Register of advice

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

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

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

Advice provided between the period between 1 October 2009 and 13 April 2011 has been archived and remains available to view on this spreadsheet.

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

Rail Central Proposal:
[attachment 1]

Northampton Gateway Proposal:
[attachment 2]

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

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

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

[attachment 3]

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

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

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

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

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

Useful Links

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

[attachment 4]

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

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

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

[attachment 5]

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

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

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

Rail Central Proposal:
[attachment 1]

Northampton Gateway Proposal:
[attachment 2]

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

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

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

[attachment 3]

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

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

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

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

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

Useful Links

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

[attachment 4]

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

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

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

[attachment 5]

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

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

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

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

24 May 2018
Nigel Phethean
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
In the attached press article ([attachment 1], National Grid say they have shared 40,000 pages of technical information about the North Wales Connection. I have always meant to estimate how much stuff they have produced but never had the time. However I am sure they are correct. How is the general public supposed to find the time, or technical expertise, to meaningfully engage with such a quantity of information? My understanding of the Planning Act 2008 is that the consultation that is required under the Act is supposed to allow for such engagement. In your advice note nine you state:

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Rampion Offshore Wind Farm: [attachment 2]

• Mynydd y Gwynt Wind Farm: [attachment 3]

• York Potash Harbour Facility: [attachment 4]

• Tees CCPP [attachment 5]

• Manston Airport [attachment 6]

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

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

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

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

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

• [attachment 2]
• [attachment 3]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Can you please clarify:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Upon receipt of a DCO Application, the Planning Inspectorate has 28 days to assess whether an Application can be accepted for Examination. When the Planning Inspectorate accepts an Application for Examination, it is the Applicant’s duty to advertise the Relevant Representation period and provide details about how to register to become an Interested Party. The Relevant Representation period is the time you have to register to become an Interested Party and this is when the form will be made available on the Wylfa project page of our website.

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

09 May 2018
David Kay
Wylfa Newydd Nuclear Power Station
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Dear Mr White

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

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

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

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

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

Refs:
[attachment 1]

[attachment 2]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As the projects have not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate (the Inspectorate), the Inspectorate has no formal powers to intervene on consultees’ behalf and we are therefore not in a position to supervise the statutory consultation process conducted by the Applicant.

I would therefore encourage you to again contact the developer directly to make your concerns heard as the Applicant has a statutory duty to take your views into account. However, if you feel that your comments are not being considered and you need further information, I would advise you to write to your Local Authority (LA) and set out why you think the Applicant is failing to conduct its consultation properly. Your comments will be considered when the LA provides its comments to the Inspectorate on whether the Applicant has fulfilled its consultation duties. The LA’s comments on the Applicant’s consultation will be taken into account when the Acceptance Inspector makes his/ her decision whether to accept the application for examination.

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

The Applicant has scheduled further statutory consultation in June 2018 as per their Statement of Community Consultation, and as part of the DCO process, the Applicant is required to have a regard to all consultation responses which should be later provided in the Consultation Report as part of the DCO application. During the statutory consultation period, the Applicant intends to provide more detailed information on the proposed projects, including the potential Substation Zones.

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

More information is provided in the Planning Inspectorate’s Advice notes:

Advice Note 8: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others

At the current pre-application stage we would recommend especially:

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

Advice Note 8.2. How to register to participate in an Examination

By submitting a Relevant Representation during the pre-examination stage you as an individual and/or on behalf of the Parish Council are in position to highlight particular planning matters such as effects on the local communities in and around Aldringham that you have mentioned in your email.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Refs:
[attachment 1]

[attachment 2]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As the projects have not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate (the Inspectorate), the Inspectorate has no formal powers to intervene on consultees’ behalf and we are therefore not in a position to supervise the statutory consultation process conducted by the Applicant.

I would therefore encourage you to again contact the developer directly to make your concerns heard as the Applicant has a statutory duty to take your views into account. However, if you feel that your comments are not being considered and you need further information, I would advise you to write to your Local Authority (LA) and set out why you think the Applicant is failing to conduct its consultation properly. Your comments will be considered when the LA provides its comments to the Inspectorate on whether the Applicant has fulfilled its consultation duties. The LA’s comments on the Applicant’s consultation will be taken into account when the Acceptance Inspector makes his/ her decision whether to accept the application for examination.

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

The Applicant has scheduled further statutory consultation in June 2018 as per their Statement of Community Consultation, and as part of the DCO process, the Applicant is required to have a regard to all consultation responses which should be later provided in the Consultation Report as part of the DCO application. During the statutory consultation period, the Applicant intends to provide more detailed information on the proposed projects, including the potential Substation Zones.

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

More information is provided in the Planning Inspectorate’s Advice notes:

Advice Note 8: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others

At the current pre-application stage we would recommend especially:

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

Advice Note 8.2. How to register to participate in an Examination

By submitting a Relevant Representation during the pre-examination stage you as an individual and/or on behalf of the Parish Council are in position to highlight particular planning matters such as effects on the local communities in and around Aldringham that you have mentioned in your email.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

27 April 2018
N2RS - Katie Taylor
Norfolk Vanguard
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Query regarding the pre-application consultation
Thank you for your letter of 10 April 2018 raising concerns regarding the pre-application consultation process for the proposed East Anglia ONE North and East Anglia TWO projects.

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

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

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

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

More information is provided in the Planning Inspectorate’s Advice notes Advice Note 8: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others, and at the current pre-application stage we would recommend especially Advice note 8.1. Responding to the developer’s pre-application consultation and Advice Note 8.2. How to register to participate in an Examination.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More information is provided in the Planning Inspectorate’s Advice notes Advice Note 8: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others, and at the current pre-application stage we would recommend especially Advice note 8.1. Responding to the developer’s pre-application consultation and Advice Note 8.2. How to register to participate in an Examination.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

20 April 2018
Theberton and Eastbridge Parish Council - Paul Collins
Sizewell C New Nuclear Power Station
Enquiry received via email
Can you please clarify for me whether local Parish Councils directly affected or in Parishes adjacent to the proposed Sizewell C development are considered by PINS as statutory consultees?

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

relevant”, in relation to a body, shall mean the body which has responsibility for the location where the proposals may or will be sited or has responsibility for an area which neighbours that location.

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

The Relevant Parish Council(s) or Relevant Community Council

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

13 April 2018
Jonathan Dean
North Wales Connection
Enquiry received via phone
response has attachments
At a project update meeting held between IAMP LLP and the Inspectorate on 26 January 2018, the Applicant highlighted a potential need to obtain rights of entry under s53 of the PA2008 in order to access land adjacent to the A19. A seperate telecon was then held on 22 February 2018 to discuss the potential s53 request in more detail.
See attached meeting note.

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

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

Upon receipt of a DCO Application, the Planning Inspectorate has 28 days to assess whether an Application can be accepted for Examination. When the Planning Inspectorate accepts an Application for Examination, it is the Applicant’s duty to advertise the Relevant Representation period and provide details about how to register to become an Interested Party. The Relevant Representation period is the time you have to register to become an Interested Party and this is when the form will be made available on the Wylfa project page of our website.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Acceptance tests

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Acceptance tests

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Acceptance tests

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Acceptance tests

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

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

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

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

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

11 April 2018
Sophie Fowler
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
Query (from Jonathan Dean by email on 5/4/18):

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Inspectorate has published a series of advice notes on the National
Infrastructure planning website which explain the examination process, including information on how to get involved and we would recommend you review the advice notes listed below:
Advice Note 8: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure process for members of the public and others;
Advice Note 8.1: Responding to the developer’s pre-application consultation; and
Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Inspectorate has published a series of advice notes on the National Infrastructure planning website which explain the examination process, including information on how to get involved and we would recommend you review the advice notes listed below:
Advice Note 8: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure process for members of the public and others;
Advice Note 8.1: Responding to the developer’s pre-application consultation; and
Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination.

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

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

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

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

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

06 April 2018
Richard Card
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I understand the DCO application will be submitted to you next week. You've received a great deal of communication from members of the public on a wide range of issues in particular the adequacy of the consultations. Can I ask whether during your consideration of the application all the comments you've previously received will be reviewed and considered by you automatically when coming to your decision as to whether or not to accept the application for examination or whether all those that commented will need to register as interested partys and make their comments again ?
The comments received by the Planning Inspectorate concerning the Applicants Pre-application consultation can be considered in addition to the statutorily required Acceptance tests when making the decision about whether or not to accept the application under section 55 of the Planning Act 2008. It will be for the decision maker (the Planning Inspectorate on behalf of the Secretary of State) to decide the weight to give to the views expressed in those comments based on the individual facts of the case.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sylwadau ar yr Adroddiad Dim Effeithiau Arwyddocaol (NSER) drafft

28 March 2018
Abergelli Power Ltd - anon.
Abergelli Power
Enquiry received via email
Do you routinely accept submissions from people using fake identities and, if not why have you done so on this occasion?

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

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

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

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

The inquisitorial nature of the PA2008 process means that ExAs examine evidence through questioning. In the examination process, it is the relevance and importance of the issues which carry weight – not the volume of submissions received. On that basis duplicated representations (in support or objection to a Proposed Development) cannot serve to manipulate the decision-making process.

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

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

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

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

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

26 March 2018
Ken Wraight
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The Applicant provided a draft Consultation Report for comment.
Please see attached

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The tests are the same for every Applicant/ application. In respect of funding, paragraph 18 of government guidance related to procedures for the Compulsory Acquisition (CA) of land states that applicants should be able to demonstrate that adequate funding is likely to be available to enable the CA within the statutory period following the order being made, and that the resource implications of a possible acquisition resulting from a blight notice have been taken account of. An application for a DCO that would authorise CA must be accompanied by a Funding Statement which should demonstrate that the above tests are met.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[attachment 1]

[attachment 2]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have seen various pieces of documentation on social media that gave no clear answers to people's very direct and concerning questions.

I believe for any pre-application consultation process applicants are advised to include sufficient preliminary environmental information to enable consultees to develop an informed view of the project… in that the information presented must provide clarity to all consultees. I don't believe I've seen anything that clearly states what impact the cargo hub and night flights will have on the town of Ramsgate, it's residents and indeed the environment.

As part of this process RSP is obliged to produce a Health Impact Assessment (HIA) that sets out what effect their cargo airport is going to have on our health and our life expectancy. RSP has failed to do this. At 1.1.91 of the PEIR, RSP says: “The health-related effects are not assessed here as the HIA analysis has not been finalised and its results are unavailable." With insufficient evidence, how are we to make an informed decision?

This means that we are being consulted but that RSP is not giving us the information to help us to assess whether or not we're happy with the health implications of the project. RSP is intending to submit its HIA with its DCO application... which means we won't be allowed to consult on it as we don't get to consult at that stage.

This simply isn't good enough.

Conversely, there is a wealth of evidence that demonstrates that living near an airport is bad for your health.

On another note, there is the issue of how the airport will receive the fuel for the cargo planes. Again I've seen documentation on social media, but not been formally advised of how this will work. What I've seen so far is a very negative response from the Road Haulage Association:

On 31st January 2018, a spokesperson for the Road Haulage Association, talking about Operation Stack, said of the old airport site at Manston:

“It’s a completely unsuitable location as the road network in that part of Kent is not geared up to accommodating hundreds of HGVs.”

In Table 3.8 RSP estimates that the HGV movements associated with a cargo business of 257,000 tonnes will total 38,072 HGVs a year in Year 20. This lacks all credibility. East Midlands Airport, handling 300,000 tonnes of freight p.a., estimates that it has 500 HGVs a day, i.e. 182,500 HGV movements a year. These actuals demonstrate that RSP is misleading the public when it estimates that a similar tonnage can be shifted in and out of Manston with 21% of the HGV traffic. RSP needs to rethink these numbers and tell the public exactly what this could mean for us, the local area and a road network that the Road Haulage Association says is not geared up to hundreds of HGVs."

And finally, in 2012, Thanet District Council conducted a survey which showed that 73% of residents were opposed to night flights. How much weight have you given this finding? Why are we not being listened to? Why are residents having to trawl through social media and Facebook groups for answers? Why are TDC not stepping in to support and help residents understand the impact of such a proposal?

This really is a sorry state of affairs. The handful of jobs that would be created at Manston, and it really would be a handful, bears no comparison to the huge detrimental impact this will have on the town. I cannot see who benefits from this proposal other than Riveroak Strategic Partnership. To allow this to go ahead would be the final nail in the coffin for Thanet.
Adequacy of consultation
We note your comments regarding the consultation process. If an application is submitted, relevant local authorities will be invited to make an Adequacy of Consultation Representation (AoCR) to the Inspectorate. The Inspectorate, on behalf of the Secretary of State, must have regard to any AoCRs received when taking its decision about whether to accept an application for examination. For more information please read our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 1]

We would therefore advise that you contact your local authority with any representations regarding the adequacy of the consultation process carried out by the Applicant.

Health impact assessment
We note your comments regarding health impact assessment (HIA). There is no requirement under the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 (EIA Regulations 2017) to prepare a stand-alone HIA. Schedule 4 Section 4 of the Regulations requires “4. A description of the factors specified in regulation 5(2) likely to be significantly affected by the development: population, human health….”. It is for the Applicant to decide how to provide this information, which may be in the form of a separate HIA or integrated into the Applicant’s Environmental Statement.

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

If you are of the view that this information has not been provided, you should notify your local authority in relation to the adequacy of consultation, as advised above. You may also wish to consider registering as an Interested Party should an application be made and accepted for examination. For information about how and when you can have your say, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 2]

The Applicant will need to provide its assessment of effects on human health as part of any application for development consent made to the Inspectorate.

Weight given to findings
At present the Inspectorate has not received an application for a Development Consent Order from the Applicant, and therefore has no view (positive or negative) on either the acceptability of any application or the merits of any application that may be forthcoming. Should an application be made and accepted for examination, you will be able to register as an Interested Party and raise your concerns during the examination process, as advised above.

21 March 2018
Julie Anderson
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I recently (03.02.18) discovered that there is a request for a 24/7 freight hub at Manston Airport! Not only have I only just been made aware of this, which came from a social conversation (not from, as I now know is RiverOak (RSP)), but I also discover I have the ability to make comment, but BY THE 18th of February!! I live in St Nicholas at Wade, West of the runway, where the approach flight path for runway 10 passes directly overhead.

As there is now insufficient time for me to gain a detailed view from the 3,000+ pages that are online (now I have found them at [attachment 1] ), I have skimmed through it to ensure I can forward my comments in time, so these may not be my full and complete views on the proposal.

I have recently engaged with my Parish Council and can confirm that there has been no pre-application consultation communication with them. I have also spoken to many residents from our near 1,000 strong village, and despite being the last village before the runway to the West in the flight path, this village has had no notification, information or contact regarding this consultation.

My understanding is that Government advice for pre-application consultation is that applicants should “include sufficient preliminary environmental information to enable consultees to develop an informed view of the project…”. Therefore, RSP is obliged to produce a Health Impact Assessment (HIA) that sets out what effect their freight hub is going to have on our health, wellbeing and life expectancy, which they have completely failed to do. At 1.1.91 of the PEIR, RSP says: “The health-related effects are not assessed here as the HIA analysis has not been finalised and its results are unavailable."

In RSP’s own “Pre-consultation document dated July 2016” ([attachment 2] ), it states “
RiverOak takes its responsibility to assess, manage and mitigate any environmental impact from Manston Airport extremely seriously and has commissioned a comprehensive Environmental Impact Assessment to understand the effects of constructing and operating a redeveloped Manston Airport”.

How can I fully either support or oppose this, if RSP is not giving the information, not only that is required, but also that they committed to do, to help, me or anyone else assess whether or not there may be health implications from this project. If RSP intend to submit its Health Impact Assessment with its DCO application, how is this inclusive and how does this allow affected residents to make an informed judgement.

Surely this is a failure to comply with the requirements of the consultation process. As residents whose health and well-being would be affected, should this be approved! We are arguably one of the most important areas that should be consulted with and therefore renders this latest consultation flawed in this most fundamental aspect.

In Thanet District Councils (TDC) Draft Local Plan (A – Thanet Preferred Options and before the CPO was deemed not possible by TDC- [attachment 3];partid=6053940&sessionid=&voteid=), in Section 16.36 of the Aircraft Noise and Noise Sensitive Development, it states that “There is currently a degree of uncertainty regarding future aircraft noise levels at the airport, therefore the Council will adopt a precautionary approach in relation to aircraft noise and will continue to apply the contour predictions which formed the basis for the previous Local Plan”. To rely on the previous noise report, suggests that at present, even TDC do not have confirmed or updated evidence of the potential noise levels that could be applied should ‘night time period’ flights be granted.

I feel that RSP is deliberately avoiding proper consultation, most particularly on the areas of their plans that would have the most damaging impact on the health and well-being of me and other residents.

How can any significant development that would have an effect on health and well-being (evidence already exists to verify that such an operation would), get approval when one of the most important parts of the consultation (which I wasn’t aware of anyway), does not even exist.
Until an application has been received and accepted for examination, the Planning Inspectorate (the Inspectorate) has no views on the merits or acceptability of any Proposed Development.

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

If you are of the view that this information has not been provided, you should notify your local authority in relation to the adequacy of consultation. If an application is submitted, relevant local authorities will be invited to make an Adequacy of Consultation Representation (AoCR) to the Inspectorate. The Inspectorate, on behalf of the Secretary of State, must have regard to any AoCRs received when taking its decision about whether to accept an application for examination. For more information please read our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 4]

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

Night flights
At present the Inspectorate has not received an application for a Development Consent Order for the Proposed Development at Manston Airport. In absence of an application, we are unable to comment on any proposed night flights requirements that the Applicant may apply for as part of an application for development consent. Any application including night flights must include an assessment of likely significant effects associated with night flights and that such an assessment should be based on appropriate parameters taking into account relevant uncertainty including any applicable worst case scenario. This advice has been duplicated in response to a several enquiries and is available to read in a number of locations under the ‘s51 advice’ tab on the project webpage eg: [attachment 5]

21 March 2018
MJ Feekings
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Pins meeting with Orsted - 20 March 2018
See attached meeting note

20 March 2018
Orsted - anon.
Hornsea Project Three Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation, with their consultation response, to the Planning Inspectorate, the Applicant and Thanet District Council.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

19 March 2018
Peter Bateson
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Nodyn Cyfarfod - 19 Mawrth 2018 / Meeting Note - 19 March 2018

19 March 2018
Isle of Anglesey County Council - anon.
Wylfa Newydd Nuclear Power Station
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Nodyn Cyfarfod - 19 Mawrth 2018 / Meeting Note - 19 March 2018

19 March 2018
Isle of Anglesey County Council - anon.
North Wales Connection
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
General query regarding the Nationally Significant Infrastructure projects and the examination process
I can confirm that Oulton Parish Council has been identified as a prescribed consultees for the above project, under Schedule 1 of the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009 (APFP) [attachment 1].

Should the application for the Development Consent Order (DCO) be accepted by the Planning Inspectorate for examination, the Applicant has a duty to notify the Council when providing information on how to register as an Interested Party for the purpose of the process. In a meantime the Council can get involved in the focused statutory consultation under section 42(1) of the Planning Act 2008 (PA 2008) which is Orsted Hornsea Project Three (UK) Ltd is conducting now until 30 March 2018. The Applicant is required to have a regard to all consultation responses which should be later provided in the Consultation Report as part of the DCO application.

The process under the PA 2008 has been designed to allow members of the public and statutory stakeholders to participate in examination of all DCO applications. During the examination of an application the Examining Authority (ExA) has a duty to take into account all matters assessed by the Applicant in the Environmental Statement and may ask additional questions as required. The ExA will invite local planning authorities to submit the Local Impact Reports which give details of the likely impact of the proposed development on the authorities’ area. Please see the link: Advice note 1: Local Impact Reports.

Please be assured that anyone interested in the proposed development, its potential impacts and any planning matters can be fully engaged in the examination process.

