I am delighted to hear that there will now be a review of the offshore alternative to East Anglia Green proposals set out by National Grid, but having studied the terms of the National Grid ESO review I am in full agreement with the conclusions of the ESN Pylons Action Group and very worried that its scope will be far too narrow. The scoping document still refers to the Norwich to Tilbury link: I believe that this narrow scope will lead to a suboptimal onshore solution, and it is therefore essential that the scope is extended to include all the wind farms currently expecting to land power in East Anglia as well as connectors and interconnectors. In short, it must have similar scope to the review which you have already published in December 2020 and cover options for a coordinated offshore grid. I support the positions taken in this briefing note [redacted]. I would add that the review needs to ignore any existing wind farm connection agreements if they are still subject to planning permission. The planning system needs to serve the wider public interest, and cannot be subservient to individual contracts. The benefits should dramatically outweigh any contractual costs given your previous work published in December 2020 but, if not, then that is a commercial risk knowingly entered into by the parties to the contracts when they executed the agreements prior to obtaining planning permission. Finally, the review needs to make a realistic assessment of timescales for delivery. It should consider the scale of local opposition to the onshore Pylons and Overhead proposals and previous experience with projects such as HS2. Local Opposition to East Anglia Green is extremely strong amongst the population, parish- , city- , county-councils as well as all MPs in the area. Just one year in to the process the Statutory Consultation for East Anglia Green has already been delayed by – I estimate – a year, and a leading Planning KC has issued a strongly worded opinion highlighting legal deficiencies in the process which National Grid ET are following, warning that subsequent stages will be ‘infected’. I suspect that a coordinated offshore grid will be significantly quicker to deliver in practice, an important point if the nation’s net zero targets are to be met.
Dear Sir/ Madam, Thank you for your email which has been received by the Planning Inspectorate. The proposed East Anglia Green Energy Enablement (GREEN) application is currently at the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 process. Further information about the process can be found at the following link to the National Infrastructure Planning website: [attachment 1]. The Planning Inspectorate is unable to consider representations about the merits of any application until it has been submitted and accepted for Examination. As the application has not yet been formally submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, your first point of contact should be the developer, National Grid Electricity Transmission (NGET). It is important that the developer is made aware of any comments at the Pre-application stage to enable them to consider the points raised before finalising their proposals and submitting the application. Should the application be accepted for Examination in due course, it will be possible to register as an Interested Party by submitting a Relevant Representation. This must be submitted on the ‘Registration and Relevant Representation form’ which will be made available on the project webpage of the National Infrastructure Planning website at the appropriate time. Further information about registering as an Interested Party can be found in the Planning Inspectorate’s ‘Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination’ which can be found here: [attachment 2]. You may also find it helpful to subscribe to receive email notifications for key events that occur after an application has been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate. Kind regards, The East Anglia GREEN Case Team

Various enquirers

Section 3.3.60 of the Draft Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy (EN-1) reads: “subject to any legal requirements, the urgent need for CNP Infrastructure to achieving our energy objectives, together with the national security, economic, commercial, and net zero benefits, will in general outweigh any other residual impacts not capable of being addressed by application of the mitigation hierarchy” Section 4.1.3 reads: “Given the level and urgency of need for infrastructure of the types covered by the energy NSPs set out in part 3 of this NPS, the Secretary of State will start with a presumption in favour of granting consent to applications for energy NSIPs”. These proposals are in direct conflict with other policies in the Electricity Act and in National Policy Statements and risks causing untold and unnecessary harm to the environment and to communities. Electricity Act 1989 duties on National Grid include: • Section 38 and Schedule 9 – duty to have regard to the desirability of … conserving flora, fauna, geological or geophysical features of special interest, and or protecting building s and objects of architectural, historic or archaeological interest. Preservation of ecological resources (Schedule 9). • Shall do what he reasonably can to mitigate any effect on …any such flora, fauna, features, sites, buildings or objects. National Policy Statement EN-1 says, in paragraph 3.7.10 that: “…in most cases, there will be more than one technological approach by which it is possible to make such a connection or reinforce the network (for example, by overhead line or underground cable) and the costs and benefits of these alternatives should be properly considered as set out in EN-5 before any overhead line proposal is consented.” These proposals are therefore incompatible with, and contradictory, to other policies and legal requirements for the construction of transmission infrastructure. Further, the proposed wording is incompatible with the aims of the NSIPs action plan, because it will not deliver better, faster, fairer, greener and more resilient infrastructure and projects approved which rely upon this wording are likely to meet significant legal challenge. I object in the strongest possible terms to the proposed wording. ALL relevant matters should be weighed in the planning balance and the appropriate outcome driven by that balance. It is unacceptable to attempt to make such sweeping and damaging changes to policy. These sections would prevent appropriate and necessary challenge and serve only to ensure that bad proposals are rapidly approved. PRESUMPTION TO OVERHEAD LINES (OHL) AND PYLONS The Draft Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy (EN-5) includes presumptions that OHL and Pylons should be used to transmit electricity and goes to length in section 2.9 to set out that they will be acceptable in all but extremely rare circumstances. To date the majority of electricity in England has - broadly speaking - been generated by burning coal in the Midlands and North, transporting it north-south through pylons to the denser population areas in the south. In such circumstances OHL and Pylons were a natural starting point. The majority of generation was in the centre of our land mass and there was no real alternative to overhead line and pylons. However, in a future world where the significant proportion of our electricity will be generated offshore through wind power this no longer makes sense. It is self-evident that if the power is being generated offshore and not near to existing OHL, a presumption in favour of OHL to transmit it will be the wrong starting point! As demonstrated by ESO in their December 2020 paper the establishment of a coordinated offshore grid would be approximately £6Bn cheaper when the costs of all parties are summed than their 'counterfactual' example of radial connections to shore supported by onshore pylons. ESO sets out that a coordinated offshore grid results in less use of cable both offshore and onshore and thereby result in less damage in both settings, AND results in a cheaper and MORE RESILIENT grid. OHL’s are highly damaging to habitats and bird strikes into power lines are a major killer acknowledged in the NPS’s. OHL’s are less resilient in extreme weather than underground cables or sub-sea grids. OHL's cause significant damage to landscape, archeology and cultural heritage including the settings of AONB (even when the pylons are outside of the AONB), scheduled monuments and listed buildings. Forcing pylons upon communities without genuine alternatives is not fair. A contentious system in which communities are not presented with options, and in which the one option they are presented is driven by a faulty presumption that OHL and Pylons are the right answer, will be slower than a fair system with fully evidenced alternatives as communities will inevitably mount significant legal challenge. The presumption in favour of OHL's and Pylons is: (i) Outdated, and not fit for a world in which by 2050, according to National Grid ESO in 2020, the UK will need to have a total of 83 Gigawatts (GW) of offshore wind power connected to the grid. (ii) Un-necessary. The electricity is already offshore and is typically not required anywhere near the point at which it would be brought onshore to connect with OHL and Pylons (which do not themselves yet exist and which have no planning approval). As demonstrate by ESO there are better ways to bring the power to where it is needed. (iii) Harmful. It drives the design process at National Grid ensuring that they always commence from an overhead design without any other consideration and even when other options would be better. The assumption that each wind-farm will connect back to shore radially and that power will be transported over land by pylons leads to significant increases in cost, time to approve, time to build, increased damage to landscape, seascape, and cultural heritage. (iv) will drive delays as pylons and OHL do not readily achieve consent amongst the population due to the damage they cause. (v) Incoherent in policy terms, given the requirement also in NPS’s to look at alternatives and Electricity Act 1989 duties on National Grid. As you can see, a presumption in favour of OHL and Pylons will not lead to the best outcomes for anyone. National Grid ESO said, of this growth, “One of the challenges to delivering the ambition in the timescales required will be ensuring that the offshore and onshore transmission network enables this growth in a way that is efficient for consumers and takes account of the impacts on coastal communities and the environment.” I believe that to ensure better, faster, fairer, greener and more resilient transmission infrastructure, which is the goal of the NSIP’s Action Plan: - paragraph 2.11.13 of Draft EN-5 should be changed to read: 'a full range of options must be considered and presented to stakeholders, taking Treasury Green Book[3] principles into account, so that the optimum solution for consumers, communities and the environment is arrived at'. - other references to presumption in favour of OHL should be removed entirely. - a presumption in favour of coordination for offshore projects must be added. - finally, all NPS’s should insist upon compliance with Treasury Green Book guidance. As a separate matter, your hard copy questions includes question 7: “Draft EN5 includes a strong starting presumption for overhead lines for electricity networks developments outside nationally designated landscapes, which was consulted on in 2021. Do you agree?” This is however missing from the online response form. The outcome of the consultation is likely to be biased against those who reject the inclusion of the presumption in favour. As you can see from our response above, we very much reject this proposal. In order to achieve a fair and balanced outcome it must be acknowledged that the current consultation is faulty and it must be re-started.
Dear Sir/ Madam, Thank you for your email which has been received by the Planning Inspectorate. The proposed East Anglia Green Energy Enablement (GREEN) application is currently at the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 process. Further information about the process can be found at the following link to the National Infrastructure Planning website: [attachment 1]. The Planning Inspectorate is unable to consider representations about the merits of any application until it has been submitted and accepted for Examination. As the application has not yet been formally submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, your first point of contact should be the developer and we would encourage you to contact National Grid Electricity Transmission (NGET) directly: Email: [email protected] Telephone: 0800 151 0992 It is important that the developer is made aware of any comments at the Pre-application stage to enable them to consider the points raised before finalising their proposals and submitting the application. Additionally, any queries relating to national policy should be addressed to the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, rather than the Planning Inspectorate. Should the application be accepted for Examination in due course, it will be possible to register as an Interested Party by submitting a Relevant Representation. This must be submitted on the ‘Registration and Relevant Representation form’ which will be made available on the project webpage of the National Infrastructure Planning website at the appropriate time. Further information about registering as an Interested Party can be found in the Planning Inspectorate’s ‘Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination’ which can be found here: [attachment 2]. You may also find it helpful to subscribe to receive email notifications for key events that occur after an application has been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate. Kind regards, The East Anglia GREEN Case Team

Various enquirers

Section 3.3.60 of the Draft Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy (EN-1) reads: “subject to any legal requirements, the urgent need for CNP Infrastructure to achieving our energy objectives, together with the national security, economic, commercial, and net zero benefits, will in general outweigh any other residual impacts not capable of being addressed by application of the mitigation hierarchy” Section 4.1.3 reads: “Given the level and urgency of need for infrastructure of the types covered by the energy NSPs set out in part 3 of this NPS, the Secretary of State will start with a presumption in favour of granting consent to applications for energy NSIPs”. These proposals are in direct conflict with other policies in the Electricity Act and in National Policy Statements and risks causing untold and unnecessary harm to the environment and to communities. Electricity Act 1989 duties on National Grid include: • Section 38 and Schedule 9 – duty to have regard to the desirability of … conserving flora, fauna, geological or geophysical features of special interest, and or protecting building s and objects of architectural, historic or archaeological interest. Preservation of ecological resources (Schedule 9). • Shall do what he reasonably can to mitigate any effect on …any such flora, fauna, features, sites, buildings or objects. National Policy Statement EN-1 says, in paragraph 3.7.10 that: “…in most cases, there will be more than one technological approach by which it is possible to make such a connection or reinforce the network (for example, by overhead line or underground cable) and the costs and benefits of these alternatives should be properly considered as set out in EN-5 before any overhead line proposal is consented.” These proposals are therefore incompatible with, and contradictory, to other policies and legal requirements for the construction of transmission infrastructure. Further, the proposed wording is incompatible with the aims of the NSIPs action plan, because it will not deliver better, faster, fairer, greener and more resilient infrastructure and projects approved which rely upon this wording are likely to meet significant legal challenge. I object in the strongest possible terms to the proposed wording. ALL relevant matters should be weighed in the planning balance and the appropriate outcome driven by that balance. It is unacceptable to attempt to make such sweeping and damaging changes to policy. These sections would prevent appropriate and necessary challenge and serve only to ensure that bad proposals are rapidly approved. PRESUMPTION TO OVERHEAD LINES (OHL) AND PYLONS The Draft Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy (EN-5) includes presumptions that OHL and Pylons should be used to transmit electricity and goes to length in section 2.9 to set out that they will be acceptable in all but extremely rare circumstances. To date the majority of electricity in England has - broadly speaking - been generated by burning coal in the Midlands and North, transporting it north-south through pylons to the denser population areas in the south. In such circumstances OHL and Pylons were a natural starting point. The majority of generation was in the centre of our land mass and there was no real alternative to overhead line and pylons. However, in a future world where the significant proportion of our electricity will be generated offshore through wind power this no longer makes sense. It is self-evident that if the power is being generated offshore and not near to existing OHL, a presumption in favour of OHL to transmit it will be the wrong starting point! As demonstrated by ESO in their December 2020 paper the establishment of a coordinated offshore grid would be approximately £6Bn cheaper when the costs of all parties are summed than their 'counterfactual' example of radial connections to shore supported by onshore pylons. ESO sets out that a coordinated offshore grid results in less use of cable both offshore and onshore and thereby result in less damage in both settings, AND results in a cheaper and MORE RESILIENT grid. OHL’s are highly damaging to habitats and bird strikes into power lines are a major killer acknowledged in the NPS’s. OHL’s are less resilient in extreme weather than underground cables or sub-sea grids. OHL's cause significant damage to landscape, archeology and cultural heritage including the settings of AONB (even when the pylons are outside of the AONB), scheduled monuments and listed buildings. Forcing pylons upon communities without genuine alternatives is not fair. A contentious system in which communities are not presented with options, and in which the one option they are presented is driven by a faulty presumption that OHL and Pylons are the right answer, will be slower than a fair system with fully evidenced alternatives as communities will inevitably mount significant legal challenge. The presumption in favour of OHL's and Pylons is: (i) Outdated, and not fit for a world in which by 2050, according to National Grid ESO in 2020, the UK will need to have a total of 83 Gigawatts (GW) of offshore wind power connected to the grid. (ii) Un-necessary. The electricity is already offshore and is typically not required anywhere near the point at which it would be brought onshore to connect with OHL and Pylons (which do not themselves yet exist and which have no planning approval). As demonstrate by ESO there are better ways to bring the power to where it is needed. (iii) Harmful. It drives the design process at National Grid ensuring that they always commence from an overhead design without any other consideration and even when other options would be better. The assumption that each wind-farm will connect back to shore radially and that power will be transported over land by pylons leads to significant increases in cost, time to approve, time to build, increased damage to landscape, seascape, and cultural heritage. (iv) will drive delays as pylons and OHL do not readily achieve consent amongst the population due to the damage they cause. (v) Incoherent in policy terms, given the requirement also in NPS’s to look at alternatives and Electricity Act 1989 duties on National Grid. As you can see, a presumption in favour of OHL and Pylons will not lead to the best outcomes for anyone. National Grid ESO said, of this growth, “One of the challenges to delivering the ambition in the timescales required will be ensuring that the offshore and onshore transmission network enables this growth in a way that is efficient for consumers and takes account of the impacts on coastal communities and the environment.” I believe that to ensure better, faster, fairer, greener and more resilient transmission infrastructure, which is the goal of the NSIP’s Action Plan: - paragraph 2.11.13 of Draft EN-5 should be changed to read: 'a full range of options must be considered and presented to stakeholders, taking Treasury Green Book[3] principles into account, so that the optimum solution for consumers, communities and the environment is arrived at'. - other references to presumption in favour of OHL should be removed entirely. - a presumption in favour of coordination for offshore projects must be added. - finally, all NPS’s should insist upon compliance with Treasury Green Book guidance. As a separate matter, your hard copy questions includes question 7: “Draft EN5 includes a strong starting presumption for overhead lines for electricity networks developments outside nationally designated landscapes, which was consulted on in 2021. Do you agree?” This is however missing from the online response form. The outcome of the consultation is likely to be biased against those who reject the inclusion of the presumption in favour. As you can see from our response above, we very much reject this proposal. In order to achieve a fair and balanced outcome it must be acknowledged that the current consultation is faulty and it must be re-started.
Dear Sir/ Madam, Thank you for your email which has been received by the Planning Inspectorate. The proposed East Anglia Green Energy Enablement (GREEN) application is currently at the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 process. Further information about the process can be found at the following link to the National Infrastructure Planning website: [attachment 1]. The Planning Inspectorate is unable to consider representations about the merits of any application until it has been submitted and accepted for Examination. As the application has not yet been formally submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, your first point of contact should be the developer and we would encourage you to contact National Grid Electricity Transmission (NGET) directly: Email: [email protected] Telephone: 0800 151 0992 It is important that the developer is made aware of any comments at the Pre-application stage to enable them to consider the points raised before finalising their proposals and submitting the application. Additionally, any queries relating to national policy should be addressed to the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, rather than the Planning Inspectorate. Should the application be accepted for Examination in due course, it will be possible to register as an Interested Party by submitting a Relevant Representation. This must be submitted on the ‘Registration and Relevant Representation form’ which will be made available on the project webpage of the National Infrastructure Planning website at the appropriate time. Further information about registering as an Interested Party can be found in the Planning Inspectorate’s ‘Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination’ which can be found here: [attachment 2]. You may also find it helpful to subscribe to receive email notifications for key events that occur after an application has been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate. Kind regards, The East Anglia GREEN Case Team

