Register of advice

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

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

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

Advice provided between the period between 1 October 2009 and 13 April 2011 has been archived and remains available to view on this spreadsheet.

PreviewProject
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please find attached a letter detailing the issues and advice sought, mentioned in our previous phone conversation.

It is lengthy but evidenced.
With apologies for the delay, please see our response to your queries below.

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?

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.’

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?

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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?

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 Connection
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
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 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 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 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
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
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 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 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 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 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 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
Please see attached
Please see attached

10 August 2018
Womble Bond Dickinson Osborne Clarke - anon.
Rail Central (Strategic Rail Freight Interchange)
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
Upper Orwell Crossings
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 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
Upper Orwell Crossings
Enquiry received via phone
response has attachments
The enquirer asked how he could provide comments to the Planning Inspectorate on recent press articles relating to compulsory acquisition which reported information that conflicted with the Applicant’s assurances to Sefton Parish Council to date.
I understand that you have read recent press reports that have presented conflicting information to that which Sefton Parish Council had been given by the Applicant, and have discussed the matter with our case team.

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

[attachment 1]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you
Hi Chris,

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

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

Therefore, parish councils are statutory consultees for DCO applications.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for this

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

so three questions.

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

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

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

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

Can you please confirm that the application has been resubmitted.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[attachment 1]

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

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

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

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

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

20 July 2018
Adem Mehmet
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Sit visit and project update meeting with regards to the proposed Luton Airport application.
Please see attached meeting note.

20 July 2018
London Luton Airport Ltd - anon.
General
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached

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

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

[attachment 1]

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

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

The Acceptance tests

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[attachment 1]

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

[attachment 1]

18 July 2018
Jonathan Fowler
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
It is almost three weeks since you recorded that a project update meeting was held on 22 June 2018 with representatives of RSP.

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

[attachment 1]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

09 July 2018
Jonathan Dean
North Wales Connection
Enquiry received via email
Is it possible for a husband and wife to register separately as interested parties if they have the same email address?
Certainly two parties can register using the same email or postal address; please be aware that you may receive duplicate correspondence as a result.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Planning Inspectorate can issue advice about:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Dear Planning Inspectorate,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

20 June 2018
National Grid - anon.
North Wales Connection
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Thank you for your response and for directing me to the RSP PIER.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

14 June 2018
Highways England - anon.
A63 Castle Street Improvement-Hull
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

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

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

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

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

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

([attachment 1])

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[attachment 1]

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

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

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

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

[attachment 1]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Which begs the question “why not?”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

31 May 2018
Jonathan Dean
North Wales Connection
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Draft document feedback and project update meeting
Please see attached meeting note

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rail Central Proposal:
[attachment 1]

Northampton Gateway Proposal:
[attachment 2]

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

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

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

[attachment 3]

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

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

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

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

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

Useful Links

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

[attachment 4]

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

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

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

[attachment 5]

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

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

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

Rail Central Proposal:
[attachment 1]

Northampton Gateway Proposal:
[attachment 2]

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

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

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

[attachment 3]

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

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

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

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

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

Useful Links

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

[attachment 4]

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

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

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

[attachment 5]

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for your email.

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

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

[attachment 1]

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

We trust you find this information useful.

Kind Regards


Emré

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Rampion Offshore Wind Farm: [attachment 2]

• Mynydd y Gwynt Wind Farm: [attachment 3]

• York Potash Harbour Facility: [attachment 4]

• Tees CCPP [attachment 5]

• Manston Airport [attachment 6]

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

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

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

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

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

• [attachment 2]
• [attachment 3]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Can you please confirm whether a DCO applicant is obliged to consider other alternatives as I've described above in order to fulfill their stated objective and confirm whether RSP have indeed considered such alternatives ?
The Applicant is required under Schedule 4 of the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 to undertake:

“2. A description of the reasonable alternatives (for example in terms of development design, technology, location, size and scale) studied by the developer, which are relevant to the proposed project and its specific characteristics, and an indication of the main reasons for selecting the chosen option, including a comparison of the environmental effects.”

National Planning Practice Guidance for EIA states that "Where alternative approaches to development have been considered, the Environmental Statement should include a description of the reasonable alternatives studied which are relevant to the proposed development and its specific characteristics and provide an indication of the main reasons for the choice made, including a comparison of the environmental effects".

16 May 2018
Adem Mehmet
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
As there seems to be a lot of missing information in RSPs application that will have to be provided to PINS can you tell us whether these shortcomings will require another public consultation before RSP can re-apply.
The advice provided here answers your query below with regards to additional consultation:
[attachment 1]

16 May 2018
Ian and Hilary Scott
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Nodyn Cyfarfod - 15 Mawrth 2018 / Meeting Note - 15 March 2018

15 May 2018
Menter Môn Cyf a Llywodraeth Cymru Menter Môn Cyf and Welsh Government
General
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Do you now take down your Manston page S51 advice etc and await a complete new application from RSP ?
The same project page will be used for any resubmitted application. All published advice will remain available on the Manston Airport project page and on the Register of advice, here: [attachment 1]

15 May 2018
Richard Card
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
We are told that RiverOak Strategic Partners has withdrawn its application for a Development Consent Order to reopen Manston Airport.

Further information has only come from one of the local MP's, Sir Roger Gale, who has revealed that the Planning Inspectorate has been in touch with the company and has expressed dissatisfaction with some aspects of the application documentation. According to Sir Roger the matters are minor and involve dotting some i's and crossing some t's. He says that the application has been withdrawn so that the applicant and PINS can have "more detailed conversations about what the Planning Inspectorate requires."

This is an interesting turn of phrase. It seems to imply that the Planning Inspectorate will be acting as some kind of unpaid consultancy to ensure that the application is successful.

I'm sure you can see the problem here. The Planning Inspectorate is charged with making a decision about the DCO on behalf of the Secretary of State. How then can the Planning Inspectorate be advising the applicants on what they need to do in order to be successful? There is a clear conflict of interest. I am not the only person to have commented on this.

The failure to make a decision on the application which was submitted does call into question the Planning Inspectorate's impartiality. The scenario set out by the MP seems to suggest that the Planning Inspectorate has leaked news of their intention to reject the application, giving the applicant opportunity to withdraw it shortly before the decision was announced.

What is the point of an application process if you are going to do this? If you did this for everybody, no application would ever fail. They would all be withdrawn before the decision was announced. As some applications to get rejected it seems pretty clear that you don't do this for all applicants.

Could you explain how you can be viewed as an impartial party in this process when you are so intricately involved with the applicant whilst having little to do with or say to the legal owners of the site?
We cannot comment on the assertions of local politicians.

The Planning Inspectorate must record and publish any advice that it gives in respect of making an application for development consent, or making a representation such an application.

The advice provided here explains how the Planning Inspectorate advised the Applicant during the Acceptance stage: [attachment 1]

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

15 May 2018
Peter Binding
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
According to the PI's web site, the Manston application has been withdrawn. Yet when I go to the home page and select the filter to show only withdrawn status applications, no records are returned.
So is the Manston application withdrawn or not?
An application would only appear with ‘Withdrawn’ as the project stage if:
• it was withdrawn by the Applicant after it had been accepted for examination; or
• it was withdrawn at the Acceptance stage with the Applicant expressing a clearly that it did not intend to resubmit.

Applications that are withdrawn in the above ways are displayed for a period of time before they are removed from the website. For more information see: [attachment 1]

In the case of the Manston Airport application, and for any other application that is withdrawn at the Acceptance stage with the Applicant stating clearly its intention to resubmit at some time in the future, the project stage is moved back to ‘Pre-application’.

15 May 2018
Andrew
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I note that RSP declares on its website that it has "temporarily" withdrawn its application for a DCO. It claims that "this is not uncommon with DCOs and RSP is in dialogue with the Planning Inspectorate in order that the application can be resubmitted as soon as possible."

An advice note issued by local airport enthusiasts adds that "there is no reason to believe that the renewed Acceptance phase will need the full 28 days to complete."

The general impression being given by the developers is of a cosy ongoing dialogue with the Planning Inspectorate, aimed at ensuring acceptance of the application as soon as possible. I find it difficult to equate this with the statutory procedures, as explained on your website, nor your repeated assurances that PINS has no view on the merits of the DCO until is is accepted for examination.

It would be good to have some renewal of confidence in the transparency and accountability to which PINS is committed.

Can you please clarify:

a) whether PINS had reached any view on the merits of the application prior to its withdrawal
b) whether any such view had been communicated to the applicants
c) if there is any truth in the suggestion that you are colluding with the applicant so as to assist him achieve his objectives
d) if it is indeed common for DCO applications too be withdrawn on the eve of decision notification day (and where examples of this can be seen, please)
e) if there is indeed "no reason to believe that the renewed Acceptance phase will need the full 28 days too complete"?
a), b) and c) – please see the advice provided in response the enquiry recorded at the following link: [attachment 1]
Advice reflecting the same concerns would have been issued to the Applicant if it had not decided to withdraw the application and the Planning Inspectorate had proceeded to issue an Acceptance decision.
d) Five applications have been withdrawn during the Acceptance stage:
• Rampion Offshore Wind Farm: [attachment 2]
• Mynydd y Gwynt Wind Farm: [attachment 3]
• York Potash Harbour Facility: [attachment 4]
• Tees CCPP: [attachment 5]
• Manston Airport: [attachment 6]

e) Any resubmission by the Applicant will be treated as a new application for the purposes of the Acceptance tests. The Planning Inspectorate would have up to 28 days to take its decision about whether the application could be accepted for examination.
In respect of your follow-up email dated 9 May 2018, we cannot comment on the assertions of local politicians. The advice provided at the link above explains how the Planning Inspectorate advised the Applicant during the Acceptance stage.

15 May 2018
Mark de Pulford
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Can you please tell me how common it is to withdraw an application on the day a decision to go ahead or not to is made thank you.
Roughly how many times before has this happened and it it expected by pins.
Five applications have been withdrawn during the Acceptance stage:
• Rampion Offshore Wind Farm: [attachment 1]
• Mynydd y Gwynt Wind Farm: [attachment 2]
• York Potash Harbour Facility: [attachment 3]
• Tees CCPP: [attachment 4]
• Manston Airport: [attachment 5]

15 May 2018
Ken Wraight
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
If RSP are going to submit further details about the environmental impact to PINS should they not be required to show this information to the people who are likely to be worst affected?
It will be for the Applicant to take a view about whether any further consultation will be required before the application is resubmitted.

15 May 2018
Peter Binding
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please could you tell me how many times you will allow RSP to withdraw and resubmit their application? Is there a limit, or is this going to pause any sensible development of the site and of other local developers investing into the area?
Developers are in limbo all because of the threat of a disastrous cargo airport.
If SHP get permission to develop how will this affect them, could they loose everything? I thought housing was of significant need from government directive.
It seems very unfair to me, RSP should have been told no and not allowed to resubmit over and over again which I am sure they will do as they are like a stupid dog with bone. I do not see any loops on the graph you provide about process.

Could this debacle go on for even more years looming over this beautiful area? Is there any safety net that the locals could implement to stop this. Once the new housing development has started, new houses being built, can RSP still apply?
There is no limit on the number of times an applicant can submit an application for a Development Consent Order (DCO).

Where planning permission is extant on a site in relation to which a DCO is sought, there are a number of statutory tests that must be met in respect of the rights of the owner(s) of the land and anybody else with an interest in it. Those persons would have the opportunity to make representations to an appointed Examining Authority during the examination of the DCO application.

For further information please see our previous advice to Thanet District Council:
[attachment 1]

15 May 2018
Stephanie Flower
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I would be grateful if you would respond by return to confirm the following;
• whether any s51 advice has been provided to RSP in relation to the submitted (and now withdrawn) proposed DCO Application;
• whether any other s51 advice has been provided to RSP in the period since 22 November 2017;
• that all s51 advice will be published expeditiously to provide clarity and transparency on the process; and
• whether any unpublished s51 advice has been provided to Thanet MPs, Sir Roger Gale and Craig Mackinlay, or their representatives.
• The advice provided here explains how the Planning Inspectorate advised the Applicant during the Acceptance stage: [attachment 1]
• A meeting was held between the Planning Inspectorate and the Applicant on 23 February 2018. The note of the meeting is being finalised and will be published on the website imminently.
• The note of the meeting held with the Applicant on 11 May 2018 is being prepared and will be published on the website as soon as practicable.
• The Planning Inspectorate has not issued any s51 advice to Thanet MPs, Sir Roger Gale and Craig Mackinlay, or, to our knowledge, their representatives.

15 May 2018
Stone Hill Park Ltd - Jamie Macnamara
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I am concerned that this DCO application which was vigorously supported by both Thanet's Conservative MPs may have been intended to cause what it has actually achieved. Namely the dropping of the proposed local plan, which is likely to result in a less regulated environment for developers seeking planning consents and the change of our district council administration from a UKIP to Conservative administration.

I am also interested in the compensation situation at this point as I have attended all three consultation sessions, engaged in lengthy research on the environmental implications of an airfreight facility a Manston and responded to the consultations and emails related to this issue.

I am concerned that the applicant appears to have very limited assets, (based on their accounts recently submitted to Companies House) and that they may intend to go into administration without fulfilling their obligations.
In respect of compensation, I am unable to advise you beyond the content of my previous responses:
[attachment 1]
[attachment 2]

15 May 2018
Michael Child
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Can you advise me that a new application will be looked on with fresh eyes and take as long as needed to make a decision.

please advise any new application will be treated at face value without all the prompting from pins.
The advice provided here explains how the Planning Inspectorate advised the Applicant during the Acceptance stage: [attachment 1]

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

Any resubmission of the application will be treated as a new application for the purposes of the Acceptance tests.

15 May 2018
Ken Wraight
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Our understanding was this was an pre-application not a consultation period with PINS so we are wondering why this was discussed with them while the 28 day period was running, especially as there was a lot of coaching by PINS prior to the application. Should you not have let this run then either accept or decline the application & present them with your conclusions ?

Did they pay a fee (if so what is the fee ?) and will this now be refunded as the application was withdrawn. Will there be a fee if they re-present ?
The advice provided here explains how the Planning Inspectorate advised the Applicant during the Acceptance stage: [attachment 1]

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

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

A full record of the Planning Inspectorate’s concerns in respect of the application documentation will be summarised in the note of the meeting which was held on 11 May 2018. That note is being prepared and will be published as soon as practicable.

15 May 2018
Ian and Hilary Scott
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Our understanding was this was an pre-application not a consultation period with PINS so we are wondering why this was discussed with them while the 28 day period was running, especially as there was a lot of coaching by PINS prior to the application. Should you not have let this run then either accept or decline the application & present them with your conclusions ?

Did they pay a fee (if so what is the fee ?) and will this now be refunded as the application was withdrawn. Will there be a fee if they re-present ?
The advice provided here explains how the Planning Inspectorate advised the Applicant during the Acceptance stage: [attachment 1]

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

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

A full record of the Planning Inspectorate’s concerns in respect of the application documentation will be summarised in the note of the meeting which was held on 11 May 2018. That note is being prepared and will be published as soon as practicable.

15 May 2018
Anthony Fuller
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Can the Planning Inspectorate please advise the number of applications to date which have been withdrawn by the applicant, along with the name or other reference for such withdrawn applications. An indication of the total number of DCO applications and preapplications to date would also be welcome.
Five applications have been withdrawn during the Acceptance stage:

• Rampion Offshore Wind Farm: [attachment 1]
• Mynydd y Gwynt Wind Farm: [attachment 2]
• York Potash Harbour Facility: [attachment 3]
• Tees CCPP: [attachment 4]
• Manston Airport: [attachment 5]

Five applications have been withdrawn after they were accepted for examination:

• Electric line connection to Maesgwyn Wind Farm
• Brig y Cwym Energy from Waste Generating Station
• Roosecote (Barrow) Biomass Power Station
• Fieldes Lock – Rail linked power station
• Atlantic Array Offshore Wind Farm

The project pages for these five applications have been removed from the website. For further information see the following: [attachment 6]

There are 147 applications that are either at the Pre-application, Acceptance, Pre-examination, Examination or Recommendation and Decision stages, or have been decided: [attachment 7]

A list of the applications that are at the Acceptance stage or have previously been accepted for examination is available here: [attachment 8]

15 May 2018
Jonathan Fowler
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
Please can I inquire about the application of the Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy (EN-1). Section 4.6 concerns combined heat and power, and in particular section 4.6.6 notes ...

"any application to develop a thermal generating station under Section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 must either include CHP or contain evidence that the possibilities for CHP have been fully explored to inform the IPC’s consideration of the application. This should be through an audit trail of dialogue between the applicant and prospective customers."
Can I also share an extract from recent correspondence with the Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy ...

" ... explore the idea of using waste heat from the power station. This is because this waste heat will be of sufficient temperature ... and it can be piped a considerable distance from the power station to the surrounding environment."
Can you confirm that examination of the above referenced audit train will form part of the DCO examination?
We confirm that the Examining Authority will assess the application against the policy requirements in EN-1 and EN-6 and any other polices that the Examining Authority considers to be relevant.

11 May 2018
Jonathan Dean
Wylfa Newydd Nuclear Power Station
Enquiry received via email
I understand that shortly before the deadine of 28 days consideration of their application, RSP have withdrawn such. Their plan appears to be to resubmit an application. I would be grateful if you would answer some questions.

1. This will, in effect, mean that their application will recieve considerably longer than the 28 days allocated to such locations given that you will have been examining this application for almost 28 days and will then give a further 28 days on resubmission. Does this not contravene the process or, at least, contradict the spirit of the process?

2. Was their withdrawal as a consequence of any meetings, discussions, comments or feedback with or from yourselves during the period since they submitted their application? Have you provided them with any preliminary feedback that may have suggested a resubmission might be needed?
1. Any resubmission by the Applicant will be treated as a new application for the purposes of the process. The Planning Inspectorate would have up to 28 days to take its decision about whether the application could be accepted for examination.

2. The Planning Inspectorate called the Applicant’s legal representatives (BDB Law) on 1 May 2018, setting out its principal concerns in respect of the application documents. Those concerns included:

• An absence of sufficient information within the application documents upon which to the Planning Inspectorate could base a decision about whether the Proposed Development constitutes a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP) within the meaning in s23 of the Planning Act 2008.
• Gaps in the ecological, archaeological and ground investigation survey data presented within the Environmental Statement (ES) accompanying the application, which create uncertainty in the assessment of likely significant effects.
• Inconsistencies/ omissions in the noise and vibration assessment.
• The adequacy of the Transport Assessment accompanying the ES.
• The adequacy of the Funding Statement.

On 3 May 2018 a teleconference was held between the Planning Inspectorate, BDB Law and RiverOak Strategic Partners (RSP). During this teleconference the Planning Inspectorate repeated its principal concerns (above) in the presence of RSP, who confirmed their intention to withdraw the application. Subsequently the application was formally withdrawn by letter dated 4 May 2018.

Today (11 May 2018) a meeting took place between the Planning Inspectorate and the Applicant at which the Inspectorate provided more detailed s51 advice in respect of the concerns noted within the documents associated with the withdrawn application. A note of the meeting is being prepared and will be published in the usual way in due course.

11 May 2018
Susan Kennedy
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting.
Please see the attached meeting note, which should be read in conjunction with the detailed record of the Inspectorate’s observations and advice.

11 May 2018
RiverOak Strategic Partners Ltd
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
I have failed to find any details on how the power station will export the power - was this aspect a separate DCO? If so, which one? If not, please could you signpost me to the details?
The Applicant’s Planning Statement states at S.7 that the electrical connection is not part of the application. The Examining Authority's report explains that the ‘Proposed Development requires an electrical connection to the distribution network for export. However as this would be provided underground and pursuant to permitted development powers held by the distribution network operator, the DCO includes no provisions in respect of this connection.’ Further information can be found in the Applicant’s Grid Connection Statement and subsequent revision.

10 May 2018
Jonathan Dean
Wrexham Energy Centre
Enquiry received via email
As the Parish Councillor who has the Sizewell Portfolio I would be grateful if you would clarify whether Kelsale Cum Carlton is a Statutory Consultee or not bearing in mind the A12 runs through the Parish.
If the Applicant’s proposed improvements to the A12 are within your parish boundary then I confirm that Kelsale Cum Carlton will be a statutory consultee.

10 May 2018
Kelsale cum Carlton Parish Council - Edwina Galloway
Sizewell C New Nuclear Power Station
response has attachments
A meeting was held to discuss a non-material change to the Order
Please see attached note of the meeting

10 May 2018
anon.
Norwich Northern Distributor Road (NDR)
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached meeting note

10 May 2018
Highways England
A63 Castle Street Improvement-Hull
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
See attached meeting note and attachments

10 May 2018
Cory Riverside Energy - Rob Gully
Riverside Energy Park
Enquiry received via email
I should like to register as an interested Party in the present planning application for the Wylfa power station. My principal interest is as Project Director for the current EU funded Acclimatize project and I wish to assess the extent to which the Wylfa development could impact on the sustainability of present water quality modelling being used to provide real-time forecasts of bathing water quality at Cemaes Bay bathing water. We are in receipt of Welsh European Funding Office support to produce the models for this site. Could you please forward relevant forms so I can register.
The proposed DCO Application for the Wylfa Newydd Development has not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate.