More information is provided in the Planning Inspectorate’s Advice notes Advice Note 8: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others, and at the current pre-application stage we would recommend especially Advice note 8.1. Responding to the developer’s pre-application consultation and Advice Note 8.2. How to register to participate in an Examination. By submitting a Relevant Representation during the pre-examination stage the Council is in position to highlight particular planning matters such as effects on the road infrastructure that you have mentioned in your email.

15 March 2018
Paul Killingback
Hornsea Project Three Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via email
I assume it is your role to ensure that National Grid adhere to NETS SQSS. Please can you confirm this for me.
If National Grid’s application is accepted for examination the Examining Authority (ExA) will conduct the examination in accordance with Planning Act 2008: Guidance for the examination of applications for development consent and assess the proposed development against the policy requirements of the energy National Policy Statements (NPS) EN-1 Overarching and EN-5 Electricity Networks Infrastructure. The ExA will examine the need for the project, any alternatives and assess whether there are any adverse impacts that outweigh the benefits of the project.

15 March 2018
Jonathan Dean
North Wales Connection
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
What is the correct mechanism to present a petition to the Inspectorate?
In order for you to submit any representations for the Examining Authority to consider you will need to register as an Interested Party, if the application is accepted to proceed to Examination. Advice on how to register to participate in an Examination can be found here: [attachment 1]. The best way of submitting the petition would be as part of your Written Representation. Please note that we cannot accept links to websites however we could accept a screen shot showing the number of signatures.

15 March 2018
Jonathan Dean
North Wales Connection
Enquiry received via email
In view of the confusion between your two statements and in view of the guidance repeatedly issued by the Government and the courts on the scope of the general principle in s6 of the 1998 Act, I am asking you to clarify the view of the Planning Inspectorate. It is clear from advice received by No Night Flights that the Planning Inspectorate, along with all other Government and public authorities, is bound by and must comply with s6 of the 1998 Act. Acceptance by you of this application (should it be made) for a DCO is not a neutral act. It will have serious implications for local landowners and residents. Our advice is that your obligation is to act compatibly with the Convention rights as set out in s6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 (the 1998 Act) in taking that decision. Perhaps you would be good enough to set out very clearly for us why you think that this is not the case.
The Planning Inspectorate is not disputing that in carrying out its functions in accordance with the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) it is bound to act compatibly with the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA1998).

Sections 37 and 55 of the PA2008 set out what the Secretary of State (SoS) can take into account in deciding whether or not to accept an application, and this a matter of fact. Whilst these sections do not specifically refer to the HRA1998 the Planning Inspectorate considers that the process of preparing an application (incumbent on applicants) and considering the application both at the Acceptance and Examination stages (incumbent on the SoS), in accordance with the PA2008, is compliant with the HRA1998.

Before an application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, the PA2008 requires applicants to notify members of the public (including those whose interests may be affected) about a proposed application and to carry out consultation. These duties placed on applicants provide consultees with the opportunity to make their views about a proposed development known to an applicant. At the Acceptance stage the Planning Inspectorate tests whether an application is of a satisfactory standard, and whether the applicant has carried out consultation in accordance with the PA2008, including how it has had regard to relevant consultation responses and whether statutory guidance has been followed. The Planning Inspectorate can only accept an application if these statutory requirements are met, which ensures compatibility with the HRA1998 (including Article 6).

If an application is accepted for examination, anybody can register to become an Interested Party and participate in the process, making their views about a proposed development known. These views will be taken into account by the appointed Examining Authority and ultimately the relevant SoS. This inclusive principle, underpinned by the provisions in the PA2008, also ensures compliance with the HRA1998.

15 March 2018
No Night Flights - Ros McIntyre
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Nodyn Cyfarfod - 15 Mawrth 2018 / Meeting Note - 15 March 2018

15 March 2018
National Grid
North Wales Connection
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project inception meeting
Please see attached meeting note

14 March 2018
Highways England
A38 Derby Junctions highway improvement scheme
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer made comments about the quality of the Applicant's Pre-application consultation, and asked specifically:

"In assessing an application for the DCO, how would the Inspectorate deal with the
wider upgrades to the A628 corridor if they are in an approved statutory transport plan?"
If you have not done so already, please provide your comments about its consultation directly to Highways England. You can also copy your comments to the relevant local authority which will be able to consider them in making its Adequacy of Consultation Representation; if an application is submitted. At the Acceptance stage of the process, the Secretary of State (SoS) must have regard to the content of any Adequacy of Consultation Representations received when taking its decision about whether or not an application can be accepted to proceed to examination.

You asked: “In assessing an application for the DCO, how would the Inspectorate deal with the wider upgrades to the A628 corridor if they are in an approved statutory transport plan?”

As you will be aware, where a relevant National Policy Statement (NPS) is designated it has primacy in the decision-making process. In this case the relevant NPS is the NSP for National Networks. Section 104 of the Planning Act 2008 sets out, in addition to an NPS, what else the SoS must have regard to in deciding an application. Section 104(d) prescribes that the SoS must have regard to any other matters which the SoS thinks are both important and relevant to the decision, which may include local/ strategic policies and plans.

In respect of Environmental Impact Assessment, for the Planning Inspectorate’s advice in respect of which development should be in considered as part of an applicant’s cumulative effects assessment, please see Advice Note 17: [attachment 1]

13 March 2018
CPRE - Anne Robinson
Trans Pennine Upgrade Programme
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
• What point should a waste application be considered to be submitted as a NSIP? (is there a threshold ie size, annual import, waste type ie hazardous, etc)

• Is there any point when an NSIP is mandatory as opposed to optional (with an application made to a County Council application)?
What constitutes a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP) is a matter of fact, as per the qualifying criteria set out in Part 3 of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008). The qualifying criteria for hazardous waste NSIPs are set out in sections 30 and 30A of the PA2008. The PA2008 is available to view on legislation.gov.uk: [attachment 1]

Development that qualifies as an NSIP must receive development consent in the form of a Development Consent Order. The consenting route for development that constitutes an NSIP is not optional. Section 160 of the PA2008 establishes that a person commits an offence if the person carries out, or causes to be carried out, development for which development consent is required at a time when no development consent is in force in respect of the development, and associated liabilities.

For hazardous waste development a designated National Policy Statement (NPS) is in place. The Hazardous Waste NPS sets out the strategic need and justification of Government policy for the provision of hazardous waste infrastructure. It is available to view here: [attachment 2]

13 March 2018
Mick George Ltd - Kelly Sanderson
General
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I suspect this is just another example of misinformation but I would be grateful if you could confirm my suspicions. According to this person the planning inspectorate has ruled that the site of the former, failed airport at Manston must remain as an airport, irrespective of the fact that the local plan has long expired. It is said that it must remain as an airport until the Secretary of State rules otherwise.

This is an interesting position because the legal owners of the site say that they are due to submit a planning application for a mixed development of the site later this month. If the planning inspectorate has ruled that it must remain as an airport, the legal owners would be wasting their time submitting their application. The outcome would already have been determined.
As you will be aware Thanet DC’s extant development plan comprises, in part, saved policies from the Thanet Local Plan 2006. Chapter 2 of the extant plan in part deals with the airport site. Until such time as a new local plan is published, examined and adopted, the extant plan is the development plan for Thanet. For further clarification about planning policy in Thanet and the Local Development Scheme, please check the council’s website or contact the council directly.

My presumption is that the ‘ruling’ to which you refer is the independent Inspector’s decision in respect of the four ‘Lothian Shelf’ appeals at the airport site. The Inspector’s decision in this case is available to view on the Appeals Casework Portal, here: [attachment 1]

13 March 2018
Peter Binding
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
Mr Hannan submitted a copy of his objection to the Oulton Airfield construction compound, sent to Orsted.
Thank you for your email in relation to the above project.

A copy of your objection has been placed on our records. However, we would strongly encourage you to continue your dialogue with the developer to make your concerns known and to influence the project as, under Section 49 of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended), the developer has a duty to demonstrate it has had regard to responses received.

If an application for development consent is formally accepted by the Secretary of State, as you point out, you will be able to submit your views in relation to the project which will be considered by the Examining Authority during their examination.

13 March 2018
Rob Hannan
Hornsea Project Three Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via phone
response has attachments
Query regarding the submission of its Adequacy of Consultation Representation.
Re. our conversation earlier today - Thames Tideway Tunnel (TTT) looks like a good place to start to get an idea about how the views of different authorities have been expressed in AoC Reps ie the breadth of positive/ negative/ neutral responses in respect of compliance with ss42, 47 and 48 at a glance all appear to be covered.

The s55 checklist for TTT should adequately signpost you to the AoC Reps covering the areas of specific interest to TDC (section 3.2 onward): [attachment 1]

All of the AoC Reps are searchable and available to read in the ‘Documents’ tab in the usual way.

12 March 2018
Thanet District Council - Iain Livingstone
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update and comments on the draft application documents
Please see attached meeting note

12 March 2018
Drax Power Ltd - Jim Doyle
Drax Re-power
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see the attached meeting note

09 March 2018
London Resort Company Holdings
The London Resort
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
See attached letter
Thank you for your letter, copied to us on 16 February 2018. As the project has not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate (the Inspectorate), we have no formal powers to intervene on consultees behalf. I note that you have sent this to the developer and they have a statutory duty to take your views into account. However, if you feel your comments are not being taken into account, I would advise you to write to your local authority. Your comments should be taken into account when the local authority sends the Inspectorate its comments on whether the Applicant has fulfilled its consultation duties. The local authority’s comments on the Applicant’s consultation will be taken into account when the Acceptance Inspector makes their decision whether to accept the application for Examination.

When deciding whether to accept an application we will check whether the Applicant’s section 48 notice complies with the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009. Your concerns regarding Tre’rGof SSSI and retention of hardstanding on the coast are matters which, if the application is accepted, may be examined by the Examining Authority.

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

After the decision has been made regarding whether to accept the application for Examination all documents used to inform the decision will be published on our website. If the application for development consent is formally accepted you will be able to submit your views in relation to the project which will be considered by the Examining Authority during the Examination. The Inspectorate has published a series of advice notes which explain the Examination process, including information on how to get involved; of particular interest are advice notes 8.1 to 8.5. These are available at: [attachment 1]

We have also published a Frequently Asked Questions document regarding Pre-application consultation and this can be viewed on our website here: [attachment 2].

08 March 2018
J Chanay
Wylfa Newydd Nuclear Power Station
Enquiry received via email
What policing has gone on regarding Vattenfall in Norfolk during consultation in which they did not behave correctly? Project still going ahead revised plans a no relay Stations HDVC , please can you provide information
The Applicant is required to produce a consultation report detailing how they have complied with the consultation requirements of sections 42, 47 and 48 of the Planning Act 2008. This should be submitted with the application and will be checked, along with the other application documents, as part of the Acceptance process.

08 March 2018
Wendy Englestone
Norfolk Vanguard
Enquiry received via email
What policing has gone on regarding Vattenfall in Norfolk during consultation in which they did not behave correctly? Project still going ahead revised plans a no relay Stations HDVC , please can you provide information
The Applicant is required to produce a consultation report detailing how they have complied with the consultation requirements of sections 42, 47 and 48 of the Planning Act 2008. This should be submitted with the application and will be checked, along with the other application documents, as part of the Acceptance process.

08 March 2018
Wendy Englestone
Norfolk Boreas
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Can the preapplication stage continue in perpetuity?

Are there circumstances where pins can cause the applicant to withdraw the application?

In terms of the deprivation issues relating to some parts of Ramsgate that are on the direct flight path (within 1 to 4 km of the end of the runway) and are also some of the most deprived wards in the uk, is there anywhere the local community could look for expert support during the preapplication and application stages?

Have there been any other DCO applications that have significant similarities to the Manston one, that I could look at in terms of comparative guidance?
“Can the preapplication stage continue in perpetuity?”
Please see my response to you dated 5 January 2018 within which I have already provided an answer to this question: [attachment 1]

“Are there circumstances where pins can cause the applicant to withdraw the application?”
The Planning Inspectorate cannot compel an applicant to withdraw an application. If an application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate and subsequently accepted for examination, it can only be:
• withdrawn by the Applicant; or
• decided, following due process, by the relevant Secretary of State.

“In terms of the deprivation issues relating to some parts of Ramsgate that are on the direct flight path (within 1 to 4 km of the end of the runway) and are also some of the most deprived wards in the uk, is there anywhere the local community could look for expert support during the preapplication and application stages?”

Any expert/ legal advice sought in respect of an application for development consent would need to be procured by an individual/ interest group or organisation by conventional means. Alternatively you could contact Planning Aid which offers free independent, professional advice and support to individuals and local communities wishing to engage in the planning process: [attachment 2]

“Have there been any other DCO applications that have significant similarities to the Manston one, that I could look at in terms of comparative guidance?”

There have been no previous applications for development consent made under s23 of the Planning Act 2008. However, most applications for development consent will share similarities, to a greater or lesser extent, in respect of the most common issues examined across the breadth of NSIP development.

For decided applications a good place to start in identifying the main issues that influenced an Examining Authority’s (ExA) consideration of the case for development consent is, in each case, the respective ExA’s report to the Secretary of State (SoS) and the subsequent decision and statement of reasons issued by the SoS. ExA reports may assist in demonstrating to you, and other members of the local community, how individuals and interest groups can most helpfully and effectively make representations to an examination. Examples of reports and decisions associated with all decided NSIP applications are available to read on our website.

08 March 2018
Michael Child
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I was relieved to receive your confirmation that there are no provisions in the Planning Act which would prevent you from acting compatibly with the Convention Rights.

I would also, respectfully, agree that the Examining Authority will be bound to consider the various human rights issues, should this application get to that stage.

My point is that the decision to accept the application for examination is also an act to which section 6 of the Human Rights Act applies.

It follows that you are bound to consider whether your decision to accept this application may infringe upon the Convention rights and, if so, whether that infringement is justified.

The law does not appear to give you the option of simply deferring consideration of these issues until the Examination stage. Acting compatibly with the Convention rights means not infringing on people's rights if that can be avoided – and it means striving to find ways to avoid harming the rights of others if at all possible.

In this instance you can avoid harming the rights of others, and indeed the rights of the owners of the airfield, by not accepting this application for Examination.

We are asking you to look at the facts regarding the impact of your decision upon the property rights of the airfield's owners and upon people in the affected area in the light of the justification that will need to be made in terms of the national interest.

Whilst one might ordinarily expect such issues to be deferred to the Examination stage, there are special considerations surrounding this application which require substantive attention now if you are not to act incompatibly with the Convention rights. The key point here is that it ought already be plain to you that this application could not reasonably be regarded as likely to justify incursion on people’s rights because the project is in the national interest.

For example, it is plain now from the weight and quality of evidence from multiple sources, that the applicant will not be able to supply the Secretary of State with plausible evidence of national economic benefit. We say that it cannot be lawful under s6 of the 1998 Act to harm people’s rights by accepting the application without at least a plausible prospect that the applicants will be able to meet the basic test in terms of Article 8.

You have also been made aware of the incorrigibly flawed basis for the applicant's economic case. This case has now been dismissed as mistaken by the authors of the source on which the applicants purport primarily to rely. The applicant’s economic case has been exposed by multiple credible sources as demonstrably very seriously defective in methodology and as regards its evidential base. You are already aware that this hopeless material is at the heart of the application. How could it be right to harm people’s basic rights by proceeding to the next stage on the basis material which it is already clear is so lacking in merit?

We say that it is relevant, at the stage where you decide whether or not to intrude upon people’s rights, to consider what evidence you have that this proposal meets any identified national need. The fact is that neither the Government nor any of its advisers appointed to review aviation needs has identified Manston as required as part of any national strategy. The significance here is that you as the public authority begin with no indication whatsoever of a national interest against which you could reasonably contemplate sacrificing the rights of others. What you have are the opinions offered by an offshore investment company, of uncertain identity and motivation.

The serious problems we identify constitute real and immediate reasons why it is not reasonable in human rights terms to accept the application for examination. These should be viewed in the context of recent rulings from the Court of Justice of the European Union and the European Court of Human Rights regarding the plight of victims of aviation development and regarding the Courts’ interpretation of human rights and European law so as to provide effective protection and remedies.

You will also be aware of the criticisms made by the local authority (and by this organisation as well as by many others) of the inadequacy of the statutory consultation carried out by the applicant. This matter is also relevant to your immediate obligations regarding human rights because you would, by accepting the application, allow the applicant to escape some of his preliminary responsibilities regarding the environmental impact information rights bestowed upon us by the European Union.

Finally, we are confused by your comment about the effectiveness of the remedies available under the 2008 Act in respect of harm ensuing from a decision to accept this application for examination. What compensation would be available to individual residents of Thanet for a fall in the property values following such a decision? Who would be liable to pay it?
Sections 37 and 55 of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) set out what can be taken into account at the Acceptance stage. Neither section makes reference to the consideration of human rights. The consideration of human rights is part of the decision-making process at the Examination stage (and later when the relevant Secretary of State makes his or her final decision). In order for the decision-making process to comply with human rights law, an appointed Examining Authority (ExA) needs to be fully appraised of the details of the Proposed Development and to seek the views of all Interested Parties, including the Applicant. There is no mechanism in the PA2008 by which this can be achieved at or before the Acceptance stage, which is prior to the appointment of the ExA and the start of the Examination.

On that basis the Planning Inspectorate does not consider that it is bound by the PA2008 to consider the provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998 at the Acceptance stage.

You imply that there are ‘special considerations’ surrounding the emerging application by RSP. The Planning Inspectorate does not agree with this statement as all applications received by the Planning Inspectorate involve development which has impacts, to a greater or lesser degree, which need to be taken into account before a decision is made. The proposed application by RSP is, and will in future, be treated in the same way as all other applications for development consent.

The ‘national economic benefit’ and ‘viability’ of the Proposed Development (and any other matters which relate to the merits of the application) will also be considered by the appointed ExA during the Examination stage. Part of the decision-making process at Examination is to assess the effects a proposed development might have on individuals who make representations and to weigh these against the wider public interest. The balancing of the rights of these individuals and the wider public interest cannot be carried out without a full consideration of the facts and circumstances, taking into account the views of all parties. That is why the PA2008 provides for the Examination stage which affords everybody the opportunity to make representations to an ExA about the merits of a proposed development.

In consideration of your comments about ‘national need’ I can only reiterate my previous advice that development which constitutes an NSIP is a matter of fact, as set out in Part 3 of the PA2008. It is not prerequisite for an ‘national strategy’ (or indeed a National Policy Statement) to be in place in order for an application for development consent to be made, examined and decided.
In respect of the adequacy of the Applicant’s Pre-application consultation, as you will be aware host and boundary authorities will be invited to make an Adequacy of Consultation Representation (AoCR) if/ when the application is submitted. The Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) must have regard to any AoCRs received in taking its decision about whether an application can be accepted for examination.

I apologise that my statement in respect of the compensation provisions in the PA2008 was confusing. You stated in your email of 24 February 2018 that:
“We understand the points that you make about the statutory provisions for dealing with some aspects of property blight. However, and as you yourself concede [my emphasis], these provisions are of limited scope and certainly do not constitute an effective remedy for the infringements that would be bound to take place if you proceed to the acceptance stage with this application.”
The intention of the statement in my response dated 1 March 2018 “We do not consider that the compensation provisions in the PA2008 provide an ineffective remedy where applications are made under the PA2008 for NSIPs” was to establish that nowhere have I conceded that the blight provisions in the PA2008 are an ineffective remedy.

In respect of the impact of any proposed development on property values, I refer you to the guidance on planning in general: Planning Practice Guidance ‘Determining a planning application’; in particular paragraph: 008 Reference ID: 21b-008-20140306: [attachment 1]

08 March 2018
No Night Flights - Ros McIntyre
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
A meeting took place between Able Humber Ports Limited and the Planning Inspectorate to discuss a potential change to the DCO
A note of the meeting is attached.

