DCO documents. I understand from them that I should now not correspond with them anymore but only with you

I have spotted some errors in the documents:

a link to their old documents on the project website which does not work
the maps for Clorach Fawr do not correspond with emails they have sent me or the land over which they seek rights

These are probably just typos and/or minor errors. Should I provide details now or wait for submitting my written representation?

Query 2 (from Jonathan Dean by e-mail on 17 September 2018)

I am in the process of preparing my Relevant Representation. Will it be possible to include photos and tables?

Query 3 (from Jonathan Dean by e-mail on 18 September 2018)

When will sections 5.2 - 5.9 be loaded? These are some of the ones we have waited a long time for
It is still open to you to correspond directly with the developer, should you wish. However matters relating to the DCO application should be sent to the Planning Inspectorate.

If you feel that there are errors within the Applicant’s documentation you may wish to include these matters in your Relevant Representation (RR).

The purpose of the Relevant Representation is to summarise the points which you agree and/or disagree with about the application. Whilst we do not actively encourage the submission of photos and tables as part of a RR, as there is an opportunity to submit a Written Representation to elaborate on those matters during the course of the Examination, we would not explicitly refuse to accept them at the RR stage.

The views put forward in RR are used by the Examining Authority to help inform their initial assessment of the principal issues.

The application documentation is still in the process of being uploaded; this will be completed as soon as practicable.

20 September 2018
Jonathan Dean
North Wales Connection
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
A project update meeting took place on 20th September 2018
A note of that meeting is attached

20 September 2018
Highways England - anon.
Lower Thames Crossing
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
My questions are as follows:

1. Which of the 4 elements that Riveroak claim limit the existing capability of Manston to zero did you rely on in arriving at you conclusion that its has zero inherent capacity and thus RSP's proposals qualify as a NSIP ?
2. Did the Planning Inspectorate visit the site to verify the claims made by Riveroak and form their own view ? I would think not as you would have likely identified that the Fire station building does appear to have a roof.
3. What implications would there be for Riveroak if the claims they have made in this NSIP justification document are verfiably wrong and you have relied on them in reaching your conlcusions ?
4. What external aviation advice did the Inspectorate take to validate Riveroak's statments?
5. If, ignoring the other 3 elements, the Fire Station did actually have no roof would the sites exisiting owners then need to go through a DCO process to enable them to put the roof back on the building as the capability would then be well beyond 10,000 cargo ATMs needed?
6. Similary, could a third party, akin to Riveroak, launch a second DCO process to simply put a roof back on the Fire Station, release the existing capability of the airport at much lower cost, and obtain compulsory purchase powers over all the land at the airport.
The matters that you raise are now for the examination. On that basis, please consider making your comments about the Proposed Development in a Relevant Representation*.

The process set out in the Planning Act 2008 is inquisitorial, meaning the appointed Examining Authority will ask questions to the Applicant and other Interested Parties based on, amongst other things, the evidence provided in the application documents and any relevant and important matters raised by Interested Parties in any representations received.

Please note that the Relevant Representations period for this project closes at 11.59pm on 8 October 2018.

The decision to accept the application for examination has been made. If you disagree with the way in which the Secretary of State’s decision in this case was taken, the decision may be challenged in the High Court through the process of Judicial Review (JR). For more information about the JR process you will need to seek your own legal advice.

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

19 September 2018
S Alvers
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
i have just read the explanation given on page 120 of the applicant's Planning Statement regarding his astonishing disregard of the extensive representations made by the host local authority in relation to the final part of the statutory consultation. (I have also read the similar account given on p318 of the Consultation Report).

I am wondering if PINS was aware of this when it took a view on the adequacy of the consultation and the overall compliance of the application with applicable norms and standards?

I ask the question because it seems to me that the applicant's actions were improper: it ought not to have disregarded an important part of the statutory process on the basis of an email from a local politician who very plainly had no authority to issue the instruction he did.

I would like to know why PINS has allowed this abuse to pass.
Section 55 of the Planning Act 2008 sets out what the Planning Inspectorate must have regard to in reaching a decision about whether an applicant has complied with its Pre-application duties, namely:

• The Consultation Report received;
• any Adequacy of Consultation Representations received from local authority consultees; and
• the extent to which an applicant has had regard to statutory guidance.