Upon receipt of a DCO Application, the Planning Inspectorate has 28 days to assess whether an Application can be accepted for Examination. When the Planning Inspectorate accepts 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 and this is when the form will be made available on the Wylfa project page of our website.

The publicity notice will tell you when the deadline is however you can also find out about the registration period via Twitter or email alert if you have signed up for this service on the Wylfa project page of our website.

09 May 2018
David Kay
Wylfa Newydd Nuclear Power Station
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
A38 Project Update Meeting
Please see attached meeting note.

09 May 2018
Highways England - anon.
A38 Derby Junctions highway improvement scheme
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting.
Please see attached note.

04 May 2018
Heathrow Airport Ltd - anon.
Expansion of Heathrow Airport (Third Runway)
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Dear Mr White

I am assuming that as Infrastructure Planning Lead, you have overall responsibility for Planning Inspectorate's supervision of the statutory processes being undertaken by ScottishPower Renewables (SPR) prior to its eventual submission of DCO Applications for the two proposed wind farms East Anglia ONE North and East Anglia TWO.

I live in Aldringham which lies at the centre of the EA1N and EA2 designated 'Onshore Study Area'. You may already be aware that SPR's onshore plans for these two projects have given rise to considerable concern with local communities in and around Aldringham. I have myself expressed a number of local concerns to ScottishPower both at and following its recent Phase 2 Information Day events.

1. Omission of Aldringham-cum-Thorpe's formal response to Scoping Report following Phase 1 Consultation on EA1N and EA2 Scoping Reports

Aldringham-cum-Thorpe's Parish Council (a "Prescribed Consultation Body") responded to SPR's initial Phase 1 Consultation by letter dated 7 December 2017. This letter referred to both EA1N and EA2 projects and was clearly received on time.

However, it has been omitted from the Planning Inspectorate "Scoping Opinion" document re EA2 ref EN010078 (though included in APPENDIX 2: RESPONDENTS TO CONSULTATION AND COPIES OF REPLIES in the Planning Inspectorate's "Scoping Opinion" document re EA1N ref EN010077).
Have our Parish Council's comments been overlooked as a consequence of this error?

Refs:
[attachment 1]

[attachment 2]

2. Concerns re: "Draft" Statements of Community Consultation for EA2 and EA1N
SPR posted a formal "Notification of Statement of Community Consultation for EA1N and EA2" and wrote to me on 13 March 2018 inviting me to review these draft documents before midnight 3rd April 2018. I met this deadline and received acknowledgement of my letter on 17 April. I feel some of my comments may be of interest to yourselves:

• Approved SoCC’s were not in place before Consultations commenced – Phase One completed in December 2017 and Phase Two completes on 3 April 2018, but SoCC’s are dated March 2018 and Consultation on SoCC’s is still in progress.

• I was confused by receiving files named “EA1N” / “EA2 SoCC FINAL signed off.pdf” if these are still drafts and under review and the printed copies of Statement of Community Consultation (EA1N), dated March 2018 and available at the March Information Days would appear to be Final Versions. Therefore I have an impression that this is some kind of retrospective and fake consultation just for the sake of formality?

• Provisional decisions on where to locate Substations and tranches of cabling seem to be running ahead of the Consultation schedule. For example, although the two Projects are clearly already favouring the western Zones and have already informed our local parish councils that it is planning its preferred route crossing Aldeburgh Road near Fitches Lane, Aldringham, there has been no Consultation on any of this during Phase One or Phase Two.

• Re: Para 34 - Phase Two Consultation and Para 39 - Phase Two Consultation: these paragraphs should specify which aspects of Infrastructure are to be consulted on at each Consultation Phase. In practice, this has led to the illogicality of seeking Consultees’ views on Substation Zones in Phase Two and Cable Tranche routes in Phase Three. From a resident’s point of view it can be difficult to consider these in isolation from each other.

• The Phase Two Feedback Form is over simplistic, asks assumptive and leading questions (Questions 6 and 7) and provides no structure within which to comment on the merits and demerits of each of the seven potential Substation Zones. See attached example Feedback Form.

My full response to Phase 2 Consultation and Information Days held in Southwold, Leiston and Thorpeness

I feel SPR, as just one of a number of companies / consortia planning to connect offshore power lines into the coast between Sizewell and Thorpeness, is not in a position to address key issues regarding the placement of Substations and large tracts of underground power lines. Further, a number of apparently ill thought through constraints would seem to have been imposed on SPR forcing it to propose environmentally unacceptable power installations inland and well away from the already industrialised coast at Sizewell.

I feel the Planning Inspectorate should be aware that central coordination (probably at Government level) is desperately needed if Suffolk's inland landscape and environment is not to be for ever blighted. I would hope you agree that the Planning Inspectorate as the 'Planning Authority' (at least for EA1N and EA2) has a major part to play in that and in helping ensure that local as well as national interests are protected.

You can find a fuller explanation in my full response to Phase 2 Consultation (attached).
I hope this email and its attachments can be of some assistance, providing the local residents' viewpoint at this critical stage for these two major infrastructure projects.
Dear Mr Halford,

Thank you for your email and the attachments in relation to the above projects, and raising concerns regarding the pre-application consultation process for the proposed East Anglia ONE North and East Anglia TWO projects.

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

As the projects have not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate (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.

I would therefore encourage you to again contact the developer directly to make your concerns heard as the Applicant has a statutory duty to take your views into account. However, if you feel 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 why you think the Applicant is failing to conduct its consultation properly. 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 for the Development Consent Order (DCO) 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 Applicant has scheduled further statutory consultation in June 2018 as per their Statement of Community Consultation, and as part of the DCO process, the Applicant is required to have a regard to all consultation responses which should be later provided in the Consultation Report as part of the DCO application. During the statutory consultation period, the Applicant intends to provide more detailed information on the proposed projects, including the potential Substation Zones.

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 especially:

Advice note 8.1. Responding to the developer’s pre-application consultation

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 the Parish Council are in position to highlight particular planning matters such as effects on the local communities in and around Aldringham that you have mentioned in your email.

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).

With regard to the Scoping Opinions issued by the Inspectorate on 20 December 2017, on investigating the matter I can assure you that the scoping consultation response was received within the time period and was taken into account on preparation of the Opinions. Unfortunately a clerical error has occurred on preparation of the Appendices to the East Anglia Two Scoping Opinion, meaning that Aldringham-cum-Thorpe Parish Council were not listed as a respondee and the ‘pdf’ file of the letter was not reproduced in the Appendix. We cannot amend a Scoping Opinion once it has been published; however, thank you for drawing this to our attention. We will of course take steps to avoid a reoccurrence of this error. Scoping is an early part of the pre-application process and hopefully my comments above are useful in explaining how you can be involved at pre-application and going forward should the application be accepted for examination.

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

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.

03 May 2018
William R Halford
East Anglia ONE North Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Dear Mr White

I am assuming that as Infrastructure Planning Lead, you have overall responsibility for Planning Inspectorate's supervision of the statutory processes being undertaken by ScottishPower Renewables (SPR) prior to its eventual submission of DCO Applications for the two proposed wind farms East Anglia ONE North and East Anglia TWO.

I live in Aldringham which lies at the centre of the EA1N and EA2 designated 'Onshore Study Area'. You may already be aware that SPR's onshore plans for these two projects have given rise to considerable concern with local communities in and around Aldringham. I have myself expressed a number of local concerns to ScottishPower both at and following its recent Phase 2 Information Day events.

1. Omission of Aldringham-cum-Thorpe's formal response to Scoping Report following Phase 1 Consultation on EA1N and EA2 Scoping Reports

Aldringham-cum-Thorpe's Parish Council (a "Prescribed Consultation Body") responded to SPR's initial Phase 1 Consultation by letter dated 7 December 2017. This letter referred to both EA1N and EA2 projects and was clearly received on time.

However, it has been omitted from the Planning Inspectorate "Scoping Opinion" document re EA2 ref EN010078 (though included in APPENDIX 2: RESPONDENTS TO CONSULTATION AND COPIES OF REPLIES in the Planning Inspectorate's "Scoping Opinion" document re EA1N ref EN010077).
Have our Parish Council's comments been overlooked as a consequence of this error?

Refs:
[attachment 1]

[attachment 2]

2. Concerns re: "Draft" Statements of Community Consultation for EA2 and EA1N
SPR posted a formal "Notification of Statement of Community Consultation for EA1N and EA2" and wrote to me on 13 March 2018 inviting me to review these draft documents before midnight 3rd April 2018. I met this deadline and received acknowledgement of my letter on 17 April. I feel some of my comments may be of interest to yourselves:

• Approved SoCC’s were not in place before Consultations commenced – Phase One completed in December 2017 and Phase Two completes on 3 April 2018, but SoCC’s are dated March 2018 and Consultation on SoCC’s is still in progress.

• I was confused by receiving files named “EA1N” / “EA2 SoCC FINAL signed off.pdf” if these are still drafts and under review and the printed copies of Statement of Community Consultation (EA1N), dated March 2018 and available at the March Information Days would appear to be Final Versions. Therefore I have an impression that this is some kind of retrospective and fake consultation just for the sake of formality?

• Provisional decisions on where to locate Substations and tranches of cabling seem to be running ahead of the Consultation schedule. For example, although the two Projects are clearly already favouring the western Zones and have already informed our local parish councils that it is planning its preferred route crossing Aldeburgh Road near Fitches Lane, Aldringham, there has been no Consultation on any of this during Phase One or Phase Two.

• Re: Para 34 - Phase Two Consultation and Para 39 - Phase Two Consultation: these paragraphs should specify which aspects of Infrastructure are to be consulted on at each Consultation Phase. In practice, this has led to the illogicality of seeking Consultees’ views on Substation Zones in Phase Two and Cable Tranche routes in Phase Three. From a resident’s point of view it can be difficult to consider these in isolation from each other.

• The Phase Two Feedback Form is over simplistic, asks assumptive and leading questions (Questions 6 and 7) and provides no structure within which to comment on the merits and demerits of each of the seven potential Substation Zones. See attached example Feedback Form.

My full response to Phase 2 Consultation and Information Days held in Southwold, Leiston and Thorpeness

I feel SPR, as just one of a number of companies / consortia planning to connect offshore power lines into the coast between Sizewell and Thorpeness, is not in a position to address key issues regarding the placement of Substations and large tracts of underground power lines. Further, a number of apparently ill thought through constraints would seem to have been imposed on SPR forcing it to propose environmentally unacceptable power installations inland and well away from the already industrialised coast at Sizewell.

I feel the Planning Inspectorate should be aware that central coordination (probably at Government level) is desperately needed if Suffolk's inland landscape and environment is not to be for ever blighted. I would hope you agree that the Planning Inspectorate as the 'Planning Authority' (at least for EA1N and EA2) has a major part to play in that and in helping ensure that local as well as national interests are protected.

You can find a fuller explanation in my full response to Phase 2 Consultation (attached).
I hope this email and its attachments can be of some assistance, providing the local residents' viewpoint at this critical stage for these two major infrastructure projects.
Dear Mr Halford,

Thank you for your email and the attachments in relation to the above projects, and raising concerns regarding the pre-application consultation process for the proposed East Anglia ONE North and East Anglia TWO projects.

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

As the projects have not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate (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.

I would therefore encourage you to again contact the developer directly to make your concerns heard as the Applicant has a statutory duty to take your views into account. However, if you feel 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 why you think the Applicant is failing to conduct its consultation properly. 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 for the Development Consent Order (DCO) 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 Applicant has scheduled further statutory consultation in June 2018 as per their Statement of Community Consultation, and as part of the DCO process, the Applicant is required to have a regard to all consultation responses which should be later provided in the Consultation Report as part of the DCO application. During the statutory consultation period, the Applicant intends to provide more detailed information on the proposed projects, including the potential Substation Zones.

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 especially:

Advice note 8.1. Responding to the developer’s pre-application consultation

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 the Parish Council are in position to highlight particular planning matters such as effects on the local communities in and around Aldringham that you have mentioned in your email.

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).

With regard to the Scoping Opinions issued by the Inspectorate on 20 December 2017, on investigating the matter I can assure you that the scoping consultation response was received within the time period and was taken into account on preparation of the Opinions. Unfortunately a clerical error has occurred on preparation of the Appendices to the East Anglia Two Scoping Opinion, meaning that Aldringham-cum-Thorpe Parish Council were not listed as a respondee and the ‘pdf’ file of the letter was not reproduced in the Appendix. We cannot amend a Scoping Opinion once it has been published; however, thank you for drawing this to our attention. We will of course take steps to avoid a reoccurrence of this error. Scoping is an early part of the pre-application process and hopefully my comments above are useful in explaining how you can be involved at pre-application and going forward should the application be accepted for examination.

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

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.

03 May 2018
William R Halford
East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting with regards to the proposed Luton Airport application.
Please see attached meeting note.

02 May 2018
London Luton Airport Ltd - anon.
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see the attached notes

01 May 2018
Vattenfall - anon.
Thanet Extension Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via email
The enquirer drew attention to responses to the Applicant's Pre-application consultation and asked if there was any action the Planning Inspectorate could take.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot apply the tests in s55 of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) until such time as an application is formally submitted to it ie during the Acceptance stage. At the Pre-application stage the onus is on the Applicant to carry out statutory consultation and to prepare a Consultation Report which the Applicant is satisfied gives details of:

(a) what has been done in compliance with sections 42, 47 and 48 [of the PA2008] in relation to a proposed application that has become the application,
(b) any relevant responses, and
(c) the account taken of any relevant responses.

30 April 2018
Bean Residents Association - Linda Collins
A2 Bean and Ebbsfleet junction improvements
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached meeting note

30 April 2018
Cleve Hill Solar Park Ltd
Cleve Hill Solar Park
Enquiry received via phone
response has attachments
PINS follow up advice - 30 April 2018 meeting
New case law

As discussed during the telecon earlier today - we are aware of a recent European Court of Justice judgment, which has implications for UK practice of considering mitigation at the screening stage of HRA in determining whether appropriate assessment is required.

The case is: C-323/17 - People Over Wind, Peter Sweetman v Coillte Teoranta (2018) (12/04/18).

You may wish to consider whether this judgement has any implications for your approach to the HRA for Cleve Hill, in discussion with Natural England. Section 51 advice in this regard has just been issued to the Applicant for the Kemsley K4 project, which you may find useful:

[attachment 1].

Regulation 32 transboundary screening

We briefly discussed the transboundary screening which is undertaken by the Planning Inspectorate during the pre-application stage, based on the information provided in the Scoping Report. The screening is undertaken in line with our duties under Regulation 32 of the EIA Regulations 2017, which require us to consider whether a proposed NSIP is likely to give rise to significant effects on the environment in another European Economic Area (EEA) State. Further information is provided in our Advice Note 12.

We note from the Scoping Report that the qualifying features of the Swale SPA and Ramsar site are likely to include migratory bird species, and therefore we need to consider the connectivity between these sites and European sites in other EEA States. We would therefore welcome clarification on the following points:

• Which qualifying features of the Swale SPA and Ramsar are migratory species?

• Are any of the qualifying features of the Swale SPA and Ramsar also features in connected European sites in other EEA States?

• It is understood that the final assessment conclusions have not yet been reached. However, can you please provide information to support the Inspectorate in making a decision regarding the potential for significant effects in other EEA States, taking into account the questions raised above?

If you are able to provide information in this regard, we may be able to rely on that for the purposes of transboundary screening, thus avoiding the need to inform other EEA States on a precautionary basis. Just to confirm, we would publish any such information you provide on our website.

Red line boundary extension below mean high water

We discussed today your intention to undertake consultation with the MMO, given the proposed extension of the red line boundary below mean high water. We would also suggest consulting the following bodies, if you haven’t already:

• Ministry of Defence (we usually identify this body if a proposed development enters the marine area);
• Any statutory dock, port or harbour authorities whose functions may be affected by the proposed development.

I hope that this is useful but if you have questions on any of the above, then please do not hesitate to contact me.

30 April 2018
Mike Bird
Cleve Hill Solar Park
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached meeting note

27 April 2018
Drax Power Ltd - Jim Doyle
Drax Re-power
Rather than keep trying via the phone, here are the points that I wanted to discuss with you. I have converted them into questions below for ease. My questions do not seem to be answerable from the advice notes 8.3 or the faq on your website.

N2RS
Firstly, as you may be aware, I am contacting you on behalf of the N2RS Committee. My job is to deal with processes, timescales and procedures.
With a membership of around 1000, N2RS is continuing to track the progress of the Vanguard Project. Our supporters cover mainly North Norfolk and include others from further afield.

We are working co-operatively with local authority elected Members, our local MP Norman Lamb and landowner representatives.

It is our intention to continue a close watching brief on the progress of the project and to campaign where necessary. We have several media platforms running (N2RS website, Facebook and Twitter).
Given that the likely acceptance of the application will occur in July 2018, we wish to ask you for help with our scheduling and forward planning specifically to avoid the issue of people with an interest in the procedures being away because of the summer holiday period. We also have people working in the tourism business. The questions we have are as follows:
Q Roughly when will the time-limited period to register online as an Interested Party be given the proximity to the summer holiday season?
Q If N2RS registers as a single organisation, how many core committee members will be allowed to attend the preliminary/subsequent meetings?
Q Are there any objections to multiple applications from N2RS should that be necessary in order to have attendance at meetings?
Q Roughly when can we expect the preliminary meeting to be scheduled? (we are asking because the written advice suggests that only about 3 weeks’ notice is given).
Q Ditto the subsequent meeting(s).
Thank you for your email, apologies we kept missing each other on the telephone.

I have responded to your queries in the order you have raised them;

1. Should the application be accepted for the Examination, the Applicant has a duty to advertise the Relevant Representations period and provide details about how to register to become an Interested Party. The registration period must be at least 28 days and the publicity notice will clearly tell you when the deadline is. The easiest way to become an Interested Party is to complete the form online via the project’s page of the National Infrastructure Planning website. Depending on the date of when the application is accepted (the Secretary of State has a deadline of 28 days from receipt of application to make this decision so if this is received at the end of June, the acceptance decision wouldn’t be made until the end of July). If accepted, the Applicant is then required to certify compliance and notify of the acceptance which is when they will provide the period for registering relevant representations. The Applicant may consider and impact of this over the holiday period and provide a longer period for registration but please note there is no requirement for them to do so.
Some people will automatically become an Interested Party because they are landowners or have an interest in land affected by the application. This information will be provided in a Book of Reference supplied by the Applicant. They will be notified throughout the application process, but are also welcome to register via a Relevant Representation form so that their views can be made available to the Examining Authority at an early stage.

2. There is no limit on the number of N2RS core committee members that can attend the Preliminary Meeting or any subsequent hearings. However, in order to accommodate all Interested Parties and any members of the public wishing to attend the events, we would appreciate if you could inform us well in advance of those people who wish to attend. Details of this will be requested from anyone who has registered at the time. The agendas for all events will be published around seven days beforehand and that will allow N2RS members to decide if attending the hearing will be beneficial to them.

3. There is no requirement to provide multiple representations from N2RS in order to attend the hearings as if N2RS registers as an Interested Party, then it will be able to fully participate in the examination process: submit written representations and provide comments on all application documents and other documents submitted by other parties, respond to the Examining Authority’s written questions on behalf of N2RS. If members of the N2RS however wish to be individually recognised as an Interested Party in their own capacity then they will need to register a relevant representation separately which must include a summary of points which they agree and/or disagree with about the application, highlighting what they consider to be the main issues and impacts.

4. The formal notification of the Preliminary Meeting will be issued at least 21 days before its date, in a letter called the Rule 6 letter. The Preliminary Meeting marks the end of the formal pre-examination stage. However, that stage lasts around three months to allow the Applicant and the Inspectorate to fulfil their statutory duties.

5. The draft Examination timetable will also be issued in the Rule 6 letter and this will set out when the dates for the ExA’s procedural decisions, deadlines for written submissions etc, along with the dates of any hearings and site inspections scheduled to take place during the 6 month examination. The finalised Examination timetable will then be issued around 7 days after the close of the Preliminary Meeting. The agendas for individual hearings will be published nearer the time and usually around 7 days before the hearings.

If you have not already done so, you might find it helpful to view the online videos we have available explaining the DCO application process.