08 March 2018
Able Humber Ports Limited - anon.
Able Marine Energy Park
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Could pins get their own itc department to look at the way the documents were published, particularly in terms of the deliberately making the documents difficult to use?

I think this constitutes a deprivation accessibility issue, which should be addressed properly now and I wish to complain that this hasn’t happened, I feel that pins and all government departments should be proactively addressing depravation and should like your view on this issue.

In view of the size and scope of the project and its effects could you kindly set out how the issue of compensation for time spent on responding repeatedly and property blight will be addressed, both in terms of time scale and how to apply for it.
As you are aware, if an application is submitted, this and your previous correspondences can be considered by the Secretary of State in addition to the statutory acceptance tests.

“Could pins get their own itc department to look at the way the documents were published, particularly in terms of the deliberately making the documents difficult to use?”

The Planning Inspectorate cannot test the adequacy of an applicant’s consultation until an application is submitted to it. The means by which the adequacy of consultation can be tested are set out in section 55 of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008).

“I think this constitutes a deprivation accessibility issue, which should be addressed properly now and I wish to complain that this hasn’t happened, I feel that pins and all government departments should be proactively addressing depravation and should like your view on this issue.”

See above answer. Note in addition that at the Acceptance stage the Secretary of State must have regard to the extent to which the Applicants has had regard to government’s ‘Planning Act 2008: guidance on the pre-application process’: [attachment 1]. Evidence in this regard should be provided by the Applicant in its Consultation Report.

“In view of the size and scope of the project and its effects could you kindly set out how the issue of compensation for time spent on responding repeatedly and property blight will be addressed, both in terms of time scale and how to apply for it.”

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

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

• [attachment 2]
• [attachment 3]

In respect of “compensation for time spent responding”, there is no mechanism through which this can be claimed at the Pre-application stage of the process. For details of the applicable costs regime after an application has been accepted for examination, I refer you to government’s ‘Awards of costs: examinations of applications for development consent orders’: [attachment 4]

06 March 2018
Michael Child
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
Could you kindly clarify if it is the Planning Inspectorate's considered view that the provisions you mention in the Planning Act 2008 oust the duty placed on you as a public authority by s6 of the Human Right Act 1998?

Government guidance emphasises that all public authorities are at all times bound by s6 of the Human Rights Act 1998, unless some specific provision of primary legislation requires otherwise, or cannot be re-interpreted compatibly with the Convention rights.

It would be a very serious matter if your governing legislation prevented you from acting compatibly with basic human rights.

Our argument in outline is that the act by PINS of accepting RSP's application for examination would impinge upon our property rights under article 1 of Protocol 1 to the Convention, read with Article 8.

We point out that there is no statement of Government policy that identifies Manston as nationally significant in infrastructure terms. We also draw your attention to multiple and authoritative evidence that demonstrates conclusively that an economic case for the DCO cannot be made out. We say that, in these circumstances, there can be no justification for PINS interfering with our property rights by accepting RSP’s application for consideration. We point out that to do so would be to act incompatibly with the Convention rights and thus to act unlawfully under s6 of the Human Rights Act 1998.

We understand the points that you make about the statutory provisions for dealing with some aspects of property blight. However, and as you yourself concede, these provisions are of limited scope and certainly do not constitute an effective remedy for the infringements that would be bound to take place if you proceed to the acceptance stage with this application.

Of course it is open to you to reject our argument, but it would seem totally wrong, and unsafe for you, to refuse to consider it.

So far as we can see, you would be acting in breach of the Human Rights Act if you refused to consider whether you are acting compatibly with the Convention rights before accepting RSP’s application for consideration.
The provisions in the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) do not oust the provisions in Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA1998), and the Planning Inspectorate does not consider that it is in breach of the HRA1998 when taking decisions about whether or not to accept an application for examination. As explained in my previous email, human rights issues will be considered by the appointed Examining Authority at the Examination stage; if the application is accepted.

Regarding government policy, there does not need to be a statement of government policy for a Proposed Development to be a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP). The PA2008 sets out which projects are NSIPs. In respect of the economic case for the Proposed Development, viability is also an issue that can only be considered by the appointed Examining Authority at the Examination stage; if the application is accepted.

We do not consider that the compensation provisions in the PA2008 provide an ineffective remedy where applications are made under the PA2008 for NSIPs.

06 March 2018
No Night Flights - Ros McIntyre
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via
response has attachments
Thanet Extension project update meeting
Please see attached

06 March 2018
Vattenfall - anon.
Thanet Extension Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
See attached meeting note

27 February 2018
Heathrow Airport Ltd
Expansion of Heathrow Airport (Third Runway)
Enquiry received via email
The enquirer represented the Peninsula Management Group; the organisation that represents the 140 businesses on the Northfleet Industrial Estates.

The enquirer queried the accuracy of the anticipated submission dated provided on the National Infrastructure Planning website; whether the Inspectorate had any future meetings planned with London Resort Company Holdings (LRCH); and whether LRCH would be undertaking public consultations about any plans to carry out works to junctions on the A2.
As you are likely aware from the advice register on our website, we have had no substantive contact with LRCH since August 2017. A project update meeting between the Planning Inspectorate and LRCH is however scheduled in March 2018. As required, a note of the meeting will be published to our website shortly afterward.

The situation in respect of how the LRCH and Highways England schemes might interrelate is complex, and the Planning Inspectorate hopes to learn further how LRCH intends to progress in this regard at the March meeting. We will also expect an update in respect of LRCH’s Pre-application programme (ie timescales). If, as we currently understand, LRCH intends to include works to the A2 in its Development Consent Order, it will be required to consult on those works in its public consultation.

26 February 2018
Bramwell Associates - Dan Bramwell
The London Resort
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The attached letter from No Night Flights makes representations concerning the lawfulness of accepting the proposed DCO application given what is known about the business case supporting the application.

It is addressed direct to you because the arguments it contains concern the protection of fundamental human rights, which is a matter for the State and not the developer.

I look forward to hearing your response. Please do contact me if you require any further information.
The matters the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) can consider at the Acceptance stage are set out in s37 and s55 of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008).

For details about how, when and to whom you can object to the Proposed Development, see FAQ 9 in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 1]

Matters relating to environmental information, environmental assessment and the Human Rights Act will be considered by the appointed Examining Authority at the Examination stage; if the application is accepted.

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

Separately, any interference with private interests may give rise to a right to make a relevant claim. For further information see FAQ14 at the above link, and government guidance relating to Compulsory Acquisition procedures: [attachment 2]

23 February 2018
No Night Flights - Ros McIntyre
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project meeting with Cleve Hill Solar Park Ltd
See attached meeting note

23 February 2018
Cleve Hill Solar Park Ltd - anon.
Cleve Hill Solar Park
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting 23 February 2018
See attached meeting note and annex A

23 February 2018
Portishead Branch Line – MetroWest Phase 1 - anon.
Portishead Branch Line - MetroWest Phase 1
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Post-consultation and project update teleconference
Please see attached meeting note

23 February 2018
RiverOak Strategic Partners Ltd
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

22 February 2018
RWE Generation UK plc - anon.
Tilbury Energy Centre
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting and draft documents advice
See 2 attachments

22 February 2018
Highways England - anon.
A19 Downhill Lane Junction Improvement
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer sent their response to the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of a proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

We have also published an FAQ for information and advice about how to engage with the process at the Pre-application stage: [attachment 2]

21 February 2018
Appolonius Claudius
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer sent their response to the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of a proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

We have also published an FAQ for information and advice about how to engage with the process at the Pre-application stage: [attachment 2]

21 February 2018
PJ Brown
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached

20 February 2018
Hornsea Project Three - Stuart Livesey
Hornsea Project Three Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
See attached meeting note

20 February 2018
Highways England - Jacqueline Watson
M25 junction 10/A3 Wisley interchange improvement
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation, with their consultation response, to the Planning Inspectorate.
The application, if submitted, will be tested against the provisions set out in section 55 of the Planning Act 2008.

Helpfully your correspondence, which includes comments about the Applicant’s consultation, is copied to the Applicant itself and to Thanet District, as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 1]

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations about the merits of the proposed development to the Planning Inspectorate, if it is accepted for examination, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 2]

19 February 2018
Chris Welsh
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation, with their consultation response, to the Planning Inspectorate, the Applicant and Thanet District Council.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

Helpfully you have sent your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself and to Thanet District Council, as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

19 February 2018
Rebekah Smith
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
Thank you for your email.

The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

If you have not done so already please send your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself ([email protected] [email protected]) and to Thanet District Council ([email protected]), as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

19 February 2018
Conor Kelly
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation, with their consultation response, to the Planning Inspectorate, the Applicant and Thanet District Council.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

Helpfully you have sent your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself and to Thanet District Council, as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

19 February 2018
Liz Green
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation, with their consultation response, to the Planning Inspectorate, the Applicant and Thanet District Council.
For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

Helpfully you have sent your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself and to Thanet District Council, as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

19 February 2018
Fiona Simmons
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer submitted representations regarding the merits of the proposed development, and the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation, to the Planning Inspectorate and Thanet District Council.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

Helpfully you have sent your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself and to Thanet District Council, as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

19 February 2018
Teresa Askew
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
Helpfully you have sent your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself and to Thanet District Council, as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 1]

If an application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, and if it is found to be of a satisfactory standard to be examined, you will be able to make representations about the merits of the Proposed Development to an appointed Examining Authority. See our Advice Note 8 series for detailed advice about how and when to have your say: [attachment 2]

19 February 2018
Malcolm Kirkaldie
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Canterbury City Council would like to make representations on the current consultation undertaken by RiverOak Strategic Partners Ltd.

The City Council has not been consulted by RiverOak SP Ltd as part of this process, which fails to meet the Planning Act 2008 requirements. However we have become aware of the consultation and have therefore been able to respond.

The City Council has concerns regarding the adequacy of the consultation process, in particular whether consultation is in line with the scheme promoter's SoCC. The City Council must be consulted as a neighbouring authority and residents of Herne Bay must be consulted in a full and meaningful way at all stages of the Development Consent Order process.

In relation to the Preliminary Environmental Impact report the City Council requires the full impact of noise and disturbance to residents in Herne Bay, particularly in relation to night flights and proposed type of aircraft, to be comprehensively assessed and fully mitigated, with a robust monitoring regime and sanctions imposed for any breach in night flight or agreed noise parameters.
As a local authority which shares a boundary with Thanet District Council (the lower-tier host authority), Canterbury City Council (CCC) should have been consulted under s42 of the Planning Act 2008 (the PA2008). On that basis the Applicant, RSP, will be required to demonstrate to the Planning Inspectorate in the Consultation Report submitted with its application that CCC was consulted in accordance with the PA2008. If you have not done so already, I would strongly recommend that you correspond directly with RSP to establish the address at CCC to which its s42 notification was sent.

CCC will be invited by the Planning Inspectorate to make an Adequacy of Consultation Representation (AoCR) if an application is submitted to it. See our Advice Note Two for more advice about AoCRs: [attachment 1]

19 February 2018
Canterbury City Council - Cherry Jones
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
The enquirer submitted representations regarding the merits of the proposed development to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations of this type.

Please contact the Applicant to seek clarification about any comments made.

19 February 2018
Adem Mehmet
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
I have just received this response from you and am concerned that my email isn't being included as it says ' The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time'. Did my email not arrive on time or am I misinterpreting your email? I sent the original at 1156pm on Friday.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of a proposed development until the Pre-examination stage, when the period for making ‘Relevant Representations’ to the Inspectorate must be advertised by the Applicant. The Pre-examination stage does not commence until an application has been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate and subsequently accepted for examination.

At the Pre-application stage of the process, your comments about the merits of the proposal are for the Applicant to consider in preparing its application for submission.

19 February 2018
Rebekah Smith
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please can you explain/reassure me that I have not wasted 20 hours+ on this and that my email will be submitted as a negative response to the recent public consultation process carried out by RSP.
Last Friday’s deadline was imposed by the Applicant, RiverOak Strategic Partners (RSP). RSP was carrying out statutory consultation seeking feedback on the substance of its proposed application ie the Proposed Development and its impacts.

Whilst RSP will not have been actively seeking feedback on the consultation ‘process’ in this period, it is correct that you have sent your comments in this respect to RSP for consideration in the first instance.

You also copied your comments about the consultation process to Thanet District Council, which importantly will be able to consider them in making a representation about the adequacy of RSP’s consultation to the Secretary of State if/ when an application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate. Amongst other things, the Planning Inspectorate must have regard to any Adequacy of Consultation Representations received from local authorities in taking its decision about whether or not an application can be accepted for examination.

On that basis your commentary about the consultation process is not wasted, and you have taken all of the appropriate steps advised in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 1]

19 February 2018
Rebekah Smith
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer submitted representations regarding the merits of the proposed development to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

19 February 2018
Josephine Canty
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation, with their consultation response, to the Planning Inspectorate, the Applicant and Thanet District Council.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

Helpfully you have sent your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself and to Thanet District Council, as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

19 February 2018
Clare Dove
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer sent their response to the Applicant's 2018 statutory consultation to the Planning Inspectorate, Thanet District Council and the Applicant.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

19 February 2018
Mike Collins
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation, with their consultation response, to both the Planning Inspectorate and the Applicant.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot accept representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

You may wish to send your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to Thanet District Council ([email protected]), as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

19 February 2018
Chris Lowe
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer sent their response to the Applicant's 2018 statutory consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

Helpfully you have sent your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself. You may also wish to send them to Thanet District Council ([email protected]), as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

19 February 2018
Pierre and Patricia Jeanrenaud
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer sent their response to the Applicant's 2018 statutory consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

If you have not done so already please send your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself ([email protected] [email protected]) and to Thanet District Council ([email protected]), as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

19 February 2018
Rebecca Wing
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation to the Planning Inspectorate and Thanet District Council.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

Helpfully you have copied your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to Thanet District Council, as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

19 February 2018
Matthew Cumber
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation, with their consultation response, to the Planning Inspectorate, the Applicant and Thanet District Council.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

19 February 2018
Nikki Hildesley
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation, with their consultation response, to the Planning Inspectorate, the Applicant and Thanet District Council.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

Helpfully you have sent your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself and to Thanet District Council, as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

19 February 2018
Jeni Butler
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation, with their consultation response, to the Planning Inspectorate, the Applicant and Thanet District Council.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

Helpfully you have copied your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to Thanet District Council, as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

If you have not done so already please also send your comments to the Applicant itself ([email protected] [email protected]).

19 February 2018
Conor Masterson
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer sent their response to the Applicant's 2018 statutory consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

Helpfully you have sent your comments directly to the Applicant. You may wish to send your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to Thanet District Council ([email protected]), as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

19 February 2018
John Hanna
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation, with their consultation response, to the Planning Inspectorate, the Applicant and Thanet District Council.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

Helpfully you have sent your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself and to Thanet District Council, as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

19 February 2018
Debra Cluff
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation, with their consultation response, to the Planning Inspectorate, the Applicant and Thanet District Council.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

Helpfully you have copied your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself and to Thanet District Council, as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

19 February 2018
Anna Blasiak
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer sent their response to the Applicant's 2018 statutory consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

19 February 2018
Sylvie Bolioli
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

Helpfully you have copied your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself and to Thanet District Council, as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

19 February 2018
Cathy Rogers
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation to the Planning Inspectorate and the Applicant.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot accept representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

19 February 2018
C & P Arnold
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation, with their consultation response, to the Planning Inspectorate, the Applicant and Thanet District Council.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot accept representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

Helpfully you have sent your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to Thanet District Council ([email protected]), as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

If you have not done so already please also send your comments to the Applicant itself ([email protected] [email protected]).

19 February 2018
Matthew Griffiths
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer submitted representations regarding the merits of the proposed development to the Planning Inspectorate and Thanet District Council.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot accept representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

If you have not done so already please send your comments to the Applicant itself ([email protected] [email protected]).

19 February 2018
Anthony Howard
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer submitted representations regarding the merits of the proposed development to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

19 February 2018
Brian Bushell
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation, with their consultation response, to the Planning Inspectorate and Thanet District Council.
For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

Helpfully you have sent your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to Thanet District Council ([email protected]), as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

If you have not done so already please also send your comments to the Applicant itself ([email protected] [email protected]).

19 February 2018
Michelle Meyer-Masterson
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer submitted representations regarding the merits of the proposed development to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

19 February 2018
Alan Ashby
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer submitted representations regarding the merits of the proposed development and the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

You may wish to send your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to Thanet District Council ([email protected]), as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

17 February 2018
Danika Jarrett
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation, with their consultation response, to the Planning Inspectorate, the Applicant and Thanet District Council.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

Helpfully you have copied your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself and to Thanet District Council, as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

16 February 2018
Greg Shapland
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer sent their response to the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

16 February 2018
Andrew Taylor
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation, with their consultation response, to the Planning Inspectorate, the Applicant and Thanet District Council.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

Helpfully you have copied your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself and to Thanet District Council, as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

16 February 2018
Peter Borrough
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation, with their consultation response, to the Planning Inspectorate, the Applicant and Thanet District Council.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

Helpfully you have sent your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself and to Thanet District Council, as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

16 February 2018
Steve and Jacqui Ansell
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation, with their consultation response, to the Planning Inspectorate, the Applicant and Thanet District Council.
For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

Helpfully you have copied your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself and to Thanet District Council, as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

16 February 2018
Gillian and Sean Farrell
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer sent their response to the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

Helpfully you have copied your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself and to Thanet District Council, as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

16 February 2018
Ann Scott
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via post
response has attachments
The enquirer sent their response to the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
You enclosed your response to the Applicant’s latest consultation exercise. The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

I enclose for your convenience Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination. If having read the Advice Note 8 series you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

16 February 2018
AB Doughty
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer sent their response to the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

16 February 2018
Mr and Mrs James
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation, with their consultation response, to the Planning Inspectorate, the Applicant and Thanet District Council.
For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

Helpfully you have copied your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself and to Thanet District Council, as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

16 February 2018
Alan Welcome
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation, with their consultation response, to the Planning Inspectorate, the Applicant and Thanet District Council.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

Helpfully you have copied your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself and to Thanet District Council, as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

16 February 2018
Jonathan Bradley
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
I and various members of the community of Thanet have been trying to get assurances and evidence to back up claims made by RiverOak Strategic Partners "RSP", Sir Roger Gale MP, Craig Mackinlay MP, various local Cllrs including Robert Bayford, Sam Bambridge, Stuart Piper and Trevor Shonk that night flights will not be required should Manston airport reopen other than in the case of emergency instances.

Despite asking the question absolutely clearly and directly it has still not been possible to get comfort on this issue as the statements made by the above party's, some did not respond at all, were either unclear or deliberately vague when the correct and required response is either yes or no. In addition RSP in their latest limited consultation are now requesting up to 8 flights each night 7 nights a week and in addition a night time quota count of 4000 for cargo operations and 2000 for passenger operations, a greater count than at London Heathrow where I understand, should further expansion be granted, night flights would not be required. How this correlates to statements that night flights are not required or how the QC count level interfaces with a maximum of 8 I am yet to understand and will be seeking clarity from RSP in due course.

As you will have seen from responses to the first consultation some public respondents were told by RSP representatives that there would not be any night flights, some were told they were not in their "current" plans leaving it open for plans in the future to include them. I was told that night flights would be required if customers requested them. At the more recent consultations which, despite the new inclusion of a very large night time quota count and significant new and incredibly important information regarding impacts on health, were only held in two locations with only a few hundred people attending presumably because most thought not much had changed, again answers on this point have been variously reported as unclear or inconsistent between RSP representatives.