The decision to accept the application by RiverOak Strategic Partners for examination has been made, and the conclusions reached by the Inspectorate in that respect are expressed in the published Section 55 Acceptance of Application Checklist*. If you disagree with the way in which the Secretary of State’s decision in this case was taken, the decision may be challenged in the High Court through the process of Judicial Review (JR). For more information about the JR process you will need to seek your own legal advice.

* [attachment 1]

19 September 2018
Mark de Pulford
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I am currently reading the Environmental Statement, to ensure that any representations engage directly with what the application.

I find that the problems created by the length and complexity of the Statement are greatly exacerbated by the following:
1. the parts are out of order: your/the Developer's listing of the 45 documents does not appear to be arranged logically - or at least not by any method I have been able to discern - why is this?
2. the titles of many of the individual document listings give no indication of the nature and significance of their contents - why not?
3. problem 2 is compounded because the Developer has in many cases bundled together unrelated documents, so that e.g. a significant appraisal of noise effects is found under scores of historical maps - who does that help?
4. problem 2 is further compounded because the Developer has in some instances used identical titles for different documents - why has that been allowed? (I can see that your listing attempts to overcome that by adding detail but the underlying situation remains unsatisfactory)
5. there are other irritating inconsistencies in the Developer's titling which, though relatively minor, tend to add to an impression of disregard for public accessibility.
In short, the documentation is difficult to access and navigate. The presentation is so opaque that it gives rise to the suspicion that the applicant has got something to hide.

Be that as it may, the problems seem likely to rebound on the relevance of the representations coming to the Examining Authority and ultimately on the purpose of the process.

Mindful that the UK arrangements must comply with European norms and standards governing planning applications of this kind, can you please ask the Developer to sort this out?
The manner in which application documents appear on the National Infrastructure Planning website is an ongoing issue which arises from the way in which our internal databases 'talk' to the website. At present there is not a practical solution.

However, to resolve the issue in principle, for each project we produce an Examination Library which arranges the application documents and all representations etc made to an examination in a logical order. An Examination Library for the Manston Airport application/ examination has been published and can be accessed by clicking the large blue button under the Documents tab: [attachment 1]

You may also be assisted by the Applicant’s Navigation Document (Doc 1.4) available here: [attachment 2];stage=app&filter1=Application+Form

19 September 2018
Mark de Pulford
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
The first question asked what weight, if any, PINS gave to the detailed and substantial factual evidence submitted to it regarding the misrepresentation by the applicant of his proposals during the statutory consultation.

The second question was not about laws of the Council of Europe (i.e. the Convention to which the Human Rights Act 1998 gives further effect), rather it is about the laws of the European Union. I read that the UK Regulations under which you are working seek to give effect to superior EU law and that this Union law is intended to confer rights on the individual citizen. If that is the case, the UK government agencies implementing these laws are obliged to make the public aware of the relevant rights. This question is simply about trying to establish how you see your accountability in relation to EU law regarding the public consultation and if there are rights affecting the ordinary citizen which you could tell us about - as the implementer of those rights.
The s55 Acceptance of Applications Checklist* (the Checklist) records that in reaching its conclusion under s55 of PA2008, the Planning Inspectorate had regard to correspondence received from various persons relating to the Applicant’s Pre-application consultation. The weight attributed to that correspondence was not so great as to outweigh the evidence provided by the Applicant demonstrating that it had acted reasonably in seeking to comply with Chapter 2 of Part 5 (pre-application procedure) of the PA2008; as the conclusion in the Checklist states at Box 25.

Under section 51 of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008), the Planning Inspectorate can issue advice about:

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

Through this process the Planning Inspectorate exercises its duty to make the public aware of its rights by, amongst other things:

• Publishing and maintaining a suite of advice notes informing applicants, consultees, the public and others about a range of process matters in relation to the PA2008;
• responding to enquiries with s51 advice, where applicable, and recording each item of s51 advice given on the National Infrastructure Planning website; and separately
• making relevant legislation and statutory guidance easily accessible on the website.

*https://infrastructure.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/wp-content/ipc/uploads/projects/TR020002/TR020002-002550-TR020002%20Section%2055%20Acceptance%20of%20Applications%20Checklist%20FINAL.pdf

19 September 2018
Mark de Pulford
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Can you confirm that the Planning Inspectorate is not concerned if a DCO applicant makes public statements containing lies, as long as these lies do not directly involve the processes set out in the Planning Act 2008.