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

27 April 2018
N2RS - Katie Taylor
Norfolk Vanguard
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

25 April 2018
Scottish Power Renewables - Scottish Power Renewables
East Anglia ONE Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

25 April 2018
Scottish Power Renewables - Scottish Power Renewables
East Anglia ONE North Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

25 April 2018
Scottish Power Renewables - Scottish Power Renewables
East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Query regarding the pre-application consultation
Thank you for your letter of 10 April 2018 raising concerns regarding the pre-application consultation process for the proposed East Anglia ONE North and East Anglia TWO projects.

As the projects have not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate (the Inspectorate), the Inspectorate has no formal powers to intervene on consultees behalf. I would therefore encourage you to again contact the developer directly to make your concerns heard as the Applicant has a statutory duty to take your views into account. However, if you feel that your comments are not being taken into account and you need further information, 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 will be taken into account when the local authority sends the Inspectorate its comments on whether the Applicant has fulfilled its consultation duties. The local authority’s comments on the Applicant’s consultation will be taken into account when the Acceptance Inspector makes his/ her decision whether to accept the application for examination.

Should the application for the Development Consent Order (DCO) be accepted by the Planning Inspectorate for examination, the Applicant has a duty to notify the local community and provide information on how to register as an Interested Party for the purpose of the process. The Applicant has scheduled further statutory consultation in June 2018 as per their Statement of Community Consultation, and as part of the DCO process, the Applicant is required to have a regard to all consultation responses which should be later provided in the Consultation Report as part of the DCO application. During the statutory consultation period, the Applicant has said it intends to provide more detailed information on the proposed projects.

The process under the 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.

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.

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.

By submitting a Relevant Representation during the pre-examination stage, the Parish Councils will be in a position to highlight particular planning matters such as effects on the road infrastructure that you have mentioned in your email.

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

24 April 2018
Giles de Bertodano
East Anglia ONE North Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via post
response has attachments
See attached query
See attached response

24 April 2018
P Dorcey
East Anglia ONE North Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Query regarding the pre-application consultation
Thank you for your letter of 10 April 2018 raising concerns regarding the pre-application consultation process for the proposed East Anglia ONE North and East Anglia TWO projects.

As the projects have not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate (the Inspectorate), the Inspectorate has no formal powers to intervene on consultees behalf. I would therefore encourage you to again contact the developer directly to make your concerns heard as the Applicant has a statutory duty to take your views into account. However, if you feel that your comments are not being taken into account and you need further information, 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 will be taken into account when the local authority sends the Inspectorate its comments on whether the Applicant has fulfilled its consultation duties. The local authority’s comments on the Applicant’s consultation will be taken into account when the Acceptance Inspector makes his/ her decision whether to accept the application for examination.

Should the application for the Development Consent Order (DCO) be accepted by the Planning Inspectorate for examination, the Applicant has a duty to notify the local community and provide information on how to register as an Interested Party for the purpose of the process. The Applicant has scheduled further statutory consultation in June 2018 as per their Statement of Community Consultation, and as part of the DCO process, the Applicant is required to have a regard to all consultation responses which should be later provided in the Consultation Report as part of the DCO application. During the statutory consultation period, the Applicant has said it intends to provide more detailed information on the proposed projects.

The process under the 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.

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.

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.

By submitting a Relevant Representation during the pre-examination stage, the Parish Councils will be in a position to highlight particular planning matters such as effects on the road infrastructure that you have mentioned in your email.

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

24 April 2018
Giles de Bertodano
East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via post
response has attachments
See attached query
See attached response

24 April 2018
P Dorcey
East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via phone
response has attachments
Project update teleconference
Please see attached meeting note

23 April 2018
SSE - anon.
Ferrybridge D Combined Cycle Gas Turbine (CCGT) Power Station Project
Enquiry received via email
Just to be clear, only one written representation per interested party will be allowed, even if this contains entirely different topics under relevant headings and para numbers. Is that correct?
We would expect Interested Parties (IP) to submit one Written Representation covering all the matters they wish to raise. However the Regulations do not prevent IPs from submitting multiple representations covering different topics if they so wish provided they are submitted by the deadline given in the Examination timetable.

An example of an Examination timetable can be viewed here. This shows, at Appendix A, that there is one deadline for Written Representations and then opportunities in the Examination to respond to the Examining Authority’s written questions and other parties representations. Please note we advise that clear and concise submissions add more value to the Examination.

20 April 2018
Jonathan Dean
North Wales Connection
Enquiry received via post
response has attachments
Sylwadau ar y dogfennau drafft / Comments on draft documents

20 April 2018
Abergelli Power Ltd - Kirstin Gardner
Abergelli Power
Enquiry received via email
We note that PINS’ website has now been updated to confirm that RSP’s application has been submitted and that the Applicant has not agreed to the application documents being made public. We are extremely disappointed by this lack of transparency, when we have had no definitive response from RSP to the points that we have put to them regarding:

1. the current capability of Manston;
2. that the proposal does not qualify as a NSIP; and
3. why the EIA does not assess the proposed development (RSP, as far as we have been made aware, has not assessed the effect of constructing 19 new stands and the number of ATMs that could produce).

Whilst our legal adviser wrote to you on 10 April 2018 seeking confirmation that these and other matters raised in both its, and SHP’s, correspondence will be fully considered as part of any acceptance process, if the application documents raise arguments over these points, then SHP should be able to respond. This is an unusual case and SHP, as the owner of substantially all of the land to which the application relates, should be afforded that courtesy when RSP has not provided answers to these points in (1) its consultation materials, (2) in any responses to the consultation (despite the 2015 Guidance stating that it is good practice for applicants to inform consultees of how issues will be addressed before any application is submitted, RSP has not provided any such response or update), or (3) in private correspondence over the continuing s53 application.

Given our substantial interest, it is SHP who would be put to a very significant amount of trouble, delay and expense if the application is accepted notwithstanding our objections and our deep concerns over a lack of transparency. RSP’s failure to publish the application or agree to PINS publishing the application, is another example of RSP deliberately trying to get the application accepted without it being subject to scrutiny by the one party, the owner of substantially all of the land to which the application relates, who is in a position to expose the inconsistent and possibly misleading basis upon which they have so far been proceeding.
The need for PINS to get agreement from applicants to publicise their application prior to acceptance is not a statutory requirement. Whilst we appreciate it is referred to in the 2015 Guidance at paragraph 119 and in Advice Note 6 (which does not have statutory status), this is a case where the application should be publicised given the unusual set of circumstances and the failure of the consultation materials to answer the fundamental questions over why the proposed development is an NSIP at all.

We therefore ask that the application is made public now (or at the very least in the form of s51 advice the information set out above made available, to enable SHP to understand if the application is potentially an NSIP and if it is a substantially different application scheme than that consulted on) in the interests of transparency, fairness and the fact that SHP (as owner of substantially all of the land) is being disadvantaged and being put to considerable trouble and expense which is also causing delay to its own plans for the Site.
We note the comments set out in your email dated 13 April 2018 and in previous correspondence. The Inspectorate will consider whether to accept the proposed Manston Airport application in accordance with the requirements of Section 55 of the Planning Act 2008.

As you have correctly stated, the need for PINS to get agreement from applicants to publicise their application prior to acceptance is not a statutory requirement and the Applicant has not agreed to publication during the acceptance period. Therefore we are unable to make the application material available at this time. Should the application be accepted, you will be able to make a Relevant Representation at the appropriate time.

Please note that the appropriate contact for any future correspondence relating to the DCO application is Richard Price (using the Manston inbox email address), whilst I will remain the primary contact for any correspondence relating to the s53 application.

20 April 2018
Stone Hill Park Ltd - Jamie Macnamara
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please see attachment.
We note the comments set out in your letter dated 10 April 2018 and in previous correspondence. The Inspectorate will consider whether to accept the proposed Manston Airport application in accordance with the requirements of Section 55 of the Planning Act 2008.

Please note that the appropriate contact for any future correspondence relating to the DCO application is Richard Price, whilst I will remain the primary contact for any correspondence relating to the s53 application.

20 April 2018
Pinsent Masons LLP for Stone Hill Park Ltd - Richard Griffiths
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
The current proposal does stray into our parish with a proposed “borrow pit” although the majority of the development is within the neighbouring town council boundary. I presume that counts as development within our area? Also, several of our parishes, including my parish, have the proposed road access route travelling through our communities and there are proposed changes to those roads to improve junctions, remove bends, widen certain areas and in some cases create “park and ride” facilities. Do these changes also mean that they are regarded as statutory consultees?
We would expect the development you refer to below to be included in the application as associated development. Any parish council with associated development within its boundary will be a statutory consultee.

20 April 2018
Theberton and Eastbridge Parish Council - Paul Collins
Sizewell C New Nuclear Power Station
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
See attached meeting note
See attached meeting note

19 April 2018
VPI Immingham B Ltd - anon.
VPI Immingham OCGT
Enquiry received via email
Can you please clarify for me whether local Parish Councils directly affected or in Parishes adjacent to the proposed Sizewell C development are considered by PINS as statutory consultees?

In the Infrastructure Planning Regulations 2009 in Schedule there is a note to the table which states:

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.

Also in the PINS document “Sizewell C proposed nuclear development scoping opinion” published in June 2014, PINS consulted the following organisations under the collective group:

The Relevant Parish Council(s) or Relevant Community Council

ORGANISATION
Aldringham cum Thorpe Parish Council
Benhall and Sternfield Parish Council
Blaxhall Parish Council
Blythburgh Parish Council
Bramfield and Thorington Parish Council
Campsea Ashe Parish Council
Darsham Parish Council
Dunwich Parish Meeting
Easton Parish Council
Farnham with Stratford St Andrew Parish Council
Great Glemham Parish Council
Hacheston Parish Council
Kelsale cum Carlton Parish Council
Knodishall Parish Council
Leiston cum Sizewell Town Council
Letheringham Parish Council
Little Glemham Parish Council
Marlesford Parish Council
Middleton Parish Council
Parham Parish Council
Rendham Parish Council
Saxmundham Town Council
Snape Parish Council
Sweffling Parish Council
Theberton and Eastbridge Parish Council
Westleton Parish Council
Wickham Market Parish Council
Yoxford Parish Council

During a meeting with and EDF representative yesterday with councillors present from Suffolk County Council and Suffolk Coastal District Council it was stated that the Parish Council is not a statutory consultee, although we have had a number of discussions and briefings by EDF and others over the past few years.

So please can you confirm whether the 2009 planning act list including Parish Councils, as shown above, is correct or if there has been some amendment to this legislation changing the status of affected Parish Councils either in general or for this particular NSIP.
At the time of the scoping request the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009 included neighbouring parishes within the relevance test for prescribed consultees with respect to the scoping for the Environmental Statement. However these Regulations have been amended (since April 2013) and now, in England the parish council is only deemed relevant for the purposes of scoping if the project or associated development is within their area.

In terms of statutory consultees, the relevant regulations are The Infrastructure Planning (Interested Parties and Miscellaneous Prescribed Provisions) Regulations 2015. Relevant parish councils are those which have responsibility for the location of the proposed development. However even if the proposed development is not within your parish council you should have the opportunity to participate in any consultation. If the application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate and accepted for Examination you will have an opportunity to register the parish council as an Interested Party which will give you the right to participate in the Examination.

18 April 2018
Theberton and Eastbridge Parish Council - Paul Collins
Sizewell C New Nuclear Power Station
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Pins meeting with Hornsea Project Three
See attached meeting note

17 April 2018
Hornsea Project Three - anon.
Hornsea Project Three Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached Meeting Note

17 April 2018
Highways England
A303 Sparkford to Ilchester Dualling
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Comments on the draft Consultation Report
Please see attached document

16 April 2018
Drax Power Ltd - Jim Doyle
Drax Re-power
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Re the Manston DCO 2018 consultation, could you kindly send me details relating to the 2018 consultation notifications. I discussed this with Sam at the 2018 Comfort Inn consultation event, but then I was mostly concerned with what had gone wrong with the notification postcard distribution. One of the places that I asked if anyone had had a postcard was Ramsgate Custom House and I explained to Sam the people there, Town Council, RNLI shop and Ramsgate information centre, hadn’t had notifications and didn’t know about the Comfort Inn event until I told them about it.

Having been to your website to see if more documents had been published I noticed the news item [attachment 1] which seems to infer that Canterbury City Council were not notified about the 2018 consultation, ether the consultation events, the consultation content, with revised documents or both.

This lead me to check with Ramsgate Town Council town clerk who told me that Ramsgate town council hadn’t been notified.

The details I would like you to send me are which organisations councils, statutory consultees etc you did actually notify both of the 2018 consolation and the consultation events?
The Consultation Report and any Adequacy of Consultation Representations received by the Planning Inspectorate from relevant local authorities will be published on our website if the application is accepted for examination. The Acceptance decision must be made on or before 8 May 2018.

16 April 2018
Michael Child
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
The issue I have drawn your attention to (in the emails of 3 and 4 April 2018) is not an issue for the Applicant but an issue for PINS. When advised of "targeted consultation" in Cumbria you advised NGET to consider wider consultation, however you did not do this in respect of Anglesey when informed of the same. My question is why are PINS treating the two projects differently?
The advice given in our note of 14 March 2017 needs to be read within the context of the changes proposed. Our meeting notes are not a full transcript of the meeting and the Applicant’s attention would have been drawn to the DCLG guidance on the pre-application process in terms of the appropriate level of consultation for change to proposals (see paragraphs 68-77). As it states in all of our meeting notes, any advice given does not constitute legal advice upon which the Applicant, or others, can rely. Therefore it is for National Grid to decide on the extent of any further consultation they decide to undertake.

13 April 2018
Jonathan Dean
North Wales Connection
Enquiry received via email
My concern about the Written Representation is that these will take time, so I need to start now. I have no intention of writing War & Peace, but there are several entirely distinct issues/themes, and want to be assured that I can submit more than one Written Representation.
Please note that there will only be one opportunity within the Examination timetable to submit your Written Representation. Information about the Examination and Written Representations is in Advice Note 8.4.

13 April 2018
Jonathan Dean
North Wales Connection
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Inception Meeting
Please see attached

12 April 2018
Ørsted - Ørsted
Hornsea Project Four Offshore Wind Farm (Generating Stations)
Enquiry received via phone
response has attachments
At a project update meeting held between IAMP LLP and the Inspectorate on 26 January 2018, the Applicant highlighted a potential need to obtain rights of entry under s53 of the PA2008 in order to access land adjacent to the A19. A seperate telecon was then held on 22 February 2018 to discuss the potential s53 request in more detail.
See attached meeting note.

11 April 2018
IAMP LLP - anon.
International Advanced Manufacturing Park (IAMP)
Enquiry received via email
On behalf of Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board I am seeking advice on how to register as an interested party for the Inspection of the DCO submission to be made by HNP imminently.

I have accessed your web site but cannot find the online portal to register, could you please advise.
The proposed DCO Application for the Wylfa Newydd Development has not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate.

Upon receipt of a DCO Application, the Planning Inspectorate has 28 days to assess whether an Application can be accepted for Examination. When the Planning Inspectorate accepts 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 and this is when the form will be made available on the Wylfa project page of our website.

The publicity notice will tell you when the deadline is however you can also find out about the registration period via Twitter or email alert if you have signed up for this service on the Wylfa project page of our website.

11 April 2018
Wyn Thomas
Wylfa Newydd Nuclear Power Station
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
On 19th April the sponsor posted this on their website see this link [attachment 1] The release was not widely publicised. In this release they claim that they will review further their night flight requirements and quota counts and also suggest that planes will not fly over densely populated areas. Again I think this highlights the inadequacy of the consultation and the way in which it has been undertaken in a very piecemeal manner with little regard to the local community who will be massively affected by the plans particularly those in Ramsgate and Herne Bay. As I said in previous communications there has been no detail of flight paths produced and yet in their latest brief above they say planes will not fly over densely populated areas which seems to indicate that flight paths have been planned but not disclosed during the consultation. How we are to assess the project without knowing the flight paths is difficult to understand especially without an environmental impact assessment or health impact assessment. It may be that some residents didn't bother going to the consultations having assumed that planes will not fly over their houses which may not be the case.

I also note new proposals have been recommended nationally for how noise is assessed, see this link below of a summary by Hacan [attachment 2]. I assume the sponsors plans will need to be revisited to assure they comply with these new arrangements.

Lastly the sponsors posted the following on their website in an attempt to suggest they consulted widely enough having realised at the last minute that Canterbury County Council had not responded to the consultation because they hadn't received the necessary documentation. Here is a link to their post [attachment 3]. You will no doubt have heard from many Herne Bay as well as Ramsgate residents who were not aware of the consultations taking place. The use of a website, Facebook and twitter reaches very limited people in Thanet and should be discouraged as a medium for planning consultations in these cases. The sponsor could quite easily have mailed a detailed summary of their plans to each and every household in Thanet, this is what is done by other sponsors as a matter of course in order to ensure that all residents are aware of the scope and depth of the proposed plans. A summary could quite easily have been prepared detailing the type of airport being planned, the number of planes proposed each day, the number of planes proposed each night, how many days per week operations would function and detailed flight paths as a minimum so residents could see exactly how they were likely to be affected and could then decide if they needed to go and get further information at a consultation briefing. The consultations should have been briefings with a formal presentation with questions and answers rather than people just milling around looking at pictures and queuing up to ask questions.

Lastly as a general point regarding the planning legislation enacting the Development Consent Order process I find it hard to believe that it was meant for company's such as RSP, who have little or no substance or experience and with investors in Belize, to utilise. Other projects on your website are sponsored by entities such as The Highways Agency, power generation companies and other quasi government institutions providing national services. Perhaps the legislation needs to be revisited to ensure it is not used inappropriately by companies and in particular by those who have already failed to meet the criteria to qualify as an indemnity party within the local authority CPO regime.
The Acceptance stage

The application was submitted on 10 April 2018. Beginning on the day after it was submitted the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) has 28 calendar days to decide whether the application can be accepted for examination.

The Acceptance decision must therefore be taken on or before 8 May 2018. The decision will be published on the project webpage, here: [attachment 4]

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

• The application documents submitted by RSP.
• 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 what the Planning Inspectorate, on behalf of the Secretary of State, must have regard to when taking its decision about whether to accept an application:

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

The Planning Act 2008 is available in full via our website, here: [attachment 5]

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

If you have sent comments about the merits of the Proposed Development (eg setting out support for or objection to the principle of the Proposed Development) these cannot be considered at the Acceptance stage. If the application is accepted for examination, in order to make comments about the merits of the Proposed Development to an appointed Examining Authority, you will need to register as an Interested Party by making a Relevant Representation at the appropriate time. For more information about how and when you can have your say, please see our Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination: [attachment 6]

11 April 2018
Adem Mehmet
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Yesterday RSP announced that they had submitted their Manston DCO application to pins.
I understand that this triggers the 28 day period during which pins will decide if the can accept the application.
I note that RSP say the application runs 11,000 pages, however RSP don’t appear to have published the application documents on their website.
My main interest in the application documents is the full environmental statement that wasn’t available at the consultation stage, this interest was focused by aspects of the RSP preliminary environmental report (PEIR) and most particularly that the PEIR stated that the project would impact on physical health, mental health and life expectancy, to be quantified in the full environmental statement.
Can you kindly tell me where the documentation will be accessible, when it will be accessible and if it will published online in a manageable, accessible, searchable and indexed form.
Obviously 11,000 pages isn’t particularly large for a searchable website that has an index of labelled links, is organised with images that expand when clicked on and has related documents grouped together. On the other hand as happened with the two previously published consultation document sets, a series of unlabelled and unindexed pdf files, often mainly unmanageable because the contain many very large image files would be very difficult to use given the fairly short period of time available.
The Acceptance stage

The application was submitted on 10 April 2018. Beginning on the day after it was submitted the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) has 28 calendar days to decide whether the application can be accepted for examination.

The Acceptance decision must therefore be taken on or before 8 May 2018. The decision will be published on the project webpage, here: [attachment 1]

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

• The application documents submitted by RSP.
• 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 what the Planning Inspectorate, on behalf of the Secretary of State, must have regard to when taking its decision about whether to accept an application:

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

The Planning Act 2008 is available in full via our website, here: [attachment 2]

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

If you have sent comments about the merits of the Proposed Development (eg setting out support for or objection to the principle of the Proposed Development) these cannot be considered at the Acceptance stage. If the application is accepted for examination, in order to make comments about the merits of the Proposed Development to an appointed Examining Authority, you will need to register as an Interested Party by making a Relevant Representation at the appropriate time. For more information about how and when you can have your say, please see our Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination: [attachment 3]

11 April 2018
Michael Child
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Local press reported on Monday that RSP has submitted its DCO application. The applicants are quoted as having provided some 10,500 pages, a figure also voiced by the local MP.

I note that the claimed total volume is nearly three times that provided for public consultation just a couple of months ago.

Whilst I appreciate that the application must include additional material (such as the report on the pre-application consultations and the draft Order paperwork) I am concerned that the applicants may have included information which was in fact reasonably required during the statutory pre-application consultation period to allow the public and consultation bodies to develop an informed view of the likely significant environmental effects of the proposed development and of the associated developments, as is demanded by law.