Various enquirers

I am delighted to hear that there will now be a review of the offshore alternative to East Anglia Green proposals set out by National Grid, but having studied the terms of the National Grid ESO review I am in full agreement with the conclusions of the ESN Pylons Action Group and very worried that its scope will be far too narrow. The scoping document still refers to the Norwich to Tilbury link: I believe that this narrow scope will lead to a suboptimal onshore solution, and it is therefore essential that the scope is extended to include all the wind farms currently expecting to land power in East Anglia as well as connectors and interconnectors. In short, it must have similar scope to the review which you have already published in December 2020 and cover options for a coordinated offshore grid. I support the positions taken in this briefing note [redacted]. I would add that the review needs to ignore any existing wind farm connection agreements if they are still subject to planning permission. The planning system needs to serve the wider public interest, and cannot be subservient to individual contracts. The benefits should dramatically outweigh any contractual costs given your previous work published in December 2020 but, if not, then that is a commercial risk knowingly entered into by the parties to the contracts when they executed the agreements prior to obtaining planning permission. Finally, the review needs to make a realistic assessment of timescales for delivery. It should consider the scale of local opposition to the onshore Pylons and Overhead proposals and previous experience with projects such as HS2. Local Opposition to East Anglia Green is extremely strong amongst the population, parish- , city- , county-councils as well as all MPs in the area. Just one year in to the process the Statutory Consultation for East Anglia Green has already been delayed by – I estimate – a year, and a leading Planning KC has issued a strongly worded opinion highlighting legal deficiencies in the process which National Grid ET are following, warning that subsequent stages will be ‘infected’. I suspect that a coordinated offshore grid will be significantly quicker to deliver in practice, an important point if the nation’s net zero targets are to be met.
Dear Sir/ Madam, Thank you for your email which has been received by the Planning Inspectorate. The proposed East Anglia Green Energy Enablement (GREEN) application is currently at the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 process. Further information about the process can be found at the following link to the National Infrastructure Planning website: [attachment 1]. The Planning Inspectorate is unable to consider representations about the merits of any application until it has been submitted and accepted for Examination. As the application has not yet been formally submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, your first point of contact should be the developer, National Grid Electricity Transmission (NGET). It is important that the developer is made aware of any comments at the Pre-application stage to enable them to consider the points raised before finalising their proposals and submitting the application. Should the application be accepted for Examination in due course, it will be possible to register as an Interested Party by submitting a Relevant Representation. This must be submitted on the ‘Registration and Relevant Representation form’ which will be made available on the project webpage of the National Infrastructure Planning website at the appropriate time. Further information about registering as an Interested Party can be found in the Planning Inspectorate’s ‘Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination’ which can be found here: [attachment 2]. You may also find it helpful to subscribe to receive email notifications for key events that occur after an application has been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate. Kind regards, The East Anglia GREEN Case Team

Various enquirers

Enquiry in relation to a high security control centre. Section 14 of the 2008 Planning Act sets out the projects which may be considered to be NSIP and the above development does not appear to be included, and therefore I believe that it should not be treated as a NSIP. However, their definition (NSIP vs CNI) is quite similar so it is a little confusing to me and I was also told that plans showing the location of important rooms (i.e. server rooms) should be redacted if published in the public domain. Therefore, I would appreciate if you could confirm whether a project classed as CNI should not be treated in the same way than NSIPs are when trying to secure planning permission
Development consent under the PA2008 is required for development to the extent that the development is or forms part of a nationally significant infrastructure project. It is the responsibility of the potential applicant to seek their own legal advice on whether a proposed development is or forms part of a nationally significant infrastructure project. The Planning Inspectorate does not give legal advice on such matters. However, it may be useful to know that the Secretary of State may give a direction for development to be treated as development for which development consent is required under section 35 of PA2008. In relation to your question seeking clarification on ‘whether a project classed as Critical National Infrastructure (CNI) should not be treated in the same way than NSIPs are when trying to secure planning permission’ you may wish to seek your own legal advice.

Panos Konidaris

Enquiry in relation to a high security control centre.   Section 14 of the 2008 Planning Act sets out the projects which may be considered to be NSIP and the above development does not appear to be included, and therefore I believe that it should not be treated as a NSIP. However, their definition (NSIP vs CNI) is quite similar so it is a little confusing to me and I was also told that plans showing the location of important rooms (i.e. server rooms) should be redacted if published in the public domain. Therefore, I would appreciate if you could confirm whether a project classed as CNI should not be treated in the same way than NSIPs are when trying to secure planning permission.  
Development consent under the PA2008 is required for development to the extent that the development is or forms part of a nationally significant infrastructure project. It is the responsibility of the potential applicant to seek their own legal advice on whether a proposed development is or forms part of a nationally significant infrastructure project. The Planning Inspectorate does not give legal advice on such matters. However, it may be useful to know that the Secretary of State may give a direction for development to be treated as development for which development consent is required under section 35 of PA2008. In relation to your question seeking clarification on ‘whether a project classed as Critical National Infrastructure (CNI) should not be treated in the same way than NSIPs are when trying to secure planning permission’ you may wish to seek your own legal advice

Panos Konidaris

The Examination of the Sparkford to Ilchester scheme raised the issue of examining alternatives presented by local communities. National Highways argued that proposed changes to the scheme that were substantial material changes or that were changes to the substance of the Application should not be accommodated within the examination process. National Highways conceded that the determination of what is or what is not a material change ultimately lay with the Examining Authority. However, that Examining Authority chose not to examine the alternatives presented by local communities. It is well recorded that during the consultations for the Sparkford to Ilchester scheme local communities presented detailed proposals for alternatives to the scheme design that aimed to eliminate or at least markedly reduce the many adverse impacts of the scheme. National Highways chose not to explore, analyse or develop these community proposals in any depth and ultimately rejected them and used the arguments summarised above to prevent any rigorous examination of the proposals during the DCO process. After the 2019 Sparkford to Ilchester examination, the issue of examining alternatives was tested in 2021 in the High Court following the judicial review of the Stonehenge scheme. The Court decided that the Examining Authority had failed to properly take alternatives into account and as a result the Secretary of State could not properly assess the alternatives. The issue of alternatives arises in the A358 Taunton to Southfields Scheme. Local communities have proposed changes to the design to reduce the adverse impact of the scheme on the well being, health and safety of local communities. Local communities also challenge the adopted design standard as it results in a build of unnecessary scale to achieve the stated scheme objectives. A more compact design would reduce the impact of the scheme on the ecology, landscape and carbon footprint. National Highways refuses to undertake a rigorous examination of these proposals. Moreover, National Highways is not undertaking a safety risk assessment in accordance with the legal requirements of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act, 1974. During the upcoming examination of the A358 Scheme the Community of Parishes asks the Examining Authority to adhere to the ruling of the High Court and insist alternatives to the submitted design are fully considered and recommendations presented in your report to the Secretary of Sate. We would appreciate confirmation that this policy is now adopted within the Planning Inspectorate. Please also see attachment.
Please see attachment.

Robert Burrough

Please see attached.
Please see attached.

SASES - Michael Mahony

Please see attached.
Please see attached.

SASES - Michael Mahony

Please see attached.
Please see attached.

SASES - Michael Mahony

Please see attached.
Please see attached.

SASES - Michael Mahony

Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

Enso Green Holdings D Limited - anon.

Please see attached
Please see attached

Marc Vlessing

Please see attached
Please see attached

Marc Vlessing

Please see attached
Please see attached

Marc Vlessing

Please see attached
Please see attached

Marc vlessing

Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

National Grid Interconnector Holdings Limited - anon.

Advice following issue of decision to accept the application for examination.
Please see attached.

Tritax Symmetry (Hinckley) Limited - anon.

Please see attached
Please see attached

BDB Pitmans LLP on behalf of DFDS - anon.

Project update meeting.
Please see attached.

Associated British Ports - anon.

See attached

Michael Mahony SASES - anon.

Please see attached

Michael Mahony, SASES - anon.

Please see attached

Michael Mahony SASES - anon.

Please see attached

Michael Mahony SASES - anon.

Project update meeting.
Please see attached.

Cadent Gas Limited - anon.

Advice following issue of decision to accept the application for examination.
Please see attached.

The Planning Inspectorate - anon.

A letter, dated 22 March 2023, to London Resort Company Holdings (the applicant for the London Resort project) from Lee Rowley MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Local Government and Building Safety, was copied to the Planning Inspectorate in relation to the London Resort project. The application for a Development Consent Order was withdrawn by the applicant on 28 March 2022.
Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities has requested that this letter be published on the National Infrastructure Planning website.

Department for Levelling, Housing and Communities - Lee Rowley MP

New Environmental Information.
Please see attached.

National Grid Electricity Transmission (NGET) - anon.

Project Update Meeting
Please see attached.

Chrysaor Production (U.K.) Limited - anon.

Project inception meeting
Please see attached.

Low Carbon - anon.

Project Update Meeting
Please see attached.

Southern Water Services Limited - anon.

Project update Meeting
See attached

Gatroben Developments 2 Limited - anon.

The Scoping Application for this DCO should not be accepted because the Scope is lacking in a large amount of detail. From the Drawings submitted in Volume II Part I it is clear that areas that will have a significant impact on the Scheme DCO footprint are missing. Significant land take for activities such as Pipe Storage Areas (Pipe Dumps) Plant and Equipment Laydown areas, Project office compounds, fabrication areas, HDD pipe strings layout areas and accesses to and from the working pipeline corridor are all missing. These areas will require significant Environmental assessment for both the temporary and permanent impacts as with the rest of the pipeline corridor. Additionally if these areas are not included in the Scope the powers granted under any DCO application to NGC will be missing for these areas and will be open to challenge in the future. Clearly there is a lot of work still to be carried out to determine the Application Scope. I'd also like to make a point regarding the Applicant’s proposal to carry out detailed Ecology surveys post DCO decision and within the Pre-Construction phase. This is wholly not acceptable because inevitably the surveys will not be carried out fully (because of inevitable timeline pressures) and will not be open to the same level of scrutiny that will be carried out within the DCO process. This would set a dangerous precedence which again may be open to challenge post DCO award. The above points gives concern as to the level of the Applicant’s competence.
The Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) considered that the Applicant’s Scoping Report provided the necessary information to inform a request under Regulation 10(3) of the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 (the EIA Regulations 2017). A Scoping Opinion was adopted by the Planning Inspectorate on 20 May 2022. As part of the pre-application discussions with the Applicant, their approach to ecological assessment was discussed in a meeting with the Planning Inspectorate on 7 October 2022. This included consideration of a late scoping consultation response from Natural England. A note of that meeting is available on our website in accordance with section 51 of the Planning Act 2008: [attachment 1] In order for a Development Consent Order application to be accepted for Examination (at a later date), the Secretary of State will need to be satisfied that the Environmental Statement meets the minimum requirements of the EIA Regulations 2017. As the Humber Low Carbon Pipelines application has not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, we would encourage you to contact the Applicant (National Grid Carbon Limited) directly with any comments on the Proposed Development. Email: [email protected] The Planning Inspectorate has published a series of advice notes that you may find useful, which are available on the National Infrastructure Planning website: [attachment 2]. In particular, our Advice Note Seven provides information on the Scoping process. Advice Note Eight provides an overview of the planning process for Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects and the various opportunities for you to participate in the process.

Anonymous - anon.

Project update meeting
Please see attached

Applicant & Anglian Water - anon.

Meeting held to provide document feedback on documents received on 31 January 2023
Please see attached.

Anglian Water - anon.

Please see attached.
Please see attached.

National Highways - anon.

Project Update Meeting - 8 March 2023
See attached

Five Estuaries Offshore Wind Farm Ltd - anon.

Planning Inspectorate's advice following the Applicants withdrawal of the Application.
Please see attached.

Tritax Symmetry (Hinckley) Limited - anon.

Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

Indaver, Essex County Council and Braintree Distri - anon.

Meeting between the Applicant and the Planning Inspectorate following the Applicants withdrawal of the Application. Including, Appendix A - Request for signposting Information, including the Applicants response and Appendix B - s51 advice issued to the Applicant following its withdrawal of the DCO Application.
Please see attached.

Associated British Ports - anon.

Please see attached.
Please see attached.

Associated British Ports - anon.

Following on from my email and response from Ryan below I thought it would be an opportunity to contact you directly regarding the setting up of a further meeting to discuss logistics for the examinations before we get into the detail for each individual examination when it will become more difficult to look holistically at the process. As you know Cottam and Gate Burton have now been submitted and accepted by PINS and I have received the PINS ‘notification letter’ that West Burton will be submitted on 10th March. So, there is now certainty that these projects will progress to examination, more so than when we met last September. Having spoken to Officers at West Lindsey District Council and representatives from Low Carbon there is certainly a desire to have a further meeting. Also the feedback from the local community is that they would like some certainty about how the applications can be examined in a way that enables the cumulative impacts from all the projects to be looked at in the round rather than at three separate examinations. So I believe that there is good justification to have a further meeting as soon as practically possible to enable all parties to set out their position and hopefully an agreement can be reached which can also be communicated to the local communities who are currently very concerned that the applications will only be assessed in isolation
See attached

Lincolnshire County Council - Neil McBride

Following on from my email and response from Ryan below I thought it would be an opportunity to contact you directly regarding the setting up of a further meeting to discuss logistics for the examinations before we get into the detail for each individual examination when it will become more difficult to look holistically at the process. As you know Cottam and Gate Burton have now been submitted and accepted by PINS and I have received the PINS ‘notification letter’ that West Burton will be submitted on 10th March. So, there is now certainty that these projects will progress to examination, more so than when we met last September. Having spoken to Officers at West Lindsey District Council and representatives from Low Carbon there is certainly a desire to have a further meeting. Also the feedback from the local community is that they would like some certainty about how the applications can be examined in a way that enables the cumulative impacts from all the projects to be looked at in the round rather than at three separate examinations. So I believe that there is good justification to have a further meeting as soon as practically possible to enable all parties to set out their position and hopefully an agreement can be reached which can also be communicated to the local communities who are currently very concerned that the applications will only be assessed in isolation.
See attached

Lincolnshire County Council - Neil McBride

Following on from my email and response from Ryan below I thought it would be an opportunity to contact you directly regarding the setting up of a further meeting to discuss logistics for the examinations before we get into the detail for each individual examination when it will become more difficult to look holistically at the process. As you know Cottam and Gate Burton have now been submitted and accepted by PINS and I have received the PINS ‘notification letter’ that West Burton will be submitted on 10th March. So, there is now certainty that these projects will progress to examination, more so than when we met last September. Having spoken to Officers at West Lindsey District Council and representatives from Low Carbon there is certainly a desire to have a further meeting. Also the feedback from the local community is that they would like some certainty about how the applications can be examined in a way that enables the cumulative impacts from all the projects to be looked at in the round rather than at three separate examinations. So I believe that there is good justification to have a further meeting as soon as practically possible to enable all parties to set out their position and hopefully an agreement can be reached which can also be communicated to the local communities who are currently very concerned that the applications will only be assessed in isolation
See attached

Lincolshire County Council - Neil McBride

Following on from my email and response from Ryan below I thought it would be an opportunity to contact you directly regarding the setting up of a further meeting to discuss logistics for the examinations before we get into the detail for each individual examination when it will become more difficult to look holistically at the process. As you know Cottam and Gate Burton have now been submitted and accepted by PINS and I have received the PINS ‘notification letter’ that West Burton will be submitted on 10th March. So, there is now certainty that these projects will progress to examination, more so than when we met last September. Having spoken to Officers at West Lindsey District Council and representatives from Low Carbon there is certainly a desire to have a further meeting. Also the feedback from the local community is that they would like some certainty about how the applications can be examined in a way that enables the cumulative impacts from all the projects to be looked at in the round rather than at three separate examinations. So I believe that there is good justification to have a further meeting as soon as practically possible to enable all parties to set out their position and hopefully an agreement can be reached which can also be communicated to the local communities who are currently very concerned that the applications will only be assessed in isolation
See attached

Lincolnshire County Council - Neil McBride

Project Update Meeting - 1 March 2023
Please see attached

Tillbridge Solar Limited - anon.