I am sure you can understand the confusion and the unwillingness of those concerned about night flights, who are on both sides of the airport/no airport divide, nobody wants them, to rely on statements made by pro airport supporters and Sir Roger Gale that night flights are not required. Even Sir Roger Gales recent statement, which you will have seen, is ambiguous as it says that RSP "neither needs nor wants scheduled night flights that do not fit in with its business plan" quite cleverly worded to ensure that any night flights that do fit in with its business plan would be required, so again not categoric. Again this is inconsistent with RSP current DCO documentation and their request to the Civil Aviation Authority for night flights without limit.

At consultations RSP have advised that they have included night flights because you "PINS" require then to show the worst possible situation. Others including Sir Roger Gale, Craig Mackinlay, various local Cllrs and airport supporters have also made this assertion. You have I think been asked this question before but your reply was not as categoric as it could have been. My interpretation of your reply was that you had not specified that night flights should be included but merely required the applicant to allow in it's application for the worst case scenario within its own specified airport operation framework, so if it wants night flights it should include them but if it doesn't it can exclude them. What would be helpful to all involved in this process and particularly the large number of people who are concerned about the possibility of night flights, would be if you could confirm the following.

The inclusion of night flights is purely at the discretion of the applicant and it is not a requirement that PINS insists is included in the documentation to support a Development Consent Order "DCO". It is for the applicant alone to decide whether or not it's operation of the airport requires the inclusion of night flights or not. If an applicant included in the documentation supporting a DCO application a categoric statement that "Other than in the case of unplanned emergency situations outside of its control there would be no night flights required at Manston Airport" this would be acceptable within the DCO process, would be acceptable to PINS, would not prejudice the acceptance of the application for examination, would not prevent the project being considered to be one of Nationally Strategic Importance and would not predjudice any decision to be made by the Secretary of State.

I think this statement is clear and categoric and is a reflection of what is required within the legal framework surrounding the DCO process and I hope therefore as a statement of fact you are able to make it as publically as possible.
Beyond the acceptance tests applied to a submitted application for airport-related development (as set out in s23 of the Planning Act 2008), the Planning Inspectorate does not dictate the operational characteristics of airport-related applications made to it. It is for an applicant alone to decide whether or not its airport-related development needs to allow for night flights to be operated.

If an airport applicant intends to operate night flights, its Environmental Impact Assessment will need to include an assessment to identify the likely significant effects arising from those night flights, along with a description of the measures envisaged in order to avoid, prevent, reduce or offset them. If an airport applicant does not intend to operate night flights, or have the option to operate night flights, there will be no need to assess the impact of night flights as part of its Environmental Impact Assessment.

An applicant must submit a draft Development Consent Order (DCO) with its application and the draft DCO must set out the authorised development that the Applicant is seeking consent for. If an applicant chose to do so it could include within a draft DCO for airport-related development provisions which set out, for example, the parameters associated with any night flights that an applicant wishes to operate (eg their frequency, the circumstances under which they may operate etc).

The draft provisions provided in the draft DCO submitted with the application will be subject to examination by the appointed Examining Authority (ExA). Anybody who registers to become an Interested Party at the appropriate time in the Pre-examination period (as advertised by the Applicant) will be able to make representations to the ExA about any of the provisions in the draft DCO. The ExA will make a recommendation to the Secretary of State about whether development consent should be granted, and if so, what provisions are to be included in the DCO, including any provisions relating to night flights if the applicant requested these in its application. The Secretary of State will make the final decision on these matters. The authorised development will be prescribed in a Schedule to the DCO, if development consent is granted.

16 February 2018
Adem Mehmet
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer sent their response to the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

Please send your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to Thanet District Council ([email protected]), as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

16 February 2018
anon.
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

If you have not done so already please send your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself ([email protected] [email protected]) and to Thanet District Council ([email protected]), as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

16 February 2018
Martin Northrop
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer sent their response to the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

If you have not done so already please send your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself ([email protected] [email protected]) and to Thanet District Council ([email protected]), as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

16 February 2018
Kim Edgington
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation, with their consultation response, to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

If you have not done so already please send your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself ([email protected] [email protected]) and to Thanet District Council ([email protected]), as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

16 February 2018
Grant Duncan
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

If you have not done so already please send your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself ([email protected] [email protected]) and to Thanet District Council ([email protected]), as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

16 February 2018
Susan Duncan
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via post
response has attachments
The enquirer submitted representations regarding the merits of the proposed development to the Planning Inspectorate.
The qualifying thresholds for an airport-related Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project are set out in section 23 of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008). If an application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, the Applicant will be required to justify in the documentation its position on the baseline assumed in terms of flight numbers for the purposes of the capability test in the PA2008. The Planning Inspectorate, on behalf of the Secretary of State, cannot take a view on the Applicant’s approach in this regard until such time as an application is formally submitted and s55 of the PA2008 is engaged.

Regarding the remaining content of your letter, the Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

16 February 2018
Christopher Burrows
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via phone
Ymholiad – 16 Chwefror 2018 / Enquiry – 16 February 2018

Roedd Mr David Jenkins, clerc Cyngor Cymuned Llangyfelach, yn holi ynghylch cyflwyno ei ymateb i’r ymgynghoriad, sydd i fod cyrraedd erbyn 19 Chwefror 2018. Ni fu ar gael yn ddiweddar a chyfnod cyfyngedig o amser yn unig sydd ar ôl ganddo ar gyfer cyflwyno sylwadau. Y prif bryderon, yn ei farn ef a CC Llangyfelach, yw effaith weledol y simnai a’r effaith ar ansawdd yr aer ar dir cyfagos sydd wedi’i gynnwys yn y Cynllun Datblygu Lleol (sy’n cael ei archwilio ar hyn o bryd) fel safle posibl ar gyfer datblygiad preswyl ar raddfa fawr, a’r effaith ar Barc Busnes Abertawe gerllaw ac ar Ysbyty Treforys, sy’n uned drawma fawr.


Mr David Jenkins, clerk to Llangyfelach Community Council, was enquiring about submitting his consultation response, due by 19 February 2018. He’s recently been unavailable and has a limited amount of time left in which to submit representations. His/Llangyfelach CC’s main concerns are the visual impact of the stack and air quality impacts on land nearby which has been included in the Local Development Plan (currently under examination) as a potential site for large scale residential development, the effect on the nearby Swansea Business Park and on Morrison Hospital, which is a major trauma unit.
Cynghorwyd Mr Jenkins gan yr Arolygiaeth Gynllunio bod yr Ymgeisydd yn cynnal cylch ymgynghori ac mai’r dyddiad cau yw 19 Chwefror 2018. Gan fod y cais yn y cyfnod cyn ymgeisio ar hyn o bryd, dylid cyfeirio ymatebion at yr Ymgeisydd yn uniongyrchol. Esboniodd yr Arolygiaeth ei bod yn ofynnol i’r Ymgeisydd fformiwleiddio’r ymatebion y mae’n eu derbyn erbyn y dyddiad cau ac esbonio sut y rhoddwyd sylw i faterion fel rhan o’r Adroddiad Ymgynghori, a fydd yn cyd-fynd â’r cais, maes o law.

Cyfeiriwyd Mr Jenkins at wefan yr Ymgeisydd, sy’n cynnwys gwybodaeth am y prosiect yn ogystal â dogfennau ategol allweddol.

Hefyd, esboniodd yr Arolygiaeth wrth Mr Jenkins y gallai gofrestru i ddod yn berson â buddiant yn ystod y cyfnod cyn archwiliad, os derbynnir y cais ar gyfer ei archwilio. Fe’i cyfeiriwyd at dudalen prosiect Abergelli ar wefan yr Arolygiaeth ac esboniwyd y bydd yr holl wybodaeth yn cael ei chyhoeddi ar y dudalen hon ar ôl i’r cais gael ei gyflwyno ar gyfer ei archwilio. Yn ogystal, tynnwyd sylw Mr Jenkins gan yr Arolygiaeth at ei nodiadau cyngor, a NC8 yn arbennig, sy’n helpu esbonio’r broses ymgeisio i aelodau’r cyhoedd.

Bydd Mr Jenkins yn llunio ei ymateb i’r ymgynghoriad dros y penwythnos a’i anfon drwy e-bost at yr Ymgeisydd ddydd Llun er mwyn cwrdd â’r dyddiad cau.


The Planning Inspectorate advised Mr Jenkins that the Applicant was carrying out a round of consultation and the closing date is 19 February 2018. As the application is currently at pre-application stage, responses should be made directly to the Applicant. The Inspectorate explained that the Applicant is required to formulate responses it receives by the deadline and explain how issues have been addressed as part of the Consultation Report, which will accompany the application, in due course.

Mr Jenkins was directed to the Applicant’s website which contains information on the project as well as key supporting documents.

The Inspectorate also explained to Mr Jenkins that he could register to become an interested person during the pre-examination stage, if the application is accepted for examination. He was directed to the Abergelli project page on the Inspectorate’s website and it was explained that all information would be published to this page when the application is submitted for examination. The Inspectorate also advised Mr Jenkins aware of its advice notes, in particular AN8, which helps explain the application process to members of the public.

Mr Jenkins will formulate his consultation response over the weekend and send it by e-mail to the Applicant on Monday to meet the deadline.

16 February 2018
David Jenkins
Abergelli Power
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer sent their response to the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

15 February 2018
Jacqui Porter
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation, with their consultation response, to the Planning Inspectorate, the Applicant and Thanet District Council.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

15 February 2018
Andrea Slaughter
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer submitted representations regarding the merits of the proposed development to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

If you have not done so already please send your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself ([email protected] [email protected]) and to Thanet District Council ([email protected]), as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

15 February 2018
Mark Heverin
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer sent their response to the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

More information about how to engage at the Pre-application stage of the process is provided in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

15 February 2018
Russell F White
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer sent their response to the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

15 February 2018
Ian Williams
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation, with their consultation response, to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

Please send any comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself ([email protected] [email protected]) and to Thanet District Council ([email protected]), as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

15 February 2018
Mr Robbins and Family
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation, with their consultation response, to the Planning Inspectorate, the Applicant and Thanet District Council.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

15 February 2018
Fiona Gilhooly
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation, with their consultation response, to the Planning Inspectorate, the Applicant and Thanet District Council.
For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

Helpfully you have sent your comments about the Applicant’s consultation directly to the Applicant and to Thanet District Council, as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

15 February 2018
MJ Feekings
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation, with their consultation response, to the Planning Inspectorate, the Applicant and Thanet District Council.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

Helpfully you have copied your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself and to Thanet District Council, as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

15 February 2018
Ms Holmans and Mr Thompson
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer sent their response to the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

More information about how to engage at the Pre-application stage of the process is provided in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

15 February 2018
J Wales
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer submitted representations regarding the merits of the proposed development to the Planning Inspectorate.
Please contact the Applicant ([email protected] [email protected]) for details about how its three stages of consultation were advertised.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

15 February 2018
John Horn
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer submitted representations regarding the merits of the proposed development to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

If you have not done so already please send your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself ([email protected] [email protected]) and to Thanet District Council ([email protected]), as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

15 February 2018
Steve Gambrell
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer submitted representations regarding the merits of the proposed development, and the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation, to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

15 February 2018
Lindsey Harris
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If you have not done so already please send your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself ([email protected] [email protected]) and to Thanet District Council ([email protected]), as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

15 February 2018
Ramsgate Society - Wendy and George Arnheim
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer sent their response to the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If you have not done so already please send your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself ([email protected] [email protected]) and to Thanet District Council ([email protected]), as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

15 February 2018
Susan Hudson
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer submitted representations regarding the merits of the proposed development to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

If you have not done so already please send your comments about the Applicant’s consultation directly to the Applicant ([email protected] [email protected]). Further advice about Community Consultation can be found in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

15 February 2018
Graham Jackson and Jean White
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer sent their response to the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If you have not done so already please send your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself ([email protected] [email protected]) and to Thanet District Council ([email protected]), as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

15 February 2018
Hugh Langston
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
Could you kindly arrange for the deadline for submission to be delayed as I am having problems opening the Manston Masterplan on the RSP website. I have contacted rsp copied to you but haven’t had a response. I had intended to work on my response this evening and am away tomorrow.
The Planning Inspectorate does not have the power to extend the consultation period.

Please await a response from the Applicant (copied) which, given the difficulty you have encountered, may be able to agree a short bespoke extension for receipt of your representation.

15 February 2018
Michael Child
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer sent their response to the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

Helpfully you have sent your comments about the Applicant’s consultation directly to the Applicant. You may also wish to copy your comments to Thanet District Council ([email protected]), as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

15 February 2018
Rachel Furlong
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer sent their response to the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If you have not done so already please send your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to Thanet District Council ([email protected]), as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

15 February 2018
Mr and Mrs Bowley
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer sent their response to the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If you have not done so already please send your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself ([email protected] [email protected]) and to Thanet District Council ([email protected]), as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

15 February 2018
Liz Langston
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Early Submission’ of draft application documents by DS Smith Paper Ltd for PINS review
Please see attached

14 February 2018
DS Smith Paper Ltd - anon.
Kemsley Paper Mill (K4) CHP Plant
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation, with their consultation response, to the Planning Inspectorate, the Applicant and Thanet District Council.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

Helpfully you have copied your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself and to Thanet District Council, as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

14 February 2018
Phil Neale
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
As a resident o Ramsgate I wish to object to any redevelopment of Manston Airport for airport use and feel their has been a distinct lack of public consultation at every stage of the proposed redevelopment.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

Helpfully you have copied your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself and to Thanet District Council, as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

14 February 2018
Gerard Bane
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer submitted representations regarding the merits of the proposed development and the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If you have not done so already please send your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself ([email protected] [email protected]) and to Thanet District Council ([email protected]), as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

14 February 2018
Alan Maxted
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer submitted representations regarding the merits of the proposed development to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

14 February 2018
T McElligott
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation, with their consultation response, to the Planning Inspectorate, the Applicant and Thanet District Council.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

Helpfully you have copied your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself and to Thanet District Council, as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

14 February 2018
Ruth Baird
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer sent their response to the Applicant's 2018 statutory consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

14 February 2018
Andrew Kelly
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If you have not done so already please send your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself ([email protected] [email protected]) and to Thanet District Council ([email protected]), as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

14 February 2018
Dennis Booth
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer sent their response to the Applicant's 2018 statutory consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

14 February 2018
Linda Charlesworth
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer submitted representations regarding the merits of the proposed development and the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If you have not done so already please send your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself ([email protected] [email protected]) and to Thanet District Council ([email protected]), as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

14 February 2018
Jean Robinson
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation, with their consultation response, to the Planning Inspectorate, the Applicant and Thanet District Council.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

14 February 2018
Patricia Moore
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation to the Planning Inspectorate and Thanet District Council.
Helpfully you have copied your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to Thanet District Council (TDC), as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 1]

TDC can consider your comments as part of its Adequacy of Consultation Representation. In reaching its decision about whether to accept an application for examination the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State), amongst other things, must have regard to any Adequacy of Consultation Representations made by local authority consultees.

14 February 2018
James Chappell
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer sent their response to the Applicant's 2018 statutory consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If you have not done so already please send your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to Thanet District Council ([email protected]), as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

14 February 2018
Debbie Blagden
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer submitted representations regarding the merits of the proposed development to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

14 February 2018
Caroline Allum
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer sent their response to the Applicant's 2018 statutory consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If you have not done so already please send your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to Thanet District Council ([email protected]), as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

14 February 2018
Ann Scott
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer sent their response to the Applicant's 2018 statutory consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

14 February 2018
Paula Myers
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation, with their consultation response, to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If you have not done so already please send your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself ([email protected] [email protected]) and to Thanet District Council ([email protected]), as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

14 February 2018
Denis Smith
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation, which included representations regarding the merits of the proposed development, to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If you have not done so already please send your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself ([email protected] [email protected]) and to Thanet District Council ([email protected]), as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

14 February 2018
Mrs J Best
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer submitted representations regarding the merits of the proposed development to the Planning Inspectorate, the Applicant and Thanet District Council.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

14 February 2018
Sarah Illingworth
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation, which included representations regarding the merits of the proposed development, to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If you have not done so already please send your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself ([email protected] [email protected]) and to Thanet District Council ([email protected]), as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

14 February 2018
Steve Lockwood
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer sent their response to the Applicant's 2018 statutory consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If you have not done so already please send your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to Thanet District Council ([email protected]), as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

14 February 2018
Jenny Rath
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer sent their response to the Applicant's 2018 statutory consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

14 February 2018
Mr M Smith
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If you have not done so already please send your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself ([email protected] [email protected]) and to Thanet District Council ([email protected]), as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

14 February 2018
Susan Robinson
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation, with their consultation response, to the Planning Inspectorate, the Applicant and Thanet District Council.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

Helpfully you have copied your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself and to Thanet District Council, as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

14 February 2018
Daniel Woollett
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation, with their consultation response, to the Planning Inspectorate and the Applicant.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

Please contact Thanet District Council ([email protected]) with your comments about the Applicant’s consultation, as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

14 February 2018
Mike Lockwood
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer submitted representations regarding the merits of the proposed development to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

14 February 2018
Davena Green
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation, with their consultation response, to the Planning Inspectorate, the Applicant and Thanet District Council.
Helpfully you have copied your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself and to Thanet District Council, as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 1]

The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 2]

14 February 2018
Tim Spencer
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer sent their response to the Applicant's 2018 statutory consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of a proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

Please see our Community Consultation FAQ for information and advice about commenting on an applicant's Pre-application consultation: [attachment 2]

12 February 2018
Marc Danton
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer sent their response to the Applicant's 2018 statutory Consultation and addressed their concerns on the consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

Helpfully you have copied your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself, and to Thanet District Council. For the avoidance of doubt, the Community Consultation FAQ described in my previous advice to you is now published: [attachment 2]

12 February 2018
Anne Peers
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I wish to add my name to opposing the reopening of Manston Airport as a former resident in Ramsgate. This has dragged on for so many years knowing that an airport is not viable for the area and the job numbers will be insignificant for the Thanet community. It's time/money wasting.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

12 February 2018
Sarah Brick
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
With reference to the recent consultation by River Oak, on Tuesday 23rd January at The Comfort Inn.

I was deeply disappointed to find out that I and many of the local residents were not informed of this consultation by post or leaflet, and therefore they were unable to voice their opinion on such an important issue that will affect all our lives.

We live on the Nethercourt Estate, which will be greatly affected.
If you have not already done so, please send your comments about the consultation to the Applicant itself: [email protected] [email protected]

For further information and advice about commenting on an applicant's Pre-application consultation please see our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 1]

12 February 2018
Tom Norton
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation, with their consultation response, to the Planning Inspectorate, the Applicant and Thanet District Council.
Helpfully you have copied your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself and to Thanet District Council, as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 1]

12 February 2018
Davena Green
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer queried potential compensation and submitted representations regarding the merits of the proposed development to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of a proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

Please contact the Applicant directly for advice about any compensation package proposed to be included as part of its application for development consent: [email protected] [email protected]

12 February 2018
Nathan Coldwell
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer queried potential compensation and submitted representations regarding the merits of the proposed development to the Planning Inspectorate.
Please see the National Infrastructure Planning website for information about the Planning Inspectorate’s role in the Planning Act 2008 process: [attachment 1]

You will need to contact the Applicant directly for advice about any compensation package proposed to be included as part of its application for development consent: [email protected] [email protected]

12 February 2018
Rob Wimbush
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation, which included representations regarding the merits of the proposed development, to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

Helpfully you have copied your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself and to Thanet District Council, as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

12 February 2018
Sam Smith
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer submitted representations regarding the merits of the proposed development to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

12 February 2018
Andrew Davis
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation, with their consultation response, to the Planning Inspectorate, the Applicant and Thanet District Council.
Helpfully you have copied your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself and to Thanet District Council, as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 1]

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations about the merits of the proposed development to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 2]

12 February 2018
Nigel West
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer sent their response to the Applicant's 2018 statutory consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
Helpfully you have sent your comments about the consultation directly to the Applicant. If you have not done so already, you may also wish to send them to Thanet District Council, as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 1]

For information about how and when you can make representations about the merits of the proposed development to the Planning Inspectorate, please see our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 2]

12 February 2018
Jenny Dawes
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer sent their response to the Applicant's 2018 statutory consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

Please see our Community Consultation FAQ for information and advice about commenting on an applicant's Pre-application consultation: [attachment 2]

12 February 2018
Eileen Richford
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation, which included representations regarding the merits of the proposed development, to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of a proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

I note you have forwarded your concerns regarding the Applicant’s Pre-application consultation to the correct channels: The Applicant and Thanet District Council. For more information on this, please see our Community Consultation FAQ (see in particular the advice at FAQ1): [attachment 2]

09 February 2018
James Curran
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
PINS meeting with Norfolk County Council
See attached meeting note

09 February 2018
Norfolk County Council - anon.
Great Yarmouth Third River Crossing
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please can you send me the Rule 6 letter, agenda for the preliminary meeting and draft timetable for the examination of the application.
After searching our records, Connect Plus Services don’t appear to be an Interested Party in the examination. Interested Parties are those with a legal interest in land affected by a nationally significant infrastructure project or that have made a relevant representation.