I have in mind, for example, information that was missing from the PEIR about major accidents management, the missing light pollution analysis (and link up with Thanet Earth), the missing analysis of impact on Ramsgate's heritage assets, the missing plans for the major recycling centre, the non compliant health impact analysis, and that is to say nothing of the gaps in the business analysis and the absence of a clear and consistent position on night flights.

It would be unfortunate if such material was available earlier this year but denied to the public. On the other hand, if it was not available this does seem to raise a question mark about the adequacy of the consultation.
The Acceptance stage

The application was submitted on 10 April 2018. Beginning on the day after it was submitted the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) has 28 calendar days to decide whether the application can be accepted for examination.

The Acceptance decision must therefore be taken on or before 8 May 2018. The decision will be published on the project webpage, here: [attachment 1]

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

• The application documents submitted by RSP.
• 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 what the Planning Inspectorate, on behalf of the Secretary of State, must have regard to when taking its decision about whether to accept an application:

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

The Planning Act 2008 is available in full via our website, here: [attachment 2]

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

If you have sent comments about the merits of the Proposed Development (eg setting out support for or objection to the principle of the Proposed Development) these cannot be considered at the Acceptance stage. If the application is accepted for examination, in order to make comments about the merits of the Proposed Development to an appointed Examining Authority, you will need to register as an Interested Party by making a Relevant Representation at the appropriate time. For more information about how and when you can have your say, please see our Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination: [attachment 3]

11 April 2018
Mark de Pulford
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Could you confirm that the DCO application for Manston has been submitted by RiverOak Strategic Partners and if it has when will the documents be published on your website?
The Acceptance stage

The application was submitted on 10 April 2018. Beginning on the day after it was submitted the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) has 28 calendar days to decide whether the application can be accepted for examination.

The Acceptance decision must therefore be taken on or before 8 May 2018. The decision will be published on the project webpage, here: [attachment 1]

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

• The application documents submitted by RSP.
• 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 what the Planning Inspectorate, on behalf of the Secretary of State, must have regard to when taking its decision about whether to accept an application:

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

The Planning Act 2008 is available in full via our website, here: [attachment 2]

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

If you have sent comments about the merits of the Proposed Development (eg setting out support for or objection to the principle of the Proposed Development) these cannot be considered at the Acceptance stage. If the application is accepted for examination, in order to make comments about the merits of the Proposed Development to an appointed Examining Authority, you will need to register as an Interested Party by making a Relevant Representation at the appropriate time. For more information about how and when you can have your say, please see our Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination: [attachment 3]

11 April 2018
Sophie Fowler
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update and consultation feedback meeting
See attached meeting note

11 April 2018
Highways England - anon.
A2 Bean and Ebbsfleet junction improvements
Enquiry received via email
Query (from Jonathan Dean by email on 5/4/18):

Re the following para (from the meeting note dated 22 September 2017):

"The Applicant advised that they are in contact with Horizon regarding which Welsh documents will be translated so that there is consistency between projects. This will then be passed to the local authorities for comment. The Applicant advised that they are considering placing all translated documents into one volume so they will be easy to find. The Inspectorate advised the Applicant to make this clear in the Guide to the Application."

Can I request that as well as placing all translated documents into one volume (I assume this refers to the Welsh versions) that all English documents are also made available in a format such that they are easy to find. Please advise the applicant of this.

I have just read the Planning Inspectorate’s Advice Note 8.2. Is there a limit to number of individual "relevant representations" an interested party can make? I have several, individual, distinct issues regarding the need, the options and the impacts of the proposed project which I feel would not be given justice if condensed into a single written submission, or would become too cumbersome.
In response to your concern about the ease of finding application documents, I can advise that for their last two applications to us (Hinkley Point C Connection and the Richborough Connection Project), National Grid have provided a Guide to the Application, which assists all parties in navigating the application documents. We have published the Richborough Guide as a good example document on our website to encourage other applicants to follow as we have found this very helpful. We have suggested that National Grid provide this for the North Wales Connection project and they have confirmed that they intend to do so; they will also provide hyperlinks to the documents on our website as the Examination progresses.

With regard to your query about Relevant Representations, the purpose of making a Relevant Representation is to register as an Interested Party so that you can participate in the Examination of the application. As it states in Advice Note 8.2 which you refer to, we recommend the use of bullet points and headings to summarise your concerns. Once the Examination has started you will then have an opportunity to submit a Written Representation to expand on the matters set out in your Relevant Representation.

If you do submit more than one Relevant Representation we will simply combine your comments into one representation.

10 April 2018
Jonathan Dean
North Wales Connection
Enquiry received via email
Query (from Jonathan Dean by email on 3 and 4 April 2018):

I have taken the following text from one of your notes about the North West Coast Connection (Meeting note, 14/03/2017) in Cumbria. The meeting was between PINS and National Grid.

"The Inspectorate advised that should targeted consultation be undertaken National Grid may want to consider providing the opportunity for all consultees to comment." "The Inspectorate advised that National Grid should keep the local community informed as much as possible." "National Grid explained that they are attending regular meetings with various stakeholder groups and will share further information with them as soon as they are able"

This is exactly what we want in Anglesey! National Grid have been conducting "targeted consultation" and yet all consultees are denied the opportunity to comment. National Grid have refused to establish a stakeholder reference group on the model they use in Cumbria. Why is Anglesey being treated differently to Cumbria?

Further to my email of yesterday, can I draw your attention to the following text from one of your meeting notes about the North Wales Connection (Meeting note, 10/02/2017). The meeting was between PINS and National Grid. "The Applicant informed the Inspectorate that any further consultation needed was likely to be targeted; for example around changes to specific pylon locations." So, when National Grid inform you they will be conducting "targeted consultation" in Cumbria, you advise them to: "... consider providing the opportunity for all consultees to comment." "... should keep the local community informed as much as possible." And yet when National Grid suggest exactly the same in Anglesey, you didn't advise them to do anything! So I ask again, why is Anglesey being treated differently to Cumbria?
The Applicant will be aware of the Guidance on the pre-application process and we will expect them to set out and justify their consultation in their consultation report, which we will check at Acceptance. If you have concerns about the consultation then, assuming you have already made the Applicant aware of your concerns, we would advise you to contact your local authority and set out why you think the Applicant is failing to conduct its consultation properly.

Your comments should be taken into account when the local authority sends the Inspectorate its comments on whether the Applicant has fulfilled its consultation duties. The local authority’s comments on the Applicant’s consultation will be taken into account when the Acceptance Inspector makes their decision whether to accept the application for Examination.

10 April 2018
Jonathan Dean
North Wales Connection
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Please see attached Meeting Note
Please see attached Meeting Note

10 April 2018
Roxhill Limited - anon.
Northampton Gateway Rail Freight Interchange
Enquiry received via email
Does PINS have responsibility for enforcing (monitoring, revoking) a DCO once it has been granted. If development is not in line with the DCO what is PINS role? Who is responsible for monitoring and enforcement.
Thank you for your enquiry. The relevant Local Planning Authority (LPA) is responsible for enforcing a made Development Consent Order (DCO) issued by the relevant Secretary of State (SoS) for a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP) under the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008). However any conditions on a deemed Coast Protection Act 1949 consent or Food and Environmental Protection Act 1989 licence (or Deemed Marine Licence) would be enforced by the Marine Management Organisation (MMO).

The relevant LPA is usually responsible for enforcing and/or monitoring the provisions and requirements as set out in the made DCO. Part 8 of the PA2008 may be of interest to you regarding your query on “monitoring and enforcement”. It sets out Enforcement (offences) and where power is provided to the relevant LPA. The Planning Inspectorate (PINS) has no powers or involvement in enforcing the provisions and requirement within a made DCO.

Once a DCO has been granted, the Applicant may wish to make a non-material or material change to the made DCO and there is an application process for the Applicant to follow, should they wish to make such a change. This is set out in secondary legislation - Infrastructure Planning (Changes to, and Revocation of, Development Consent Orders) Regulation 2011.

The relevant SoS retains the decision-making powers in respect of such applications in order to maintain the integrity of the made DCO and will take a proportionate approach to consultation and notification of relevant interested parties when handling such applications depending on the scale and nature of the material or non-material change proposed.

06 April 2018
Ivan Stone
General
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I wish to be enlisted as an interested party in this proposal by Ashfield Land Ltd and Gazeley GLP. Will you be able to notify me when you are ready?

I can certainly provide a summary of less than 500 words as my particular interest happens to be quite narrow. I am preparing a detailed deposition which amounts to an objection in total of the proposal. It will be rather numerical in nature and needs to include Tabulated Data in a few Tables embedded in a text of 2000 to 2500 words
(5 or 6 A4 pages in PDF format). I trust that the deposition can readily be assessed by people who have a degree in engineering, in fairness to my analysis, which is technical. Do you foresee any problems with what I plan. Due to travel problems I will have to let the deposition speak for itself - I will not be able to attend any formal proceedings.
This proposed development is currently in the Pre-Application stage of the planning process for Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIPs). At this stage, the developer will be preparing their application documents for submission, as well as consulting with the local community on their proposals. We would advise you to contact the Applicant directly with your views in order for them to take this into consideration prior to their application documents being finalised for submission, below is the Applicants contact details:

Email: [email protected]
Telephone: 0845 543 8967 Monday to Friday, 9am to 5.30pm (calls are charged at local rates)
Post: FREEPOST Rail Central
Website: www.railcentral.com

Once the application has been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate (the Inspectorate), we have a statutory 28 day period (known as Acceptance stage) to determine whether to Accept the application for Examination. At the Acceptance stage the Inspectorate will undertake the s55 Acceptance (‘Checklist’) to determine whether the Applicant has complied with the statutory consultation duties and other statutory duties during their pre-application stage.
If the application for development consent for this project is formally accepted by the Secretary of State there will be a period where individuals and organisations can register as Interested Parties (IPs) by submitting a Relevant Representation form via the project page of our website (or requesting hard copies thereof) to express your views in relation to the project which will be considered by the Examining Authority (ExA) during the examination. If the application is accepted you will receive a notification letter (s56 notification) via the Applicant, confirming the opening and closing date of the Relevant Representation period to register as an IP.

At this stage as per your correspondence, you are correct that a summary outline of your concern/objection should be registered via the submission of a Relevant Representation form, which should contain approximately 500 words.

We would recommend that you visit our project page for Rail Central SRFI as you could sign up for email updates to be kept informed on project progress, once the application is formally submitted.

Upon closure of the Relevant Representation period, the appointed ExA will invite all IPs to the Preliminary Meeting via a Rule 6 letter. We note in your correspondence that you may be unable to attend future hearings for this event, however as the process is intended to be predominantly a written process, we would encourage you upon receipt of the Rule 6 letter to review the Examination timetable, which will detail deadline submission dates (including date by which Written Representation should be received), reserved dates for Issue Specific Hearings, Compulsory Acquisition Hearings, Open Floor Hearings etc. of which of particular interest to you, would be the date by which Written Representations should be received (as depicted in the Exam Timetable), this would be the date by which your detailed objections should be submitted into the examination. This submission could include tabulated data, images, tables etc to further elaborate on your initial objection made within your relevant representation.

We would however remind you that during the Examination, the appointed ExA may invite you to hearings reserved in the Examination to seek clarification on submissions submitted or seek further clarification from you in writing regarding any submission you may make. At any point during the Examination other IPs, including the Applicant may make comments to your Relevant Representation and/or Written Representation and therefore we would encourage you where possible to have an active involvement in the Examination, should further responses/clarification be needed.

The Inspectorate has published a series of advice notes on the National
Infrastructure planning website which explain the examination process, including information on how to get involved and we would recommend you review the advice notes listed below:
Advice Note 8: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure process for members of the public and others;
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.

Our full suite of advice and legislation relating to NSIPs can be found on our website [attachment 1] or you can review our FAQ page, which provides further information on the NSIP process.

06 April 2018
Anthony Marsh
Rail Central (Strategic Rail Freight Interchange)
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The most recent documents for this project on PINS Website are about the SoCC.
Except for the SoCC, are you detached from 21-Feb to 4-Apr-18 Statutory Consultation?
Is this because you do not become involved again until a DCO Application is received?

Will you be meeting Highways England and Atkins again shortly?
Will you enquire why Statutory Consultation started without basic information?
The answers to these questions are provided in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 1]

The Planning Inspectorate and Highways England are scheduled to meet in respect of this scheme in April, following which a note of the meeting will be prepared and published on the project webpage in the usual way.

06 April 2018
Bean Residents Association - Linda Collins
A2 Bean and Ebbsfleet junction improvements
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I received recently a consultation document from Highways England called' A1 Birtley to Coal House improvement scheme', dated February 2018.
The penultimate page refers to the 'Planning process', in which it states, 'you can register with the Planning Inspectorate as an interested party to be kept informed of progress ...'
Can you please tell me how to do this.
This proposed development is currently in the Pre-Application stage of the planning process for Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIPs). At this stage, the Applicant will be preparing their application documents for submission. Within your enquiry you refer to being in receipt of a consultation letter provided by Highways England (the Applicant). The Applicant undertook their statutory consultation between 8 February and 22 March 2018 for the proposed development. Under the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) the Applicant is required to submit a Consultation Report as part of their application for development consent during the Acceptance stage of the planning process.
This report must demonstrate (among other duties) how the Applicant has met their statutory duties under the PA2008 during their statutory consultation period. The Consultation Report must demonstrate how they have complied with ss42, 46, 47, 48 and 49 of the PA2008. Section 49 of the PA2008 specifically requires the Applicant to demonstrate whether they have had regard to any responses during the consultation period and whether this resulted in a change to the proposal.
Although the Applicant’s formal statutory consultation period has now closed, as the application is still in the pre-application stage, any parties that may have any concerns/issues with the development proposal should contact the Applicant directly to raise any such concerns/issues. Below are the Applicant’s contact details for the project.
Email: [email protected]
Telephone: 0300 123 5000
Post: Highways England, National Traffic Operations Centre, 3 Ridgeway, Quinton Business Park, Birmingham B32 1AF
Website: [attachment 1]

Once the application has been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate (the Inspectorate), we have a statutory 28 day period (known as Acceptance stage) to determine whether to Accept the application for Examination. At the Acceptance stage the Inspectorate will undertake the s55 Acceptance (‘Checklist’) to determine whether the Applicant has complied with their statutory consultation duties and other statutory duties during their pre-application stage.

If the application for development consent for this project is formally accepted by the Secretary of State there will be a period where individuals and organisations can register as Interested Parties (IPs) by submitting a Relevant Representation form via the project page of our website (or requesting hard copies thereof) to express your views in relation to the project which will be considered by the Examining Authority during the examination.

We would recommend that you visit our project page for the A1Birtley to Coal House Improvement scheme as any advice issued will be published to this page and you could also sign up for email updates to be kept informed on project progress, once the application is formally submitted.

The Inspectorate has published a series of advice notes on the National Infrastructure planning website which explain the examination process, including information on how to get involved and we would recommend you review the advice notes listed below:
Advice Note 8: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure process for members of the public and others;
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.

Our full suite of advice and legislation relating to NSIPs can be found on our website [attachment 2] or you can review our FAQ page, which provides further information on the NSIP process.

06 April 2018
Alan Thwaite
A1 Birtley to Coal House Improvement Scheme
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Is there a summary dismissal procedure for application to minister or do I still have to wait for interested party submission stage. I am anxious to avoid applying for judicial review of Chief constable at same time as River Oak application on same issues is under your jurisdiction.
The application by RiverOak Strategic Partners is expected to be submitted to the Planning Inspectorate in the first half of this month.

As previously explained, the functions of the Planning Inspectorate are controlled by the provisions in the Planning Act 2008. We can only issue advice about the process as prescribed ie where a request seeks advice about:

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

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

06 April 2018
Richard Card
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I understand the DCO application will be submitted to you next week. You've received a great deal of communication from members of the public on a wide range of issues in particular the adequacy of the consultations. Can I ask whether during your consideration of the application all the comments you've previously received will be reviewed and considered by you automatically when coming to your decision as to whether or not to accept the application for examination or whether all those that commented will need to register as interested partys and make their comments again ?
The comments received by the Planning Inspectorate concerning the Applicants Pre-application consultation can be considered 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 those comments based on the individual facts of the case.

The adequacy of the Applicant’s Pre-application consultation is not a subject that can be revisited in the examination; if the application is accepted. The examination of the application will deal with the merits of the Proposed Development. Representations made to the examination concerning the Applicant’s consultation will not be considered by the appointed Examining Authority (ExA).

Members of the local community who have made comments to the Planning Inspectorate about the merits of the Proposed Development at the Pre-application stage will need to repeat those comments in a Relevant Representation, at the appropriate time. The ExA will not be able to consider comments made about the merits of the Proposed Development that were submitted to the Planning Inspectorate at the Pre-application stage. For more information about making a Relevant Representation see our Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination: [attachment 1]

04 April 2018
Adem Mehmet
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I note the following section from EN-1

“The Planning Act 2008 aims to create a holistic planning regime so that the cumulative effect of different elements of the same project can be considered together. The Government therefore envisages that wherever possible, applications for new generating stations and related infrastructure should be contained in a single application … or in separate applications submitted in tandem which have been prepared in an integrated way.”

Please could you explain the logic behind the power station and the connection being considered as two separate projects. Please can you confirm that you will consider "the cumulative effect of different elements", ie both the power station and the connection, when addressing just part of the overall project ie just the connection.

I note from your meeting minutes that National Grid are sharing draft copies of the DCO and related documents with various consultees. Please could you pressure them to share these with the public. We have a lot of preparation to do if we are to be able to scrutinise them effectively, especially due to the flawed "consultation" process.

I understand that National Grid have made numerous changes to their proposals since they last consulted the public. They consider the changes to not be material. Can you assure me that they have made you fully aware of these changes and that you agree that they are not material?
As the Wylfa Newydd and North Wales Connection applications will be made by different applicants it is not possible for these to be made in a single application. The Examining Authorities will consider cumulative impacts when making their recommendations to the Secretary of State.

National Grid are not required to share any of their draft documents but if you wish to see a copy of their draft DCO I suggest you request this from National Grid. If they do not wish to provide this then, if the application is accepted, the first iteration of their draft DCO will be available on our website before the start of the Examination.

We would expect proposals to change as an applicant responds to consultation feedback. We will look at the consultation undertaken as part of our check of the application at Acceptance stage, as well as asking the local authorities for their views on the adequacy of the Applicant’s consultation. Guidance which sets out the requirements and procedures and consultation for major infrastructure projects can be viewed here: [attachment 1]

03 April 2018
Jonathan Dean
North Wales Connection
Enquiry received via phone
The developer has confirmed that their proposal contains two nationally significant infrastructure projects (the Strategic Rail Freight Interchange and works to a road junction). Will the applicant need to submit two separate applications for this?
Would a proposal to underground a section of electric line also be considered a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project?
Developers can include more than one Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project within an application for a development consent order.

The Planning Act 2008 sets out thresholds at which certain infrastructure projects are considered to be nationally significant, requiring a development consent order. In regard to electric lines, only overhead lines are considered to be Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (provided they also meet the other thresholds detailed within section 16 of the Planning Act 2008, for example regarding the proposed length and voltage).

03 April 2018
Stop Rail Central - Alan Hargreaves
Rail Central (Strategic Rail Freight Interchange)
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting in relation to the proposed material change to the DCO
Please see attached meeting note

03 April 2018
EDF Energy - Carly Vince
Hinkley Point C New Nuclear Power Station
Enquiry received via email
There is a consultation on-going re a proposed ESSO pipeline.

I note that under the guidance Local Authorities have to be consulted before public consultation.
According to the team at the exhibitions that would have included a Parish Council but not a local Neighbourhood Forum with an approved plan.

Do you believe this as this a correct interpretation of your guidance.
Whilst the Inspectorate is unable to provide an interpretation on consultation guidance, I hope the following information is of assistance to you.

The Applicant has a duty under Section 47 of the Planning Act 2008 to prepare a Statement of Community Consultation (SoCC) and to conduct its consultation in line with that statement. However, before carrying out consultation, the Applicant is required to seek each Local Authority’s (LA) views on the contents of the SoCC. Paragraph 37 of Planning Act 2008: Guidance on the Pre-Application Process specifies:

“In its role as a consultee on the Statement of Community Consultation, the local authority should focus on how the applicant should consult people in its area”.

Further information on the role of the LA in the SoCC can be found in section 5 of the Inspectorate’s Advice Note 2. Paragraph 5.3 is particularly relevant, which specifies:

“Local authorities are advised to think about the characteristics of the communities affected and may also wish to ask for input from parish or community councils to help inform the response provided to the developer”.

I should explain that when an application is submitted for Examination, the Inspectorate will seek each LA’s views on the adequacy of the Applicant’s consultation. As such, at this stage in the process, I would suggest that you raise any concerns you have on this matter with the LA or with the Applicant directly.