See attached Meeting Note
See attached Meeting Note

North Falls Offshore Wind Farm Ltd - anon.

Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

National Grid Electricity Transmission (NGET) - anon.

Project update meeting.
Please see attached.

Oaklands Farm Solar Ltd - anon.

Inception Meeting
Please see attached

Frodsham Solar Limited - anon.

Meeting requested by the Planning Inspectorate.
Please see attached meeting note.

Anglian Water Services Limited - anon.

Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

Gatroben Developments 2 Limited - anon.

The Inspectorate attended an online Steering Group for the Morgan Generation Assets and Mona Offshore Wind Projects. The meeting provided further details on the site selection, baseline survey progress and ornithological Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) assessment methodology. The Inspectorate provided the advice noted below.
• The Inspectorate noted that in previous offshore wind farm examinations there have been extensive discussions on ornithological assessment methodology, including displacement and mortality rates and apportioning figures. It advised that these be agreed with Natural Resources Wales (NRW) and Natural England (NE) as early as possible in pre-application stage to reduce the risk of them leading to potential Examination issues. If agreement cannot be reached, the Inspectorate advised the Applicant to submit alternative versions of the assessment using the parameters preferred by each party as it is probable that this would otherwise be sought during an Examination. • The Inspectorate would expect any impact pathway taken forward to appropriate assessment to be considered in light of conservation objectives, in line with the requirements of the Regulations. However, the Inspectorate accepts, in principle, that the level of detail required may vary depending on the European site/qualifying feature/impact pathway. It is sensible to seek a proportionate approach to the assessment. • The Inspectorate recommends that the Applicant includes within their application a demonstrable agreement with NRW/NE that the ornithological surveys adequately took into account the potential effects of Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza on the baseline populations.

Morgan and Mona Steering Group - anon.

Mynychodd yr Arolygiaeth Grwp Llywio ar-lein ar gyfer Prosiectau Asedau Generadu Morgan ac Ynni Gwynt Alltraeth Mona. Darparodd y cyfarfod fanylion ychwanegol am ddethol safle, cynnydd arolygon sylfaenol a methodoleg asesu adaregol yr Asesiad Rheoliadau Cynefinoedd (HRA). Rhoddodd yr Arolygiaeth y cyngor a nodir isod. The Inspectorate attended an online Steering Group for the Morgan Generation Assets and Mona Offshore Wind Projects. The meeting provided further details on the site selection, baseline survey progress and ornithological Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) assessment methodology. The Inspectorate provided the advice noted below.
• Nododd yr Arolygiaeth y bu trafodaethau helaeth ynglyn â methodoleg asesu adaregol mewn archwiliadau blaenorol o ffermydd gwynt alltraeth, gan gynnwys dadleoli a chyfraddau marwolaethau a ffigurau dosrannu. Cynghorodd y dylid cytuno ar y rhain gyda Cyfoeth Naturiol Cymru (CNC) a Natural England (NE) cyn gynted â phosibl yn ystod y cam cyn-ymgeisio er mwyn lleihau’r perygl y gallent arwain at broblemau posibl yn yr Archwiliad. Os na ellir cytuno, cynghorodd yr Arolygiaeth yr Ymgeisydd i gyflwyno fersiynau amgen o’r asesiad gan ddefnyddio’r paramedrau a ffefrir gan bob parti, gan ei bod yn debygol y byddai hyn yn cael ei geisio yn ystod yr Archwiliad fel arall. • Byddai’r Arolygiaeth yn disgwyl i unrhyw lwybr effaith sy’n symud ymlaen i asesiad priodol gael ei ystyried yng ngoleuni amcanion cadwraeth, yn unol â gofynion y Rheoliadau. Fodd bynnag, mae’r Arolygiaeth yn derbyn, mewn egwyddor, y gallai faint o fanylion sy’n ofynnol amrywio yn dibynnu ar y safle Ewropeaidd/nodwedd gymwys/llwybr effaith. Mae’n synhwyrol ceisio dull cymesur o asesu. • Mae’r Arolygiaeth yn argymell bod yr Ymgeisydd yn cynnwys cytundeb gyda CNC/NE yn ei gais sy’n dangos bod yr arolygon adaregol wedi rhoi ystyriaeth ddigonol i effeithiau posibl Ffliw Adar Pathogenig Iawn ar y poblogaethau sylfaenol. • The Inspectorate noted that in previous offshore wind farm examinations there have been extensive discussions on ornithological assessment methodology, including displacement and mortality rates and apportioning figures. It advised that these be agreed with Natural Resources Wales (NRW) and Natural England (NE) as early as possible in pre-application stage to reduce the risk of them leading to potential Examination issues. If agreement cannot be reached, the Inspectorate advised the Applicant to submit alternative versions of the assessment using the parameters preferred by each party as it is probable that this would otherwise be sought during an Examination. • The Inspectorate would expect any impact pathway taken forward to appropriate assessment to be considered in light of conservation objectives, in line with the requirements of the Regulations. However, the Inspectorate accepts, in principle, that the level of detail required may vary depending on the European site/qualifying feature/impact pathway. It is sensible to seek a proportionate approach to the assessment. • The Inspectorate recommends that the Applicant includes within their application a demonstrable agreement with NRW/NE that the ornithological surveys adequately took into account the potential effects of Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza on the baseline populations.

The Planning Inspectorate - anon.

To update PINS, please note that the Council continues to discuss with NH the PPA that it is willing to offer with regards to its LTC DCO submission. In the meantime all engagement on the LTC DCO has had to be suspended pending review of budgets through the independent financial review process. We would appreciate PINS guidance on a couple of matters: 1) Please could you clarify whether PINS /ExA is able to legally compel a LA to provide representation (however minimal) through the DCO Examination process and if so if it is minded to do so with Thurrock? We note that Slough appear to be in a similar situation on a DCO and that there has been (unsubstantiated) suggestion that PINS may take legal action to force them to do so. Any explanation you could provide setting out the PINS position on LTC would be most helpful. 2) If the independent commissioners appointed to oversee Council finances determined that Thurrock Council was not able to afford to make effective representation would the DCO process go ahead without the engagement of the most seriously affected Local Authority, and would the Examination process be considered fair and appropriate? 3) Due to the exceptional circumstances, is it possible for the LTC DCO process to be suspended whilst crucial funding matters are considered noting the delays are seriously impeding the Council’s ability to engage in a fair process and conversely advantage to the applicant? How would the Council go about making such a request for a delay?
Thank you for your emails regarding the current situation at Thurrock Council. To answer your questions: The ExA cannot compel anyone to participate in an examination, although it obviously would be advantageous for all host authorities to be actively involved. Legal representation is not a requirement to enable effective participation in an examination, although we can understand that it is considered preferable by the Council. The process is intended to be primarily a written process. The application has been validly made and there is a statutory obligation on the Examining Authority to examine the application within the set timescales and to provide the SoS with the recommendation report. Any request to delay or suspend the DCO process should be submitted formally by Thurrock Council to the ExA including the length of delay sought, reasons to explain the request for delay and the specific length of delay requested, along with how the ability of the Council to participate would be better at the end of the specified term. In making a procedural decision in relation to a request to delay the start of the examination the ExA must keep in mind the wording at paragraph 45 of the Planning Act 2008: Guidance for the examination of applications for development consent. Although it refers to Applicants, we consider it would be equally applicable to any party making such a request. The ExA would need to consider any prejudice that may be caused by either route, and the views of the applicant and other parties may also be sought and considered. Any such request must be from a person(s) who is authorised to make such a request on behalf of the Council.

Thurrock Council - Colin Black

To update PINS, please note that the Council continues to discuss with NH the PPA that it is willing to offer with regards to its LTC DCO submission. In the meantime all engagement on the LTC DCO has had to be suspended pending review of budgets through the independent financial review process. We would appreciate PINS guidance on a couple of matters: 1) Please could you clarify whether PINS /ExA is able to legally compel a LA to provide representation (however minimal) through the DCO Examination process and if so if it is minded to do so with Thurrock? We note that Slough appear to be in a similar situation on a DCO and that there has been (unsubstantiated) suggestion that PINS may take legal action to force them to do so. Any explanation you could provide setting out the PINS position on LTC would be most helpful. 2) If the independent commissioners appointed to oversee Council finances determined that Thurrock Council was not able to afford to make effective representation would the DCO process go ahead without the engagement of the most seriously affected Local Authority, and would the Examination process be considered fair and appropriate? 3) Due to the exceptional circumstances, is it possible for the LTC DCO process to be suspended whilst crucial funding matters are considered noting the delays are seriously impeding the Council’s ability to engage in a fair process and conversely advantage to the applicant? How would the Council go about making such a request for a delay?
Thank you for your emails regarding the current situation at Thurrock Council. To answer your questions: The ExA cannot compel anyone to participate in an examination, although it obviously would be advantageous for all host authorities to be actively involved. Legal representation is not a requirement to enable effective participation in an examination, although we can understand that it is considered preferable by the Council. The process is intended to be primarily a written process. The application has been validly made and there is a statutory obligation on the Examining Authority to examine the application within the set timescales and to provide the SoS with the recommendation report. Any request to delay or suspend the DCO process should be submitted formally by Thurrock Council to the ExA including the length of delay sought, reasons to explain the request for delay and the specific length of delay requested, along with how the ability of the Council to participate would be better at the end of the specified term. In making a procedural decision in relation to a request to delay the start of the examination the ExA must keep in mind the wording at paragraph 45 of the Planning Act 2008: Guidance for the examination of applications for development consent. Although it refers to Applicants, we consider it would be equally applicable to any party making such a request. The ExA would need to consider any prejudice that may be caused by either route, and the views of the applicant and other parties may also be sought and considered. Any such request must be from a person(s) who is authorised to make such a request on behalf of the Council.

Thurrock Council - Colin Black

Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

O.C.O Technology Limited - anon.

Project update meeting.
Please see attached.

Gatwick Airport Limited - anon.

The enquirer queried whether Section 172 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016 and Schedule 4 Paragraph 10 of the Electricity Act 1989 could be used to gain access to land in the course of preparing a Development Consent Order application.
The Planning Inspectorate has a duty, under s51 of the Planning Act 2008, to provide advice about applying for a Development Consent Order (DCO) and making representations about an application, or a proposed application, for such an order. Those seeking to apply for a DCO or those seeking to make a representation in relation to a DCO application should have regard to our advice contained within our suite of Advice Notes accessible on our website: [attachment 1]. In response to your specific question about whether an applicant seeking development consent can use s172 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016 (as amended by the Neighbourhood Planning Act 2017) instead of s53 of the Planning Act 2008 to gain access to land, the Planning Inspectorate’s advice regarding this matter is addressed in Section 6 of the ‘Section 53: Rights of entry FAQs’ on the National Infrastructure Planning website: [attachment 2]. The Planning Inspectorate cannot provide legal advice, therefore any questions you raise that require interpretation beyond the advice contained in our FAQ advice should be appropriately directed to those that are able to do so.

Jonathan Dean

Project update meeting.
Please see attached.

London Luton Airport Ltd - anon.

Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

Flotation Energy - anon.

Guidance on Relevant Representations
Please see attached

General - anon.

Guidance on Relevant Representations
Please see attached

General - anon.

Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

National Highways - anon.

Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

Rampion Extension Development Limited - anon.

Project update meeting.
Please see attached.

National Grid Electricity Transmission (NGET) - anon.

Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

National Grid Electricity Transmission (NGET) - anon.

If National Grid want to access land for surveys etc, which Act should they gain this under? I assume the Planning Act (2008) While they may have rights of access under other Acts, can they use these Acts for the purpose of a DCO under PA(2008)? If they do gain access under other Acts, is the data and information still valid for a DCO under PA(2098)?
For context, the proposed application is currently at the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) process. Further information about the process can be found at the following link to the National Infrastructure Planning website: [attachment 1]. If a developer proposes to make a Development Consent Order (DCO) application under the PA2008, it may apply for authorisation from the Secretary of State under section (s) 53 of the PA2008 for a right to enter land owned by third parties. This must be for specified purposes in connection with a proposed Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project; ie ‘surveying and taking levels’ (s53(1) of the PA2008), and/ or in order to facilitate compliance with the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive and/ or the Habitats Directive (s53(1), s53(1A) and s53(3A) of the PA2008). Please refer to the Planning Inspectorate’s Advice Note Five: Section 53 – Rights of Entry (Planning Act 2008) for more information. We are not able to comment on the other unspecified legislation you have referred to, beyond s53 of the PA2008. However, please refer to section 6 of the ‘Section 53: Rights of entry FAQs’ on the National Infrastructure Planning website which addresses alternative powers regarding access to land: [attachment 2]. The acceptability and adequacy of data and information forming part of the DCO application is not formally considered by the Planning Inspectorate until the point at which an application is submitted. The approach to identifying and gathering data and information (including surveys) is a matter for the developer to consider when preparing its DCO application. As the East Anglia Green Energy Enablement (GREEN) application has not yet been formally submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, your first point of contact at this stage should be the developer, National Grid Electricity Transmission (NGET), and we would encourage you to contact NGET directly with any specific queries about its Pre-application activities: [email protected]

Jonathan Dean

Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

National Grid Electricity Transmission (NGET) - anon.