This may hinder your participation in the examination, as you will not be automatically invited to Hearings or have the right to make written representations (though the Examining Authority may accept any submission at their discretion), nor be notified of the final decision.

If you have a legal interest in land affected by a nationally significant infrastructure project, then you can make a request to the Examining Authority to become an interested party under s102A of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended). This can be done here:

[attachment 1]

As an Interested Party, you will be informed of the progress of the Examination and be notified of the final Decision by the Secretary of State. You can also:

• Make representations about the application being examined.

• Have the opportunity to attend and speak at the Preliminary Meeting or hearings that take place during the Examination.

• Have the opportunity to provide further written evidence to the appointed Examining Inspectors, known as the Examining Authority.

Further information on the examination process can be found in our suite of advice notes:

[attachment 2]

For your information, a copy of the Rule 6 letter can be viewed here:

[attachment 3]

08 February 2018
Connect Plus Services - Juliet Umeibekwe
Tilbury2
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer submitted representations regarding the merits of the proposed development to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of a proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

I note you have included comments regarding the Applicant’s 2018 consultation. Please see our published FAQ for information and advice on the correct channels to forward your concerns about the Applicant’s Pre-application community consultation: [attachment 2]

08 February 2018
Gabriel Holland
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation, which included representations regarding the merits of the proposed development, to the Planning Inspectorate.
I note that since your previous correspondence in July 2017, we have published an FAQ for information and advice about how to engage with the process at the Pre-application stage: [attachment 1]

If you wish to make comments about the Applicant’s Pre-application consultation, please do so following the process set out in the above FAQ. However, as you have included the Applicant and Thanet District Council in your email, they will have already seen your comments.

I also note that your email contains representations regarding the merits of the proposed development. The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations at this time; for information about how and when you will be able to do this, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 2]

08 February 2018
Jane Etherington
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer sent their response to the Applicant's 2018 statutory consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of a proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

We have also published an FAQ for information and advice about how to engage with the process at the Pre-application stage: [attachment 2]

08 February 2018
Terry Prue
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer submitted representations regarding the merits of the proposed development to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of a proposed development at this time. I do note however, that you have copied in the Applicant and Thanet District Council to your email.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

We have also published an FAQ for information and advice about how to engage with the process at the Pre-application stage: [attachment 2]

08 February 2018
Dr Jeremy Gledhill
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Nodyn Cyfarfod - 8 Chwefror 2018 / Meeting Note - 8 February 2018

08 February 2018
Horizon Nuclear Power - anon.
Wylfa Newydd Nuclear Power Station
Enquiry received via email
Please can I confirm that there is no need to attend the Preliminary Meeting in order to be able to submit responses to questions, etc. or take part in future hearings?
The Preliminary Meeting is a procedural meeting that helps inform how the application will be examined.

At the Meeting, invited people and organisations will be invited to make comments on the draft Examination Timetable and arrangements for future Examination events, before the Examining Authority finalises the timetable.

It is not an opportunity for interested parties to put forward their views about what they like or don’t like about the application. Irrespective of whether you attend the preliminary meeting, once the Examination begins following the preliminary meeting, you will be able to:

• Make representations about the application that is being examined.

• Have the opportunity to attend and speak at the hearings that take place during the Examination and attend the accompanied site inspection.

• Have the opportunity to provide further written evidence to the appointed Examining Inspectors, known as the Examining Authority.

07 February 2018
Purfleet Real Estate Limited - Benjamin Dove-Seymour
Tilbury2
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I understand you are interested in the adequacy of the consultation.

So I should like to make it clear that I had thought all this consultation was over and re-inventing the airport was no longer an issue. I was surprised and horrified when friends told me there was yet another consultation by Riveroak - because they still want to have an airport with night flights over our home.

I have seen absolutely NO information about how many night flights they plan. Nor have I seen anything that gives me information about exactly how any of their plans will impact on my health. I also do not know how their plans will affect the tourism industry in Ramsgate, nor the educational achievements of the children of Ramsgate.

During a previous consultation I attended, I received a glossy brochure that didn't appear to have any substantive information. I saw models and photographs and lots of staff. But there was no definitive information about the number of flights, whether day time or at night, etc. I had no way to tell staff that I was opposed to the plan - or, indeed, that I supported it. It seemed to be a show ... and one without audience participation.
The FAQ document below sets out that the correct, tiered process for commenting on an applicant's Pre-application consultation, if an application is yet to be submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, is to first contact the Applicant directly with your concerns regarding the consultation. If you do not receive a satisfactory response, you may wish to forward your concerns to the relevant local authority, to take into consideration as part of their 'Adequacy of Consultation Representation' that the Inspectorate will request once an application has been submitted.

I note that you copied in both the Applicant and relevant local authority - Thanet Borough Council (TBC) - when you emailed your concerns to the Planning Inspectorate. Therefore, you may wish to confirm your concerns with TBC if you do not receive a satisfactory response from the Applicant.

Only once have you forwarded your concerns to both the above parties, and still remain unsatisfied, may you contact the Secretary of State, through the Planning Inspectorate. The Planning Inspectorate can consider your concerns regarding Pre-application consultation in addition to the statutory Acceptance tests when making the decision about whether or not to accept the application under section 55 of the Planning Act 2008.

[attachment 1]

07 February 2018
Mariette Castellino
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
We are writing in response to RSP’s recent Consultation event held in Ramsgate.
The event itself was not well advertised and many residents and businesses were completely unaware that it was taking place. This is most inadequate given the enormity of the impact it will have on both individuals and the town as a whole. RSP documentation (12.9.68) –“ Considering that the impact is permanent and that a large number of dwellings within communities are subject to moderate or major adverse impacts, significant adverse effects have been identified at the communities of Ramsgate..... The effects would be characterised by a perceived change in the quality of life for the occupants of buildings”.

Given that section 12.9.58 lists Chatham and Clarendon Grammar School as being one of several non-residential receptors identified as being significantly adversely affected by the potential airport, it is totally unacceptable and unimaginable that the school was not contacted by RSP in advance and invited to attend the consultation event. Chatham and Clarendon Grammar School have, however, received no notification or information what-so-ever which is utterly inexcusable and unprofessional.

Christ Church School, which RSP have also identified as being affected by their proposed airport, has not received any information or been contacted by the company either.

We also noticed that RSP appear to have omitted to mention Ramsgate Library as another non-residential building that will suffer from the noise created from the airport and which is all the more incredible since it is being used as the venue for their documents to be made available to the public! The library itself has also not been contacted by RPS and invited to comment on their proposals as an institution in its own right. One has to question how many other public / commercial buildings and spaces have also not been contacted.

In referring to the public buildings that RSP have included, Section 12.9.59 states, “The significant effect will be characterised by potential disruption, disturbance or interference with tasks by the users of the buildings”. These are places of valuable learning, leisure and spiritual activities; they are places in which we learn, read, engage with others, take part in sporting activities, act, sing, pray, talk, think, listen, concentrate and play.

The event itself was inconveniently mid-week (on a Tuesday) which again made it difficult for many to attend. Surely the people of Ramsgate deserve to be given ample opportunity to see for themselves what RSP is intending to inflict upon them and RSP should therefore have made their event run for several days including evenings and weekends. The chosen location was a fairly small room which quickly felt over crowded.

When we asked a direct question to a RSP representative at the Ramsgate event about proposed night flights, she kept replying over and over again “...as I say, we are not ‘planning’ for night flights.” The RSP documentation, however, would suggest that this is not the case as 12.9.69 “During the night time – minor to major adverse impacts are predicted in Ramsgate.” 12.9.70 continues....” The effect would be characterised as a perceived change in the quality of life for occupants of buildings in these communities or a perceived change in the acoustic character of shared open spaced within these communities during the night time.” The information given at the consultation therefore felt deliberately misleading, contradictory and the tone was insulting.
We would like to again draw your attention to the fact that in Ramsgate, the combination of the topography of the land, densely packed and often tall, terraced housing means that noise is funnelled down and intensifies. Having lived in this house for 15 years, we know that the noise is extreme and affects us terribly. It is impossible even to continue a conversation with someone in the same room or speak on the telephone when the planes cross. We have also noted that the noise seems less intrusive in the car park of the Manston Tesco, for example, where, despite being nearer to the airport and the planes being even lower, the noise dissipates and is less intense as there is more open space. One really has to question the intentions and integrity of a company who appear to have deliberately avoided drawing attention to their plans from the thousands of inhabitants who might well be some of the most adversely affected.

We also pointed out that every time a plane has crossed our house during night time hours, every member of our family has fully wakened and the children frightened as the noise on the top floor where they sleep is unbearable and terrifying. This contravenes our Human Right to sleep and fails to meet the guidelines set by the world Health Organisation. RSP are now saying that there would be a need a considerable number of night flights between 11pm and 7am. This would have a catastrophic effect on ours and our children’s health, education and well-being.

The alternative proposal for Stone Hill Park would be hugely preferable, providing much needed housing, green space and leisure facilities. We do put it to all concerned, however, that the former Manston Airport Site is a valuable piece of land in the centre of the Isle of Thanet with its stunning beaches and seaside towns, each with its unique character. Surely we can work with imagination and vision to find a use that is inspiring and beneficial to the area as a whole; one that is positive and forward looking, providing varied and high quality work, entertainment and education opportunities and is something to be proud of for locals and visitors alike. Whoever would have thought that a couple of giant greenhouses in a disused quarry in Cornwall would be such a huge success and draw people from all over the world to learn, wonder and celebrate what the Eden Project has to offer? Surely, Thanet deserves better!
Firstly, if you wish to make comments about the Applicant’s Pre-application consultation, please do so following the process set out in our Community Consultation FAQ (see in particular the advice at FAQ1): [attachment 1]

I also note that your email contains representations regarding the merits of the proposed development. The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations at this time; for information about how and when you will be able to do this, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 2]

07 February 2018
Mr and Mrs Laven
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation and queried the Planning Inspectorate's advice on the provision for night flights in the proposed development.
Firstly, if you wish to make comments about the Applicant’s Pre-application consultation, please do so following the process set out in our Community Consultation FAQ (see in particular the advice at FAQ1): [attachment 1]

The FAQ document above sets out that the correct, tiered process for commenting on an applicant's Pre-application consultation, if an application is yet to be submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, is to first contact the Applicant directly with your concerns regarding the consultation. If you do not receive a satisfactory response, you may wish to forward your concerns to the relevant local authority, to take into consideration as part of their 'Adequacy of Consultation Representation' that the Inspectorate will request once an application has been submitted.

I note that you copied in both the Applicant and relevant local authority - Thanet Borough Council (TBC) - when you emailed your concerns to the Planning Inspectorate. Therefore, you may wish to confirm your concerns with TBC if you do not receive a satisfactory response from the Applicant.

Only once have you forwarded your concerns to both the above parties, and still remain unsatisfied, may you contact the Secretary of State, through the Planning Inspectorate. The Planning Inspectorate can consider your concerns regarding Pre-application consultation in addition to the statutory Acceptance tests when making the decision about whether or not to accept the application under section 55 of the Planning Act 2008.

In response to your query regarding the Planning Inspectorate’s advice on provision for night flights, by way of clarification: beyond the acceptance tests applied to a submitted application for airport-related development (as set out in s23 of the Planning Act 2008), the Planning Inspectorate does not dictate the operational characteristics of airport-related applications made to it.

If an airport applicant intends to operate night flights, its Environmental Impact Assessment will need to include an assessment to identify the likely significant effects arising from those night flights, along with a description of the measures envisaged in order to avoid, prevent, reduce or offset them.

If an airport applicant does not intend to operate night flights, or have the option to operate night flights, there will be no need to assess the impact of night flights as part of its Environmental Impact Assessment.

07 February 2018
James Chappell
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer forwarded representations they had sent to their local MP with regard to the proposed development.
Although I note your email was sent to a group, the Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of a proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

Please note we have also published an FAQ for information and advice about how to engage with the process at the Pre-application stage: [attachment 2]

06 February 2018
Derek Smith
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project meeting with Highways England
See attached meeting note

06 February 2018
Highways England - anon.
M20 Junction 10A
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Please see attached
Please see attached

06 February 2018
Highways England - anon.
Trans Pennine Upgrade Programme
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer sent their response to the Applicant's 2018 statutory consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of a proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

We have also published an FAQ for information and advice about how to engage with the process at the Pre-application stage: [attachment 2]

05 February 2018
Elaine Stevens
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer sent their response to the Applicant's 2018 statutory consultation to the Planning Inspectorate and queried the suitability of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) consenting process for the Proposed Development.
It is not for the Planning Inspectorate to consider the content of your response to the Applicant’s consultation. For details about how and when you will be able to make representations about the merits of the proposal to the Planning Inspectorate, please see Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination: [attachment 1]

In respect of your comment about the suitability of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) process, airport development that requires development consent is defined in section 23 of the PA2008. Any application by RiverOak Strategic Partners for a Development Consent Order will be considered for acceptance against the statutory tests in section 55 of the PA2008. Amongst those tests, the application must demonstrate how the thresholds in section 23 of the PA2008 would be met by the authorised development.

05 February 2018
Martin Weller
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer sent their response to the Applicant's 2018 statutory consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of a proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

We have also published an FAQ for information and advice about how to engage with the process at the Pre-application stage: [attachment 2]

05 February 2018
Jean Tedder
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation.
If you have not done so already please provide your comments directly to the Applicant and Thanet District Council.

Since I last advised you we have published a Community Consultation FAQ. In the context of your enquiry please read in particular the advice at FAQ1: [attachment 1]

01 February 2018
Lesley and Paul Chater
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer forwarded an from Transport for London in response to their request under the Freedom of Information Act (FOI-2993-1718).
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of a proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

01 February 2018
Nicolette McKenzie
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation.
If you wish to make comments about the Applicant’s Pre-application consultation, please do so following the process set out in our Community Consultation FAQ (see in particular the advice at FAQ1): [attachment 1]

01 February 2018
Dr Philip Shotton
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer submitted representations regarding the merits of the proposed development to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

01 February 2018
Keith Nicholls
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please see below a statement made yesterday by Sir Roger Gale MP regarding Manston airport. I will be grateful if you can confirm the claim within the statement of conclusions drawn by one of your inspectors during the recent change of use application procedure.

"Given the Inspector's comments in July last year when rejecting change of use on four current buildings on Manston and his recognition in his summary of the importance of Manston of a potential force for economic and employment development as an airport in the current local plan (which is why, of course, the Leader of Thanet Council and the minority opposed to the airport wanted to change the plan from Airport to mixed use) it is hard to see that the RiverOak application will not be accepted for examination..."
The Inspector’s decision is available to read on the Appeals Casework Portal, here: [attachment 1]

01 February 2018
Adem Mehmet
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Nodyn Cyfarfod - 1 Chwefror 2018 / Meeting Note - 1 February 2018

01 February 2018
Isle of Anglesey County Council - anon.
Wylfa Newydd Nuclear Power Station
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Thanet Extension project update meeting
See attached meeting note

31 January 2018
Vattenfall - anon.
Thanet Extension Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
As a Ramsgate resident, I am appalled that the creation of a 24/7 cargo hub is even being considered on the old Manston site.

I am not a NIMBY, afraid of the effect on the price of my house. I care deeply about the town and its beautiful natural situation.

A cargo hub would cause noise pollution, the damaging effects of which are widely known, as well as air and sea pollution.

The prospective owners say that water will run off the runway into the sea - a coastline that has a nature reserve, seal sanctuary and many rare sea birds. It CANNOT be allowed to happen.

How cynical of RSP to use images of heritage planes in their posters. There is nothing nostalgic or romantic about cargo planes flying at night, disrupting wildlife, sleep, buildings and a peaceful coastal way of life.

Their claims of creating 30,000 jobs are misleading, to put it politely. Their bristling defence of any concerns over the environment (the word wasn’t mentioned once on any of their shoddy presentation boards at the recent Ramsgate consultation at the Comfort Inn) and dismissal of genuine health concerns as ‘rubbish’ told me everything I needed to know about the lack of care over the issues that greatly concern the majority of residents in Ramsgate and Herne Bay.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of a proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

30 January 2018
Christabel Bradley
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I want to offer my voice to the protests regarding the re-opening of Manston Airport.

There has been a massive distortion by the River Oak Strategic Partnership in the interpretation that the attendees at the consultation meetings were in support of their plans to re-open the airport. The people I met were certainly not in support and were in fact very strongly against. Everyone was asked to sign into the meeting and then we are told that the signatures were to show our support of River Oaks plans. Surely this is illegal?

There has also been distortions in the number of jobs that the re-opening will create. It has been quoted by River Oak that this will generate 30,000 local jobs. This would mean Manston was employing more people that Gatwick and Heathrow combined.

There also hasn’t been any data provided regarding the pollution that the airport will create with the flights and the haulage of cargo from the airport.

Please build the houses that we need on this site. It would be a fantastic initiative to help solve the housing crisis in Southern England.

I look forward to hearing your thoughts on the above.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of a proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If you wish to make comments about the Applicant’s Pre-application consultation, please do so following the process set out in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

30 January 2018
Jeremy Green
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
We have received information from yourselves with regards Tilbury 2 Project.

We manage a retirement estate across the water in Gravesend and wondered if this would impact us?
You have received our letter because you have been identified by the applicant as being interested in land potentially affected by the proposed scheme. Therefore you have the status of an Interested Party in the examination and can fully participate in the examination.

You can view all the project documents at the project website:
[attachment 1]

As an Interested Party, you will be informed of the progress of the Examination and be notified of the final Decision by the Secretary of State. You can also:

• Make representations about the application that is being examined.

• Have the opportunity to attend and speak at the Preliminary Meeting or hearings that take place during the Examination.

• Have the opportunity to provide further written evidence to the appointed Examining Inspector(s), known as the Examining Authority

However, you are not obliged to participate.

Further information on the examination process can be found in our suite of advice notes:
[attachment 2]

Advice notes 8.2 – 8.5 include information relating to the examination process.

If you have any questions about the examination process, please do not hesitate to contact me.

30 January 2018
Elm Group - Michelle Cable
Tilbury2
Enquiry received via phone
response has attachments
A47 Projects Update Meeting
Please see attached meeting note

30 January 2018
Highways England
A47 Wansford to Sutton
Enquiry received via phone
response has attachments
A47 Projects Update Meeting
Please see attached meeting note

30 January 2018
Highways England
A47/A11 Thickthorn Junction
Enquiry received via phone
response has attachments
A47 Projects Update Meeting
Please see attached meeting note

30 January 2018
Highways England
A47 North Tuddenham to Easton
Enquiry received via phone
response has attachments
A47 Projects Update Meeting
Please see attached meeting note

30 January 2018
Highways England
A47 Blofield to North Burlingham
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting note
Please see attached

30 January 2018
Highways England - anon.
A303 Stonehenge
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I, in common with many local residents, am extremely strongly opposed to RSP's plans as hugely detrimental to the commercial and amenity value of Thanet in general and specifically Ramsgate and Herne Bay, popular tourist destinations, which will be particularly blighted should the DCO application be successful. I would be grateful if you could incorporate my views in your assessment of the suitability of RSP's plans.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of a proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

29 January 2018
Phil Shotton
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I've explained to you that key details of the proposal are missing from the consultation documentations, rendering any consultation meaningless. You previously told me that all of the information I had talked about would be available in the pre-consultation documentation. What is the point of your meetings with the applicants if you aren't ensuring that they consult properly?