29 March 2018
Andrew Grimshaw
Southampton to London Pipeline Project
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Consultation feedback meeting
See attached meeting note

29 March 2018
Highways England - anon.
A30 Chiverton to Carland Cross Scheme
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Comments on the draft No Significant Effects Report (NSER)

Sylwadau ar yr Adroddiad Dim Effeithiau Arwyddocaol (NSER) drafft
Comments on the draft No Significant Effects Report (NSER)

Sylwadau ar yr Adroddiad Dim Effeithiau Arwyddocaol (NSER) drafft

28 March 2018
Abergelli Power Ltd - anon.
Abergelli Power
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting.
See attached meeting note.

28 March 2018
Heathrow Airport Ltd - anon.
Expansion of Heathrow Airport (Third Runway)
Enquiry received via email
Do you routinely accept submissions from people using fake identities and, if not why have you done so on this occasion?

Do you believe that accepting and publishing submissions from people using fake names is consistent with your claims about the transparency of the DCO process?

Is your decision to publish notice of Appolonius's submission tacit recognition that the entire DCO process is a joke; this is just your way of joining in with the "fun."
For the record, the advice given to Appolonius Claudius was provided in response to a consultation response objecting to the Proposed Development at the Manston Airport site in the strongest terms.

Section 51 of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) is not prescriptive about who the Planning Inspectorate can issue advice to. There is no prescribed form for the submission of a request for Pre-application advice, but the Planning Inspectorate must, amongst other things, make a record of who requested the advice and the matters in respect of which the advice was requested.

At the Pre-examination stage of the process, Relevant Representations must be made in the prescribed form, providing details of the name, address and telephone number of the person making the representation. Representations that are vexatious or frivolous or concerned with matters of national policy or compensation for Compulsory Acquisition may be disregarded by an Examining Authority (ExA).

The inquisitorial nature of the PA2008 process means that ExAs 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.

27 March 2018
Peter Binding
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached meeting note

26 March 2018
Cleve Hill Solar Park Ltd
Cleve Hill Solar Park
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please can you note the report from mps over noise and night flights over London re Heathrow expansion. Please can you advise if these restrictions will apply to all new dco applications ie manston.

The new airports national policy statement ie is national so must include manston .please can you advise whether this will be the case also it mentions it will prempt any dco requests..
The revised draft of the Airports National Policy Statement (ANPS) is available to read here: [attachment 1]

The proposed scope of the ANPS is set out on pages 7 and 8. The author of the draft ANPS is the Department for Transport.

The Planning Inspectorate can issue advice about applying for a Development Consent Order (DCO), or about making representations about an application for a DCO. It cannot issue advice about the content of draft national policy.

26 March 2018
Ken Wraight
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The Transport Committee has just concluded its inquiry into the Airports National Policy Statement. The Report will be published on our website tomorrow Friday 23 March at 00:01.

To briefly explain the “Nationally Significant Infrastructure Planning Process”:

The Government publishes a National Policy Statement (NPS). We, the Transport Select Committee, then launched an inquiry into the NPS, asking the public for written evidence. Witnesses were also summoned and based on both sets of evidence, the Committee will publish its Report tomorrow (see link above).

Heathrow Airport runs this consultation independently as part of the overall planning process. They are the individual promoter of the scheme (i.e. expansion) and such have to consult local people about the proposed project. These findings are then submitted by Heathrow Airport to the Planning Inspectorate, who in turn recommend to the Secretary State to either grant or refuse planning permission. It is then up to the Secretary of State (Government) to make a decision.
For the avoidance of doubt, the consultation exercise currently being undertaken by Heathrow Airport Ltd (HAL) is non-statutory. There are important differences between non-statutory and statutory consultation in the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) process and these are explained in the Planning Inspectorate’s Advice Note 8.1: [attachment 1]

In respect of your enquiry, if you have not received a satisfactory response from HAL you can contact your local authority. Local authorities have a special role in the PA2008 process which, amongst other things, involves advising potential applicants about preparing for and carrying out community consultation at the Pre-application stage of the process. Your local authority will be able to advise HAL in consideration of any comments you (or anybody else) make to it about the consultation process. More information about the role of local authorities in the PA2008 process is provided in the Planning Inspectorate’s Advice Note Two: [attachment 1]

For more information about statutory community consultation under the PA2008 please see our associated FAQ document: [attachment 3]

26 March 2018
Ian Liddiard
Expansion of Heathrow Airport (Third Runway)
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The Applicant provided a draft Consultation Report for comment.
Please see attached

23 March 2018
West Midlands Interchange - anon.
West Midlands Interchange
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Is it correct that an applicant for a DCO must provide copies of relevant documents to members of the public during public consultation?
Dear Mr Lee

As part of the DCO process, in accordance with s47(6)(za) of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) a developer of a National Significant Infrastructure Project must produce a Statement of Community Consultation (SoCC) which should be made available for inspection by the public in a way that is reasonably convenient for people living in the vicinity of the land.

The SoCC must describe the project and explain where to view documents and information about the proposed development, such as plans and other consultation material. Developers are also required to publish a notice of this information in a local and a national newspaper.

If you are referring to a specific project, then depending on the stage of where this is at you may be able to contact the developer and ask for copies of documents to be provided however please note there may be a charge associated with this.

For further information on the process for members of the public and others, please see Advice note 8: [attachment 1]

23 March 2018
Lee
General
Enquiry received via email
What additional due diligence will PINS carry out with respect to the Manston DCO taking into account the issues I raise in the paragraph above which apply to the sponsor Riveroak Strategic Partners Ltd?

What assurances will PINS demand in order to ensure that the project is actually delivered in accordance with the proposals detailed in the DCO application?

Will PINS monitor the progress of the project should the application be successful?

What action will PINS take if the project is not delivered to the scale and timescale specified in the application?

If the sponsor partially develops the site and operates an airport at a much smaller scale than the plans submitted is this acceptable or will PINS take action and if so what action will PINS take?

If the sponsor partially develops the site and operates an airport at a much smaller scale than the plans submitted, what action can the previous owners of the site, which were the subject of a CPO, take?

If the sponsor develops the site as planned but aviation again fails on the site or is only possible on a small scale will the sponsor then be able to develop the site for other purposes including housing, subject to planning consent, or will the site revert to the original owners either fully or partially in this case.
1. "What additional due diligence will PINS carry out with respect to the Manston DCO taking into account the issues I raise in the paragraph above which apply to the sponsor Riveroak Strategic Partners Ltd?"

The tests are the same for every Applicant/ application. In respect of funding, paragraph 18 of government guidance related to procedures for the Compulsory Acquisition (CA) of land states that applicants should be able to demonstrate that adequate funding is likely to be available to enable the CA 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. An application for a DCO that would authorise CA must be accompanied by a Funding Statement which should demonstrate that the above tests are met.

2. “What assurances will PINS demand in order to ensure that the project is actually delivered in accordance with the proposals detailed in the DCO application?”

The Applicant should be able to demonstrate in its application that the authorised development would be expected to provide for or increase the number of aircraft movements by the legislated amount. The extent of the provision for or increase in aircraft movements should be clear from the description of the works in the draft Development Consent Order (dDCO) and the accompanying plans.

If there is doubt as to whether an Applicant will build out a full Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP) under s23 of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) and if the application is accepted the appointed Examining Authority (ExA), if it considered it necessary or appropriate, would be able to explore with/ suggest to the Applicant the possibility of including wording in the dDCO to specify a minimum number of works that when provided could have the effect of increasing aircraft movements. Alternatively, it would be possible for the ExA to ask the Applicant to include a Requirement in the dDCO to specify that particular parts of the development must not be commenced until other enabling infrastructure is provided (eg a sufficient number of aircraft stands must be provided which would be expected to have the effect of increasing the number of aircraft movements to at least 10,000).

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

3. “Will PINS monitor the progress of the project should the application be successful?”

No. Under the PA2008 there are no statutory functions for the Planning Inspectorate in respect of monitoring the progress of development. Any mechanisms by which the delivery of an NSIP would monitored, and by whom that monitoring would be undertaken, will need to be secured in the DCO. Requirements scheduled to a DCO routinely establish Discharging Authorities which must agree in writing for before certain plans are finalised or works carried out. Typically the Discharging Authority is either the relevant local authority or the Secretary of State.

4. “What action will PINS take if the project is not delivered to the scale and timescale specified in the application?”

The Planning Inspectorate will not take action. See response to questions 2 and 3, above.

5. “If the sponsor partially develops the site and operates an airport at a much smaller scale than the plans submitted is this acceptable or will PINS take action and if so what action will PINS take?”

The Planning Inspectorate will not take action. See above answers.

6. “If the sponsor partially develops the site and operates an airport at a much smaller scale than the plans submitted, what action can the previous owners of the site, which were the subject of a CPO, take?”

If the terms of a DCO are breached by the Undertaker, enforcement action under Part 8 of the PA2008 may be taken.

7. “If the sponsor develops the site as planned but aviation again fails on the site or is only possible on a small scale will the sponsor then be able to develop the site for other purposes including housing, subject to planning consent, or will the site revert to the original owners either fully or partially in this case.”

If CA powers are granted, and following service of notice to treat (or a general vesting declaration), the ownership of the lands in question will have transferred to the named Undertaker. Failure by the Undertaker to deliver the full NSIP would not necessitate the transfer of the lands back to the original owner.

If CA powers are granted but the associated time limit established in the DCO expires, notice to treat (or a general vesting declaration) can no longer be served ie the lands/ rights cannot transfer to the named Undertaker.

Where a person with an interest in the order lands objects to the CA of their land/ rights, at the Examination stage they are entitled to make representations to the appointed ExA to establish their objection (in consideration of the tests set out in the PA2008 eg s122, s123 etc). Any objections will be considered by the ExA in making its recommendation to the Secretary of State about whether the CA powers sought in the DCO should be granted.

23 March 2018
Adem Mehmet
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Our concern is with the impact that RiverOaks’ proposed development of the currently redundant airport site as a n international air cargo hub would have on the historic character and heritage of the town with its four conservation areas and over 440 listed buildings, including several Grade 1s.

You will see from our response to the last round of consultation we expressed dismay at the ‘scoping out’ of Ramsgate from the assessment of the Historic Environment due to it lying just beyond 1km from the airport boundary. We accordingly get just a one sentence mention in the consultants PEIR (at para 9.6.16).

I am writing to request that you require RSP to extend their assessment of the Historic Environment to take account of the indirect effects of their proposal on Ramsgate, its listed buildings, conservation areas and its rich heritage.
Until an application has been received and accepted for examination, the Planning Inspectorate (the Inspectorate) has no views on the merits or acceptability of any Proposed Development.

The Inspectorate received a Scoping Request in respect of the proposed Manston Airport development in June 2016 and adopted a Scoping Opinion on behalf of the Secretary of State in August 2016. You can view the document here: [attachment 1]. We would draw your attention to paragraphs 3.36 to 3.37 and 3.76 to 3.80 of the report which consider heritage assets.

Scoping is a voluntary process. There is no requirement for RiverOak Strategic Partners to undertake Scoping and the Inspectorate has no authority to compel an applicant to do so.

As part of the Scoping process the Inspectorate consults the ‘Consultation Bodies’ that are defined in Schedule 1 of The Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009 (as amended). The consultation included Historic England, Kent County Council and Thanet District Council, who are responsible for dealing with heritage matters at a national, regional and district level. The Inspectorate is not required to consult any other bodies and does not do so.

With respect to the adequacy of the consultation process, if you consider that there are issues with the consultation process you should notify your local authority, who would be invited to make an Adequacy of Consultation Representation in the event that an application is submitted to the Inspectorate. Should an application be made and accepted for examination, you may also wish to consider registering as an Interested Party to the examination process to raise your specific historic environment concerns. More information about how and when you will be able to have your say is provided in our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 2]

21 March 2018
The Ramsgate Society - Nigel Phethean
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I’m reliably informed that your advice to developers is that: "“For the pre-application consultation process, applicants are advised to include sufficient preliminary environmental information to enable consultees to develop an informed view of the project… The key issue is that the information presented must provide clarity to all consultees.”

Once again, I must complain that clarity is the very last thing that we, as residents, have been provided with.

My understanding is that RSP is obliged to produce a Health Impact Assessment (HIA) that sets out what effect their cargo airport is going to have on our health and our life expectancy. They have completely failed to do this. At 1.1.91 of the PEIR, RSP says: “The health-related effects are not (my emphasis) assessed here as the HIA analysis has not been finalised and its results are unavailable."
This means that we are being consulted but that RSP is not giving us the information to help us to assess whether or not we're happy with the health implications of the project. RSP is intending to submit its HIA with its DCO application. This means we won't be allowed to consult on it as we don't get to consult at that stage. This surely represents a failure to comply with the requirements of the consultation process. As residents, our health and wellbeing is vital to us, arguably the most important area on which we should be consulted and renders this latest consultation flawed in this most fundamental aspect.

I have written on other aspects of the flawed nature of RSP’s consultations. I, together with many similarly irate residents, feel that RSP is deliberately avoiding proper consultation, most particularly on those aspects of their plans that would have the most damaging impact on the health and wellbeing of residents.
Until an application has been received and accepted for examination, the Planning Inspectorate (the Inspectorate) has no views on the merits or acceptability of any Proposed Development.

Preliminary Environmental Information (PEI)
The Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 (EIA Regulations 2017) refers to PEI as information that:
(a) Has been compiled by the applicant; and
(b) Is reasonably required for the consultation bodies to develop an informed view of the likely significant environmental effects of the development (and of any associated development).

If you are of the view that this information has not been provided, you should notify your local authority in relation to the adequacy of consultation. Relevant local authorities will be invited to make an Adequacy of Consultation Representation to the Inspectorate, as set out in our previous advice to you:

[attachment 1]

[attachment 2]

You may also wish to consider registering as an Interested Party should an application be made and accepted for examination. For information about how and when you can have your say, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 3]

Health impact assessment
We note your comments regarding health impact assessment (HIA). There is no requirement under the EIA Regulations 2017 to prepare a stand-alone HIA. Schedule 4 Section 4 of the Regulations requires “4. A description of the factors specified in regulation 5(2) likely to be significantly affected by the development: population, human health….”. It is for the Applicant to decide how to provide this information, which may be in the form of a separate HIA or integrated into the Applicant’s Environmental Statement (eg as part of noise and vibration and air quality assessments amongst other topics). This information would need to be provided with any application for development consent made to the Inspectorate.

21 March 2018
Cllr. Susan Kennedy
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
What would be helpful to all involved in this process and particularly the large number of people who are concerned about the possibility of night flights, would be if you could confirm the following.

The inclusion of night flights is purely at the discretion of the applicant and it is not a requirement that PINS insists is included in the documentation to support a Development Consent Order "DCO". It is for the applicant alone to decide whether or not it's operation of the airport requires the inclusion of night flights or not. If an applicant included in the documentation supporting a DCO application a categoric statement that "Other than in the case of unplanned emergency situations outside of its control there would be no night flights required at Manston Airport" this would be acceptable within the DCO process, would be acceptable to PINS, would not prejudice the acceptance of the application for examination, would not prevent the project being considered to be one of Nationally Strategic Importance and would not predjudice any decision to be made by the Secretary of State.
At present the Planning Inspectorate (the Inspectorate) has not received an application for a Development Consent Order for the Proposed Development at Manston Airport. In absence of an application, we are unable to comment on any proposed night flights requirements that the Applicant may apply for as part of an application for development consent. Any application including night flights must include an assessment of likely significant effects associated with night flights and that such an assessment should be based on appropriate parameters taking into account relevant uncertainty including any applicable worst case scenario. This advice has been duplicated in response to a several enquiries and is available to read in a number of locations under the ‘s51 advice’ tab on the project webpage eg: [attachment 1]

As part of its consideration of any future application the Secretary of State must have regard to any Adequacy of Consultation Representation received from a relevant local authority consultee. If you have concerns regarding the consultation process, if you have not done so already we would advise that you contact your local authority with any representations regarding the adequacy of the consultation process carried out by the Applicant.

21 March 2018
Adem Mehmet
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please can you tell me what action you will be taking to correct the impression that I believe Sir Roger Gale has created of your departments supportive position regarding aviation at Manston Airport?
The Inspectorate is the government agency responsible for operating the planning process for Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects. Our core principles are openness, transparency and impartiality, and the Inspectorate will make its recommendations to the Secretary of State in a fair, open and timely way. The Inspectorate has no view on the acceptability or merits of any Proposed Development prior to submission of an application. Once an application is received it is processed in accordance with the provisions set out in the of the Planning Act 2008. If an application is accepted, the Examination stage affords everybody the opportunity to make representations to an appointed Examining Authority about the merits of a Proposed Development. For information about how and when you can have your say, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

21 March 2018
Adem Mehmet
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
See attached meeting note

21 March 2018
Vattenfall - anon.
Norfolk Vanguard
Enquiry received via email
Will there be a requirement on the applicant to notify interested parties of a DCO submission?
There are no provisions in the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) which require an applicant (or anybody else) to notify about the submission of an application. The first statutory post-submission notification that is carried out is under s56 of the Planning Act 2008. Section 56 sets out the notification requirements placed on applicants in the event that an application for development consent is accepted for examination.

Notwithstanding the above, upon receipt of an application the relevant project page on the National Infrastructure Planning website will acknowledge the submission and explain that the 28 day Acceptance stage is engaged, giving the deadline by which an acceptance decision must be made.

21 March 2018
Nigel Phethean
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I'm writing to you regarding my concerns over the proposed plans for a Cargo Hub at Manston Airport put forward by Riveroak Strategic Partners (RSP). And more importantly the night flight situation that will see more than 16 flights a night, every night of the year.

I've been made aware that there has been a period of consultation but I believe that process was flawed because as a resident of Ramsgate and directly under the proposed flight path, I've had no formal and written notice of it taking place? Was this information posted through resident's doors? How was it made available? How were people informed of the meetings and how frequent were the meetings? Allowing people who live but work in London, as I do, to attend.

I have seen various pieces of documentation on social media that gave no clear answers to people's very direct and concerning questions.

I believe for any pre-application consultation process applicants are advised to include sufficient preliminary environmental information to enable consultees to develop an informed view of the project… in that the information presented must provide clarity to all consultees. I don't believe I've seen anything that clearly states what impact the cargo hub and night flights will have on the town of Ramsgate, it's residents and indeed the environment.

As part of this process RSP is obliged to produce a Health Impact Assessment (HIA) that sets out what effect their cargo airport is going to have on our health and our life expectancy. RSP has failed to do this. At 1.1.91 of the PEIR, RSP says: “The health-related effects are not assessed here as the HIA analysis has not been finalised and its results are unavailable." With insufficient evidence, how are we to make an informed decision?

This means that we are being consulted but that RSP is not giving us the information to help us to assess whether or not we're happy with the health implications of the project. RSP is intending to submit its HIA with its DCO application... which means we won't be allowed to consult on it as we don't get to consult at that stage.

This simply isn't good enough.

Conversely, there is a wealth of evidence that demonstrates that living near an airport is bad for your health.

On another note, there is the issue of how the airport will receive the fuel for the cargo planes. Again I've seen documentation on social media, but not been formally advised of how this will work. What I've seen so far is a very negative response from the Road Haulage Association:

On 31st January 2018, a spokesperson for the Road Haulage Association, talking about Operation Stack, said of the old airport site at Manston:

“It’s a completely unsuitable location as the road network in that part of Kent is not geared up to accommodating hundreds of HGVs.”

In Table 3.8 RSP estimates that the HGV movements associated with a cargo business of 257,000 tonnes will total 38,072 HGVs a year in Year 20. This lacks all credibility. East Midlands Airport, handling 300,000 tonnes of freight p.a., estimates that it has 500 HGVs a day, i.e. 182,500 HGV movements a year. These actuals demonstrate that RSP is misleading the public when it estimates that a similar tonnage can be shifted in and out of Manston with 21% of the HGV traffic. RSP needs to rethink these numbers and tell the public exactly what this could mean for us, the local area and a road network that the Road Haulage Association says is not geared up to hundreds of HGVs."

And finally, in 2012, Thanet District Council conducted a survey which showed that 73% of residents were opposed to night flights. How much weight have you given this finding? Why are we not being listened to? Why are residents having to trawl through social media and Facebook groups for answers? Why are TDC not stepping in to support and help residents understand the impact of such a proposal?

This really is a sorry state of affairs. The handful of jobs that would be created at Manston, and it really would be a handful, bears no comparison to the huge detrimental impact this will have on the town. I cannot see who benefits from this proposal other than Riveroak Strategic Partnership. To allow this to go ahead would be the final nail in the coffin for Thanet.
Adequacy of consultation
We note your comments regarding the consultation process. If an application is submitted, relevant local authorities will be invited to make an Adequacy of Consultation Representation (AoCR) to the Inspectorate. The Inspectorate, on behalf of the Secretary of State, must have regard to any AoCRs received when taking its decision about whether to accept an application for examination. For more information please read our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 1]

We would therefore advise that you contact your local authority with any representations regarding the adequacy of the consultation process carried out by the Applicant.