Furthermore, can you clarify whether the Planning Inspectorate consider statements regarding to technical details contained within an application to fall outside of any "misrepresentation of the Planning Act 2008 process", if, as in the example I gave in my earlier email, the misinformation is provided during the pre-examination period.
Our previous response to you comprises the Planning Inspectorate’s definitive response in respect of the matter raised [[attachment 1]].

Please consider making these and any further comments about the Proposed Development to the appointed Examining Authority by making a Relevant Representation: [attachment 2].

19 September 2018
Jon Fowler
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I live in Tregele the closest village to wylfa, im horrified by the prospect of a second ungodly row of pylons in my back garden ( literally) , if there is anything the inspectorate can do to assist the local community it will be very welcome, im not againt the wylfa B but for heavens sake get the cables buried
The North Wales Connection application was submitted to the Planning Inspectorate (the Inspectorate) on 7 September 2018. A decision whether the application should be accepted for Examination will be made by no later than Friday 5 October 2018.

If the project is accepted for Examination you will be able to register as an Interested Party.

Becoming an Interested Party gives you the right to make representations about the application, attend meetings and hearings, stay informed of the progress of the Examination and be given notification of the final Decision.

Each individual that wishes to become an Interested Party will need to make a Relevant Representation; the Applicant has a duty to notify the local community on how to register as an Interested Party.

For more information about how and when you can have your say, please see our Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination

[attachment 1]

[attachment 2]

19 September 2018
Kevin Otten
North Wales Connection
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
What are these ‘hundreds of changes’ Horizon have made to accommodate the second pylon route across Ynys Môn? They only need to make one change - listen to the voice of the Islanders and put the cables underground
The North Wales Connection application was submitted to the Planning Inspectorate (the Inspectorate) on 7 September 2018. A decision whether the application should be accepted for Examination will be made by no later than Friday 5 October 2018. Amongst other matters, the Inspectorate will be considering the adequacy of the Applicant's pre-application consultation.

If the project is accepted for Examination you will be able to register as an Interested Party.

Becoming an Interested Party gives you the right to make representations about the application, attend meetings and hearings, stay informed of the progress of the Examination and be given notification of the final Decision.

Each individual that wishes to become an Interested Party will need to make a Relevant Representation; the Applicant has a duty to notify the local community on how to register as an Interested Party.

For more information about how and when you can have your say, please see our Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination

[attachment 1]

[attachment 2]

19 September 2018
Gwynfor Roberts
North Wales Connection
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I am very unhappy with the National Grid's proposals for taking electricity from Wylfa Newydd and would like the chance to submit my comments during the Planning Application
The North Wales Connection application was submitted to the Planning Inspectorate (the Inspectorate) on 7 September 2018. A decision whether the application should be accepted for Examination will be made by no later than Friday 5 October 2018.

If the project is accepted for Examination you will be able to register as an Interested Party.

Becoming an Interested Party gives you the right to make representations about the application, attend meetings and hearings, stay informed of the progress of the Examination and be given notification of the final Decision.

Each individual that wishes to become an Interested Party will need to make a Relevant Representation; the Applicant has a duty to notify the local community on how to register as an Interested Party.

For more information about how and when you can have your say, please see our Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination

[attachment 1]

[attachment 2]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

07 September 2018
Graveney Rural Environment Action Team (GREAT) - Vicky Ellis
Cleve Hill Solar Park
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Inception Meeting
Please see the attached meeting note

07 September 2018
AQUIND Limited
AQUIND Interconnector
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Draft document feedback and project update meeting.
Please see attached meeting note and feedback document.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

* See Advice Note 8.2: [attachment 2]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[attachment 1]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Enquiry 4: Impact on property value.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Helpfully your email is copied to RSP/ BDB.

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

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

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

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

* [attachment 1]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This beings me to my questions:-

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

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

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

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

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

Kind regards,

Nicky Wilson
Dear Ms Wilson,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[attachment 1]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[attachment 1]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[attachment 1]

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

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

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

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

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

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

I would very much welcome your response.

Kind regards,

Nicky Wilson
Dear Ms Wilson,

Thank you for your email.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[attachment 1]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you
Hi Chris,

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

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

Therefore, parish councils are statutory consultees for DCO applications.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If you have not done so already, you can send the comments relating to the Applicant’s Pre-application consultation to your client’s local authority. Relevant local authorities have been invited to make a representation to the Inspectorate about the adequacy of the Applicant’s Pre-application consultation. Your client’s local authority will be able to consider your comments in preparing its ‘Adequacy of Consultation Representation’ (AoCR). Note that the deadline for receipt by the Insp