Firstly, I would like to ask if you did tell them to include provision for night flights in their application and, if so, how many night flights did you tell them to include?

Secondly, if you have given them advice on this, how is it that this conversation doesn't feature in any of the minutes of the meetings between the applicants and the Planning Inspectorate? Are conversations taking place which are not minuted or recorded on your web-site?
I have previously explained that the Planning Inspectorate cannot compel an applicant to include particular information in its Preliminary Environmental Information, which is defined in Regulation 2 of the 2009 EIA Regulations (and Regulation 12 of the 2017 EIA Regulations). The Inspectorate’s Pre-application service for applicants, which summarises the purpose of applicant meetings, is set out in detail here: [attachment 1]

The Planning Inspectorate has not advised the Applicant to include provision for night flights in its application. All of the advice issued to the Applicant has been recorded and published to the Inspectorate’s website in accordance with s51 of the Planning Act 2008.

29 January 2018
Peter Binding
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
What would the complaints procedure be if I considered that the DCO process was being misused?
You will already be aware of the complaints procedure at the Pre-application stage of the process in respect of consultation, as set out in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 1]

You will also be aware that the Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of a proposed development at the Pre-application stage of the process. For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to an appointed Examining Authority, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 2]

In respect of making a ‘complaint’ relating to the matter implied, this could be approached in the following ways:

• You could make representations to an appointed Examining Authority, at the appropriate time, about the Applicant’s case for Compulsory Acquisition (CA). Strict statutory tests must be satisfied by an applicant in order for powers relating to the CA of and rights to be included in a Development Consent Order. For more information see government guidance related to procedures for the CA of land: [attachment 3]; and
• Following the issue of the final decision by the Secretary of State, you could challenge the decision in the High Court through the process of Judicial Review (JR). You would need to take your own legal advice about the grounds upon which an application for JR could be made.

Separately, the Planning Inspectorate accepts that it is inevitable that there will sometimes be concerns about the Examination process or the Examining Authority’s report to the Secretary of State. In this respect, we will carefully consider and respond to any matters that you wish to raise. Information about our complaints procedure is available here: [attachment 4]

29 January 2018
Michael Child
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Request submitted to become an interested party.
Thank you for your recent section 102A request to become an Interested Party, in relation to the Tilbury2 project.

You have been identified by the applicant as a category 3 person. Therefore you already have the status of an Interested Party in the examination and can fully participate in the examination.

Your details are included in the in the Book of Reference; this document is provided by the applicant. You can view this document, along with all the other project documents at the project website:

[attachment 1]

As an Interested Party, you will be informed of the progress of the Examination and be notified of the final Decision by the Secretary of State. You can also:

• Make representations about the application being examined.

• Have the opportunity to attend and speak at the Preliminary Meeting or hearings that take place during the Examination.

• Have the opportunity to provide further written evidence to the appointed Examining Inspector(s), known as the Examining Authority

Further information on the examination process can be found in our suite of advice notes:

[attachment 2]

Advice notes 8.2 – 8.5 include information relating to the examination process.

This response is sent without prejudice and cannot be considered as legal advice on which you can rely.

29 January 2018
Ioan-Eugen Ciobanu
Tilbury2
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I have sent back my views to RSP in their recent emailed form regarding the above matter.

As a resident and also a business person I have the strongest views against this proposal - and I am somewhat bemused that after the previous request by RSP and the subsequent rejection they are back yet again. This time actually acknowledging that they will have night flights carrying cargo across and over the top of a residential and built up town.

This is so WRONG on so many levels:

The pollution effect is distressing alone - the noise, which will only harm peoples health but lack of sleep, the devaluation of the area and businesses- lack of jobs ( honestly how many people would it employ) possibly a handful.

The viability of the cargo hub lets remember its already been used as an airport and it was a dismal failure then - this proposed use will effect, schools, businesses and tourists and impact greatly on the towns of Ramsgate and Herne Bay and all the villages and its residents.

RSP are not people we can trust - they had no idea at the last consultation I attended and when asked various questions, they were literally stabbing in the dark for answers on flight paths etc.

No NO No we do not want a cargo hub here - despite everything Ramsgate is trying to keep its head up and become a pleasant holiday and recreational and viable town -

I have already sent my form to RSP but because I do not trust them I am ccing you all on my strong feelings regarding the proposed scheme.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of a proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

26 January 2018
Christine Isteed
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer sent their response to the Applicant's 2018 statutory consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations of this type at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

26 January 2018
Susan Hammock
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
A question, please, about the scope of the environmental impact assessment described in the consultation documents recently issued by RSP.

I note that a scoping opinion was sought from PINS/the Secretary of State prior to the first statutory consultation. But that concerned an environmental assessment which was to be conducted in accordance with legal rules which have now changed. I appreciate that there is considerable overlap between the two sets of regulations. On the other hand, -and as the European Commission explained when the parent law was made - the new law requires a deeper approach to environmental impact.

Reading through the PEIR I have come across a number of important instances where there is a question whether the new Regulations require further or different work by the developer. Air quality, heritage assets, and noise are examples of three areas where such points have arisen. In these instances the question appears quite often to have been resolved in the negative by the developer. They includes cases where the Secretary of State/PINS gave written notice of disagreement with the developer's decisions on "scoping out" under the old regulations.

I think I understand that the developer's judgement is not final and that matters he has ruled out of scope actually remain in scope until and unless the Secretary of State determines otherwise. But the developer's current decisions plainly potentially affect the depth and quality of the consultation. Indeed they risk contradicting the purpose of the new Union law which is to ensure that the public and others are consulted on the basis of a full picture of the significant environmental effects of the developer's plans.

Given that these are new and to some extent untested Regulations, the public interested in the developer consulting you and the local authority about what should be scoped in and scoped out would seem especially strong. Perhaps the developer did so informally?

Could you kindly clarify the position regarding scope and explain how best ordinary members of the public can enjoy the rights intended for them by the new Regulations?
The current consultation being undertaken by the Applicant concerns Preliminary Environmental Information (PEI). PEI is described in the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2009 (the EIA Regulations 2009) as:

“information referred to in Part 1 of Schedule 4 which—
(a) has been compiled by the applicant; and
(b) is reasonably required to assess the environmental effects of the development
(and of any associated development);”

In the revised regulations the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations (the EIA Regulations 2017), PEI is described as:
“information referred to in regulation 14(2) which—
(a) has been compiled by the applicant; and
(b) is reasonably required for the consultation bodies to develop an informed view of the likely significant environmental effects of the development (and of any associated development).”

In undertaking consultation on PEI, the Applicant is fulfilling part of their consultation requirements under the EIA Regulations and the Planning Act 2008. This provides the public and consultation bodies the opportunity to comment on the assessment undertaken.

A Scoping Opinion was sought under the EIA Regulations 2009. Scoping is a voluntary process that an Applicant may choose to undertake but is not a legal requirement. The EIA Regulations 2017 included transitional provisions that allow an applicant to continue to progress a project under the EIA Regulations 2009 subject to certain circumstances defined in the regulations. It is for an Applicant to justify which set of regulations they consider they fall under.

With respect to a Scoping Opinion, under the EIA Regulations 2009 an Applicant could request an Opinion as to the information to be provided in the environmental statement. The Applicant should provide this information unless it is able to justify not providing it (e.g. the design of the project has changed therefore the original Scoping Opinion is not fully applicable). The Applicant has not sought a Scoping Opinion under the EIA Regulations 2017.

On submission of an Environmental Statement with a submission for development consent, the Inspectorate will consider whether the Environmental Statement complies with the regulations and is sufficient to be examined.

26 January 2018
Mark de Pulford
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
How is it that the Planning Inspectorate is giving the possible applicants advice, but the possible applicants keep producing incomplete, opaque and confusing information?
Under section 51 of the Planning Act 2008 the Planning Inspectorate may give advice to potential applicants about applying for an order granting development, and to any other person about making representations about a proposed application for development consent. Save for EIA screening/ scoping functions, that is the extent of the Planning Inspectorate’s powers at the Pre-application stage of the process.

Please refer to our Community Consultation FAQ for details about how, and to whom, you should make comments about an applicant’s Pre-application consultation: [attachment 1]

26 January 2018
Peter Binding
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer sent their response to the Applicant's 2018 statutory consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of a proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

26 January 2018
Susan Holton
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
As part of the consultation process can you let me know what powers the TDC has to enforce control on night flights? Also, what plans will TDC have in place to monitor health of us residents to assess the impact of night flights on blood pressure and sleeplessness? Has World Health Organisation data been consulted to assess risk on local population health by runway and aircraft activity?
Local authorities have a special the Planning Act 2008 process. For more details please see:

• The Planning Inspectorate’s Advice Note One and Advice Note Two; and
• Our Community Consultation FAQ.

Both are available to view at the following address: [attachment 1]

The development proposed by the Applicant is EIA development and an Environmental Statement must therefore be produced to support the application. For specific information about the Applicant’s Environmental Impact Assessment, please contact the Applicant directly at: [email protected]

26 January 2018
Denis Booth
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached meeting note

26 January 2018
IAMP LLP
International Advanced Manufacturing Park (IAMP)
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting 25 January 2018
See attached meeting note

25 January 2018
Scottish Power Renewables - anon.
East Anglia ONE North Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting 25 January 2018
See attached meeting note

25 January 2018
Scottish Power Renewables - anon.
East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I have just read a very troubling article regarding RSP’s latest application for night flights from Manston.

The suggestion that Ramsgate should even consider accepting a proposal to include any night freight traffic overhead is worrying enough and now this application shows that it will in fact require more noisy, polluting freight planes than even Heathrow allows. I struggle to resolve this request when considering the small number of benefits the airport offers. History shows that very few employees are required to man a freight airport and beyond them, who else benefits? The benefits to our area do not balance with the destructive effect these planes will have.

I implore the planning inspectorate to use good judgement and to consider the failures of the very recent past when making this decision. There is a well known saying; if we carry out the same action every time we will get the same result every time...and so far the airport has only ever failed!
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations of this type at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

23 January 2018
Tiffany Wilmans
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I really do not understand why Manston airport might open again. It is a failing Airport and will ruin Tourism in Ramsgate. I have an estate agent coming around today to look at selling my business because it will go bankrupt if the flights start again.

I am sure all the people who wanted it open were thinking of a nice airport, not like is being applied for with 24/7 cargo.

Why are RiverOak still trying for this when all the evidence is stacked against it actually working?
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations of this type at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

23 January 2018
Stephanie Flower
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Will local business get compensated for having to relocate?
Please see the government's guidance related to procedures for the compulsory acquisition of land: [attachment 1]

The Applicant, RiverOak Strategic Partners, will be able to advise you about any compensation package proposed to be included as part of its application for development consent.

23 January 2018
Stephanie Flower
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Update meeting for the Applicant to outline the consultation materials and approach
Please see the attached meeting note

23 January 2018
Highways England - Josh Hodder
A30 Chiverton to Carland Cross Scheme
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
We have copied you into this email we have sent to RSP because of concerns we have over notification of & access to documentation regarding their latest public consultation. We wanted you to be aware that we have contacted them and so far have had no resolution in spite of contacting RSP twice regarding these problems. We are now over a week into the consultation with the one presentation in Ramsgate on Tuesday. The centre of our estate is less than 1.5km from the boundary of Manston and yet it seems no one here has had notification from RSP informing them. This is meant to be a public consultation.
If you have not already done so, please provide your comments about the Applicant’s Pre-application consultation to your local authority which will be able to consider them in conjunction with making its Adequacy of Consultation Representation; if an application is submitted. Our Community Consultation FAQ provides more advice in this regard: [attachment 1]

22 January 2018
Ian Scott
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I am writing as someone whose home is on the flightpath for Manston Airport.

I have just been told by a friend that there will be a consultation on this on January 23 (tomorrow). However, I had no notification of this in advance by the proposed developers – either by email or, as would have been more correct, by post. The consultation is therefore invalid and should be re-run.

On points of detail I would like to know what account will be taken of the following points in the environmental impact assessment:

What affect will the cargo hub airport have on the rejuvenation of Ramsgate by new people moving to the area?

What affect will the cargo hub airport have on tourism?

What will be done to mitigate the impact of night flights on the health of the Ramsgate population due to loss of sleep from the night flights?

There is a well advertised shortage of accommodation in South-East England, and recent owners have not succeeded in making a success of Manston as an airport. The environmental consequences for Ramsgate will be disastrous. A mixed-use development for the Ramsgate site is by far the best solution.
If you have not already done so, please contact the Applicant in respect your concerns about its Pre-application consultation.

If you are not satisfied with the Applicant’s response, you can provide your comments to your local authority which will be able to consider them in conjunction with making its Adequacy of Consultation Representation; if an application is submitted. Our Community Consultation FAQ provides more advice in this regard: [attachment 1]

In respect of the Environmental Impact Assessment, at this stage of the process these are questions for the Applicant. RiverOak Strategic Partners can be contacted at [email protected] and [email protected]

If an application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate and subsequently judged to be of an satisfactory standard to be examined, you will be able to register your interest and make representations about the Proposed Development to an appointed Examining Authority. Please see our Advice Note 8 series for more details about when and how to have your say: [attachment 2]

22 January 2018
Clive Aslet
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
Query around slight amendments made in response to feedback to the proposals presented during the statutory consultation. I was advised (in a meeting with the Inspectorate on 12 January 2018) that whilst para 75 in the DCLG Guidance March 2015 on Pre-Application Consultation refers to ‘informing’ affected parties, general practice was to apply para 76 and carry out targeted consultation. If this approach is taken, can you advise me of any key parameters to follow i.e. to consult relevant individuals and organisations in writing with 21 days to reply.
We are not aware of any set timescale for further, targeted consultation however we would advise that to ensure meaningful opportunity for people to engage (who maybe have not engaged previously), it may be wise to provide at least 28 days to receive responses.

22 January 2018
Steven Edwards
Reinforcement to North Shropshire Electricity Distribution Network
Enquiry received via phone
response has attachments
Norfolk Boreas Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

22 January 2018
Vattenfall - anon.
Norfolk Boreas
Enquiry received via email
We write regarding two schemes for SRFIs at Milton Northants, namely Roxhill (Northampton Gateway) and (Rail Central) Ashfield Land, both developers have now clearly indicated that their proposals are running on very similar time lines Roxhill having commenced Phase 2 consultation and Ashfield Land indicating Phase 2 consultation expected in Q1/2 2018.

We write with regard to the potential adverse cumulative impacts the interrelationship of both schemes, now running it appears concurrently, may have.

We have referred to PINS advice note 17 “Cumulative Effects Assessment”(CEA)in section 1.3 reference is specifically made to environmental effects, and in section 1.4 Advice note 17 PINS also state “When considering cumulative effects the ES should provide information on how the effects of the applicants proposal would combine and interact with the effects of other development”.

Could PINS confirm if the Cumulative impact relating to the practical aspects of the scheme(as well as environmental issues),which in this instance is two SRFIs potentially connecting into the same very limited Northampton Loop of the WCML, would be deemed to fall under Advice note 17 1.4 and thereby would need to be considered by both developers, and given the importance of Rail connectivity should this be dealt with in this pre application period.

We would appreciate your advice on this
If a proposed development requires an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) to be submitted as part of the application, the EIA Regulations necessitate that the applicant undertakes an assessment of cumulative effects, and considers alternatives to the proposed development. The assessment of cumulative effects would take into account other reasonably foreseeable schemes including any other relevant Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIP). Both developers are undertaking an EIA and will therefore submit an Environmental Statement as part of their application.

It would be for the Applicant for each scheme to make the case for, and to assess the impacts of, their proposed development taking into consideration the cumulative effects of the relevant built, consented and/or proposed developments as appropriate at the time that their application is lodged. Each case would be judged on its individual merits, where the appointed Examining Authority (ExA) would assess the material of the Applicant’s application documents and submissions received during the Examination (should the application be Accepted for Examination by the Secretary of State (SoS) via the Acceptance process) from interested parties.

You made reference specifically to section 1.4 of Advice Note 17, however we would encourage you to review the document in its entirety as it provides more information on cumulative effects assessment and includes the proposed methodology for Applicants to consider when reviewing cumulative effects.

The Applicants for both the Northampton Gateway and Rail Central SRFI proposal, have confirmed that they would be undertaking a cumulative assessment which would include the others proposal and therefore this matter is being considered/dealt with at the pre-application stage. We would encourage you to review the meeting notes published on both project pages (Northampton Gateway Rail Freight Interchange and Rail Central SRFI) to have sight of discussions held between the Planning Inspectorate and the Applicants regarding their respective proposals. It is therefore safe to assume that as both Applicant’s would be considering each other’s proposal and their possible cumulative effects, that the decision maker (the SoS) would be equipped with an assessment of the likely cumulative effects associated with both schemes including if they were both operational.

It is essential to note, that when making a decision on whether or not to grant consent for an NSIP, the SoS will have regard to any important and relevant matter; as will the ExA appointed to examine an application and report to the SoS. The impact of a proposal on existing uses and its compatibility with other developments is a matter that could be raised in submissions and could be capable of being relevant and important.

19 January 2018
Pat Hargreaves
Rail Central (Strategic Rail Freight Interchange)
Enquiry received via email
We write regarding two schemes for SRFIs at Milton Northants, namely Roxhill (Northampton Gateway) and (Rail Central) Ashfield Land, both developers have now clearly indicated that their proposals are running on very similar time lines Roxhill having commenced Phase 2 consultation and Ashfield Land indicating Phase 2 consultation expected in Q1/2 2018.

We write with regard to the potential adverse cumulative impacts the interrelationship of both schemes, now running it appears concurrently, may have.

We have referred to PINS advice note 17 “Cumulative Effects Assessment”(CEA)in section 1.3 reference is specifically made to environmental effects, and in section 1.4 Advice note 17 PINS also state “When considering cumulative effects the ES should provide information on how the effects of the applicants proposal would combine and interact with the effects of other development”.

Could PINS confirm if the Cumulative impact relating to the practical aspects of the scheme(as well as environmental issues),which in this instance is two SRFIs potentially connecting into the same very limited Northampton Loop of the WCML, would be deemed to fall under Advice note 17 1.4 and thereby would need to be considered by both developers, and given the importance of Rail connectivity should this be dealt with in this pre application period.

We would appreciate your advice on this
If a proposed development requires an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) to be submitted as part of the application, the EIA Regulations necessitate that the applicant undertakes an assessment of cumulative effects, and considers alternatives to the proposed development. The assessment of cumulative effects would take into account other reasonably foreseeable schemes including any other relevant Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIP). Both developers are undertaking an EIA and will therefore submit an Environmental Statement as part of their application.

It would be for the Applicant for each scheme to make the case for, and to assess the impacts of, their proposed development taking into consideration the cumulative effects of the relevant built, consented and/or proposed developments as appropriate at the time that their application is lodged. Each case would be judged on its individual merits, where the appointed Examining Authority (ExA) would assess the material of the Applicant’s application documents and submissions received during the Examination (should the application be Accepted for Examination by the Secretary of State (SoS) via the Acceptance process) from interested parties.

You made reference specifically to section 1.4 of Advice Note 17, however we would encourage you to review the document in its entirety as it provides more information on cumulative effects assessment and includes the proposed methodology for Applicants to consider when reviewing cumulative effects.