Please see attached
Dear Mr King, Thank you for your letter dated 6 December 2022 in relation to the proposed Stonestreet Green Solar project. An application for this project has not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate. Until the application is submitted, your first point of contact should be the Developer. I would therefore encourage you to contact EPL 001 Limited directly. It is important that the Developer is made aware of your comments at the pre-application stage of the process, to enable them to consider these points before finalising their proposals and submitting the application to the Planning Inspectorate. The Developer can be reached in the following ways: By email: [email protected] By phone: 08081 698335 If you feel your comments are not being taken into account, I would advise you to also write to your local authority and set out why you think the Applicant is failing to conduct its consultation properly. Your comments may be considered by the local authority when sending the Planning Inspectorate its representations on whether the Applicant has fulfilled its consultation duties which will be taken into account when deciding whether the application can be accepted for Examination. The Planning Inspectorate has produced several Advice Notes to help provide an overview of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) process and the opportunities to get involved. They are available at the following link: [attachment 1] The following Advice Notes may be particularly relevant: Advice Note 8: ‘Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others’. Advice Note 8.1: ‘Responding to the developer’s pre-application consultation’ Advice Note 8.2: ‘How to register to participate in an Examination’ Advice Note 8.3: ‘Influencing how an application is Examined: the Preliminary Meeting’ If an application is submitted and if then, subsequently accepted there will be an opportunity for anyone with an interest in the project to register in the form of a ‘Relevant Representation’. Anyone who makes a Relevant Representation will become an ‘Interested Party’ and will be able to participate in the Preliminary Meeting and the Examination of the application. Please be assured that all Interested Parties with an interest in the proposed development, its potential impacts and any planning matters can be fully engaged in the examination process. Please note, in accordance with Section 51 of the PA2008, a summary of your query and our advice will be published on the project’s webpage of the National Infrastructure Website. I hope you find the above information useful Kind regards Sarah Norris Sarah Norris Case Manager – National Infrastructure Planning The Planning Inspectorate Helpline: 0303 444 5000 Mobile: 07458014454 Email: [email protected] Web: [attachment 2] Please note that the contents of this email and any attachments are privileged and/or confidential and intended solely for the use of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient of this email and its attachments, you must take no action based upon them, nor must you copy or show them to anyone. Please contact the sender if you believe you have received this email in error and then delete this email from your system. Recipients should note that e-mail traffic on Planning Inspectorate systems is subject to monitoring, recording and auditing to secure the effective operation of the system and for other lawful purposes. The Planning Inspectorate has taken steps to keep this e-mail and any attachments free from viruses. It accepts no liability for any loss or damage caused as a result of any virus being passed on. It is the responsibility of the recipient to perform all necessary checks. The statements expressed in this e-mail are personal and do not necessarily reflect the opinions or policies of the Inspectorate. DPC:76616c646f72

Mr King

Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

EPL 001 Limited - anon.

Project update meeting.
Please see attached.

Oaklands Farm Solar Ltd - anon.

Draft Document Feedback
Please see attached

Ecotricity (Heck Fen Solar) Limited - anon.

Project update meeting.
Please see attached.

East Yorkshire Solar Farm Limited - anon.

Inception Meeting
Please see attached.

EDF Renewables - anon.

Local authority out-reach meeting.
Please see attached.

Gatwick Officer Group - anon.

Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

Indaver Rivenhall Ltd - anon.

Response to questions raised
Please find below my response to the two questions you raised at the meeting. - Draft document feedback on the ES chapter We discussed where you might record any changes made after our feedback on the draft ES chapter. There is no statutory requirement for you to demonstrate how you responded to our feedback on the draft documents and it is for you to decide how you might want to reflect this. The NSIPs where we have provided feedback on draft documents have not referred to it in the final documents submitted for acceptance, or haven’t gone into any detail about what the advice was on the draft document or how it had been addressed. Unlike the scoping stage we do not recommend Applicants include a table to demonstrate how they have responded. Outline Risk Management / Outline Safety Management Plan Following our discussion I looked at what other solar projects that we are currently involved with as NSIPs are proposing, and the following information may be of help with respect to how these Applicants have addressed fire risks and water requirements in consultation with the Fire and Rescue Authorities: Mallard Pass Solar Project Consultation report LDA Report Template (planninginspectorate.gov.uk)‘ A Battery Safety Management Plan is not required as battery storage is not being considered in the final design of the Proposed Development. Health and Safety onsite would be managed by the contractor during construction and decommissioning to mitigate the risk of fire in line with legislative safety requirements such as the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 and the CDM Regulations 2015. The oCEMP includes measures that prohibit the burning of waste material onsite. The Proposed Development therefore is not expected to have a significant effect on the environment due to the risk of a major accident occurring as a result of fire during construction and decommissioning’.‘The operational phase of the Proposed Development would involve routine maintenance and servicing of equipment to ensure the safe operation of equipment. Fire equipment and notices will also be provided onsite for the availability of personnel and would be regularly inspected and serviced in accordance with Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005. The oOEMP sets out details on the measures incorporated into the design to minimise any fire risks. No significant effects are anticipated following implementation of mitigation measures. For more information, please see Chapter 15: Other Environmental Topics, of the ES, [EN010127/APP/6.1] (Wildfires).’ Little Crow Solar Park Consultation Report EN010101-000207-Document Ref 4.1 LC REP CONSULTATION REP.pdf (planninginspectorate.gov.uk)Humberside Fire & Rescue: ‘It is required to provide adequate access for firefighting. The route and hardstanding should be constructed to provide a minimum carrying capacity of 24 tonnes. Adequate provision of water supplies for firefighting appropriate to the proposed risk should be considered’. Applicant: ‘The existing access provision will be upgraded. Passing bays will also be introduced along the access track and would be appropriate to accommodate HGV and fire fighting vehicles alike. A localised water mains runs within the order limits, running parallel with the access track, and provides provision of water supplies should it be necessary’. ES Appendix 4.7 Online Safety Battery Management PlanEN010101-000245-Document Ref 7.14 LC TA4.7 Outline Battery Safety Management Plan.pdf (planninginspectorate.gov.uk) Sunnica Energy Farm Volume 7 7.6 Outline Battery Fire Safety Management Plan SEF_7.6_Outline Battery Fire Safety Management Plan (planninginspectorate.gov.uk) See in particular Table 3: Statutory Consultation Requirements, and Table 12: Proposed List of Risk Mitigation Methods (RMM 17, RMM 18 and RMM 19). In particular, RMM19 may be of interest due to the remote location of the BESS compounds and limited availability and supply of water which proposes use of water tanks. Longfield Solar Farm EN010118-000874-DL3 - ECFRS Initial Consultation Response Longfield Solar Farm.pdf (planninginspectorate.gov.uk) Statement of Common Ground with Essex Fire & Rescue Service Report Longfield Solar Farm 2020-09-30 (planninginspectorate.gov.uk)7.6 Outline Battery Safety Management Plan (BSMP) (planninginspectorate.gov.uk) Consultation Report EN010118-000632-The Applicant - Consultation Report - Updated version.pdf (planninginspectorate.gov.uk) Table 3-13: Key topics raised by consultees during the non-statutory consultation and the Applicant’s response may be of interest.

Ecotricity (Heck Fen Solar) Limited - anon.

Project Update Meeting
Please see attached.

Ecotricity (Heck Fen Solar) Limited - anon.

Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

BP/EnBW - anon.

Chyfarfod diweddaru'r prosiect - Project update meeting.
Gweler yr atodiad - Please see attached.

BP/EnBW - anon.

The Applicants request for further advice and PINS Response to queries
Please see attached.

Boom Power - anon.

Project update meeting
Please see attached

Anglian Water - anon.

Project update meeting.
Please see attached.

RWE Renewables UK Ltd - anon.

Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

The Environment Agency and Surrey County Council - anon.

Project update meeting.
Please see attached.

JBM Solar - anon.

How are the cumulative impacts of each wind farm (Morgan, Mona and Morecambe) to be taken into account, if each wind farm is considered separately?
With regard to your query about cumulative impacts, the Applicants for these projects have advised that they are going to undertake environmental impact assessments which will be reported in an environmental statement for each project. The environmental statement for each project will include an assessment of cumulative effects (as they are required to do by the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017). Each project will therefore have to provide an assessment of cumulative effects with other developments which it could interact with. Advice Note Seventeen on our website explains the general advice the Planning Inspectorate gives on undertaking cumulative effects assessment. The environmental statement for each project will be submitted as part of their applications for Development Consent Orders; if the application is accepted then the effects of each project, including the cumulative effects, will be part of the evidence that the Examining Authority (the panel of Inspector(s)) consider during the Examination of the project before making their recommendation to the Secretary of State. The Applicants for each project and for the Morgan and Morecambe Offshore Wind Farms Transmission Assets have each requested a scoping opinion from the Secretary of State. The scoping opinion provides advice on the topics and assessments which should be reported in the environmental statement. As part of the process of drafting the opinion, applicants submit a scoping report – shipping and navigation and effects on other sea users have been identified as aspects to be assessed in the environmental statements. The Planning Inspectorate which acts on behalf of the Secretary of State, is required to consult various bodies including the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, Trinity House, Natural Resources Wales and the Marine Management Organisation and to take their advice into account when drafting the scoping opinion. The advice from these bodies is appended to the scoping opinion. The process the Inspectorate go through when drafting the scoping opinion is described in more detail in Advice Notes Three and Seven on our website. Please note that this is separate from the statutory consultation process which applicants are required to undertake themselves. The environmental statements are required by the EIA Regulations referred to above to be based on the most recent scoping opinion, unless the project is materially different from the project described in the scoping report. You may find it of interest to read the scoping opinions and scoping reports (the scoping opinions may not make much sense unless read in conjunction with the scoping reports).

John Pennington

How are the cumulative impacts of each wind farm (Morgan, Mona and Morecambe) to be taken into account, if each wind farm is considered separately?
With regard to your query about cumulative impacts, the Applicants for these projects have advised that they are going to undertake environmental impact assessments which will be reported in an environmental statement for each project. The environmental statement for each project will include an assessment of cumulative effects (as they are required to do by the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017). Each project will therefore have to provide an assessment of cumulative effects with other developments which it could interact with. Advice Note Seventeen on our website explains the general advice the Planning Inspectorate gives on undertaking cumulative effects assessment. The environmental statement for each project will be submitted as part of their applications for Development Consent Orders; if the application is accepted then the effects of each project, including the cumulative effects, will be part of the evidence that the Examining Authority (the panel of Inspector(s)) consider during the Examination of the project before making their recommendation to the Secretary of State. The Applicants for each project and for the Morgan and Morecambe Offshore Wind Farms Transmission Assets have each requested a scoping opinion from the Secretary of State. The scoping opinion provides advice on the topics and assessments which should be reported in the environmental statement. As part of the process of drafting the opinion, applicants submit a scoping report – shipping and navigation and effects on other sea users have been identified as aspects to be assessed in the environmental statements. The Planning Inspectorate which acts on behalf of the Secretary of State, is required to consult various bodies including the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, Trinity House, Natural Resources Wales and the Marine Management Organisation and to take their advice into account when drafting the scoping opinion. The advice from these bodies is appended to the scoping opinion. The process the Inspectorate go through when drafting the scoping opinion is described in more detail in Advice Notes Three and Seven on our website. Please note that this is separate from the statutory consultation process which applicants are required to undertake themselves. The environmental statements are required by the EIA Regulations referred to above to be based on the most recent scoping opinion, unless the project is materially different from the project described in the scoping report. You may find it of interest to read the scoping opinions and scoping reports (the scoping opinions may not make much sense unless read in conjunction with the scoping reports).

John Pennington

Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

Oaklands Solar Farm Limited - anon.

Council Advice Meeting.
Please see attached.

Somerset County Council - anon.

We are the umbrella community campaign group for residents along the 180km route of East Anglia GREEN. On 16 June we submitted an 80-page technical response to the non-statutory consultation. It detailed numerous environmental and legal issues. With it we submitted a legal opinion from Charles Banner KC and a survey completed by 2,500 people. Our petition, calling for an integrated offshore grid instead of overhead lines, has been signed by 22,000 people. We will be participating at every stage of the process as the DCO progresses through the system. We have prepared, in consultation with Mr Banner, a submission to this East Anglia GREEN scoping report consultation, which I attach. It sets out, in particular, our concerns that the legal deficiencies set out by Mr Banner relating to the non-statutory consultation have now infected the scoping report. The result is that an Environmental Statement which is produced from this scoping report will also be deficient. These are real and serious concerns and although we are aware that the consultation is targeted at statutory consultees we request that our submission be considered by the Inspector and published on the portal. We look forward to hearing from you.
Before adopting a Scoping Opinion, the Planning Inspectorate, under the terms of Regulation 10 of the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 (the EIA Regulations), has a duty to consult: • a body prescribed under section 42(1)(a) of the Planning Act 2008 (duty to consult) and listed in column 1 of the table set out in Schedule 1 to the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009 where the circumstances set out in column 2 of that table are satisfied in respect of that body; • each authority that is within section 43 of the Planning Act 2008 (local authorities for purposes of section 42(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 also has a duty to notify certain bodies under Regulation 11 of the EIA Regulations of their duty under the Regulations to make available to the Applicant (National Grid Electricity Transmission) information they possess which is considered relevant to the preparation of the ES. These legal duties are what the recent consultation by the Inspectorate has been based upon and we do not contact any additional parties. Under the criteria set out above Essex Suffolk Norfolk Pylons is not a consultation body for the purposes of EIA Scoping and therefore we are not able to take your comments into account in the Scoping Opinion. The Applicant has their own duty to undertake a wide consultation to inform their Application under the Planning Act. I encourage you and your membership to make your comments on the Scoping Report available to the Applicant if you have not already done so, or via your local councils and/or parish councils, who are consultation bodies for the purposes of the regulations. I thought it would be useful to clarify some points in your response: • An Inspector (as part of the Examining Authority) is not appointed until an application for a Development Consent Order (DCO) has been submitted and accepted for examination. • Non-statutory consultation is a voluntary process undertaken by the Applicant and is not defined within the Planning Act 2008. The Applicant must undertake statutory consultation in the form prescribed in the Planning Act 2008 and the EIA Regulations prior to making an application. The Applicant’s consultation report to be submitted with its application will need to demonstrate how consultation responses have been taken into account. • An Environmental Statement (ES) will accompany the application. This will need to meet the legal requirements of the EIA Regulations and will follow the issue of a Scoping Opinion and statutory consultation in respect of Preliminary Environmental Information. The Planning Inspectorate has published a series of advice notes that you may find useful, which are available on the National Infrastructure Planning website: [attachment 1]. In particular, our Advice Note Eight provides an overview of the planning process for Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects and the various opportunities for you to participate in the process.

Essex, Suffolk, Norfolk Pylons - anon.

We are the umbrella community campaign group for residents along the 180km route of East Anglia GREEN. On 16 June we submitted an 80-page technical response to the non-statutory consultation. It detailed numerous environmental and legal issues. With it we submitted a legal opinion from Charles Banner KC and a survey completed by 2,500 people. Our petition, calling for an integrated offshore grid instead of overhead lines, has been signed by 22,000 people. We will be participating at every stage of the process as the DCO progresses through the system. We have prepared, in consultation with Mr Banner, a submission to this East Anglia GREEN scoping report consultation, which I attach. It sets out, in particular, our concerns that the legal deficiencies set out by Mr Banner relating to the non-statutory consultation have now infected the scoping report. The result is that an Environmental Statement which is produced from this scoping report will also be deficient. These are real and serious concerns and although we are aware that the consultation is targeted at statutory consultees we request that our submission be considered by the Inspector and published on the portal. We look forward to hearing from you.
Before adopting a Scoping Opinion, the Planning Inspectorate, under the terms of Regulation 10 of the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 (the EIA Regulations), has a duty to consult: • a body prescribed under section 42(1)(a) of the Planning Act 2008 (duty to consult) and listed in column 1 of the table set out in Schedule 1 to the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009 where the circumstances set out in column 2 of that table are satisfied in respect of that body; • each authority that is within section 43 of the Planning Act 2008 (local authorities for purposes of section 42(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 also has a duty to notify certain bodies under Regulation 11 of the EIA Regulations of their duty under the Regulations to make available to the Applicant (National Grid Electricity Transmission) information they possess which is considered relevant to the preparation of the ES. These legal duties are what the recent consultation by the Inspectorate has been based upon and we do not contact any additional parties. Under the criteria set out above Essex Suffolk Norfolk Pylons is not a consultation body for the purposes of EIA Scoping and therefore we are not able to take your comments into account in the Scoping Opinion. The Applicant has their own duty to undertake a wide consultation to inform their Application under the Planning Act. I encourage you and your membership to make your comments on the Scoping Report available to the Applicant if you have not already done so, or via your local councils and/or parish councils, who are consultation bodies for the purposes of the regulations. I thought it would be useful to clarify some points in your response: • An Inspector (as part of the Examining Authority) is not appointed until an application for a Development Consent Order (DCO) has been submitted and accepted for examination. • Non-statutory consultation is a voluntary process undertaken by the Applicant and is not defined within the Planning Act 2008. The Applicant must undertake statutory consultation in the form prescribed in the Planning Act 2008 and the EIA Regulations prior to making an application. The Applicant’s consultation report to be submitted with its application will need to demonstrate how consultation responses have been taken into account. • An Environmental Statement (ES) will accompany the application. This will need to meet the legal requirements of the EIA Regulations and will follow the issue of a Scoping Opinion and statutory consultation in respect of Preliminary Environmental Information. The Planning Inspectorate has published a series of advice notes that you may find useful, which are available on the National Infrastructure Planning website: [attachment 1]. In particular, our Advice Note Eight provides an overview of the planning process for Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects and the various opportunities for you to participate in the process.