Health impact assessment
We note your comments regarding health impact assessment (HIA). There is no requirement under the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 (EIA Regulations 2017) to prepare a stand-alone HIA. Schedule 4 Section 4 of the Regulations requires “4. A description of the factors specified in regulation 5(2) likely to be significantly affected by the development: population, human health….”. It is for the Applicant to decide how to provide this information, which may be in the form of a separate HIA or integrated into the Applicant’s Environmental Statement.

Preliminary Environmental Information (PEI)
The EIA Regulations 2017 refers to PEI as information that:
(a) Has been compiled by the applicant; and
(b) Is reasonably required for the consultation bodies to develop an informed view of the likely significant environmental effects of the development (and of any associated development).

If you are of the view that this information has not been provided, you should notify your local authority in relation to the adequacy of consultation, as advised above. You may also wish to consider registering as an Interested Party should an application be made and accepted for examination. For information about how and when you can have your say, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 2]

The Applicant will need to provide its assessment of effects on human health as part of any application for development consent made to the Inspectorate.

Weight given to findings
At present the Inspectorate has not received an application for a Development Consent Order from the Applicant, and therefore has no view (positive or negative) on either the acceptability of any application or the merits of any application that may be forthcoming. Should an application be made and accepted for examination, you will be able to register as an Interested Party and raise your concerns during the examination process, as advised above.

21 March 2018
Julie Anderson
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I recently (03.02.18) discovered that there is a request for a 24/7 freight hub at Manston Airport! Not only have I only just been made aware of this, which came from a social conversation (not from, as I now know is RiverOak (RSP)), but I also discover I have the ability to make comment, but BY THE 18th of February!! I live in St Nicholas at Wade, West of the runway, where the approach flight path for runway 10 passes directly overhead.

As there is now insufficient time for me to gain a detailed view from the 3,000+ pages that are online (now I have found them at [attachment 1] ), I have skimmed through it to ensure I can forward my comments in time, so these may not be my full and complete views on the proposal.

I have recently engaged with my Parish Council and can confirm that there has been no pre-application consultation communication with them. I have also spoken to many residents from our near 1,000 strong village, and despite being the last village before the runway to the West in the flight path, this village has had no notification, information or contact regarding this consultation.

My understanding is that Government advice for pre-application consultation is that applicants should “include sufficient preliminary environmental information to enable consultees to develop an informed view of the project…”. Therefore, RSP is obliged to produce a Health Impact Assessment (HIA) that sets out what effect their freight hub is going to have on our health, wellbeing and life expectancy, which they have completely failed to do. At 1.1.91 of the PEIR, RSP says: “The health-related effects are not assessed here as the HIA analysis has not been finalised and its results are unavailable."

In RSP’s own “Pre-consultation document dated July 2016” ([attachment 2] ), it states “
RiverOak takes its responsibility to assess, manage and mitigate any environmental impact from Manston Airport extremely seriously and has commissioned a comprehensive Environmental Impact Assessment to understand the effects of constructing and operating a redeveloped Manston Airport”.

How can I fully either support or oppose this, if RSP is not giving the information, not only that is required, but also that they committed to do, to help, me or anyone else assess whether or not there may be health implications from this project. If RSP intend to submit its Health Impact Assessment with its DCO application, how is this inclusive and how does this allow affected residents to make an informed judgement.

Surely this is a failure to comply with the requirements of the consultation process. As residents whose health and well-being would be affected, should this be approved! We are arguably one of the most important areas that should be consulted with and therefore renders this latest consultation flawed in this most fundamental aspect.

In Thanet District Councils (TDC) Draft Local Plan (A – Thanet Preferred Options and before the CPO was deemed not possible by TDC- [attachment 3];partid=6053940&sessionid=&voteid=), in Section 16.36 of the Aircraft Noise and Noise Sensitive Development, it states that “There is currently a degree of uncertainty regarding future aircraft noise levels at the airport, therefore the Council will adopt a precautionary approach in relation to aircraft noise and will continue to apply the contour predictions which formed the basis for the previous Local Plan”. To rely on the previous noise report, suggests that at present, even TDC do not have confirmed or updated evidence of the potential noise levels that could be applied should ‘night time period’ flights be granted.

I feel that RSP is deliberately avoiding proper consultation, most particularly on the areas of their plans that would have the most damaging impact on the health and well-being of me and other residents.

How can any significant development that would have an effect on health and well-being (evidence already exists to verify that such an operation would), get approval when one of the most important parts of the consultation (which I wasn’t aware of anyway), does not even exist.
Until an application has been received and accepted for examination, the Planning Inspectorate (the Inspectorate) has no views on the merits or acceptability of any Proposed Development.

Preliminary Environmental Information (PEI) and adequacy of consultation
The Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 (EIA Regulations 2017) refers to PEI as information that:
(a) Has been compiled by the applicant; and
(b) Is reasonably required for the consultation bodies to develop an informed view of the likely significant environmental effects of the development (and of any associated development).

If you are of the view that this information has not been provided, you should notify your local authority in relation to the adequacy of consultation. If an application is submitted, relevant local authorities will be invited to make an Adequacy of Consultation Representation (AoCR) to the Inspectorate. The Inspectorate, on behalf of the Secretary of State, must have regard to any AoCRs received when taking its decision about whether to accept an application for examination. For more information please read our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 4]

Health impact assessment
We note your comments regarding health impact assessment (HIA). There is no requirement under the EIA Regulations 2017 to prepare a stand-alone HIA. Schedule 4 Section 4 of the Regulations requires “4. A description of the factors specified in regulation 5(2) likely to be significantly affected by the development: population, human health….”. It is for the Applicant to decide how to provide this information, which may be in the form of a separate HIA or integrated into the Applicant’s Environmental Statement (eg as part of noise and vibration and air quality assessments amongst other topics). This information would need to be provided with any application for development consent made to the Inspectorate and would be considered at examination, if an application was accepted for examination.

Night flights
At present the Inspectorate has not received an application for a Development Consent Order for the Proposed Development at Manston Airport. In absence of an application, we are unable to comment on any proposed night flights requirements that the Applicant may apply for as part of an application for development consent. Any application including night flights must include an assessment of likely significant effects associated with night flights and that such an assessment should be based on appropriate parameters taking into account relevant uncertainty including any applicable worst case scenario. This advice has been duplicated in response to a several enquiries and is available to read in a number of locations under the ‘s51 advice’ tab on the project webpage eg: [attachment 5]

21 March 2018
MJ Feekings
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Pins meeting with Orsted - 20 March 2018
See attached meeting note

20 March 2018
Orsted - anon.
Hornsea Project Three Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see the attached meeting note

20 March 2018
Highways England - anon.
A5036 Port of Liverpool Access Scheme
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation, with their consultation response, to the Planning Inspectorate, the Applicant and Thanet District Council.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

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

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

19 March 2018
Peter Bateson
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Nodyn Cyfarfod - 19 Mawrth 2018 / Meeting Note - 19 March 2018

19 March 2018
Isle of Anglesey County Council - anon.
Wylfa Newydd Nuclear Power Station
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Nodyn Cyfarfod - 19 Mawrth 2018 / Meeting Note - 19 March 2018

19 March 2018
Isle of Anglesey County Council - anon.
North Wales Connection
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
General query regarding the Nationally Significant Infrastructure projects and the examination process
I can confirm that Oulton Parish Council has been identified as a prescribed consultees for the above project, under Schedule 1 of the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009 (APFP) [attachment 1].

Should the application for the Development Consent Order (DCO) be accepted by the Planning Inspectorate for examination, the Applicant has a duty to notify the Council when providing information on how to register as an Interested Party for the purpose of the process. In a meantime the Council can get involved in the focused statutory consultation under section 42(1) of the Planning Act 2008 (PA 2008) which is Orsted Hornsea Project Three (UK) Ltd is conducting now until 30 March 2018. The Applicant is required to have a regard to all consultation responses which should be later provided in the Consultation Report as part of the DCO application.

The process under the 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. The ExA will invite local planning authorities to submit the Local Impact Reports which give details of the likely impact of the proposed development on the authorities’ area. Please see the link: Advice note 1: Local Impact Reports.

Please be assured that anyone interested in the proposed development, its potential impacts and any planning matters can be fully engaged in the examination process.

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. By submitting a Relevant Representation during the pre-examination stage the Council is in position to highlight particular planning matters such as effects on the road infrastructure that you have mentioned in your email.

15 March 2018
Paul Killingback
Hornsea Project Three Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via email
I assume it is your role to ensure that National Grid adhere to NETS SQSS. Please can you confirm this for me.
If National Grid’s application is accepted for examination the Examining Authority (ExA) will conduct the examination in accordance with Planning Act 2008: Guidance for the examination of applications for development consent and assess the proposed development against the policy requirements of the energy National Policy Statements (NPS) EN-1 Overarching and EN-5 Electricity Networks Infrastructure. The ExA will examine the need for the project, any alternatives and assess whether there are any adverse impacts that outweigh the benefits of the project.

15 March 2018
Jonathan Dean
North Wales Connection
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
What is the correct mechanism to present a petition to the Inspectorate?
In order for you to submit any representations for the Examining Authority to consider you will need to register as an Interested Party, if the application is accepted to proceed to Examination. Advice on how to register to participate in an Examination can be found here: [attachment 1]. The best way of submitting the petition would be as part of your Written Representation. Please note that we cannot accept links to websites however we could accept a screen shot showing the number of signatures.

15 March 2018
Jonathan Dean
North Wales Connection
Enquiry received via email
In view of the confusion between your two statements and in view of the guidance repeatedly issued by the Government and the courts on the scope of the general principle in s6 of the 1998 Act, I am asking you to clarify the view of the Planning Inspectorate. It is clear from advice received by No Night Flights that the Planning Inspectorate, along with all other Government and public authorities, is bound by and must comply with s6 of the 1998 Act. Acceptance by you of this application (should it be made) for a DCO is not a neutral act. It will have serious implications for local landowners and residents. Our advice is that your obligation is to act compatibly with the Convention rights as set out in s6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 (the 1998 Act) in taking that decision. Perhaps you would be good enough to set out very clearly for us why you think that this is not the case.
The Planning Inspectorate is not disputing that in carrying out its functions in accordance with the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) it is bound to act compatibly with the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA1998).

Sections 37 and 55 of the PA2008 set out what the Secretary of State (SoS) can take into account in deciding whether or not to accept an application, and this a matter of fact. Whilst these sections do not specifically refer to the HRA1998 the Planning Inspectorate considers that the process of preparing an application (incumbent on applicants) and considering the application both at the Acceptance and Examination stages (incumbent on the SoS), in accordance with the PA2008, is compliant with the HRA1998.

Before an application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, the PA2008 requires applicants to notify members of the public (including those whose interests may be affected) about a proposed application and to carry out consultation. These duties placed on applicants provide consultees with the opportunity to make their views about a proposed development known to an applicant. At the Acceptance stage the Planning Inspectorate tests whether an application is of a satisfactory standard, and whether the applicant has carried out consultation in accordance with the PA2008, including how it has had regard to relevant consultation responses and whether statutory guidance has been followed. The Planning Inspectorate can only accept an application if these statutory requirements are met, which ensures compatibility with the HRA1998 (including Article 6).

If an application is accepted for examination, anybody can register to become an Interested Party and participate in the process, making their views about a proposed development known. These views will be taken into account by the appointed Examining Authority and ultimately the relevant SoS. This inclusive principle, underpinned by the provisions in the PA2008, also ensures compliance with the HRA1998.

15 March 2018
No Night Flights - Ros McIntyre
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Nodyn Cyfarfod - 15 Mawrth 2018 / Meeting Note - 15 March 2018

15 March 2018
National Grid
North Wales Connection
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project inception meeting
Please see attached meeting note

14 March 2018
Highways England
A38 Derby Junctions highway improvement scheme
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer made comments about the quality of the Applicant's Pre-application consultation, and asked specifically:

"In assessing an application for the DCO, how would the Inspectorate deal with the
wider upgrades to the A628 corridor if they are in an approved statutory transport plan?"
If you have not done so already, please provide your comments about its consultation directly to Highways England. You can also copy your comments to the relevant local authority which will be able to consider them in making its Adequacy of Consultation Representation; if an application is submitted. At the Acceptance stage of the process, the Secretary of State (SoS) must have regard to the content of any Adequacy of Consultation Representations received when taking its decision about whether or not an application can be accepted to proceed to examination.

You asked: “In assessing an application for the DCO, how would the Inspectorate deal with the wider upgrades to the A628 corridor if they are in an approved statutory transport plan?”

As you will be aware, where a relevant National Policy Statement (NPS) is designated it has primacy in the decision-making process. In this case the relevant NPS is the NSP for National Networks. Section 104 of the Planning Act 2008 sets out, in addition to an NPS, what else the SoS must have regard to in deciding an application. Section 104(d) prescribes that the SoS must have regard to any other matters which the SoS thinks are both important and relevant to the decision, which may include local/ strategic policies and plans.

In respect of Environmental Impact Assessment, for the Planning Inspectorate’s advice in respect of which development should be in considered as part of an applicant’s cumulative effects assessment, please see Advice Note 17: [attachment 1]

13 March 2018
CPRE - Anne Robinson
Trans Pennine Upgrade Programme
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
• What point should a waste application be considered to be submitted as a NSIP? (is there a threshold ie size, annual import, waste type ie hazardous, etc)

• Is there any point when an NSIP is mandatory as opposed to optional (with an application made to a County Council application)?
What constitutes a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP) is a matter of fact, as per the qualifying criteria set out in Part 3 of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008). The qualifying criteria for hazardous waste NSIPs are set out in sections 30 and 30A of the PA2008. The PA2008 is available to view on legislation.gov.uk: [attachment 1]

Development that qualifies as an NSIP must receive development consent in the form of a Development Consent Order. The consenting route for development that constitutes an NSIP is not optional. Section 160 of the PA2008 establishes 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, and associated liabilities.

For hazardous waste development a designated National Policy Statement (NPS) is in place. The Hazardous Waste NPS sets out the strategic need and justification of Government policy for the provision of hazardous waste infrastructure. It is available to view here: [attachment 2]

13 March 2018
Mick George Ltd - Kelly Sanderson
General
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I suspect this is just another example of misinformation but I would be grateful if you could confirm my suspicions. According to this person the planning inspectorate has ruled that the site of the former, failed airport at Manston must remain as an airport, irrespective of the fact that the local plan has long expired. It is said that it must remain as an airport until the Secretary of State rules otherwise.

This is an interesting position because the legal owners of the site say that they are due to submit a planning application for a mixed development of the site later this month. If the planning inspectorate has ruled that it must remain as an airport, the legal owners would be wasting their time submitting their application. The outcome would already have been determined.
As you will be aware Thanet DC’s extant development plan comprises, in part, saved policies from the Thanet Local Plan 2006. Chapter 2 of the extant plan in part deals with the airport site. Until such time as a new local plan is published, examined and adopted, the extant plan is the development plan for Thanet. For further clarification about planning policy in Thanet and the Local Development Scheme, please check the council’s website or contact the council directly.

My presumption is that the ‘ruling’ to which you refer is the independent Inspector’s decision in respect of the four ‘Lothian Shelf’ appeals at the airport site. The Inspector’s decision in this case is available to view on the Appeals Casework Portal, here: [attachment 1]

13 March 2018
Peter Binding
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
Mr Hannan submitted a copy of his objection to the Oulton Airfield construction compound, sent to Orsted.
Thank you for your email in relation to the above project.

A copy of your objection has been placed on our records. However, we would strongly encourage you to continue your dialogue with the developer to make your concerns known and to influence the project as, under Section 49 of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended), the developer has a duty to demonstrate it has had regard to responses received.

If an application for development consent is formally accepted by the Secretary of State, as you point out, you will be able to submit your views in relation to the project which will be considered by the Examining Authority during their examination.

13 March 2018
Rob Hannan
Hornsea Project Three Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via phone
response has attachments
Query regarding the submission of its Adequacy of Consultation Representation.
Re. our conversation earlier today - Thames Tideway Tunnel (TTT) looks like a good place to start to get an idea about how the views of different authorities have been expressed in AoC Reps ie the breadth of positive/ negative/ neutral responses in respect of compliance with ss42, 47 and 48 at a glance all appear to be covered.

The s55 checklist for TTT should adequately signpost you to the AoC Reps covering the areas of specific interest to TDC (section 3.2 onward): [attachment 1]

All of the AoC Reps are searchable and available to read in the ‘Documents’ tab in the usual way.

12 March 2018
Thanet District Council - Iain Livingstone
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update and comments on the draft application documents
Please see attached meeting note

12 March 2018
Drax Power Ltd - Jim Doyle
Drax Re-power
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see the attached meeting note

09 March 2018
London Resort Company Holdings
The London Resort
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
See attached letter
Thank you for your letter, copied to us on 16 February 2018. As the project has not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate (the Inspectorate), we have no formal powers to intervene on consultees behalf. I note that you have sent this to the developer and they have a statutory duty to take your views into account. However, if you feel your comments are not being taken into account, I would advise you to write to your local authority. Your comments should be taken into account when the local authority sends the Inspectorate its comments on whether the Applicant has fulfilled its consultation duties. The local authority’s comments on the Applicant’s consultation will be taken into account when the Acceptance Inspector makes their decision whether to accept the application for Examination.

When deciding whether to accept an application we will check whether the Applicant’s section 48 notice complies with the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009. Your concerns regarding Tre’rGof SSSI and retention of hardstanding on the coast are matters which, if the application is accepted, may be examined by the Examining Authority.

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

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

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

08 March 2018
J Chanay
Wylfa Newydd Nuclear Power Station
Enquiry received via email
What policing has gone on regarding Vattenfall in Norfolk during consultation in which they did not behave correctly? Project still going ahead revised plans a no relay Stations HDVC , please can you provide information
The Applicant is required to produce a consultation report detailing how they have complied with the consultation requirements of sections 42, 47 and 48 of the Planning Act 2008. This should be submitted with the application and will be checked, along with the other application documents, as part of the Acceptance process.

08 March 2018
Wendy Englestone
Norfolk Vanguard
Enquiry received via email
What policing has gone on regarding Vattenfall in Norfolk during consultation in which they did not behave correctly? Project still going ahead revised plans a no relay Stations HDVC , please can you provide information
The Applicant is required to produce a consultation report detailing how they have complied with the consultation requirements of sections 42, 47 and 48 of the Planning Act 2008. This should be submitted with the application and will be checked, along with the other application documents, as part of the Acceptance process.

08 March 2018
Wendy Englestone
Norfolk Boreas
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Can the preapplication stage continue in perpetuity?

Are there circumstances where pins can cause the applicant to withdraw the application?

In terms of the deprivation issues relating to some parts of Ramsgate that are on the direct flight path (within 1 to 4 km of the end of the runway) and are also some of the most deprived wards in the uk, is there anywhere the local community could look for expert support during the preapplication and application stages?

Have there been any other DCO applications that have significant similarities to the Manston one, that I could look at in terms of comparative guidance?
“Can the preapplication stage continue in perpetuity?”
Please see my response to you dated 5 January 2018 within which I have already provided an answer to this question: [attachment 1]

“Are there circumstances where pins can cause the applicant to withdraw the application?”
The Planning Inspectorate cannot compel an applicant to withdraw an application. If an application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate and subsequently accepted for examination, it can only be:
• withdrawn by the Applicant; or
• decided, following due process, by the relevant Secretary of State.

“In terms of the deprivation issues relating to some parts of Ramsgate that are on the direct flight path (within 1 to 4 km of the end of the runway) and are also some of the most deprived wards in the uk, is there anywhere the local community could look for expert support during the preapplication and application stages?”

Any expert/ legal advice sought in respect of an application for development consent would need to be procured by an individual/ interest group or organisation by conventional means. Alternatively you could contact Planning Aid which offers free independent, professional advice and support to individuals and local communities wishing to engage in the planning process: [attachment 2]

“Have there been any other DCO applications that have significant similarities to the Manston one, that I could look at in terms of comparative guidance?”

There have been no previous applications for development consent made under s23 of the Planning Act 2008. However, most applications for development consent will share similarities, to a greater or lesser extent, in respect of the most common issues examined across the breadth of NSIP development.

For decided applications a good place to start in identifying the main issues that influenced an Examining Authority’s (ExA) consideration of the case for development consent is, in each case, the respective ExA’s report to the Secretary of State (SoS) and the subsequent decision and statement of reasons issued by the SoS. ExA reports may assist in demonstrating to you, and other members of the local community, how individuals and interest groups can most helpfully and effectively make representations to an examination. Examples of reports and decisions associated with all decided NSIP applications are available to read on our website.