The Applicants for both the Northampton Gateway and Rail Central SRFI proposal, have confirmed that they would be undertaking a cumulative assessment which would include the others proposal and therefore this matter is being considered/dealt with at the pre-application stage. We would encourage you to review the meeting notes published on both project pages (Northampton Gateway Rail Freight Interchange and Rail Central SRFI) to have sight of discussions held between the Planning Inspectorate and the Applicants regarding their respective proposals. It is therefore safe to assume that as both Applicant’s would be considering each other’s proposal and their possible cumulative effects, that the decision maker (the SoS) would be equipped with an assessment of the likely cumulative effects associated with both schemes including if they were both operational.

It is essential to note, that when making a decision on whether or not to grant consent for an NSIP, the SoS will have regard to any important and relevant matter; as will the ExA appointed to examine an application and report to the SoS. The impact of a proposal on existing uses and its compatibility with other developments is a matter that could be raised in submissions and could be capable of being relevant and important.

19 January 2018
Alan Hargreaves
Northampton Gateway Rail Freight Interchange
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I write to oppose RSPs proposed DCO of Manston Airport Land
After deceiving myself, residents and yourself, for many months, and at previous unsatisfactory "consultations", RSP Have now come clean and have included in their Environmental Impact Statement a proposal for 4000 Q4 aircraft movements during the night time period, together with a further 2000 Q4 movements during a shoulder period defined as between 6:00 and 7:00 am.
That they wait until now, one week before what they hope will be a final acceptable consultation, to admit the necessity of extensive night flights to their plans, makes one question either their honesty or their understanding of what a nationally significant freight hub entails.
The residents of Ramsgate in particular, living between 200 yards and 2 miles of the end of the runway and directly on the most frequently used (70%) flight path, have been here before. Previous owners of the airport, that has now been closed for 3 years, have proposed night flights as a possible mitigation for the airport's repeated economic failure. Those proposals, similar to the current proposal, were met with a huge protest from Ramsgate residents, business owners, educationists etc. This was despite the offer then being passenger flights and state of the art aircraft rather than what is on offer now, which would have little direct benefit to residents. Residents were quite aware that the noise, sleep disturbance and environmental pollution would severely impact on their health and quality of life. The many tourist related businesses also saw a polluting airport as serious impediment to their viability, with predictable detrimental effects on employment.
In considering whether to support the application, I assume that it is necessary to consider the alternative proposal by the legitimate owners. I understand they have submitted a master plan that includes a heritage aviation facility that would honour the local history and enhance the visitor offer; an extensive business park building upon the owners extensive track record, and housing estate promising to be large enough to be sustainable, and avoiding the need to use green field land to meet the councils housing targets.
Taking land off of legitimate owners should not be done lightly. I see nothing in the Government's aviation plans that would justify doing this in this case.
Please refer to our FAQ for information and advice about how to engage with the process at the Pre-application stage: [attachment 1]

Our Advice Note 8 series explains how and when to register as an Interested Party and make representations about a proposed development if an application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate and subsequently found to be of a satisfactory standard to be examined: [attachment 2]

19 January 2018
David Green
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I am wondering if a past potential investor should make a submission to you when and if River Oak actually make the application to try to acquire Manston.
Anybody can choose to register as an Interested Party and make representations to an appointed Examining Authority in the manner set out in our Advice Note 8 series:
[attachment 1]

19 January 2018
Richard Card
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer sent his response to the Applicant's 2018 statutory consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
Helpfully your email is also addressed to Thanet District Council, which will be invited to make an Adequacy of Consultation Representation if an application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate in due course.

For more information and advice about the community consultation process, please see our FAQ: [attachment 1]

19 January 2018
Gary Ottewill
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I understand that, according to the DCO process, RSP should have prepared a Consultation Report to PINS outlining how it took into account the feedback responses from its public consultations held in June and July 2017. Am I correct in my understanding that no such report was prepared?
I have been told by RSP that, following the current January and February 2018 statutory consultations, it now intends to prepare a Consultation Report describing how it has responded to feedback from both the 2017 and 2018 consultations.
Would you not agree that that is less than satisfactory? Surely PINS should have received, and the public would rightly expect, the report from the 2017 consultations before a further consultation would take place?
The Applicant will be required to submit a Consultation Report with its application for development consent. The Consultation Report is not an iterative document and applicants are not required to produce a separate Report for each round of consultation that they undertake. The Planning Inspectorate cannot test the adequacy of an applicant’s Pre-application consultation until an application (including the Consultation Report) is formally submitted to it.

Notwithstanding the explicit statutory duties places on applicants in respect of their Pre-application consultation (under the Planning Act 2008), the Planning Inspectorate’s Advice Note 14 summarises the purpose and gives advice about the expected format and content of the Consultation Report: [attachment 1]

For more information and advice about the community consultation process, please see our FAQ: [attachment 2]

19 January 2018
Simon Crow
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
I’m writing as a resident of Ramsgate who’s recently received an email from a company currently calling itself ‘RSP’ informing me that they are planning yet another inadequate round of consultations pertaining to their attempted land grab of some 800 acres of brownfield land formerly known as Manston Airport. My question for you is thus: seeing as every independent report into the viability of an airport at Manston has come to the same conclusion, that it simply isn’t viable, it seems ridiculous that RSP can continue to blight an entire district indefinitely. So can RSP continue indefinitely in their pre-application? It would substantial flaw in the planning process to allow a company with no evidence of any funds whatsoever to create such uncertainty to an entire district based upon a totally unviable business plan with no recourse for their actions or time limit. Please can you let me know if this is case.
The PA2008 process is frontloaded, meaning the onus is on applicants to prepare their applications fully before they are submitted to the Planning Inspectorate. On that basis, provided that the statutory procedures set out in the PA2008 are satisfied there is no limit placed on the number of Pre-application consultation exercises a particular applicant may choose to undertake, and it is not unprecedented or unusual for an applicant to carry more than one statutory consultation exercise.

In respect of funding, an application for a Development Consent Order (DCO) that would authorise the Compulsory Acquisition (CA) of land/ rights must be accompanied by a Funding Statement which should demonstrate that adequate funding is likely to be available to enable the CA within the statutory period following the DCO being made. Funding Statements are published to the Planning Inspectorate’s website alongside the rest of the application documentation, and their content is routinely examined by appointed Examining Authorities.

19 January 2018
Aaron Oldale
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I'm writing to complain about the most recent consultation by RiverOak Strategic Partners.

Firstly, as a resident directly under the Manston flight path I have received no notification from them about the consultation and how I might participate. Given my keen interest in the subject, I have made myself aware but I am dismayed that yet again, so many residents directly affected by their proposals have been kept in the dark.

Secondly, as per the previous consultations the documentation available (allegedly) via RSP's website is actually not user friendly, in fact it can prove totally inaccessible. The files are so large that accessing them is extremely difficult as is downloading, let alone printing. It was only after several attempts and some help from others that I managed to access most at all. And with only 5 weeks to comment. There is no cross-referencing provided by RSP which means that I, and all residents, are presumably expected to wade through last year's documents together with this year's in order to identify any amendments or additions. This is completely unsatisfactory.

Finally, yet again those most affected by RSP's proposals have only a limited opportunity to attend. At least two opportunities, with one at the weekend, should have been provided.

Consultations, if meaningful, need to be properly announced, ensure accessible documentation, be of sufficient length and allow full participation by as many as possible Yet again, a failure on all counts.
Helpfully your email is also addressed to Thanet District Council, which will be invited to make an Adequacy of Consultation Representation if an application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate in due course.

For more information and advice about the community consultation process, please see our FAQ: [attachment 1]

19 January 2018
Susan Kennedy
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
It has come to my attention via a friend that RSP are doing another consultation with regards to Manston Airport.

I have not had notification to my address. If you look on a map you will see that I am two miles away, if not less, to the runway and in direct line of the flight path.

I would like to know why my house, and neighbours, as I have been along my street asking, have not had written notification about this. I thought all of Ramsgate had to be notified?

Please can you advise what the guidelines are?
The statutory guidance in respect of an Applicant’s Pre-application consultation duties is available here: [attachment 1]

The Planning Inspectorate has also produced an FAQ document which provides advice about Pre-application community consultation: [attachment 2]

19 January 2018
Anne-Marie Nixey
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I am writing to voice my utter disgust at the Riveroak proposition. PLEASE DO NOT LET IT GO AHEAD!!!!!!

I am concerned that overall the proposal would have a seriously detrimental to the town and its residents.

It will ruin lots of hard work and investment into regenerating this area, deterring people from moving here, ruining tourism and most importantly damaging the health of mine and other's children and inhibiting their ability to learn and prosper and social mobility.

I am concerned about the proposed leading to both noise and air pollution, sleepless nights, damage to the infrastructure and the prospect of thousands of lorries bringing fuel, clogging up the commuter roads in addition to the danger and extra carbon monoxide this will bring.

I am concerned for proposed detrimental effect on the nature reserves and the wildlife, some of which are rare and endangered.

I also want houses built on the Manston site because we need more housing in this area and I would prefer them to be built on brownfield rather than greenfield farm land. Again, for the sake of our environment and the children.

Also, I cannot see how the project is necessary or viable. There is not a shortage of capacity for cargo in the existing airports nearby.

Also, due to our positioning, the is only one entrance and exit and a lot of sea. If you put circles concentrically around the Manston site to achieve an economically viable capacity they would be needing to bypass existing airports, with capacity, to get to Manston. That cannot make sense. Surely, the Midlands and further up the country are in greater need than this location right in the corner of England.

I would also like to complain about the proposal process. The lack of information and consultation and time given. It is a shambles.

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE DO NOT LET THIS PROPOSAL GO THROUGH!!!!!!
Please refer to our FAQ for information and advice about how to engage with the process at the Pre-application stage: [attachment 1]

Our Advice Note 8 series explains how and when to register as an Interested Party and make representations about a proposed development if an application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate and subsequently found to be of a satisfactory standard to be examined: [attachment 2]

19 January 2018
Ceri Diffley
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
As you are probably aware South Northants is facing the prospect of two developments alongside each other and a relatively small group of people are dividing their time between putting a case against the two. The prospect of two massive SRFIs right on our doorstep is fairly unthinkable and the consequences devastating. We therefore need clarity on the planning process and to this end I was wondering whether you could answer a couple of questions for me.

1. Following the Pre Application phase there is the Acceptance phase which lasts 28 days (I believe). This acceptance stage will start as soon as you receive the Applicant's formal application. Can you clarify whether they have to submit all their relevant documentation in one go i.e. on the first day of the 28 day acceptance stage? Will everything they submit to you become immediately available to the public on the PINs web site? If all the information is not required from day one can you clarify what they have to submit.

2. Are we, as persons who have actively engaged in the planning process, allowed to give our views at the acceptance stage? If not how can the planning inspectorate know that the Developer has taken account of all of our responses? Can we submit the feedback we have already given to the Developer to the Planning Inspectorate to allow them to ensure that everything has been considered?

3. The guidance note mentions the Local Authority commenting on the adequacy of consultation. Are others also allowed to comment on the adequacy directly or would we have to channel our views through the Local Authority?

4. If we are able to see the Developer's submission and we believe that they have not followed due process then are we allowed to proffer this view?
1. Upon submission the Applicant would need to ensure that Regulations 5 and 6 of the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedures) Regulations 2009 are complied with, as this sets out the statutory requirements for what must accompany a development consent application. I draw your attention to Advice Note (AN) 6: Preparation and submission of application documents and AN8: Overview of the National Significant Infrastructure planning Process for members of the public and others, specifically Appendix 1 of AN6, which provides a suggestion of documents to be submitted with an Application.

The Acceptance stage begins when a developer formally submits an application for development consent to the Planning Inspectorate, to act on behalf of the Secretary of State to determine whether the application meets the relevant standards to be accepted into Examination. The 28 day Acceptance period starts the day after the application is received. The decision as to whether the Applicants application documents will be published at the start of Acceptance is decided by the Applicant and confirmed at receipt of submission, if the Applicant agrees that the application documents can be published during the Acceptance Stage, the Planning Inspectorate will publish the application documents as soon as practicable upon receipt of the documents. If the Applicant doesn’t wish to have their application documents published, then the Planning Inspectorate would publish these documents at the same time the decision is made for the proposal. In the latter scenario the Planning Inspectorate would publish the Applicant’s application documents regardless of the decision to accept/refuse into the Examination (unless the Applicant withdraws the Application) and would be accompanied by the s55 checklist, decision letter, the Local Authorities response on the Applicant’s Adequacy of Consultation (AoC) and possibly s51 advice (if required).

2. The acceptance stage would not be the appropriate time to provide views on the proposal. The applicant would need to submit as part of their application documents a consultation report, which details their consultation during the pre-application stage (incl. s42, s47, s48 consultation) and should also demonstrate whether they had taken responses into consideration during this process to inform their proposal. Furthermore, we would also request from the relevant Local Authorities during the acceptance stage their response to AoC. This should outline whether the local authority deems that the applicant had undertaken adequate consultation with all relevant parties during their statutory consultation. We would encourage you to liaise with the relevant Local Authority on any matters relating to the proposal as the Planning Inspectorate would take their AoC response into consideration during the acceptance stage. Information on the how to get involved during the pre-application period can be viewed via AN8 – 8.1: Responding to the developer’s pre-application consultation.
Should the application be accepted into the Examination, the Applicant will need to issue a s56 notice to all interested parties on the decision to Accept the proposed development into Examination, as part of this notice the Applicant would need to define the period for the opening and closing of the Relevant Representation (RR) period, which must run for a minimum of 28 days. During this period, you will have your opportunity to outline any matters via submission of a RR form to the Planning Inspectorate. I would advise you to review AN8 – 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination which provides practical advice on how to register a RR in order to formerly become an Interested Party (IP) during the Examination.

3. The Planning Inspectorate will request at the start of the Acceptance stage that the relevant Local Authority provide a response to the Applicant’s AoC, which must be received within the statutory 28 day acceptance period and therefore as noted above we would encourage you to channel your views via the relevant Local Authority to address these and if necessary within their AoC to the Planning Inspectorate.

4. Should a proposed development be accepted into Examination, then all the application documents submitted by the Applicant will be published to the project page for all members of the public to view. The Relevant Representation period would be the appropriate time to raise any issues/matters regarding the proposed development, which will be taken into consideration during the Examination period. I would advise you to review the following ANs to assist and inform you on how to influence an examination and attending any events during the Examination period, should an application be accepted.
AN8 – 8.3: Influencing how an application is Examined: the Preliminary Meeting
AN8 – 8.4: The Examination
AN8 – 8.5: The Examination: Hearings and Site Inspections

19 January 2018
Mark Redding
General
Enquiry received via phone
Query regarding timing of consultation
Further to our telephone conversation, about requesting a Scoping Opinion from the Planning Inspectorate (the Inspectorate) at the same time or closely followed by consultation on the Preliminary Environmental Information (PEI) and formal consultation, we are not aware that this approach has been used before.

The purpose of scoping is to gather information about the aspects and matters that should be assessed and considered in an Environmental Statement (ES) and how. The purpose of undertaking an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and producing an ES is to provide information about the likely significant effects (LSE) of a Proposed Development, and this is usually preceded by scoping, although scoping is not mandatory.

According to Regulation 12(2)(b) of the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 (EIA Regs 2017), PEI means:

‘information referred to in regulation 14(2) which is reasonably required for the consultation bodies to develop an informed view of the likely significant environmental effects of the development (and of any associated development)’.

Having considered the above, where the usual sequence is not followed (or are undertaken in rapid succession), it is the view of the Inspectorate that:

A) there is potential that the PEI report (PEIR) not provide sufficient information to allow consultees to reach informed views about the LSE, particularly if it contains similar information to that in the scoping report; or

B) it would be an unnecessary duplication of information and resources if the PEIR contained similar information about the potential LSE to that contained in the scoping report, and there appears to be no value therefore in requesting a scoping opinion for the purpose of informing the ES: and

C) should a scoping opinion be requested, an Applicant risks the Inspectorate deciding that certain matters need to be scoped in which have not been included in the PEI report, and therefore will not have been considered by consultees.

Aside from the above, there are also obvious practical problems of consultees being asked for comments on documents from the Applicant and the Inspectorate either at the same time or repeatedly within a short time period, potentially leading to confusion and/or responses that are of limited benefit to the Applicant.

Further advice about scoping and preparation of an ES is provided in the Inspectorate’s Advice Note Seven: ‘Environmental Impact Assessment: Process, Preliminary Environmental Information and Environmental Statements’, available on the National Infrastructure Planning website.

18 January 2018
Suffolk County Council - Michael Wilks
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Note of presentation to the Heathrow Airport Consultative Committee (HACC).
See attached meeting note and presentation.

17 January 2018
Heathrow Airport Consultative Committee - anon.
Expansion of Heathrow Airport (Third Runway)
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached meeting note

16 January 2018
Orsted - Stuart Livesey
Hornsea Project Three Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Would you be kind enough to advise me as to if and/or when the original Ferrybridge C power station is to be demolished please?
As grateful as I am for the information on offer regarding the multi fuel power project I have found that your information has provided to be 'heavy going'; I am keen to know if any of the new development will be visible from my home on Hillcrest Road Townville (ordinance survey explorer 289 map reference 463253). Currently I can only see the very tops of the old pair of chimneys in the winter months when there are no leaves on the trees. Due to the juxtaposition of the woods the view from the back of my house has been a major feature of my location. At the time of writing I do not see any of the new development from my property and am keen to know if it is to stay that way.
Thank you for your time.
Thank you for your email which has been received in the inbox for the Ferrybridge Multifuel 2 (FM2) Power Station. The FM2 project has been consented in July 2016. On 11th January 2018 the Applicant has made an application to the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy for a non-material change in relation to the alternative provision of land for landscaping and biodiversity enhancement.

However, it appears that you might be referring to the Ferrybridge D Combined Cycle Gas Turbine (CCGT) Power Station Project which is at the pre-application stage, and we would suggest that you direct all your queries to the developer at [email protected] as the project has not been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate yet.

Advice note eight provides information on how to get involved in the pre-application process, and later in the examination of the application, should it become accepted by the Planning Inspectorate. It can be found at this link: [attachment 1]

16 January 2018
Rowland Smith
Ferrybridge Multifuel 2 (FM2) Power Station
Enquiry received via
response has attachments
North Shropshire Reinforcement project update meeting
Please see attached.

12 January 2018
SP Manweb - anon.
Reinforcement to North Shropshire Electricity Distribution Network
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Scoping clarifications and project update meeting
Please see attached

12 January 2018
Highways England - anon.
A303 Sparkford to Ilchester Dualling
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Nodyn Cyfarfod - 12 Ionawr 2018 / Meeting Note - 12 January 2018

12 January 2018
National Grid - anon.
North Wales Connection
Enquiry received via
response has attachments
Pins meeting with Roxhill (Junction 15) Limited on 12 January 2018
See attached meeting note and 3 further attachments:
- Comments on draft documents
- Comments on Consultation Report
- Comments on draft Plans

12 January 2018
Roxhill (Junction 15) Limited - anon.
Northampton Gateway Rail Freight Interchange
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Nodyn Cyfarfod - 11 Ionawr 2018 / Meeting Note - 11 January 2018

11 January 2018
Natural Resources Wales - anon.
Wylfa Newydd Nuclear Power Station
Enquiry received via email
Having reviewed your hearing agendas I wish to raise an issue best discussed in your Issue Specific Hearing (ISH). However at this moment in time I don’t believe my attendance at this meeting is required.
Northern Gas Network own and operate a 12” steel intermediate pressure gas main that crosses the roundabout I believe you are carrying out work. (att is our plans)
We treat our IP pipelines with the same safety protocols as our HP assets which insist that all work carried out in proximity to this pipeline is subject to NGN procedure SSW22 which I have also attached. This includes supervision of work within 3m of the pipeline.