Essex, Suffolk, Norfolk Pylons - anon.

Post-Decision feedback meeting.
Please see attached.

National Highways (formerly Highways England) - anon.

In relation to post-submission, we have a specific question at this stage about process. Our understanding was that the post-acceptance/pre-examination stage would take three months but GAL has suggested that it determines how quickly the application moves to the examination stage. We also understand that GAL will publish a S56 notice giving 28 days’ notice (is this a minimum?) for Relevant Representations to be submitted. Is there a deadline after acceptance when PINS would expect GAL to publish the S56 notice? If not, this would suggest that GAL could prolong the pre-examination phase indefinitely. Also, we understand that S58 requires GAL to inform the Secretary of State (SoS) that the S56 notice has been served. Again, is there a deadline after serving the S56 notice that GAL would have to inform the SoS under S58, which presumably triggers the request for local authorities to submit their Local Impact Reports under S60. Lastly (and understanding that your answers to the above questions are relevant), if GAL’s submission is accepted by the end of April 2023, when would the Preliminary Meeting likely take place? In July 2023 (i.e. three months after acceptance) or would PINS delay until after the summer holidays, so in September 2023?
In respect of your question regarding the length of the Pre-examination stage, please note that this stage starts from the day after the issuing of an Acceptance decision, and finishes on the day that the Preliminary Meeting is concluded. There is no statutory timeframe for this stage, and its length is applicant-driven to some extent, in that an applicant would determine when the Relevant Representation period opens; however, the (former) Department for Communities and Local Government’s (DCLG) Examination Guidance states that ”the Secretary of State’s expectation is that, in most cases, [the preliminary meeting] should take place within a period from six weeks to two months from receipt of the relevant representations” (paragraph 40). In response to your query about section 56 notices, an applicant’s section 56 notice would need to provide a period of at least 30 days for Relevant Representations to be submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, on the assumption that the Proposed Development is Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) development. The minimum timeframe is 28 days only for projects that are not EIA development. As mentioned above, the start of the Relevant Representation period is applicant-driven, and the Planning Inspectorate does not have the power to compel an applicant to issue its section 56 notice and start the Relevant Representation period within a certain timeframe; however, the DCLG Examination Guidance states “Rarely, applicants may wish to delay the start of the examination of an accepted application. Such a delay may be appropriate, depending on the circumstances, but should be kept to the minimum period necessary. This will limit the risk that the application, including pre-application consultation and environmental information, will no longer be sufficiently current to form the basis of an examination” (paragraph 45). You have also queried whether there is a deadline by which an applicant must issue its section 58 certificate, which certifies compliance with section 56 of the Planning Act 2008. Regulation 10 of the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009 confirms that the section 58 certificate must be provided to the Planning Inspectorate within the period of 10 working days following the end date of the Relevant Representation period. The Examining Authority will subsequently determine the date for submission of Local Impact Reports. It is common for this date to be confirmed in the Rule 6 letter (the notification of the Preliminary Meeting, incorporating a draft Examination Timetable), and then again in the Rule 8 letter (the final Examination Timetable) following the Preliminary Meeting.” Regarding your final question, the date of the Preliminary Meeting will depend on several factors, including the dates for the Relevant Representation period, and various logistical and procedural considerations. The date of the Preliminary Meeting is confirmed by way of a Procedural Decision in the Rule 6 letter from the Examining Authority appointed during the Pre-examination stage, and therefore is it not possible to determine the date ahead of this decision being made. Nevertheless, the DCLG Examination Guidance (as referred to above) provides an indication of what is considered to be a suitable length of time for the Preliminary Meeting to take place after the Relevant Representation period has closed under normal circumstances.

Gatwick Officers Group - anon.

In relation to post-submission, we have a specific question at this stage about process. Our understanding was that the post-acceptance/pre-examination stage would take three months but GAL has suggested that it determines how quickly the application moves to the examination stage. We also understand that GAL will publish a S56 notice giving 28 days’ notice (is this a minimum?) for Relevant Representations to be submitted. Is there a deadline after acceptance when PINS would expect GAL to publish the S56 notice? If not, this would suggest that GAL could prolong the pre-examination phase indefinitely. Also, we understand that S58 requires GAL to inform the Secretary of State (SoS) that the S56 notice has been served. Again, is there a deadline after serving the S56 notice that GAL would have to inform the SoS under S58, which presumably triggers the request for local authorities to submit their Local Impact Reports under S60. Lastly (and understanding that your answers to the above questions are relevant), if GAL’s submission is accepted by the end of April 2023, when would the Preliminary Meeting likely take place? In July 2023 (i.e. three months after acceptance) or would PINS delay until after the summer holidays, so in September 2023?
In respect of your question regarding the length of the Pre-examination stage, please note that this stage starts from the day after the issuing of an Acceptance decision, and finishes on the day that the Preliminary Meeting is concluded. There is no statutory timeframe for this stage, and its length is applicant-driven to some extent, in that an applicant would determine when the Relevant Representation period opens; however, the (former) Department for Communities and Local Government’s (DCLG) Examination Guidance states that ”the Secretary of State’s expectation is that, in most cases, [the preliminary meeting] should take place within a period from six weeks to two months from receipt of the relevant representations” (paragraph 40). In response to your query about section 56 notices, an applicant’s section 56 notice would need to provide a period of at least 30 days for Relevant Representations to be submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, on the assumption that the Proposed Development is Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) development. The minimum timeframe is 28 days only for projects that are not EIA development. As mentioned above, the start of the Relevant Representation period is applicant-driven, and the Planning Inspectorate does not have the power to compel an applicant to issue its section 56 notice and start the Relevant Representation period within a certain timeframe; however, the DCLG Examination Guidance states “Rarely, applicants may wish to delay the start of the examination of an accepted application. Such a delay may be appropriate, depending on the circumstances, but should be kept to the minimum period necessary. This will limit the risk that the application, including pre-application consultation and environmental information, will no longer be sufficiently current to form the basis of an examination” (paragraph 45). You have also queried whether there is a deadline by which an applicant must issue its section 58 certificate, which certifies compliance with section 56 of the Planning Act 2008. Regulation 10 of the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009 confirms that the section 58 certificate must be provided to the Planning Inspectorate within the period of 10 working days following the end date of the Relevant Representation period. The Examining Authority will subsequently determine the date for submission of Local Impact Reports. It is common for this date to be confirmed in the Rule 6 letter (the notification of the Preliminary Meeting, incorporating a draft Examination Timetable), and then again in the Rule 8 letter (the final Examination Timetable) following the Preliminary Meeting.” Regarding your final question, the date of the Preliminary Meeting will depend on several factors, including the dates for the Relevant Representation period, and various logistical and procedural considerations. The date of the Preliminary Meeting is confirmed by way of a Procedural Decision in the Rule 6 letter from the Examining Authority appointed during the Pre-examination stage, and therefore is it not possible to determine the date ahead of this decision being made. Nevertheless, the DCLG Examination Guidance (as referred to above) provides an indication of what is considered to be a suitable length of time for the Preliminary Meeting to take place after the Relevant Representation period has closed under normal circumstances.

Gatwick Officers Group - anon.

Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

Enso Green Holdings D Limited - anon.

Project Update Meeting
Please see attached.

Southern Water Services Limited - anon.

Project Update Meeting - 15112022
Please see attached

H2Teesside Project - anon.

Please see attached.
Please see attached.

Cottam Solar Project Limited - anon.

Project Update Meeting
Please see attached.

Boom Power - anon.

Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

Associated British Ports - anon.

Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

Five Estuaries Ltd - anon.

Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

National Highways - anon.

Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

O.C.O Technology Limited - anon.

Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

Gate Burton Energy Park Ltd - anon.

Draft document review.
Please see attached.

London Luton Airport Limited - anon.

Dear Inspectorate, I live near the proposed Medworth EFW site. Could you please advise as to what would happen if under the new PM national planning, environmental or other relevant law is changed during the examination of the Medworth proposal. Clearly changes that may influence representations would be important to the likes of myself and I would appreciate your advice.
Thank you for your email of the 12 October regarding the Medworth Energy from Waste project in which you enquire what would happen if under the new Prime Minister national planning, environmental or other relevant law is changed during the Examination of the proposal. Please accept our apologies for the delay in replying. Examining Authorities must make their recommendations after Examination in accordance with the government’s National Policy Statements (NPSs); except in specified circumstances including where the adverse impacts of a Proposed Development would outweigh its benefits (see s104 of the Planning Act 2008 for further information). The NPSs are produced by government and undergo a democratic process of public consultation and parliamentary scrutiny before being designated (i.e adopted). Other policies may also be relevant and important matters which the Examining Authority will consider. The Planning Inspectorate is impartial and does not comment on government policy. However, as explained above Examining Authorities do make their recommendations within the framework provided by NPSs, as required by the Planning Act 2008. The Decision on whether an application is consented or not will ultimately be made by the relevant Secretary of State (SoS) after receiving the recommendation from the Examining Authority. The relevant SoS is the minister with responsibility for the area of government business that an application relates to. For example for this application the SoS for the Department of Business Energy and Industrial Strategy makes the final decision. The relevant SoS has three months from when the Recommendation Report is submitted in which to make a their decision. If the relevant NPS has not been designated, Section 105 of the Planning Act 2008 sets out what the SoS must have regard to in making their decision where a relevant NPS is not designated. This includes any matter that the SoS thinks is important and relevant to the Secretary of State’s decision. This could include a draft NPS, if one exists. For more information see the National Policy Statements page. [attachment 1] On a general point, a decision maker for an application for a Development Consent Order may take into account any matter they consider to be important or relevant. This may include any emerging national plan, policy or emerging local plan or policy document. It is for the decision maker to decide how much weight to attach to that document. To date we note that you have not submitted a relevant representation. We would encourage you to please make sure that you register as an Interested Party and submit a summary of what you agree with and/ or disagree with in relation to the application [attachment 2] by the Deadline of 23:59 on 15 November 2022. Further information about taking part in the Examination process can be found on our website where there are a suite of Advice Notes. Advice Note 8 provides an Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others. [attachment 3] Please do not hesitate to contact us again if you have any queries by emailing the Inspectorate’s Medworth project mailbox [email protected]

Dr M G Little

Section 51 advice to the Applicant. Please see attached.
Please see attached.

The Planning Inspectorate - anon.

For Attn of The Planning Inspector Good Afternoon, Burton by Lincoln Parish Council have been advised of the above planning projects which are to come before the Planning Inspectorate. The Parish Council are concerned about the nature of these applications and the impact that they will have on the area. We therefore would wish the attached document be put before the Planning Inspector for their consideration when dealing with these applications. As the same concerns relate to all applications as they are similar in nature, we would forward it in relation to all in one email rather than individual responses. We trust that this approach is acceptable. If you have any queries please do not hesitate to be in contact. Kind regards.
Thank you for your email. The Planning Inspectorate administers the Planning Act 2008 process prior to the relevant Government department making the final decisions on Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP) applications. As the solar NSIP applications proposals are still at the pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 process, we strongly advise you to provide your comments on the proposals directly to the Applicants, at this stage. Responding to an Applicant’s pre-application consultation is the best way to influence a proposal, as the Applicant has a duty to have regard to responses to statutory pre-application consultation, ahead of submitting their application to the Planning Inspectorate. I note from your correspondence that ‘The Parish Council are concerned about the nature of these applications and the impact that they will have on the area’. Applicants of projects of this scale are required to undertake an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and produce an Environmental Statement (ES). As part of the EIA process, the Applicant is required to undertake a cumulative effects assessment. National Policy Statements provide the primary basis for making NSIP decisions. The Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy (EN-1) states at paragraph 4.2.5 that: ‘When considering cumulative effects, the ES should provide information on how the effects of the applicant’s proposal would combine and interact with the effects of other development (including projects for which consent has been sought or granted, as well as those already in existence)’. EN-1 can be found on this link: [attachment 1] It is likely that a draft form of the cumulative effects assessment will be, or has been published by the Applicant at the pre-application stage for comment, as part of their statutory consultation (within their Preliminary Environmental Information report). For more information on cumulative effects assessment, I have provided a link to the Planning Inspectorate’s advice note 17: [attachment 2] Each NSIP application can be found under the ‘Projects’ section of our website: [attachment 3]. You can sign up for email updates on the individual project specific webpages for any application you are interested in. To ensure your views are read by an Examining Authority, you will need to register as an Interested Party for each application at the appropriate stage. If an application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate and subsequently accepted to proceed to examination, you will have the opportunity to make comments about the merits of the Proposed Development to an appointed Examining Authority. To do this, you will need to register as an Interested Party by making a Relevant Representation at the appropriate time for each NSIP application you are interested in. You will have a minimum of 28 days to register as an Interested Party and can do so on the project specific webpage. For more information about how and when you can have your say, please see our Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination: [attachment 4] I hope you have found the above information to be helpful.

Burton by Lincoln Parish Council - anon.

For Attn of The Planning Inspector Good Afternoon, Burton by Lincoln Parish Council have been advised of the above planning projects which are to come before the Planning Inspectorate. The Parish Council are concerned about the nature of these applications and the impact that they will have on the area. We therefore would wish the attached document be put before the Planning Inspector for their consideration when dealing with these applications. As the same concerns relate to all applications as they are similar in nature, we would forward it in relation to all in one email rather than individual responses. We trust that this approach is acceptable. If you have any queries please do not hesitate to be in contact. Kind regards.
Thank you for your email. The Planning Inspectorate administers the Planning Act 2008 process prior to the relevant Government department making the final decisions on Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP) applications. As the solar NSIP applications proposals are still at the pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 process, we strongly advise you to provide your comments on the proposals directly to the Applicants, at this stage. Responding to an Applicant’s pre-application consultation is the best way to influence a proposal, as the Applicant has a duty to have regard to responses to statutory pre-application consultation, ahead of submitting their application to the Planning Inspectorate. I note from your correspondence that ‘The Parish Council are concerned about the nature of these applications and the impact that they will have on the area’. Applicants of projects of this scale are required to undertake an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and produce an Environmental Statement (ES). As part of the EIA process, the Applicant is required to undertake a cumulative effects assessment. National Policy Statements provide the primary basis for making NSIP decisions. The Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy (EN-1) states at paragraph 4.2.5 that: ‘When considering cumulative effects, the ES should provide information on how the effects of the applicant’s proposal would combine and interact with the effects of other development (including projects for which consent has been sought or granted, as well as those already in existence)’. EN-1 can be found on this link: [attachment 1] It is likely that a draft form of the cumulative effects assessment will be, or has been published by the Applicant at the pre-application stage for comment, as part of their statutory consultation (within their Preliminary Environmental Information report). For more information on cumulative effects assessment, I have provided a link to the Planning Inspectorate’s advice note 17: [attachment 2] Each NSIP application can be found under the ‘Projects’ section of our website: [attachment 3]. You can sign up for email updates on the individual project specific webpages for any application you are interested in. To ensure your views are read by an Examining Authority, you will need to register as an Interested Party for each application at the appropriate stage. If an application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate and subsequently accepted to proceed to examination, you will have the opportunity to make comments about the merits of the Proposed Development to an appointed Examining Authority. To do this, you will need to register as an Interested Party by making a Relevant Representation at the appropriate time for each NSIP application you are interested in. You will have a minimum of 28 days to register as an Interested Party and can do so on the project specific webpage. For more information about how and when you can have your say, please see our Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination: [attachment 4] I hope you have found the above information to be helpful.