08 March 2018
Michael Child
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I was relieved to receive your confirmation that there are no provisions in the Planning Act which would prevent you from acting compatibly with the Convention Rights.

I would also, respectfully, agree that the Examining Authority will be bound to consider the various human rights issues, should this application get to that stage.

My point is that the decision to accept the application for examination is also an act to which section 6 of the Human Rights Act applies.

It follows that you are bound to consider whether your decision to accept this application may infringe upon the Convention rights and, if so, whether that infringement is justified.

The law does not appear to give you the option of simply deferring consideration of these issues until the Examination stage. Acting compatibly with the Convention rights means not infringing on people's rights if that can be avoided – and it means striving to find ways to avoid harming the rights of others if at all possible.

In this instance you can avoid harming the rights of others, and indeed the rights of the owners of the airfield, by not accepting this application for Examination.

We are asking you to look at the facts regarding the impact of your decision upon the property rights of the airfield's owners and upon people in the affected area in the light of the justification that will need to be made in terms of the national interest.

Whilst one might ordinarily expect such issues to be deferred to the Examination stage, there are special considerations surrounding this application which require substantive attention now if you are not to act incompatibly with the Convention rights. The key point here is that it ought already be plain to you that this application could not reasonably be regarded as likely to justify incursion on people’s rights because the project is in the national interest.

For example, it is plain now from the weight and quality of evidence from multiple sources, that the applicant will not be able to supply the Secretary of State with plausible evidence of national economic benefit. We say that it cannot be lawful under s6 of the 1998 Act to harm people’s rights by accepting the application without at least a plausible prospect that the applicants will be able to meet the basic test in terms of Article 8.

You have also been made aware of the incorrigibly flawed basis for the applicant's economic case. This case has now been dismissed as mistaken by the authors of the source on which the applicants purport primarily to rely. The applicant’s economic case has been exposed by multiple credible sources as demonstrably very seriously defective in methodology and as regards its evidential base. You are already aware that this hopeless material is at the heart of the application. How could it be right to harm people’s basic rights by proceeding to the next stage on the basis material which it is already clear is so lacking in merit?

We say that it is relevant, at the stage where you decide whether or not to intrude upon people’s rights, to consider what evidence you have that this proposal meets any identified national need. The fact is that neither the Government nor any of its advisers appointed to review aviation needs has identified Manston as required as part of any national strategy. The significance here is that you as the public authority begin with no indication whatsoever of a national interest against which you could reasonably contemplate sacrificing the rights of others. What you have are the opinions offered by an offshore investment company, of uncertain identity and motivation.

The serious problems we identify constitute real and immediate reasons why it is not reasonable in human rights terms to accept the application for examination. These should be viewed in the context of recent rulings from the Court of Justice of the European Union and the European Court of Human Rights regarding the plight of victims of aviation development and regarding the Courts’ interpretation of human rights and European law so as to provide effective protection and remedies.

You will also be aware of the criticisms made by the local authority (and by this organisation as well as by many others) of the inadequacy of the statutory consultation carried out by the applicant. This matter is also relevant to your immediate obligations regarding human rights because you would, by accepting the application, allow the applicant to escape some of his preliminary responsibilities regarding the environmental impact information rights bestowed upon us by the European Union.

Finally, we are confused by your comment about the effectiveness of the remedies available under the 2008 Act in respect of harm ensuing from a decision to accept this application for examination. What compensation would be available to individual residents of Thanet for a fall in the property values following such a decision? Who would be liable to pay it?
Sections 37 and 55 of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) set out what can be taken into account at the Acceptance stage. Neither section makes reference to the consideration of human rights. The consideration of human rights is part of the decision-making process at the Examination stage (and later when the relevant Secretary of State makes his or her final decision). In order for the decision-making process to comply with human rights law, an appointed Examining Authority (ExA) needs to be fully appraised of the details of the Proposed Development and to seek the views of all Interested Parties, including the Applicant. There is no mechanism in the PA2008 by which this can be achieved at or before the Acceptance stage, which is prior to the appointment of the ExA and the start of the Examination.

On that basis the Planning Inspectorate does not consider that it is bound by the PA2008 to consider the provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998 at the Acceptance stage.

You imply that there are ‘special considerations’ surrounding the emerging application by RSP. The Planning Inspectorate does not agree with this statement as all applications received by the Planning Inspectorate involve development which has impacts, to a greater or lesser degree, which need to be taken into account before a decision is made. The proposed application by RSP is, and will in future, be treated in the same way as all other applications for development consent.

The ‘national economic benefit’ and ‘viability’ of the Proposed Development (and any other matters which relate to the merits of the application) will also be considered by the appointed ExA during the Examination stage. Part of the decision-making process at Examination is to assess the effects a proposed development might have on individuals who make representations and to weigh these against the wider public interest. The balancing of the rights of these individuals and the wider public interest cannot be carried out without a full consideration of the facts and circumstances, taking into account the views of all parties. That is why the PA2008 provides for the Examination stage which affords everybody the opportunity to make representations to an ExA about the merits of a proposed development.

In consideration of your comments about ‘national need’ I can only reiterate my previous advice that development which constitutes an NSIP is a matter of fact, as set out in Part 3 of the PA2008. It is not prerequisite for an ‘national strategy’ (or indeed a National Policy Statement) to be in place in order for an application for development consent to be made, examined and decided.
In respect of the adequacy of the Applicant’s Pre-application consultation, as you will be aware host and boundary authorities will be invited to make an Adequacy of Consultation Representation (AoCR) if/ when the application is submitted. The Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) must have regard to any AoCRs received in taking its decision about whether an application can be accepted for examination.

I apologise that my statement in respect of the compensation provisions in the PA2008 was confusing. You stated in your email of 24 February 2018 that:
“We understand the points that you make about the statutory provisions for dealing with some aspects of property blight. However, and as you yourself concede [my emphasis], these provisions are of limited scope and certainly do not constitute an effective remedy for the infringements that would be bound to take place if you proceed to the acceptance stage with this application.”
The intention of the statement in my response dated 1 March 2018 “We do not consider that the compensation provisions in the PA2008 provide an ineffective remedy where applications are made under the PA2008 for NSIPs” was to establish that nowhere have I conceded that the blight provisions in the PA2008 are an ineffective remedy.

In respect of the impact of any proposed development on property values, I refer you to the guidance on planning in general: Planning Practice Guidance ‘Determining a planning application’; in particular paragraph: 008 Reference ID: 21b-008-20140306: [attachment 1]

08 March 2018
No Night Flights - Ros McIntyre
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
A meeting took place between Able Humber Ports Limited and the Planning Inspectorate to discuss a potential change to the DCO
A note of the meeting is attached.

08 March 2018
Able Humber Ports Limited - anon.
Able Marine Energy Park
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Could pins get their own itc department to look at the way the documents were published, particularly in terms of the deliberately making the documents difficult to use?

I think this constitutes a deprivation accessibility issue, which should be addressed properly now and I wish to complain that this hasn’t happened, I feel that pins and all government departments should be proactively addressing depravation and should like your view on this issue.

In view of the size and scope of the project and its effects could you kindly set out how the issue of compensation for time spent on responding repeatedly and property blight will be addressed, both in terms of time scale and how to apply for it.
As you are aware, if an application is submitted, this and your previous correspondences can be considered by the Secretary of State in addition to the statutory acceptance tests.

“Could pins get their own itc department to look at the way the documents were published, particularly in terms of the deliberately making the documents difficult to use?”

The Planning Inspectorate cannot test the adequacy of an applicant’s consultation until an application is submitted to it. The means by which the adequacy of consultation can be tested are set out in section 55 of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008).

“I think this constitutes a deprivation accessibility issue, which should be addressed properly now and I wish to complain that this hasn’t happened, I feel that pins and all government departments should be proactively addressing depravation and should like your view on this issue.”

See above answer. Note in addition that at the Acceptance stage the Secretary of State must have regard to the extent to which the Applicants has had regard to government’s ‘Planning Act 2008: guidance on the pre-application process’: [attachment 1]. Evidence in this regard should be provided by the Applicant in its Consultation Report.

“In view of the size and scope of the project and its effects could you kindly set out how the issue of compensation for time spent on responding repeatedly and property blight will be addressed, both in terms of time scale and how to apply for it.”

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

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

• [attachment 2]
• [attachment 3]

In respect of “compensation for time spent responding”, there is no mechanism through which this can be claimed at the Pre-application stage of the process. For details of the applicable costs regime after an application has been accepted for examination, I refer you to government’s ‘Awards of costs: examinations of applications for development consent orders’: [attachment 4]

06 March 2018
Michael Child
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
Could you kindly clarify if it is the Planning Inspectorate's considered view that the provisions you mention in the Planning Act 2008 oust the duty placed on you as a public authority by s6 of the Human Right Act 1998?

Government guidance emphasises that all public authorities are at all times bound by s6 of the Human Rights Act 1998, unless some specific provision of primary legislation requires otherwise, or cannot be re-interpreted compatibly with the Convention rights.

It would be a very serious matter if your governing legislation prevented you from acting compatibly with basic human rights.

Our argument in outline is that the act by PINS of accepting RSP's application for examination would impinge upon our property rights under article 1 of Protocol 1 to the Convention, read with Article 8.

We point out that there is no statement of Government policy that identifies Manston as nationally significant in infrastructure terms. We also draw your attention to multiple and authoritative evidence that demonstrates conclusively that an economic case for the DCO cannot be made out. We say that, in these circumstances, there can be no justification for PINS interfering with our property rights by accepting RSP’s application for consideration. We point out that to do so would be to act incompatibly with the Convention rights and thus to act unlawfully under s6 of the Human Rights Act 1998.

We understand the points that you make about the statutory provisions for dealing with some aspects of property blight. However, and as you yourself concede, these provisions are of limited scope and certainly do not constitute an effective remedy for the infringements that would be bound to take place if you proceed to the acceptance stage with this application.

Of course it is open to you to reject our argument, but it would seem totally wrong, and unsafe for you, to refuse to consider it.

So far as we can see, you would be acting in breach of the Human Rights Act if you refused to consider whether you are acting compatibly with the Convention rights before accepting RSP’s application for consideration.
The provisions in the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) do not oust the provisions in Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA1998), and the Planning Inspectorate does not consider that it is in breach of the HRA1998 when taking decisions about whether or not to accept an application for examination. As explained in my previous email, human rights issues will be considered by the appointed Examining Authority at the Examination stage; if the application is accepted.

Regarding government policy, there does not need to be a statement of government policy for a Proposed Development to be a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP). The PA2008 sets out which projects are NSIPs. In respect of the economic case for the Proposed Development, viability is also an issue that can only be considered by the appointed Examining Authority at the Examination stage; if the application is accepted.

We do not consider that the compensation provisions in the PA2008 provide an ineffective remedy where applications are made under the PA2008 for NSIPs.

06 March 2018
No Night Flights - Ros McIntyre
Manston Airport
response has attachments
Thanet Extension project update meeting
Please see attached

06 March 2018
Vattenfall - anon.
Thanet Extension Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
See attached meeting note

27 February 2018
Heathrow Airport Ltd
Expansion of Heathrow Airport (Third Runway)
Enquiry received via email
The enquirer represented the Peninsula Management Group; the organisation that represents the 140 businesses on the Northfleet Industrial Estates.

The enquirer queried the accuracy of the anticipated submission dated provided on the National Infrastructure Planning website; whether the Inspectorate had any future meetings planned with London Resort Company Holdings (LRCH); and whether LRCH would be undertaking public consultations about any plans to carry out works to junctions on the A2.
As you are likely aware from the advice register on our website, we have had no substantive contact with LRCH since August 2017. A project update meeting between the Planning Inspectorate and LRCH is however scheduled in March 2018. As required, a note of the meeting will be published to our website shortly afterward.

The situation in respect of how the LRCH and Highways England schemes might interrelate is complex, and the Planning Inspectorate hopes to learn further how LRCH intends to progress in this regard at the March meeting. We will also expect an update in respect of LRCH’s Pre-application programme (ie timescales). If, as we currently understand, LRCH intends to include works to the A2 in its Development Consent Order, it will be required to consult on those works in its public consultation.

26 February 2018
Bramwell Associates - Dan Bramwell
The London Resort
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The attached letter from No Night Flights makes representations concerning the lawfulness of accepting the proposed DCO application given what is known about the business case supporting the application.

It is addressed direct to you because the arguments it contains concern the protection of fundamental human rights, which is a matter for the State and not the developer.

I look forward to hearing your response. Please do contact me if you require any further information.
The matters the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) can consider at the Acceptance stage are set out in s37 and s55 of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008).

For details about how, when and to whom you can object to the Proposed Development, see FAQ 9 in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 1]

Matters relating to environmental information, environmental assessment and the Human Rights Act will be considered by the appointed Examining Authority at the Examination stage; if the application is accepted.

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

Separately, any interference with private interests may give rise to a right to make a relevant claim. For further information see FAQ14 at the above link, and government guidance relating to Compulsory Acquisition procedures: [attachment 2]

23 February 2018
No Night Flights - Ros McIntyre
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project meeting with Cleve Hill Solar Park Ltd
See attached meeting note

23 February 2018
Cleve Hill Solar Park Ltd - anon.
Cleve Hill Solar Park
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting 23 February 2018
See attached meeting note and annex A

23 February 2018
Portishead Branch Line – MetroWest Phase 1 - anon.
Portishead Branch Line - MetroWest Phase 1
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Post-consultation and project update teleconference
Please see attached meeting note

23 February 2018
RiverOak Strategic Partners Ltd
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

22 February 2018
RWE Generation UK plc - anon.
Tilbury Energy Centre
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting and draft documents advice
See 2 attachments

22 February 2018
Highways England - anon.
A19 Downhill Lane Junction Improvement
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer sent their response to the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of a proposed development at this time.

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

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

21 February 2018
Appolonius Claudius
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer sent their response to the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of a proposed development at this time.

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

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

21 February 2018
PJ Brown
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached

20 February 2018
Hornsea Project Three - Stuart Livesey
Hornsea Project Three Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
See attached meeting note

20 February 2018
Highways England - Jacqueline Watson
M25 junction 10/A3 Wisley interchange improvement
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation, with their consultation response, to the Planning Inspectorate.
The application, if submitted, will be tested against the provisions set out in section 55 of the Planning Act 2008.

Helpfully your correspondence, which includes comments about the Applicant’s consultation, is copied to the Applicant itself and to Thanet District, as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 1]

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations about the merits of the proposed development to the Planning Inspectorate, if it is accepted for examination, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 2]

19 February 2018
Chris Welsh
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation, with their consultation response, to the Planning Inspectorate, the Applicant and Thanet District Council.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

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

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

Helpfully you have sent your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself and to Thanet District Council, as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

19 February 2018
Rebekah Smith
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
Thank you for your email.

The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

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

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

If you have not done so already please send your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself ([email protected] [email protected]) and to Thanet District Council ([email protected]), as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

19 February 2018
Conor Kelly
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation, with their consultation response, to the Planning Inspectorate, the Applicant and Thanet District Council.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

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

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

Helpfully you have sent your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself and to Thanet District Council, as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

19 February 2018
Liz Green
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation, with their consultation response, to the Planning Inspectorate, the Applicant and Thanet District Council.
For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

Helpfully you have sent your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself and to Thanet District Council, as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

19 February 2018
Fiona Simmons
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer submitted representations regarding the merits of the proposed development, and the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation, to the Planning Inspectorate and Thanet District Council.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

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

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

Helpfully you have sent your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself and to Thanet District Council, as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

19 February 2018
Teresa Askew
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
Helpfully you have sent your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself and to Thanet District Council, as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 1]

If an application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, and if it is found to be of a satisfactory standard to be examined, you will be able to make representations about the merits of the Proposed Development to an appointed Examining Authority. See our Advice Note 8 series for detailed advice about how and when to have your say: [attachment 2]

19 February 2018
Malcolm Kirkaldie
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Canterbury City Council would like to make representations on the current consultation undertaken by RiverOak Strategic Partners Ltd.

The City Council has not been consulted by RiverOak SP Ltd as part of this process, which fails to meet the Planning Act 2008 requirements. However we have become aware of the consultation and have therefore been able to respond.

The City Council has concerns regarding the adequacy of the consultation process, in particular whether consultation is in line with the scheme promoter's SoCC. The City Council must be consulted as a neighbouring authority and residents of Herne Bay must be consulted in a full and meaningful way at all stages of the Development Consent Order process.

In relation to the Preliminary Environmental Impact report the City Council requires the full impact of noise and disturbance to residents in Herne Bay, particularly in relation to night flights and proposed type of aircraft, to be comprehensively assessed and fully mitigated, with a robust monitoring regime and sanctions imposed for any breach in night flight or agreed noise parameters.
As a local authority which shares a boundary with Thanet District Council (the lower-tier host authority), Canterbury City Council (CCC) should have been consulted under s42 of the Planning Act 2008 (the PA2008). On that basis the Applicant, RSP, will be required to demonstrate to the Planning Inspectorate in the Consultation Report submitted with its application that CCC was consulted in accordance with the PA2008. If you have not done so already, I would strongly recommend that you correspond directly with RSP to establish the address at CCC to which its s42 notification was sent.

CCC will be invited by the Planning Inspectorate to make an Adequacy of Consultation Representation (AoCR) if an application is submitted to it. See our Advice Note Two for more advice about AoCRs: [attachment 1]

19 February 2018
Canterbury City Council - Cherry Jones
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
The enquirer submitted representations regarding the merits of the proposed development to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations of this type.

Please contact the Applicant to seek clarification about any comments made.

19 February 2018
Adem Mehmet
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
I have just received this response from you and am concerned that my email isn't being included as it says ' The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time'. Did my email not arrive on time or am I misinterpreting your email? I sent the original at 1156pm on Friday.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of a proposed development until the Pre-examination stage, when the period for making ‘Relevant Representations’ to the Inspectorate must be advertised by the Applicant. The Pre-examination stage does not commence until an application has been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate and subsequently accepted for examination.

At the Pre-application stage of the process, your comments about the merits of the proposal are for the Applicant to consider in preparing its application for submission.

19 February 2018
Rebekah Smith
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please can you explain/reassure me that I have not wasted 20 hours+ on this and that my email will be submitted as a negative response to the recent public consultation process carried out by RSP.
Last Friday’s deadline was imposed by the Applicant, RiverOak Strategic Partners (RSP). RSP was carrying out statutory consultation seeking feedback on the substance of its proposed application ie the Proposed Development and its impacts.

Whilst RSP will not have been actively seeking feedback on the consultation ‘process’ in this period, it is correct that you have sent your comments in this respect to RSP for consideration in the first instance.

You also copied your comments about the consultation process to Thanet District Council, which importantly will be able to consider them in making a representation about the adequacy of RSP’s consultation to the Secretary of State if/ when an application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate. Amongst other things, the Planning Inspectorate must have regard to any Adequacy of Consultation Representations received from local authorities in taking its decision about whether or not an application can be accepted for examination.

On that basis your commentary about the consultation process is not wasted, and you have taken all of the appropriate steps advised in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 1]

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

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

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

19 February 2018
Josephine Canty
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation, with their consultation response, to the Planning Inspectorate, the Applicant and Thanet District Council.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

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

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

Helpfully you have sent your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself and to Thanet District Council, as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

19 February 2018
Clare Dove
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer sent their response to the Applicant's 2018 statutory consultation to the Planning Inspectorate, Thanet District Council and the Applicant.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

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

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

19 February 2018
Mike Collins
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation, with their consultation response, to both the Planning Inspectorate and the Applicant.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot accept representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

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

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

You may wish to send your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to Thanet District Council ([email protected]), as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

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

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

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

Helpfully you have sent your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself. You may also wish to send them to Thanet District Council ([email protected]), as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

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

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

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

If you have not done so already please send your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself ([email protected] [email protected]) and to Thanet District Council ([email protected]), as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

19 February 2018
Rebecca Wing
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation to the Planning Inspectorate and Thanet District Council.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

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

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

Helpfully you have copied your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to Thanet District Council, as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

19 February 2018
Matthew Cumber
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation, with their consultation response, to the Planning Inspectorate, the Applicant and Thanet District Council.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

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

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

19 February 2018
Nikki Hildesley
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation, with their consultation response, to the Planning Inspectorate, the Applicant and Thanet District Council.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

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

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

Helpfully you have sent your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself and to Thanet District Council, as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

19 February 2018
Jeni Butler
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation, with their consultation response, to the Planning Inspectorate, the Applicant and Thanet District Council.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

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

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

Helpfully you have copied your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to Thanet District Council, as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

If you have not done so already please also send your comments to the Applicant itself ([email protected] [email protected]).