Burton by Lincoln Parish Council - anon.

For Attn of The Planning Inspector Good Afternoon, Burton by Lincoln Parish Council have been advised of the above planning projects which are to come before the Planning Inspectorate. The Parish Council are concerned about the nature of these applications and the impact that they will have on the area. We therefore would wish the attached document be put before the Planning Inspector for their consideration when dealing with these applications. As the same concerns relate to all applications as they are similar in nature, we would forward it in relation to all in one email rather than individual responses. We trust that this approach is acceptable. If you have any queries please do not hesitate to be in contact. Kind regards.
Thank you for your email. The Planning Inspectorate administers the Planning Act 2008 process prior to the relevant Government department making the final decisions on Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP) applications. As the solar NSIP applications proposals are still at the pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 process, we strongly advise you to provide your comments on the proposals directly to the Applicants, at this stage. Responding to an Applicant’s pre-application consultation is the best way to influence a proposal, as the Applicant has a duty to have regard to responses to statutory pre-application consultation, ahead of submitting their application to the Planning Inspectorate. I note from your correspondence that ‘The Parish Council are concerned about the nature of these applications and the impact that they will have on the area’. Applicants of projects of this scale are required to undertake an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and produce an Environmental Statement (ES). As part of the EIA process, the Applicant is required to undertake a cumulative effects assessment. National Policy Statements provide the primary basis for making NSIP decisions. The Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy (EN-1) states at paragraph 4.2.5 that: ‘When considering cumulative effects, the ES should provide information on how the effects of the applicant’s proposal would combine and interact with the effects of other development (including projects for which consent has been sought or granted, as well as those already in existence)’. EN-1 can be found on this link: [attachment 1] It is likely that a draft form of the cumulative effects assessment will be, or has been published by the Applicant at the pre-application stage for comment, as part of their statutory consultation (within their Preliminary Environmental Information report). For more information on cumulative effects assessment, I have provided a link to the Planning Inspectorate’s advice note 17: [attachment 2] Each NSIP application can be found under the ‘Projects’ section of our website: [attachment 3]. You can sign up for email updates on the individual project specific webpages for any application you are interested in. To ensure your views are read by an Examining Authority, you will need to register as an Interested Party for each application at the appropriate stage. If an application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate and subsequently accepted to proceed to examination, you will have the opportunity to make comments about the merits of the Proposed Development to an appointed Examining Authority. To do this, you will need to register as an Interested Party by making a Relevant Representation at the appropriate time for each NSIP application you are interested in. You will have a minimum of 28 days to register as an Interested Party and can do so on the project specific webpage. For more information about how and when you can have your say, please see our Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination: [attachment 4] I hope you have found the above information to be helpful.

Burton by Lincoln Parish Council - anon.

For Attn of The Planning Inspector Good Afternoon, Burton by Lincoln Parish Council have been advised of the above planning projects which are to come before the Planning Inspectorate. The Parish Council are concerned about the nature of these applications and the impact that they will have on the area. We therefore would wish the attached document be put before the Planning Inspector for their consideration when dealing with these applications. As the same concerns relate to all applications as they are similar in nature, we would forward it in relation to all in one email rather than individual responses. We trust that this approach is acceptable. If you have any queries please do not hesitate to be in contact. Kind regards.
Thank you for your email. The Planning Inspectorate administers the Planning Act 2008 process prior to the relevant Government department making the final decisions on Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP) applications. As the solar NSIP applications proposals are still at the pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 process, we strongly advise you to provide your comments on the proposals directly to the Applicants, at this stage. Responding to an Applicant’s pre-application consultation is the best way to influence a proposal, as the Applicant has a duty to have regard to responses to statutory pre-application consultation, ahead of submitting their application to the Planning Inspectorate. I note from your correspondence that ‘The Parish Council are concerned about the nature of these applications and the impact that they will have on the area’. Applicants of projects of this scale are required to undertake an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and produce an Environmental Statement (ES). As part of the EIA process, the Applicant is required to undertake a cumulative effects assessment. National Policy Statements provide the primary basis for making NSIP decisions. The Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy (EN-1) states at paragraph 4.2.5 that: ‘When considering cumulative effects, the ES should provide information on how the effects of the applicant’s proposal would combine and interact with the effects of other development (including projects for which consent has been sought or granted, as well as those already in existence)’. EN-1 can be found on this link: [attachment 1] It is likely that a draft form of the cumulative effects assessment will be, or has been published by the Applicant at the pre-application stage for comment, as part of their statutory consultation (within their Preliminary Environmental Information report). For more information on cumulative effects assessment, I have provided a link to the Planning Inspectorate’s advice note 17: [attachment 2] Each NSIP application can be found under the ‘Projects’ section of our website: [attachment 3]. You can sign up for email updates on the individual project specific webpages for any application you are interested in. To ensure your views are read by an Examining Authority, you will need to register as an Interested Party for each application at the appropriate stage. If an application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate and subsequently accepted to proceed to examination, you will have the opportunity to make comments about the merits of the Proposed Development to an appointed Examining Authority. To do this, you will need to register as an Interested Party by making a Relevant Representation at the appropriate time for each NSIP application you are interested in. You will have a minimum of 28 days to register as an Interested Party and can do so on the project specific webpage. For more information about how and when you can have your say, please see our Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination: [attachment 4] I hope you have found the above information to be helpful.

Burton by Lincoln Parish Council - anon.

Project update meeting.
Please see attached.

Associated British Ports - anon.

General discussion on submission following previous discussion in October 2020.

Thames Crossing Action Group - anon.

Project update meeting - Draft document feedback
Please see attached.

Tritax Symmetry (Hinckley) Limited - anon.

Project update meeting.
Please see attached.

East West Railway Company Limited - anon.

Project Update Meeting
Please see attached.

Chrysaor Production (U.K.) Limited - anon.

Project update meeting.
Please see attached.

National Grid Electricity Transmission (NGET) - anon.

Project update meeting.
Please see attached.

National Grid Electricity Transmission (NGET) - anon.

Project Inception Meeting
See attached meeting note

Photovolt Development Partners (PVDP) - anon.

Meeting - Educational Session on the NSIP Process. Please see attached.
Please see attached.

Parish and District Councils - anon.

Project update meeting.
Please see attached.

National Grid Electricity Transmission (NGET) - anon.

I am writing to raise a query on the potential examinations for the three offshore wind farm projects being proposed in the Irish Sea - Morgan, Morecambe and Mona. The three projects are currently working on their Navigation Risk Assessments (Hazard Identification workshops are being held next week) and whilst their applications to PINS are still a long way off, I wanted to raise an early concern that (1) the three projects present concerns to safe navigation in the area and (2) I believe that three separate planning examinations would not provide a full representation of the impacts because of the risks they present cumulatively which probably the most important concern for MCA and other navigational stakeholders. Is there scope within the examination/decision-making process for assessing the potential impacts of all three projects in one examination or does it confine us to three examinations?
It is for the Applicants to decide when to submit their applications, therefore with different submission dates and different applicants there is little scope for combined Examinations or hearing sessions. I would suggest you contact the Applicants and raise your concerns with them. As all three projects are in the pre-application stage the MCA have the opportunity to provide clear advice to the Applicants on how to assess cumulative effects robustly.

Maritime and Coastguard Agency - anon.

Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

National Grid Carbon (NGC) - anon.

Inception Meeting - 05 October 2022.
Please see attached.

Anglian Water Limited - anon.

Inception Meeting - 05 October 2022.
Please see attached.

Anglian Water Limited - anon.

Meeting note including comments and advice regarding draft Application documents
Please see attached.

National Highways - anon.

Please see attached.
Please see attached.

National Highways - anon.

Project update meeting.
Please see attached.

National Grid Electricity Transmission (NGET) - anon.

Project Update Meeting
Please see attached Meeting Note

Tritax Symmetry (Hinckley) Limited

Project Update Meeting - 30 September 2022.
Please see attached.

Low Carbon, Island Green Power, and Tribus Energy - anon.

Project Update Meeting - 30 September 2022.
Please see attached.

Low Carbon, Island Green Power and Tribus Energy - anon.

Project Update Meeting - 30 September 2023.
Please see attached.

Low Carbon, Island Green Power and Tribus Energy - anon.

Project Update Meeting - 30 September 2022.
Please see attached.

Low Carbon, Island Green Power, and Tribus Energy - anon.

Project Meeting Note
Please see attached

Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council and Kent Cou - anon.

Project Meeting Note
Please see attached

Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council and Kent Cou - anon.

Please see attached.
Please see attached.

National Highways - anon.

Project update meeting and comments on draft documents
Please see attached.

Anglian Water Services Limited - anon.

Tripartite Meeting Part Two.
Please see attached.

National Highways and some Local Authorities - anon.

Tripartite Meeting Part One.
Please see attached.

Some Local Authorities impacted by the scheme - anon.

Tripartite Meeting Part Two
Please see attached.

National Highways and some Local Authorities - anon.

Tripartite Meeting Part One.
Please see attached.

Some Local Authorities impacted by the scheme - anon.

Please see attached
Please see attached

O.C.O Technology Limited

Project Update Meeting
Please see attached Meeting Note

Associated British Ports (ABP)

Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

Gatwick Airport Limited (GAL) - anon.

During the meeting between the Applicant and the Planning Inspectorate on 16 September 2022, the Applicant queried how socio-economic effects from diminution in property value had been addressed through scoping for other similar projects. Please note that a meeting note of the meeting held on 16 September 2022 has been published on the s51 advice tab of the project webpage
In response to your query about property values, I had a look at Heathrow and Luton and whilst for Luton, the topic of property prices has not [been] addressed through scoping, Heathrow had mentioned providing financial compensation to households to reduce any adverse effects. The Inspectorate requested that the ES demonstrates how this reduces adverse effects. I would recommend looking at guidance as I said, both for human health and for socio-economics as hopefully this can provide some sort of steer. Here is a link to the Heathrow Scoping Opinion and Scoping Report page on our website: [attachment 1];amp;stage=1&filter1=Environmental+Impact+Assessment+Scoping Ultimately, the Inspectorate requires the ES to provide evidence sufficient to support the Applicant’s position on the matter and where possible, methodologies should be agreed with the relevant consultation bodies and supported by appropriate guidance

Gatwick Airport Limited - anon.

Project Update Meeting including Draft Documents feedback.
Please see attached.

SSE Slough Multifuel Limited - anon.

Project Inception Meeting.
Please see attached.

National Grid Ventures - anon.

Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

National Grid Interconnector Holdings Limited - anon.

Draft document review and project update meeting.
Please see attached.

National Grid Electricity Transmission (NGET) - anon.

Please see attached.
Please see attached.

National Highways - anon.

Please see attached.
Please see attached.

West Burton Solar Project Limited & Cottam Solar Project Limited

Please see attached.
Please see attached.

West Burton Solar Project Limited & Cottam Solar Project Limited

Project update meeting.
Please see attached.

Five Estuaries Ltd - anon.

Project Inception Meeting
Please see attached

National Highways - anon.

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

WisWIN - Wisbech Without Incineration - Tom Howlett

Project update meeting.
Please see attached.

Southern Water - anon.

If an Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Opinion issued by the Inspectorate asks for surveys that had not been requested by Statutory Consultees and are felt to be unnecessary by the Developers Ecological Advisors, how can this be challenged?
An issued Scoping Opinion cannot be amended and therefore suitable argumentation for exclusion would need to be included in the Environmental Statement. In the event that this does not adequately justify exclusion it is possible that the Environmental Statement would not be seen to be adequate and not be accepted.

Stantec on behalf of the applicant - Ben Lewis

Project update meeting for Morgan and Morecambe Offshore Wind Farms
Please see attached.

Flotation Energy, Cobra, bp, EnBW - anon.

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

Ecotricity - anon.

Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

Ecotricity - anon.

Project Update Meeting
Please see attached.

National Grid - anon.

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

Borough Council of King’s Lynn and West Norfolk

Please see attached.
Please see attached.

National Highways - anon.

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

on behalf of Fountain Frozen Limited - Fraser Dawbarns LLP

Meeting with BDB Pitmans & DFDS
Please see note and presentation attached.

BDB Pitmans on behalf of DFDS

Diweddariad ar y Prosiect - Project Update Meeting
Gweler ynghlwm - Please see attached

Liverpool Bay CCS Limited - anon.

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

Hertfordshire County Council - Christopher Stanek

Submission Received from Stephen Barclay MP during the Acceptance Period
Please see The Inspectorate's response attached

Rt Hon Stephen Barclay MP

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

Tom Howlett

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

Borough Council of King’s Lynn and West Norfolk and West Norfolk

Developer Introduction and Project Inception Meeting.
Please see attached.

JBM Solar - anon.

phone enquiry
Thank you for your phone enquiry on 15 August. Please note that we will publish the dates within which you can register and submit your comments on our website (likely to start on 30 August). Registration is open for a minimum of 30 days. You may find it helpful to subscribe to receive email updates on the project website. For further guidance on how to register to participate in an Examination please see [attachment 1] I hope you find the above information useful.

WisWIN - Wisbech Without Incineration - Virginia Bucknor

Project Update Meeting
Please see attached meeting note

Environment Agency and Surrey County Council

Comments on the draft Statement of Community Consultation
Please see attached

Total Energies and Corio Generation - anon.

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

BDB Pitmans on behalf of DFDS

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

Newark and Sherwood District Council - anon.

Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

Mallard Pass Solar Farm Limited - anon.

Log of Advice provided to Representatives of the host Local Authorities through Meetings between 10 September 2021 and 5 May 2022.
Please see attached.

Local Authorities - anon.

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

Office of the Rt. Hon Elizabeth Truss MP - Liz Truss

Inception Meeting
Please see attached.

Gatroben Developments 2 Limited - anon.

Please see attached.
Please see attached.

SSE Slough Multifuel Limited - anon.

Log of Advice provided to Applicant (National Highways) through Project Meetings between 17 September 2020 and 31 May 2022.
Please see attached

National Highways

Please see attached.
Please see attached.

West Burton Solar Project Limited & Cottam Solar Project Limited

Please see attached.
Please see attached.

West Burton Solar Project Limited & Cottam Solar Project Limited

Project Update Meeting
Please see attached.

London Resort Company Holdings - anon.

Inception Meeting Note
Please see attached

Prologis, Lichfields - anon.

Project Update Meeting
Please see attached.

National Grid Electricity Transmission (NGET) - anon.

Inception Meeting
Please see attached.

Boom Power - anon.

Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

Oxfordshire Rail freight Ltd - anon.

Dear Planning Inspectorate After paying a visit to your website and reading the key points discussed at a meeting that you held with National Highways on 20 May 2022, and after reviewing the online scoping document/diagram, it prompted me to write this email to you and attach my document, entitled, ‘Arundel solution: The Truth’. I appreciate that these meetings maybe normal events leading up to an ‘Applicants’ DCO submission, and that the merits of any scheme will not be considered until at least the pre-examination stage after submission, but given there are discussions at these meetings - albeit at a high-level - about aspects of the proposal and on aspects that the ‘Applicants’ documents need to make clear, I felt it only appropriate that you would want to ensure that there was some balance provided for these pre-submission discussions and information made available on your website. If you choose not to read my report ahead of the pre-examination stage - which will be very disappointing and worrying with respect to procedural fairness - please at the very least publish my document on your web-site. This way it can be made available for all interested parties as we wait for National Highways to submit their A27 Arundel solution proposition. I will, of course, make a separate ‘Relevant Representation’ at Development Consent Order (DCO) submission time. Kind regards
Dear Mr Hammond, Thank you for your e-mail in relation to the proposed A27 Arundel Bypass project on 19 July 2022. Please accept our apologies for the delayed response to your e-mail. The A27 Arundel Bypass project is currently in the Pre-Application stage. The developer has indicated that an application is expected to be submitted to the Planning Inspectorate in Summer/Autumn, 2022. Please note that the Pre-application consultation process is led by the developer, and the Planning Inspectorate’s role at this stage of the process is to provide advice to Applicants and others under section 51 of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008), which we have a duty to publish. The developer is responsible for ensuring that it complies with the legislative requirements surrounding consultation, which are set out in the PA2008. This includes a legal requirement for the developer to consult with Statutory Bodies, affected communities and persons with an interest in the land. Your e-mails provide your comments on the merits of the Proposed Development, which the developer is seeking during pre-application. As such, if you have not already done so, it is important that you make these comments directly to the developer. For further information, please see our advice note 8.1 on Responding to the developers pre-application consultation. In particular, paragraph 7.4 which explains how you can raise any concerns about the developer’s pre application consultation. As you may be aware, the developer has recently carried out its public consultation. It is understood, from the developer’s website, that the deadline for consultation responses was 8 March 2022 at 23:59pm. You can make general enquiries about this with the via the following contact details: Phone: 0300 123 500 Email: [email protected] When an application is formally submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, an assessment is made on whether it is of a satisfactory standard to proceed to Examination. One key element of this assessment is to check whether the Applicant has fulfilled its statutory consultation duties. In order to help make an informed decision on this matter the Inspectorate writes to all host and neighbouring local authorities for their views on the adequacy of consultation carried out. You can contact the local authority if you are concerned that the Applicant has not complied with its duties in relation to consultation under the PA2008. The Applicant is also statutorily required to demonstrate in its submitted application where they have shown regard to responses received during their period of statutory consultation. If the Application is accepted for Examination, you will be able to register as an Interested Party and make a Relevant Representation; Please read our Advice Note 8.2 on How to Register to participate in an Examination for further information. Once an Examining Authority is appointed, it will make an initial assessment of the issues arising from the submitted application as well as from the Relevant Representations received, which will contribute to the Examination of the proposed development. In order to assist parties in understanding the Planning Act 2008 process, the Planning Inspectorate has prepared a suite of Advice Notes, which are available on our website. The Advice Note 8 series provide an overview of the examination of Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects for members of the public. Hopefully you will find these of assistance. You may wish to note that the Planning Inspectorate has set up a project page for the A27 Arundel Bypass project where documents received and issued during the course of the Examination will be published. Hopefully this e-mail is of assistance but if you require any further information please do not hesitate to contact us. Your correspondence will be kept on file and a copy of this advice will be published on the project specific webpage under the section 51 advice tab. While common practice is for documents such as the one you submitted, to be submitted as part of a relevant representation, we do appreciate that other documents have been published on the website as part of our Section 51 advice responses for the A27 Arundel Bypass project. Therefore, I can confirm that we will be publishing our response to you and your document in due course. There will be a slight delay while we double check the document (and any additional embedded documents) to ensure that any redactions are applied as appropriate. In particular this is to ensure GDPR compliance. Our Case Administration Team will endeavour to complete this as quickly as possible. Kind Regards

Peter Hammond

Please see attached.
Please see attached.

Equinor - anon.

Project Update Meeting
Please see attached.

National Highways - anon.

Project Inception Meeting.
Please see attached.

Alfanar Energy Limited - anon.

Project Inception Meeting.
Please see attached.

Alfanar Energy Limited - anon.

Project update meeting.
Please see attached.

Highways England - anon.

Project update meeting.
Please see attached.

Highways England - anon.

Please see attached.
Please see attached.

Associated British Ports (ABP) - anon.

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

Messing and Inworth Action Group Limited - Andrew Harding

Project Inception Meeting.
Please see attached.

Tillbridge Solar Limited - anon.

Report on the condition of surrounding roads.
Please see attached.

Messing Action Group - Andrew Harding

Response from Messing-Cum-Inworth Parish Council to the virtual meeting and the Supplementary Consultation.
Please see attached.

Mary Lindsay

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

WisWIN - Wisbech Without Incineration - Virginia Bucknor

Project update meeting
Please see attached meeting note

London Luton Airport Limited

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

Cambridgeshire County Council

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

7000 Acres - anon.

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

7000 Acres - anon.

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

7000 Acres - anon.

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

7000 Acres - anon.

Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

National Grid Electricity Transmission (NGET) - anon.

Project update meeting.
Please see attached.

Corio Generation and Tota lEnergies - anon.

Project update meeting.
Please see attached.

Anglian Water Services Limited - anon.

Project update meeting.
Please see attached .

Tritax Symmetry (Hinckley) Limited - anon.

Please see attached.
Please see attached.

National Highways - anon.

Advice following issue of decision to accept the application for examination
Please see attached

The North Lincolnshire Green Energy Park Limited - anon.

Please see attached.
Please see attached.

David Jarvis Associates, OCO Technology Limited and SECNewgate

Please see attached.
Please see attached.

National Grid Carbon (NGC) - anon.

Advice following issue of decision to accept the application for examination.
Please see attached.

Drax Power Limited - anon.

Please see attached.
Please see attached.

National Grid Electricity Transmission - anon.

Please see attached.
Please see attached.

National Grid Ventures (NGV) - anon.

Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

HyNet North West Hydrogen Pipeline - anon.

Adolygiad o'r ddogfennau ddrafft a chyfarfod diweddaru'r prosiect – Draft documents review and project update meeting
Gweler yr atodiad - Please see attached

Liverpool Bay CCS Limited - anon.

Project Update Meeting
Please see attached.

National Highways - anon.

General discussion of the application and re-submission

Kent County Council - anon.

Draft Documents Feedback and Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

Equinor - anon.

Project Update Meeting
Please see attached.

Southern Water Services Limited - anon.

Please see attached.
Please see attached.

Associated British Ports (ABP) - anon.

Discussion on Trial Trenching Requirements
Please see attached.

Island Green Power and Low Carbon - anon.

Discussion on Trial Trenching Requirements
Please see attached.

Island Green Power and Low Carbon - anon.

Discussion on Trial Trenching Requirements
Please see attached.

Island Green Power and Low Carbon - anon.

Project update meeting.
Please see attached.

BP/EnBW - anon.

Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

Ecotricity - anon.

Please see attached.
Please see attached.

National Highways - anon.

Update Meeting on Costs Applications.
Please see Attached.

Wellers Law Group - anon.

Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

National Highways - anon.

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

Say No To Sunnica Action Group Ltd - Andrew Munro

Project update meeting.
Please see attached.

West Burton Solar Project Limited and Cottam Solar - anon.

Project update meeting.
Please see attached.

West Burton Solar Project Limited and Cottam Solar - anon.

Secretary of State Direction.
Please see attached.

Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs - anon.

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

Terling and Fairstead Parish Council - anon.

Please see attached.
Please see attached.

Flotation Energy - anon.

Project Update Meeting
Please see attached.

Gloucestershire County Council - anon.

Project Update Meeting
Please see attached.

Gate Burton Energy Park Ltd - anon.

Project Meeting Note
Please see attached.

London Borough of Havering - anon.

Project Meeting Note.
Please see attached.

Gravesham Borough Council - anon.

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

Borough Council of King’s Lynn and West Norfolk - Hannah Wood-Handy

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

WisWIN - Wisbech Without Incineration - Virginia Bucknor

Project Update Meeting
Please see attached.

National Grid Carbon (NGC) - anon.

Project Update Meeting - Draft Documents Feedback
Please see attached.

National Highways - anon.

Project update Meeting
Please see attached

National Highways - anon.

Cyngor ar ôl cyhoeddi penderfyniad i dderbyn y cais i’w archwilio/ Advice following issue of decision to accept the application for examination
Gweler yr atodiad - Please see attached

Awel y Môr Offshore Wind Farm Limited - anon.

Please see attached.
Please see attached.

NNB Generation Company HPC Limited - anon.

Project update meeting by telecon
Please see attached meeting note

Rampion Extension Development Limited - anon.

Project update meeting.
Please see attached.

National Highways - anon.

Project Meeting Note.
Please see attached.

Thurrock Council - anon.

Please see attached - Applicant requesting progress Letter.
Please see attached.

O.C.O Technology Limited - anon.

Please see attached from Essex County Council, Braintree District Council and Chelmsford City Council.
Please see attached.

Essex County Council, Braintree District Council - anon.

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

Stop the Arundel Bypass Alliance (SAB Alliance). - anon.

Project Update Meeting
Please see attached Meeting Note

Associated British Ports (ABP)

Project Update Meeting
Please see attached.

National Grid Electricity Transmission (NGET) - anon.

Project Update Meeting
See attached

Gate Burton Energy Park Ltd - anon.

Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

National Highways - anon.

GATCOM Meeting
Please see attached link to the Planning Inspectorate’s presentation to the GATCOM meeting on 28 April 2022. Please note that the presentation was not intended to cover all aspects of the overarching Planning Act 2008 process. [attachment 1]

Gatwick Airport Consultative Committee (GATCOM) - anon.

Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

Highways England - anon.

Project update meeting
Please see attached meeting note

London Luton Airport Limited

An Inception Meeting took place on 25th April 2022
Please see the attached.

National Grid Ventures - anon.

Please see attached.
Please see attached.

Anglian Water - anon.

Project Update Meeting
Please see attached.

Anglian Water - anon.

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

WisWIN - Wisbech Without Incineration - Virginia Bucknor

We note that paragraph 31 of 'Award of costs: examination of applications for development consent orders' Guidance (the Guidance) refers to an application for an award of costs needing to be received by the Inspectorate at its main address. Is it acceptable for us to submit a costs application by email only to this address? Would that then be treated as having been received by the Inspectorate at its main address?
The Planning Inspectorate is aware that the 2013 advice in relation to costs states that applications should be made in writing to Temple Quay House. The Planning Inspectorate confirms that costs applications sent by email are acceptable.

Dentons UK and Middle East LLP

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

Mr Haas

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

Drax Power Limited - anon.

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

Drax Power Limited - anon.

Project Update Meeting
Please see attached.

National Grid - anon.

Comments by the Planning Inspectorate on the Environmental Statement (ES)
Please see attached

North Lincolnshire Green Energy Park Limited Limited

Project Update Meeting
Please see attached.

National Grid Ventures (NGV) - anon.

Project Update Meeting
Please see attached.

National Grid Electricity Transmission - anon.

Diweddariad ar y Prosiect - Project Update Meeting
Gweler ynghlwm - Please see attached

Liverpool Bay CCS Limited - anon.

Diweddariad ar y Prosiect - Project Update Meeting
Gweler ynghlwm - Please see attached

Liverpool Bay CCS Limited - anon.

Please see attached meeting note

London Resort Company Holdings

Chyfarfod diweddaru'r prosiect - Project update meeting
Gweler yr atodiad - Please see attached

BP/ EnBW - anon.

Project update meeting for Morgan and Mona Offshore Wind Farms
Please see attached

BP/ EnBW - anon.

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

Littlehampton Town Council - Juliet Harris

Inception Meeting
Please see attached.

National Grid Electricity Transmission (NGET) - anon.

Project update meeting
Please see attached

SSE Slough Multifuel Limited - anon.

Please see attached.
Please see attached.

National Highways - anon.

Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

Mallard Pass Solar Farm Limited - anon.

Project Update Meeting
Please see attached.

National Highways - anon.

Draft Document Feedback
Please see attached draft document feedback table.

Drax Power Limited - anon.

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

WisWIN - Tom Howlett

Inception Meeting
Please see attached

Enso Energy - anon.

Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

West Burton Solar Project Limited and Cottam Solar - anon.

Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

West Burton Solar Project Limited and Cottam Solar - anon.

Test
Test

Test - Test Test

Project Update Meeting
Please see attached.

Southern Water Services Limited - anon.

I note you have mentioned raising concerns at the AoC stage. As GATCOM is not a Local Authority, does this apply?
Please see attached.

Gatwick Airport Consultative Committee (GATCOM) - anon.

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

Gatwick Airport Consultative Committee (GATCOM) - anon.

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

Gatwick Airport Consultative Committee (GATCOM) - anon.

Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

National Highways - anon.

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

Hatch Beauchamp Parish Council - anon.

Project Update Meeting - 8 March 2022
Please see attached

Gloucestershire County Council - anon.

Project Update Meeting
Please see attached.

Ecotricity (Heck Fen Solar) Limited - anon.

Project Update Meeting
Please see attached.

National Highways - anon.

Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

Gate Burton Energy Park Ltd - anon.

Adolygiad o'r ddogfennau ddrafft a chyfarfod diweddaru'r prosiect – Draft documents review and project update meeting
Gweler yr atodiad - Please see attached

Awel y Môr Offshore Wind Farm Limited - anon.

Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

National Highways - anon.

Project Update Meeting
Please see attached Meeting Note

Associated British Ports (ABP)

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

Natural England - Patrick McKernan

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

Quod - Matthew Sharpe

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

Wellers Law Group - Teresa Johnston

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

Gravesham Borough Council - Tony Chadwick

Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

National Highways - anon.

Inception Meeting
Please see attached

O.C.O Technology Limited - anon.

Please see attached.
Please see attached.

National Highways - anon.

Project update meeting
Please see attached

National Grid Carbon - anon.

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

Middleton-on- Sea Coastal Alliance 'MOSCA' - Melanie Jones

Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

Gatwick Airport Limited (GAL) - anon.

Project Update Meeting
Please see attached Meeting Note

Medworth CHP Limited

Project Update meeting.
Please see attached.

Oxfordshire Railfreight Limited - anon.

Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

Cobra Instalaciones y Servicios S.A. and Flotation - anon.

Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

Longfield Solar Energy Farm Limited - anon.

Phone call with Thurrock Council
General discussion of matters relating to LTC, including: • Upcoming consultation • Effect on local road network • Tilbury link road

Thurrock Council

Phone call with Thurrock Council
General discussion of matters relating to LTC, including: • Upcoming consultation • Effect on local road network • Tilbury link road

Thurrock Council

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

Crawley Borough Council - anon.

Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

Drax Power Limited - anon.

Project update meeting
Please see attached meeting note

Green Investment Group and Total Energies - anon.

Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

Highways England - anon.

Project update meeting
Please see attached meeting note

London Luton Airport Limited

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

Nigel Morgan

Project Update Meeting
See attached Document

National Highways - anon.

Meeting Note
Please see attached.

Chrysaor Production (UK) Limited - anon.

Morecambe and Morgan consent strategy - Update meeting
Please see attached

Cobra Instalaciones Servicios, S.A. and Flotation - anon.

Please see attached

Equinor - anon.

Morecambe and Morgan consent strategy - Update meeting
Please see attached

Flotation Energy, Cobra, bp, EnBW - anon.

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

Harwich Harbour Fishermen’s Association - Trevor Armstrong

Inception Meeting Note
See attached

Cadent Gas - anon.

Please see attached

West Burton Solar Project Limited and Cottam Solar - anon.