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

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

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

Helpfully you have sent your comments directly to the Applicant. You may wish to send your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to Thanet District Council ([email protected]), as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

19 February 2018
John Hanna
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation, with their consultation response, to the Planning Inspectorate, the Applicant and Thanet District Council.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

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

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

Helpfully you have sent your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself and to Thanet District Council, as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

19 February 2018
Debra Cluff
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation, with their consultation response, to the Planning Inspectorate, the Applicant and Thanet District Council.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

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

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

Helpfully you have copied your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself and to Thanet District Council, as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

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

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

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

19 February 2018
Sylvie Bolioli
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

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

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

Helpfully you have copied your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself and to Thanet District Council, as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

19 February 2018
Cathy Rogers
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation to the Planning Inspectorate and the Applicant.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot accept representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

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

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

19 February 2018
C & P Arnold
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation, with their consultation response, to the Planning Inspectorate, the Applicant and Thanet District Council.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot accept representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

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

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

Helpfully you have sent your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to Thanet District Council ([email protected]), as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

If you have not done so already please also send your comments to the Applicant itself ([email protected] [email protected]).

19 February 2018
Matthew Griffiths
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer submitted representations regarding the merits of the proposed development to the Planning Inspectorate and Thanet District Council.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot accept representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

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

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

If you have not done so already please send your comments to the Applicant itself ([email protected] [email protected]).

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

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

19 February 2018
Brian Bushell
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation, with their consultation response, to the Planning Inspectorate and Thanet District Council.
For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

Helpfully you have sent your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to Thanet District Council ([email protected]), as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

If you have not done so already please also send your comments to the Applicant itself ([email protected] [email protected]).

19 February 2018
Michelle Meyer-Masterson
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer submitted representations regarding the merits of the proposed development to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

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

19 February 2018
Alan Ashby
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer submitted representations regarding the merits of the proposed development and the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

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

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

You may wish to send your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to Thanet District Council ([email protected]), as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

17 February 2018
Danika Jarrett
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation, with their consultation response, to the Planning Inspectorate, the Applicant and Thanet District Council.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

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

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

Helpfully you have copied your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself and to Thanet District Council, as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

16 February 2018
Greg Shapland
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer sent their response to the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

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

16 February 2018
Andrew Taylor
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation, with their consultation response, to the Planning Inspectorate, the Applicant and Thanet District Council.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

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

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

Helpfully you have copied your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself and to Thanet District Council, as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

16 February 2018
Peter Borrough
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation, with their consultation response, to the Planning Inspectorate, the Applicant and Thanet District Council.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

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

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

Helpfully you have sent your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself and to Thanet District Council, as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

16 February 2018
Steve and Jacqui Ansell
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation, with their consultation response, to the Planning Inspectorate, the Applicant and Thanet District Council.
For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

Helpfully you have copied your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself and to Thanet District Council, as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

16 February 2018
Gillian and Sean Farrell
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer sent their response to the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

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

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

Helpfully you have copied your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself and to Thanet District Council, as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

16 February 2018
Ann Scott
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via post
response has attachments
The enquirer sent their response to the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
You enclosed your response to the Applicant’s latest consultation exercise. The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

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

I enclose for your convenience Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination. If having read the Advice Note 8 series you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

16 February 2018
AB Doughty
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer sent their response to the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

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

16 February 2018
Mr and Mrs James
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation, with their consultation response, to the Planning Inspectorate, the Applicant and Thanet District Council.
For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

Helpfully you have copied your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself and to Thanet District Council, as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

16 February 2018
Alan Welcome
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation, with their consultation response, to the Planning Inspectorate, the Applicant and Thanet District Council.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

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

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

Helpfully you have copied your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself and to Thanet District Council, as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

16 February 2018
Jonathan Bradley
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
I and various members of the community of Thanet have been trying to get assurances and evidence to back up claims made by RiverOak Strategic Partners "RSP", Sir Roger Gale MP, Craig Mackinlay MP, various local Cllrs including Robert Bayford, Sam Bambridge, Stuart Piper and Trevor Shonk that night flights will not be required should Manston airport reopen other than in the case of emergency instances.

Despite asking the question absolutely clearly and directly it has still not been possible to get comfort on this issue as the statements made by the above party's, some did not respond at all, were either unclear or deliberately vague when the correct and required response is either yes or no. In addition RSP in their latest limited consultation are now requesting up to 8 flights each night 7 nights a week and in addition a night time quota count of 4000 for cargo operations and 2000 for passenger operations, a greater count than at London Heathrow where I understand, should further expansion be granted, night flights would not be required. How this correlates to statements that night flights are not required or how the QC count level interfaces with a maximum of 8 I am yet to understand and will be seeking clarity from RSP in due course.

As you will have seen from responses to the first consultation some public respondents were told by RSP representatives that there would not be any night flights, some were told they were not in their "current" plans leaving it open for plans in the future to include them. I was told that night flights would be required if customers requested them. At the more recent consultations which, despite the new inclusion of a very large night time quota count and significant new and incredibly important information regarding impacts on health, were only held in two locations with only a few hundred people attending presumably because most thought not much had changed, again answers on this point have been variously reported as unclear or inconsistent between RSP representatives.

I am sure you can understand the confusion and the unwillingness of those concerned about night flights, who are on both sides of the airport/no airport divide, nobody wants them, to rely on statements made by pro airport supporters and Sir Roger Gale that night flights are not required. Even Sir Roger Gales recent statement, which you will have seen, is ambiguous as it says that RSP "neither needs nor wants scheduled night flights that do not fit in with its business plan" quite cleverly worded to ensure that any night flights that do fit in with its business plan would be required, so again not categoric. Again this is inconsistent with RSP current DCO documentation and their request to the Civil Aviation Authority for night flights without limit.

At consultations RSP have advised that they have included night flights because you "PINS" require then to show the worst possible situation. Others including Sir Roger Gale, Craig Mackinlay, various local Cllrs and airport supporters have also made this assertion. You have I think been asked this question before but your reply was not as categoric as it could have been. My interpretation of your reply was that you had not specified that night flights should be included but merely required the applicant to allow in it's application for the worst case scenario within its own specified airport operation framework, so if it wants night flights it should include them but if it doesn't it can exclude them. What would be helpful to all involved in this process and particularly the large number of people who are concerned about the possibility of night flights, would be if you could confirm the following.

The inclusion of night flights is purely at the discretion of the applicant and it is not a requirement that PINS insists is included in the documentation to support a Development Consent Order "DCO". It is for the applicant alone to decide whether or not it's operation of the airport requires the inclusion of night flights or not. If an applicant included in the documentation supporting a DCO application a categoric statement that "Other than in the case of unplanned emergency situations outside of its control there would be no night flights required at Manston Airport" this would be acceptable within the DCO process, would be acceptable to PINS, would not prejudice the acceptance of the application for examination, would not prevent the project being considered to be one of Nationally Strategic Importance and would not predjudice any decision to be made by the Secretary of State.

I think this statement is clear and categoric and is a reflection of what is required within the legal framework surrounding the DCO process and I hope therefore as a statement of fact you are able to make it as publically as possible.
Beyond the acceptance tests applied to a submitted application for airport-related development (as set out in s23 of the Planning Act 2008), the Planning Inspectorate does not dictate the operational characteristics of airport-related applications made to it. It is for an applicant alone to decide whether or not its airport-related development needs to allow for night flights to be operated.

If an airport applicant intends to operate night flights, its Environmental Impact Assessment will need to include an assessment to identify the likely significant effects arising from those night flights, along with a description of the measures envisaged in order to avoid, prevent, reduce or offset them. If an airport applicant does not intend to operate night flights, or have the option to operate night flights, there will be no need to assess the impact of night flights as part of its Environmental Impact Assessment.

An applicant must submit a draft Development Consent Order (DCO) with its application and the draft DCO must set out the authorised development that the Applicant is seeking consent for. If an applicant chose to do so it could include within a draft DCO for airport-related development provisions which set out, for example, the parameters associated with any night flights that an applicant wishes to operate (eg their frequency, the circumstances under which they may operate etc).

The draft provisions provided in the draft DCO submitted with the application will be subject to examination by the appointed Examining Authority (ExA). Anybody who registers to become an Interested Party at the appropriate time in the Pre-examination period (as advertised by the Applicant) will be able to make representations to the ExA about any of the provisions in the draft DCO. The ExA will make a recommendation to the Secretary of State about whether development consent should be granted, and if so, what provisions are to be included in the DCO, including any provisions relating to night flights if the applicant requested these in its application. The Secretary of State will make the final decision on these matters. The authorised development will be prescribed in a Schedule to the DCO, if development consent is granted.

16 February 2018
Adem Mehmet
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer sent their response to the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

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

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

Please send your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to Thanet District Council ([email protected]), as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

16 February 2018
anon.
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

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

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

If you have not done so already please send your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself ([email protected] [email protected]) and to Thanet District Council ([email protected]), as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

16 February 2018
Martin Northrop
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer sent their response to the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

If you have not done so already please send your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself ([email protected] [email protected]) and to Thanet District Council ([email protected]), as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

16 February 2018
Kim Edgington
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation, with their consultation response, to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

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

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

If you have not done so already please send your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself ([email protected] [email protected]) and to Thanet District Council ([email protected]), as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

16 February 2018
Grant Duncan
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

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

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

If you have not done so already please send your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself ([email protected] [email protected]) and to Thanet District Council ([email protected]), as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

16 February 2018
Susan Duncan
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via post
response has attachments
The enquirer submitted representations regarding the merits of the proposed development to the Planning Inspectorate.
The qualifying thresholds for an airport-related Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project are set out in section 23 of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008). If an application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, the Applicant will be required to justify in the documentation its position on the baseline assumed in terms of flight numbers for the purposes of the capability test in the PA2008. The Planning Inspectorate, on behalf of the Secretary of State, cannot take a view on the Applicant’s approach in this regard until such time as an application is formally submitted and s55 of the PA2008 is engaged.

Regarding the remaining content of your letter, the Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

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

16 February 2018
Christopher Burrows
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via phone
Ymholiad – 16 Chwefror 2018 / Enquiry – 16 February 2018

Roedd Mr David Jenkins, clerc Cyngor Cymuned Llangyfelach, yn holi ynghylch cyflwyno ei ymateb i’r ymgynghoriad, sydd i fod cyrraedd erbyn 19 Chwefror 2018. Ni fu ar gael yn ddiweddar a chyfnod cyfyngedig o amser yn unig sydd ar ôl ganddo ar gyfer cyflwyno sylwadau. Y prif bryderon, yn ei farn ef a CC Llangyfelach, yw effaith weledol y simnai a’r effaith ar ansawdd yr aer ar dir cyfagos sydd wedi’i gynnwys yn y Cynllun Datblygu Lleol (sy’n cael ei archwilio ar hyn o bryd) fel safle posibl ar gyfer datblygiad preswyl ar raddfa fawr, a’r effaith ar Barc Busnes Abertawe gerllaw ac ar Ysbyty Treforys, sy’n uned drawma fawr.


Mr David Jenkins, clerk to Llangyfelach Community Council, was enquiring about submitting his consultation response, due by 19 February 2018. He’s recently been unavailable and has a limited amount of time left in which to submit representations. His/Llangyfelach CC’s main concerns are the visual impact of the stack and air quality impacts on land nearby which has been included in the Local Development Plan (currently under examination) as a potential site for large scale residential development, the effect on the nearby Swansea Business Park and on Morrison Hospital, which is a major trauma unit.
Cynghorwyd Mr Jenkins gan yr Arolygiaeth Gynllunio bod yr Ymgeisydd yn cynnal cylch ymgynghori ac mai’r dyddiad cau yw 19 Chwefror 2018. Gan fod y cais yn y cyfnod cyn ymgeisio ar hyn o bryd, dylid cyfeirio ymatebion at yr Ymgeisydd yn uniongyrchol. Esboniodd yr Arolygiaeth ei bod yn ofynnol i’r Ymgeisydd fformiwleiddio’r ymatebion y mae’n eu derbyn erbyn y dyddiad cau ac esbonio sut y rhoddwyd sylw i faterion fel rhan o’r Adroddiad Ymgynghori, a fydd yn cyd-fynd â’r cais, maes o law.

Cyfeiriwyd Mr Jenkins at wefan yr Ymgeisydd, sy’n cynnwys gwybodaeth am y prosiect yn ogystal â dogfennau ategol allweddol.

Hefyd, esboniodd yr Arolygiaeth wrth Mr Jenkins y gallai gofrestru i ddod yn berson â buddiant yn ystod y cyfnod cyn archwiliad, os derbynnir y cais ar gyfer ei archwilio. Fe’i cyfeiriwyd at dudalen prosiect Abergelli ar wefan yr Arolygiaeth ac esboniwyd y bydd yr holl wybodaeth yn cael ei chyhoeddi ar y dudalen hon ar ôl i’r cais gael ei gyflwyno ar gyfer ei archwilio. Yn ogystal, tynnwyd sylw Mr Jenkins gan yr Arolygiaeth at ei nodiadau cyngor, a NC8 yn arbennig, sy’n helpu esbonio’r broses ymgeisio i aelodau’r cyhoedd.

Bydd Mr Jenkins yn llunio ei ymateb i’r ymgynghoriad dros y penwythnos a’i anfon drwy e-bost at yr Ymgeisydd ddydd Llun er mwyn cwrdd â’r dyddiad cau.


The Planning Inspectorate advised Mr Jenkins that the Applicant was carrying out a round of consultation and the closing date is 19 February 2018. As the application is currently at pre-application stage, responses should be made directly to the Applicant. The Inspectorate explained that the Applicant is required to formulate responses it receives by the deadline and explain how issues have been addressed as part of the Consultation Report, which will accompany the application, in due course.

Mr Jenkins was directed to the Applicant’s website which contains information on the project as well as key supporting documents.

The Inspectorate also explained to Mr Jenkins that he could register to become an interested person during the pre-examination stage, if the application is accepted for examination. He was directed to the Abergelli project page on the Inspectorate’s website and it was explained that all information would be published to this page when the application is submitted for examination. The Inspectorate also advised Mr Jenkins aware of its advice notes, in particular AN8, which helps explain the application process to members of the public.

Mr Jenkins will formulate his consultation response over the weekend and send it by e-mail to the Applicant on Monday to meet the deadline.

16 February 2018
David Jenkins
Abergelli Power
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer sent their response to the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

15 February 2018
Jacqui Porter
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation, with their consultation response, to the Planning Inspectorate, the Applicant and Thanet District Council.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

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

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

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

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

If you have not done so already please send your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself ([email protected] [email protected]) and to Thanet District Council ([email protected]), as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

15 February 2018
Mark Heverin
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer sent their response to the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

More information about how to engage at the Pre-application stage of the process is provided in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

15 February 2018
Russell F White
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer sent their response to the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

15 February 2018
Ian Williams
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation, with their consultation response, to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

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

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

Please send any comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself ([email protected] [email protected]) and to Thanet District Council ([email protected]), as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

15 February 2018
Mr Robbins and Family
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation, with their consultation response, to the Planning Inspectorate, the Applicant and Thanet District Council.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

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

15 February 2018
Fiona Gilhooly
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation, with their consultation response, to the Planning Inspectorate, the Applicant and Thanet District Council.
For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

Helpfully you have sent your comments about the Applicant’s consultation directly to the Applicant and to Thanet District Council, as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

15 February 2018
MJ Feekings
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation, with their consultation response, to the Planning Inspectorate, the Applicant and Thanet District Council.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

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

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

Helpfully you have copied your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself and to Thanet District Council, as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

15 February 2018
Ms Holmans and Mr Thompson
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer sent their response to the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

More information about how to engage at the Pre-application stage of the process is provided in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

15 February 2018
J Wales
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer submitted representations regarding the merits of the proposed development to the Planning Inspectorate.
Please contact the Applicant ([email protected] [email protected]) for details about how its three stages of consultation were advertised.

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

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

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

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

If you have not done so already please send your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself ([email protected] [email protected]) and to Thanet District Council ([email protected]), as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

15 February 2018
Steve Gambrell
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer submitted representations regarding the merits of the proposed development, and the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation, to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

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

15 February 2018
Lindsey Harris
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

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

If you have not done so already please send your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself ([email protected] [email protected]) and to Thanet District Council ([email protected]), as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

15 February 2018
Ramsgate Society - Wendy and George Arnheim
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer sent their response to the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

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

If you have not done so already please send your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself ([email protected] [email protected]) and to Thanet District Council ([email protected]), as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

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

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

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

If you have not done so already please send your comments about the Applicant’s consultation directly to the Applicant ([email protected] [email protected]). Further advice about Community Consultation can be found in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

15 February 2018
Graham Jackson and Jean White
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer sent their response to the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

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

If you have not done so already please send your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself ([email protected] [email protected]) and to Thanet District Council ([email protected]), as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

15 February 2018
Hugh Langston
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
Could you kindly arrange for the deadline for submission to be delayed as I am having problems opening the Manston Masterplan on the RSP website. I have contacted rsp copied to you but haven’t had a response. I had intended to work on my response this evening and am away tomorrow.
The Planning Inspectorate does not have the power to extend the consultation period.

Please await a response from the Applicant (copied) which, given the difficulty you have encountered, may be able to agree a short bespoke extension for receipt of your representation.

15 February 2018
Michael Child
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer sent their response to the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

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

Helpfully you have sent your comments about the Applicant’s consultation directly to the Applicant. You may also wish to copy your comments to Thanet District Council ([email protected]), as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

15 February 2018
Rachel Furlong
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer sent their response to the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

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

If you have not done so already please send your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to Thanet District Council ([email protected]), as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

15 February 2018
Mr and Mrs Bowley
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer sent their response to the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

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

If you have not done so already please send your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself ([email protected] [email protected]) and to Thanet District Council ([email protected]), as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

15 February 2018
Liz Langston
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Early Submission’ of draft application documents by DS Smith Paper Ltd for PINS review
Please see attached

14 February 2018
DS Smith Paper Ltd - anon.
Kemsley Paper Mill (K4) CHP Plant
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation, with their consultation response, to the Planning Inspectorate, the Applicant and Thanet District Council.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

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

Helpfully you have copied your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself and to Thanet District Council, as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

14 February 2018
Phil Neale
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
As a resident o Ramsgate I wish to object to any redevelopment of Manston Airport for airport use and feel their has been a distinct lack of public consultation at every stage of the proposed redevelopment.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

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

Helpfully you have copied your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself and to Thanet District Council, as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

14 February 2018
Gerard Bane
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer submitted representations regarding the merits of the proposed development and the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

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

If you have not done so already please send your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself ([email protected] [email protected]) and to Thanet District Council ([email protected]), as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

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

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

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

14 February 2018
T McElligott
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation, with their consultation response, to the Planning Inspectorate, the Applicant and Thanet District Council.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

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

Helpfully you have copied your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself and to Thanet District Council, as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

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

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

14 February 2018
Andrew Kelly
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

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

If you have not done so already please send your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself ([email protected] [email protected]) and to Thanet District Council ([email protected]), as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

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

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

14 February 2018
Linda Charlesworth
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer submitted representations regarding the merits of the proposed development and the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

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

If you have not done so already please send your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself ([email protected] [email protected]) and to Thanet District Council ([email protected]), as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

14 February 2018
Jean Robinson
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation, with their consultation response, to the Planning Inspectorate, the Applicant and Thanet District Council.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

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

14 February 2018
Patricia Moore
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation to the Planning Inspectorate and Thanet District Council.
Helpfully you have copied your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to Thanet District Council (TDC), as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 1]

TDC can consider your comments as part of its Adequacy of Consultation Representation. In reaching its decision about whether to accept an application for examination the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State), amongst other things, must have regard to any Adequacy of Consultation Representations made by local authority consultees.

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

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

If you have not done so already please send your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to Thanet District Council ([email protected]), as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

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

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

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

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

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

If you have not done so already please send your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to Thanet District Council ([email protected]), as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

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

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

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

14 February 2018
Paula Myers
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation, with their consultation response, to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

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

If you have not done so already please send your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself ([email protected] [email protected]) and to Thanet District Council ([email protected]), as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

14 February 2018
Denis Smith
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation, which included representations regarding the merits of the proposed development, to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

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

If you have not done so already please send your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself ([email protected] [email protected]) and to Thanet District Council ([email protected]), as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

14 February 2018
Mrs J Best
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer submitted representations regarding the merits of the proposed development to the Planning Inspectorate, the Applicant and Thanet District Council.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

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

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

14 February 2018
Sarah Illingworth
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation, which included representations regarding the merits of the proposed development, to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

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

If you have not done so already please send your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself ([email protected] [email protected]) and to Thanet District Council ([email protected]), as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

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

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

If you have not done so already please send your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to Thanet District Council ([email protected]), as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

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

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

14 February 2018
Mr M Smith
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

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

If you have not done so already please send your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself ([email protected] [email protected]) and to Thanet District Council ([email protected]), as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

14 February 2018
Susan Robinson
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email