Project Update meeting, 11 January 2022
Please see attached

West Burton Solar Project Limited and Cottam Solar - anon.

Project Update Meeting
Please see attached Meeting Note

Tritax Symmetry (Hinckley) Limited

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

Tritax Symmetry (Hinckley) Limited - anon.

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

Offshore Wind - anon.

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

Clenchwarton and King’s Lynn South - Cllr Alexandra Kemp

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

Robert Burrough and Peter Gregory - anon.

Project update meeting
Please see attached

National Grid Electricity Transmission (NGET) - anon.

Phone call with Thurrock Council
General discussion of matters relating to LTC, namely: • Tilbury Fields, relationship with Tilbury/Thames Freeport Proposals and the delivery of Tilbury Link Road • key traffic modelling • use of s106 agreements in DCO process • progress on issues • progress on Hatch Report Recommendations • Approach to carbon

Thurrock Council – anon - anon.

Phone call with Thurrock Council
General discussion of matters relating to LTC, namely: • Tilbury Fields, relationship with Tilbury/Thames Freeport Proposals and the delivery of Tilbury Link Road • key traffic modelling • use of s106 agreements in DCO process • progress on issues • progress on Hatch Report Recommendations • Approach to carbon

Thurrock Council – anon - anon.

Project update meeting
Please see attached

National Grid Carbon - anon.

Project Update Meeting
Please see attached.

Windell Energy - anon.

Section 51 Meeting Note 14 December 2021
Please see attached

National Highways - anon.

Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

Anglian Water - anon.

Section 51 advice regarding draft application documents submitted by Longfield Solar Energy Farm Limited.
Please see attached.

Longfield Solar Energy Farm Limited - anon.

Project Update Meeting
Please see attached.

Ecotricity (Heck Fen Solar) Limited - anon.

Draft Document review - Please see attached
Please see attached

National Highways - anon.

Project Update Meeting - Diweddariad ar y Prosiect
Please see attached - Gweler ynghlwm

Liverpool Bay CCS Limited - anon.

Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

Highways England - anon.

Inception Meeting
Please see attached.

GL Hearn - Neil Chester

Update Meeting
Please see attached.

Five Estuaries Offshore Wind Farm Ltd - anon.

Inception Meeting
Please see attached meeting note

Environment Agency and Surrey County Council

Project Update Meeting
Please see attached.

National Highways - anon.

Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

Highways England - anon.

Project update meeting
Please see attached.

North Falls Offshore Wind Farm Ltd - anon.

Inception meeting
Please see attached.

National Grid Electricity Transmission - anon.

Project Update Meeting
Please see attached.

Southern Water Services Limited - anon.

Enquiry received for Rt Hon Grant Shapps MP, the Secretary of State for Transport. Please see attached for details.
Please see attached

Charles March

Inception Meeting.
Please see attached.

Evolution Power Ltd - anon.

Project Update meeting.
Please see attached.

Oxfordshire Railfreight Limited - anon.

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

Sandra Betts

Inception Meeting
Please see attached meeting note.

Indaver Rivenhall Ltd - anon.

Project update meeting.

National Highways - anon.

Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

Associated British Ports (ABP)

Diweddariad ar y prosiect cyfarfod - Project update meeting
Gweler yr atodiad - Please see attached

Awel y Môr Offshore Wind Farm Limited - anon.

Project progress update meeting for the Hinkley Point C material change application.
Please see attached.

NNB Generation Company (HPC) Limited - anon.

Project Update Meeting
Please see attached.

National Highways - anon.

Supplementary consultation update meeting.
Please see attached.

National Highways - anon.

Project inception meeting
Please see attached.

Low Carbon - anon.

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

Sharon Scott

Please see attached.
Please see attached.

Ørsted Hornsea Project Four Limited

Project Update Meeting
Please see attached Meeting Note

Medworth CHP Limited

Please see attached.
Please see attached.

Ørsted

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

Michael Mahony

Draft document review and Project update meeting
Please see attached

North Lincolnshire Green Energy Park Limited - anon.

Project update meeting
Please see attached

Oaklands Solar Farm Ltd - anon.

Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

Highways England - anon.

Project Update Meeting
Please see attached.

Sunnica Energy Farm - anon.

Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

National Grid Electricity Transmission (NGET) - anon.

Project update meeting.
Please see attached.

Gloucestershire County Council - anon.

Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

SSE Slough Multifuel Limited - anon.

Inception meeting note
Please see attached

West Burton Solar Project Limited and Cottam Solar Project Limited

Inception meeting note
Please see attached

West Burton Solar Project Limited and Cottam Solar Project Limited

Project update meeting
Please see attached Meeting Note

Oikos Marine and South Side Development

Nodyn cyfarfod sefydlu - Inception meeting note
Gweler yr atodiad - Please see attached

Mona Offshore Wind Limited - anon.

Inception Meeting
Please see attached

bp / EnBW - anon.

Inception meeting
Please see attached meeting note

Green Investment Group and Total Energies - anon.

Tripartite meeting between PINS, LTC and some of the LAs impacted by the scheme
Please see attached.

National Highways and various Local Authorities - anon.

Project update meeting.
Please see attached.

National Highways (the Applicant) - anon.

Project Inception Meeting.
Please see attached.

Mallard Pass Solar - anon.

Project update meeting
Please see attached meeting note

London Luton Airport Limited

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

Free Poultry - Nigel Free

Inception Meeting
Please see attached.

Ridge Clean Energy and Engena LTD - anon.

Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

Drax Power Ltd - anon.

Project update meeting.
Please see attached.

National Grid Carbon - anon.

Project inception meeting.
Please see the attached note.

RWE Renewables UK Ltd - anon.

Project Update Meeting
Please see attached.

Equinor - anon.

Project update meeting
Please see attached

North Lincolnshire Green Energy Park Limited - anon.

Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

National Highways - anon.

Project Update Meeting
Please see attached.

Highways England - anon.

Project Update Meeting
Please see attached Meeting Note

Net Zero Teesside Power Limited and Net Zero North Sea Storage Limited

Please see attached.
Please see attached.

Anglian Water - anon.

Inception Meeting
Please see attached meeting note.

Offshore Wind Limited (OWL) - anon.

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

Gatwick Area Conservation Campaign - anon.

S51 Advice on draft versions of drawing layouts - A51 Cyngor ar fersiynau drafft o osodiadau lluniadau
Please see attached - Gweler ynghlwm

ENI, Progressive Energy Limited, WSP - anon.

Project update meeting
Please see attached

anon.

Project update meeting
See attached.

East West Rail Company Limited - anon.

Project update meeting
Please see attached.

National Highways - anon.

Advice following issue of decision not to accept the application for examination
Please see attached

Augean South Limited

Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

Highways England - anon.

Note of project meetings that took place with the Applicant on 19 and 25 August 2021
Please see attached.

Augean South Limited - anon.

Project Update Meeting
Please see attached.

National Grid Ventures - anon.

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

Brian and Eileen Oliver

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

Barford and Wramplingham Parish Council - Sandra Betts

Project Update Meeting
Please see attached.

Highways England - anon.

Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

Gatwick Airport Limited - anon.

Various Enquiries received for Rt Hon Grant Shapps MP, the Secretary of State for Transport. Please see attached for details.
Please see pages 20 and 21 of the attached

Various Enquiries

Please see attached.
Please see attached.

Ørsted Hornsea Project Four Limited - anon.

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

Various Enquiries

Inception Meeting
Please see attached.

Corey Group - anon.

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

Various Enquiries

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

Andrew Boswell

Project update meeting.
Please see attached.

North Lincolnshire Green Energy Park Limited - anon.

Project Update Meeting - Diweddariad ar y Prosiect
Please see attached - Gweler ynghlwm

ENI, Progressive Energy Limited, WSP - anon.

Project Update Meeting
Please see attached.

National Highways - anon.

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

Mr Haas - anon.

Project Meeting Update.
Please see attached.

Highways England - anon.

Project Meeting Update.
Please see attached.

Highways England - anon.

s51 advice issued to Grant Schapps
Please see attached.

Mr Grant Schapps MP - anon.

Inception meeting
Please see attached.

Associated British Ports (ABP)

Please see attached
Following the decision to accept the application the Inspectorate issued the following advice. Please see attached

Highways England - anon.

Phone call with Transport for London
To discuss the withdrawal of the application and how the Applicant is working towards resubmission

Transport for London - anon.

Discussion following commencement of the consultation and ahead of the anticipated resubmission, with representatives of Thurrock Council, Gravesham Borough Council, London Borough of Havering, Kent County Council and Essex County Council.
Please see attached meeting note.

Various local authorities - anon.

Please see attached.
Please see attached.

Daniel Wimberley

Project update meeting.
Please see attached.

Longfield Solar Energy Farm Limited - anon.

Please see attached.
Please see attached.

Jo Dagustun

Please see attached.
Please see attached.

CPRE Peak District and South Yorkshire - Anne Robinson

Please see attached.
Please see attached.

Kevin Ludden

Please see attached.
Please see attached.

National Grid Electricity Transmission (NGET) - anon.

Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

Highways England - anon.

Project Meeting Update.
Please see attached.

Highways England - anon.

Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

Oxfordshire Rail freight Ltd - anon.

Please see attached enquiries dated 6 and 16 July 2021.
Please see attached joint response.

CPRE Peak District and South Yorkshire - Anne Robinson

Project update meeting.
Please see attached.

Ørsted Hornsea Project Four Limited - anon.

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

Neil Scarff

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

Anglian Water Services Limited - Darl Sweetland

Project update meeting.
Please see attached.

Oaklands Farm Solar Ltd - anon.

Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

Highways England - anon.

Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

Highways England - anon.

Project update meeting
Please see attached

Oikos Marine and South Side Development (OMSSD)

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

Debbie Bryce

Project update meeting.
Please see attached.

National Grid Carbon - anon.

Project Update Meeting
Please see attached.

Drax Power Limited

Project update meeting
Please see attached meeting note

London Luton Airport Limited - anon.

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

Neil Scarff

Diweddariad ar y prosiect cyfarfod - Project update meeting
Gweler yr atodiad - Please see attached

Awel y Môr Offshore Wind Farm Limited - anon.

Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

Highways England - anon.

Project Update Meeting
Please see attached.

Net Zero Teesside Power Limited and Net Zero North Seas Storage Limited

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

Sue Ritchie

Discussion following the withdrawal of the first application and ahead of the anticipated consultation, with representatives of Thurrock Council, Gravesham Borough Council, London Borough of Havering and Kent County Council.
Please see attached meeting note.

Various local authorities - anon - anon.

Project Inception Meeting
Please see attached.

Southern Water Services Limited - anon.

Pre-submission update meeting 2.
Please see attached.

BDB Pitmans and Able Humber Ports Ltd - anon.

Inception meeting
Please see attached.

SSE Slough Multifuel Limited - anon.

Project Update Meeting
Please see attached.

Highways England - anon.

Project Update and Draft Document Review Meeting
Please see attached Meeting Note

Augean South Limited

Local Authorities: Lunch and Learn session from The Inspectorate.
Please see attached.

Representatives of the host Local Authorities - anon.

Project Update Meeting
Please see attached Meeting Note

Medworth CHP Limited

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

Rt Hon Grant Shapps MP - anon.

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

Mark Dawson

Project update meeting
Please see attached meeting note

Highways England - anon.

Project update meeting by telecon
Please see attached meeting note

Rampion Extension Development Limited - anon.

Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

Ørsted - anon.

Pre-submission update meeting.
Please see attached.

Able Humber Ports Ltd and BDB Pitmans - anon.

Project update meeting
Please see attached.

Highways England - anon.

Project Update Meeting
Please see attached.

Highways England - anon.

Please see attached meeting note.
Please see attached meeting note.

Anglian Water

Meeting with the Applicant – Highways England
Please see attached.

Highways England - anon.

Project update meeting
Please see attached

Oikos Marine and South Side Development (OMSSD) - anon.

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

Natural England - anon.

Project update meeting.
Please see attached.

Gloucestershire County Council - anon.

Please see attached.
Please see attached.

Highways England - anon.

Project update meeting
Please see attached

Bradwell B - anon.

Project Update Meeting & Draft Document Feedback
Please see attached meeting note

Highways England - anon.

Project update meeting
Please see attached.

Five Estuaries Offshore Wind Farm Ltd - anon.

Project update meeting.
Please see attached.

Highways England - anon.

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

Norwich Cycling Campaign - Tony Clarke

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

Norwich Cycling Campaign - Tony Clarke

Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

North Falls Offshore Wind Farm Ltd - anon.

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

Sheila Roberts

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

Alan B Smith Worlington

Project Update Meeting
Please see attached.

National Grid Ventures (NGV) - anon.

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

Anglian Water Services Limited - Jacob Wallace

Project update meeting.
Please see attached.

Highways England - anon.

Project update meeting with the following Local Authorities: Leicestershire County Council, Blaby District Council and Hinckley and Bosworth Borough Council
Presentation on the Planning Act 2008 process

anon.

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

Highways England - anon.

Please see attached.
Please see attached.

Mr Lawrence Haas and Faye Christensen - anon.

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

Stephen Sawkins

Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

National Grid Carbon - anon.

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

Rt Hon Grant Shapps MP - anon.

Advice following issue of decision to Accept the application for Examination
Please see attached

Alternative Use Boston Projects Limited - anon.

Project Update Meeting
Please see attached meeting note.

Highways England - anon.

Draft Document Review and Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

Keadby Generation Limited - anon.

Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

Net Zero Teesside Power Limited and Net Zero North Seas Storage Limited

Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached meeting note.

Oikos Marine and South Side Development (OMSSD) - anon.

Project Update Meeting - Diweddariad ar y Prosiect
Please see attached - Gweler ynghlwm

ENI, Progressive Energy Limited, WSP - anon.

Advice following issue of decision to Accept the application for Examination
Please see attached

Highways England - anon.

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

Andrew Boswell

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

Norfolk County Council - Stephen Faulkner

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

Sills & Betteridge Solicitors

Mr Reeve had been notified by the Planning Inspectorate (the Inspectorate) of a section(s) 53 request for his land and wanted more information about the s53 process and how to respond to the Inspectorate’s request for comments.
The Inspectorate suggested that he read Advice Note 5: Section 53 – Rights of Entry to understand more about the process. In terms of his comments to the Inspectorate: the Inspectorate advised, he provide information and evidence of any correspondence with the Applicant in relation to the s53 request.

Graham Reeve

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

Anna Grace Randlesome

Project update meeting.
Please see attached.

Highways England - anon.

Advice regarding draft Application documents
Please see attached

Sunnica Energy Farm - anon.

Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

BDB Pitmans and Able Humber Ports Ltd - anon.

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

David Pett

Project Update Meeting
Please see attached Meeting Note

Augean plc

Project update meeting between the Inspectorate and Longfield Solar Energy Farm Limited
Please see attached

Longfield Solar Energy Farm Limited - anon.

Review of draft Statement of Community Consultation
Please see attached.

Anglian Water Service Limited

Project update meeting
Please see attached meeting note and appended comments in respect of the Applicant's outline Landscape and Environmental Management Plan (oLEMP), Chapter 12 of the Applicant’s document ”1.3 Introduction to the Application” dated October 2020, and Highways England's Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) standards.

Highways England - anon.

Project update meeting
Please see attached meeting note

NZT Power & NZNS Storage

Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

Alternative Use Boston Projects Limited - anon.

Diweddariad ar y prosiect cyfarfod - Project update meeting
Gweler yr atodiad - Please see attached

Awel y Môr Offshore Wind Farm Limited - anon.

Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

Drax Power Limited - anon.

Project update meeting with the Applicant and the following Local Authorities: Leicestershire County Council, Blaby District Council and Hinckley and Bosworth Borough Council
Please see attached

Tritax Symmetry (Hinckley) Limited - anon.

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