Have you/your other consultees considered our pipeline and discussed this with any other member of NGN such as our diversions team/major projects? (if you are planning to divert)
Please can you present to me the scope of your works and how this will affect our asset. I am happy to arrange a site meeting, free of charge, with one of our pipeline technicians to discuss the projection of our pipeline should you wish?
Firstly, Highways England (the Applicant) has submitted an application under Section 37 of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) for an order to grant development consent (a DCO) for the A19/A184 Testos Junction Improvement scheme. The application is currently being examined by the Planning Inspectorate on behalf of the Secretary of State for Transport (SoST). Therefore, I recommend you contacting Highways England directly with regards to the scope of the works.

As you are unable to attend the hearings next week to address your concerns set out in your email below to the Applicant, would you like the Examining Authority (ExA), appointed on behalf of the SoST to examine the application, to address these concerns to the Applicant? There is scope to accept your email as an ‘Additional Submission’ in order to refer to it during the Compulsory Acquisition Hearing (CAH1) scheduled for 18 January 2018, when addressing Statutory Undertakers provisions of the PA2008.

If you do wish for your concerns to be brought to the ExA’s attention, please advise if you wish to submit them again in a more formal letter or are happy for your email to be used.

11 January 2018
Northern Gas Networks - David Turner
A19 / A184 Testos Junction Improvement
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Nodyn Cyfarfod - 10 Ionawr 2018 / Meeting Note - 10 January 2018

10 January 2018
Horizon Nuclear Energy - David Palmer
Wylfa Newydd Nuclear Power Station
Enquiry received via phone
response has attachments
Draft document review teleconference
Please see attached meeting note and the draft application documents feedback summary

10 January 2018
Suffolk County Council - anon.
Lake Lothing Third Crossing
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I have read your recent report and this seems in conflict with a recent announcement that you were demolishing and going on to gas. Please confirm where we now stand. It is getting confusing.
Thank you for your email which has been received in the inbox for the Ferrybridge Multifuel 2 (FM2) Power Station. The FM2 project has been consented in July 2016. On 11th January 2018 the Applicant has made an application to the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy for a non-material change in relation to the alternative provision of land for landscaping and biodiversity enhancement.

However, it appears that you might be referring to the Ferrybridge D Combined Cycle Gas Turbine (CCGT) Power Station Project which is at the pre-application stage, and we would suggest that you direct all your queries to the developer at [email protected] as the project has not been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate yet.

Advice note eight provides information on how to get involved in the pre-application process, and later in the examination of the application, should it become accepted by the Planning Inspectorate. It can be found at this link: [attachment 1]

10 January 2018
James Smith
Ferrybridge Multifuel 2 (FM2) Power Station
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
With regards to Evidence Plans, you have advised that an Evidence Plan would definitely be advantageous, and that PINS may be able to provide some support. You have kindly agreed to look into the process and get back to me.
See attached document.

09 January 2018
Atkins - Paul Watts
M25 junction 10/A3 Wisley interchange improvement
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Rail Central - Project Update Meeting
Please see attached.

09 January 2018
Ashfield Land - anon.
Rail Central (Strategic Rail Freight Interchange)
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project meeting with Highways England
See attached meeting note

08 January 2018
Highways England - anon.
A585 Windy Harbour to Skippool Improvement Scheme
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I have just revisited this application to check for any progress. Please excuse this email being a bit muddled and fragmentary but I am short of time at the moment and fitting writing it in between customers at work. I would respectfully remind you that while you get paid for responding to it I don’t get paid for writing it. As I am directly affected by having long delayed and unclear plans for a potentially significant national infrastructure project hanging over the town I live and trade in I am obliged to respond to it.
As far as I can see the majority of people living here have been subjected to ongoing cries of wolf mixed with confused objectives so that there is very little public awareness of the situation.
I think if asked most local people would like to save the local airport with a view to being able to fly locally to holiday destination and having historic air displays, which is roughly what has happened in the past.
The actuality of the result of any DCO would appear to be a highly polluting freight facility with very little likelihood of either leisure flights or airshows.
The actual DCO remit as stated on the pins website is. “The upgrade and reopening of Manston Airport primarily as a cargo airport, with some passenger services, with a capacity of at least 12,000 air cargo movements per year.” Without any more precise commitment at this level then I assume that would be applicant’s obligation. This has however been presented from inception as “saving Manston Airport” which is something very different, holidays in the sun, a boost to the local economy and additional leisure events.
My main concern from inception has been addressing pollution issues with respect to the amount freight movements that would be necessary to comply with DCO legislation.
At the moment there seems to be conflicting information as to whether it would be only necessary to build an airfreight hub at Manston with the capacity for 10,000 movements per annum, or whether it would be necessary to increase the airfreight capacity of Manston by 10,000 freight movements per annum to qualify for a DCO.
Further to this there seems to be some confusion as to whether the existing airfreight capacity of Manston would be taken as the capacity prior to its recent closure or whether some other figure is taken as the existing capacity.
Could you kindly clarify this?
My main concern from inception has been addressing air pollution issues with respect to the amount freight movements that would be necessary to comply with DCO legislation.
As per your recommendations [attachment 1] “we would advise you to liaise directly with the Applicant, as the application for the proposed development is still in the process of being developed, and as such your views still have the opportunity to shape the application.”
I have copied my emails to the aplicant to you so I assume you will know that liaising seems to have presented difficulties for the applicant and so far they haven’t made any meaningful response to me and to honest I have now given up trying.
As the scientific journals relating to particulate air pollution enter the public domain I had been passing the information on, but without any connected response it is difficult to tell if the applicant was taking this information onboard.
The main November publications being related to abnormal sperm [attachment 2] and pulmonary function of children [attachment 3]
In December another aspect that I hadn’t considered came up which is the affect of behaviour in adolescents, see [attachment 4]
Once again I should stress that it is the combination of burning at least 10,000 tones of jet fuel p.a. in a relatively small area, with a densely populated area immediately along the prevailing air flow direction and the onshore breezes action of reducing the air flow at the perimeter of the densely populated area, that looks particularly concerning.
With Ramsgate the other significant issue would be aircraft noise exacerbated by the difficulties associated with sound insulation in the conservation area with many listed buildings including several schools.
Do you know if there has been any progress in addressing this problem?
I am assuming that there would have to be a property compensation scheme in place prior to acceptance of the DCO, as dealing with the noise compensation property blight issue in Ramsgate is likely to be one of the more costly aspects of the project. Obviously as the applicant has to prove to pins that they have adequate legitimately sourced funding to qualify for a DCO then I assume the approximate costs have to be known to do this, can you confirm this is the case?

As a result of revisiting this issue I note that there will be further consultation events [attachment 5] “Following the recent announcement that RiverOak Strategic Partners will be offering the public an opportunity to comment on its now fully-developed proposals for Manston Airport, prior to submitting the Development Consent Order application, RSP can now confirm the dates and venues for consultation events will be as follows:
23 January: Comfort Inn, Ramsgate 14:00-20:00
24 January: The Kings Hall, Herne Bay 14:00-20:00
Further details about the consultation period and how to respond will be provided in due course.”
In the first instance, I can’t find any notification relating to this consultation elsewhere, nothing on the pins website [attachment 6] nothing posted up in the Ramsgate information centre, I registered my interest at both the previous consultations and haven’t had any notification from rsp. I run a retail business in Ramsgate and have asked some of my customers if the are aware of this consultation. I haven’t been able to find anyone who is aware of it.
I have been unable to find the “fully-developed proposals for Manston Airport” mentioned, do you know if the can be found online?
I also can’t fine any statement of community consultation relating to these events, either on the rsp website or the TDC one, as I now have accessibility issues, the time I have before the events to make arrangements to overcome them is important to me. Can you please tell me the last date the statement of community consultation has to appear before the consultation event?
In view of the large number of people, particularly under the unavoidable flight path in Ramsgate and the issue of having both to revisit extensive documentation and presumably read further new documentation I would think time is running out.
Can you please confirm that this is actually a third consultation and that there will be some point in interested parties like me attending it? To expand on this, will comments be collated in some way and count towards the decision to accept the DCO?
Personally I have developed tinnitus since this project started and I foresee that I would have considerable accessibility issues if the Ramsgate session is reasonably well attended. To expand on this, a lot of people in a confined space all talking at once would be very difficult if not impossible for me to attend.
The underlying issue here is that from a common sense point of view a freight hub at Manston progressively appears increasingly unlikely to be viable. The figures just don’t appear to add up, the site already has an experienced and enthusiastic ownership with plans to exploit its brownfield status, which would suggest site acquisition compensation around that of brownfield land value for southeast England making the site worth around £1bn.
Any compensation package for Ramsgate along the lines of the one proposed for London airport expansion would be very costly, unless of course it is envisaged that the freight hub would go ahead without reasonable compensation.
Conversely the applicant appears to have no other airfreight hubs in fact no airports whatsoever, no tangible existing business where one could see evidence of substantial and available funds, that would in some way be logically directed into a substantial freight business.
At the moment the only impact the DCO application appears to be having is a variable amount of localised economic blight dependent on the publicity related to the DCO and so perhaps this could be used for investment purposes.
So I think my main question relates to how I should proceed with this one, I have a limited amount of resources to put into responding to something that looks like an ongoing series of cry wolf in the hope that either there will eventually be no opposition, or the objective is not an aviation one.
Do pins consider that this application can remain open in perpetuity?
Have pins considered ways in which DCO application could be used to adjust an economic background for investment purposes?
As an interested party is there some way I can be notified about further consultations, or indeed anything I should read or respond to relating to this DCO?
At the moment there seems to be conflicting information as to whether it would be only necessary to build an airfreight hub at Manston with the capacity for 10,000 movements per annum, or whether it would be necessary to increase the airfreight capacity of Manston by 10,000 freight movements per annum to qualify for a DCO. Further to this there seems to be some confusion as to whether the existing airfreight capacity of Manston would be taken as the capacity prior to its recent closure or whether some other figure is taken as the existing capacity. Could you kindly clarify this?

A teleconference between the Planning Inspectorate and RiverOak Strategic Partners was held on 22 November 2017, a note of which has been published: [attachment 7];ipcadvice=05e3f8e2c6

In the teleconference the Applicant confirmed that the consultation documents informing its January 2018 consultation would set out the Applicant’s position on the baseline assumed in terms of flight numbers for the purposes of the capability test set out in the Planning Act 2008 (the PA2008).

The Planning Inspectorate, on behalf of the Secretary of State, cannot take a view on the Applicant’s approach in this regard until such time as an application is formally submitted and s55 of the PA2008 is engaged.

With Ramsgate the other significant issue would be aircraft noise exacerbated by the difficulties associated with sound insulation in the conservation area with many listed buildings including several schools. Do you know if there has been any progress in addressing this problem?

The Planning Inspectorate is unsighted on the detail of any updates in respect of the Applicant’s Environment Impact Assessment. The Applicant’s original Preliminary Environment Information Report is the only extant information about the likely significant effects of the Proposed Development in the public domain. The Applicant did confirm in the aforementioned 22 November 2017 teleconference that its draft Development Consent Order would include provisions to secure a Noise Mitigation Plan and Noise Quota Count; but any special provisions in respect of heritage assets have not at this stage been specified.

I am assuming that there would have to be a property compensation scheme in place prior to acceptance of the DCO, as dealing with the noise compensation property blight issue in Ramsgate is likely to be one of the more costly aspects of the project. Obviously as the applicant has to prove to pins that they have adequate legitimately sourced funding to qualify for a DCO then I assume the approximate costs have to be known to do this, can you confirm this is the case?

In respect of claims for compensation, the provisions under the PA2008 are set out in s44 and s55.

In its Environmental Statement, the Applicant will be required to provide a description of the expected significant adverse effects of the Proposed Development and include measures to prevent or mitigate them. Those measures must in turn be secured in the Development Consent Order. If a compensation package forms part of an applicant’s mitigation strategy then logically the associated cost would need to be factored-in to an applicant’s demonstration that adequate funding is likely to be available.

In respect of funding, paragraph 18 of the DCLG’s guidance related to procedures for the Compulsory Acquisition of land states that applicants should be able to demonstrate that adequate funding is likely to be available to enable the Compulsory Acquisition within the statutory period following the order being made, and that the resource implications of a possible acquisition resulting from a blight notice have been taken account of.

I have been unable to find the “fully-developed proposals for Manston Airport” mentioned, do you know if the can be found online?

In the 22 November 2017 teleconference, the Applicant stated that its consultation materials would include an updated full Preliminary Environmental Information Report (PEIR). The Planning Inspectorate would expect for the updated PEIR to be made available in conjunction with the Applicant’s formal notifications for its January 2018 consultation exercise.

Can you please tell me the last date the statement of community consultation has to appear before the consultation event?

The Applicant’s duties in respect of the preparation and publication of a Statement of Community Consultation (SoCC) are set out in s47 of the PA2008. The SoCC must be made available for inspection in a way that is reasonably convenient for people living in the vicinity of the land, and published in a local newspaper.

Can you please confirm that this is actually a third consultation and that there will be some point in interested parties like me attending it? To expand on this, will comments be collated in some way and count towards the decision to accept the DCO?

The Planning Inspectorate understands that the January 2018 consultation will be a second consultation carried out by the Applicant on a statutory basis. The first consultation undertaken by the Applicant was on a non-statutory basis. Anybody can make comments about the application to the Applicant in the same way as its previous statutory consultation exercise. As the consultation will be undertaken on a statutory basis, the Applicant will be required to have regard to the responses received as per the provisions in s49 of the PA2008.

Do pins consider that this application can remain open in perpetuity?

The PA2008 process is frontloaded, meaning the onus is on applicants to get their applications right before they are submitted to the Planning Inspectorate. On that basis, provided that the statutory procedures set out in the PA2008 are satisfied there is no limit placed on the number of Pre-application consultation exercises a particular applicant may choose to undertake, and it is not unprecedented or unusual for an applicant to carry more than one statutory consultation exercise.

Have pins considered ways in which DCO application could be used to adjust an economic background for investment purposes?

Speculation of this type does not fall within the remit of the Planning Inspectorate’s consideration of land-use development consent applications.

As an interested party is there some way I can be notified about further consultations, or indeed anything I should read or respond to relating to this DCO?

Applicants must publish a SoCC in the prescribed manner, as set out in s47 of the PA2008. Please contact the Applicant directly about any non-statutory means by which the local community can be kept up to date about its proposals.

05 January 2018
Michael Child
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I should be grateful for any advice you may be able to offer regarding what impact HMG would expect last year's EIA regulations to have upon the developer's forthcoming public consultation. What does he have to address that was not previously the case?

I have looked at the text of the new regulations and various on-line commentaries, including the guidance issued by the DCLG. I have tried to identify the changes which are directly relevant to the RSP proposal (see attached table).

Whilst I would not of course expect PINS to have time to mark my homework (as it were), it would be helpful to know if this analysis has got something badly wrong. What I am trying to work out is what additional information could reasonably be expected from RSP.

I appreciate that the new regulations are a transposition of EU law and that, as the law currently stands, their meaning is ultimately a matter for the Court of Justice. I am not expecting an authoritative reply, just your view on whether broadly I have identified the principal substantive points.
The attached document summarises some of the new requirements, but as you pre-empt I cannot authoritatively comment on whether or not its content is exhaustive in respect of what is directly relevant to the RSP proposal. The Secretary of State’s exclusive point of reference in testing whether an applicant’s EIA has complied with the 2017 Regulations are the 2017 Regulations themselves.

02 January 2018
Mark de Pulford
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I should be grateful for any advice you may be able to offer regarding what impact HMG would expect last year's EIA regulations to have upon the developer's forthcoming public consultation. What does he have to address that was not previously the case?

I have looked at the text of the new regulations and various on-line commentaries, including the guidance issued by the DCLG. I have tried to identify the changes which are directly relevant to the RSP proposal (see attached table).

Whilst I would not of course expect PINS to have time to mark my homework (as it were), it would be helpful to know if this analysis has got something badly wrong. What I am trying to work out is what additional information could reasonably be expected from RSP.

I appreciate that the new regulations are a transposition of EU law and that, as the law currently stands, their meaning is ultimately a matter for the Court of Justice. I am not expecting an authoritative reply, just your view on whether broadly I have identified the principal substantive points.

Naturally I appreciate that you cannot "approve" the list for any legal or official purpose and that any comments you may make can only be regarded as informal and not necessarily exhaustive.
The attached document summarises some of the new requirements, but as you pre-empt I cannot authoritatively comment on whether or not its content is exhaustive in respect of what is directly relevant to the RSP proposal. The Secretary of State’s exclusive point of reference in testing whether an applicant’s EIA has complied with the 2017 Regulations are the 2017 Regulations themselves.

Broadly however, the requirements identified in the left hand column of the table within your document reflect the new requirements which align with the stage of the EIA process that RSP currently considers itself be at. Other new requirements relate explicitly to the screening, scoping or decision stages.

02 January 2018
Mark de Pulford
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
You say that the onus is on applicants to get their applications right before they are submitted. How are they supposed to do this if the feedback they need is not given until later? For example, the local council will not be asked to provide their opinion on the adequacy of consultation until after the application has been submitted. Until the council is asked to comment you cannot know the full horror of what was done (or not done) and just how many people knew nothing about the proposal. Surely, the applicants need to know that their consultation has not been good enough if they are to design a better one? The points I have made in previous correspondence stand. RSP have not provided people who would be badly affected by noise from their proposed development, with adequate information about the likely impacts.

This proposed development is somewhat different from others, in that the applicants are seeking to use the DCO process to reopen something which previously existed. Quite how there can be a national need for a new freight airport, when the old one went bust because it wasn't viable, is something which needs to be explained. Three separate aviation consultants' reports have now concluded that an airport at Manston is not viable. These include York Aviation, whose claim that RSP have cherry-picked and misrepresented their findings. We know that it will generate unacceptable levels of noise because that's what it did when it was open previously. It is not acceptable for the applicants to make a unilateral decision not to advertise their consultation to large numbers of people who were previously affected by severe noise.

It would make a great deal of sense to separate the decision on whether a project is a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project from the rest of the application process. In many cases it will be obvious that a proposal is of national significance but, in this case, the rationale for needing a new freight depot really should have been established before the applicants were allowed to embark on this ridiculous exercise. When the vast bulk of freight is carried in the belly-hold compartments of passenger aircraft, it makes no sense whatsoever to be trying to create a facility which is dedicated to freight planes so far from the major passenger hubs. I have been in touch with the Infrastructure Planning Commission and they have confirmed that this project is not something which they have either considered or backed.

I would like to see this application put on hold pending a decision on whether it is or is not a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project. The ongoing uncertainty is causing a great deal of damage in Thanet, and the repeated delays just prolong the misery. I don't believe the DCO process was ever intended to be used in this way and it is incumbent on those in positions of authority not to allow it to be drawn out indefinitely.
I am only able to reiterate that the Secretary of State cannot test the project against the provisions in section 23 of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) until an application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate. The Applicant has however stated that the consultation documents for its 2018 exercise will set out its position on the baseline assumed in terms of flight numbers for the purposes of the capability test set out in the PA2008: [attachment 1]

21 December 2017
Peter Binding
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
I was surprised to read from paragraph 1.4.2 of the Report to the SoS that Royal Mail’s submission following the IP Registration date was not treated as a Relevant Representation despite correspondence from PINS accepting it as such (as attached) and subsequent dialogue with PINS and HE up to 22 May 2017 before completion of the Examination on 2 June 2017. Based on previous advice from PINS, as a statutory consultee Royal Mail is able to notify the Examining Authority under section 89(2A) b of the Planning Act 2008 that it wishes to become an IP post registration.

Please can you explain why Royal Mail was not advised that its submission was not being treated as a Relevant Representation during the Examination process.
The representations submitted by Royal Mail were received on 19 October 2016. The registration or ‘Relevant Representation’ period closed on 3 October 2016.

What constitutes a Relevant Representation is a matter of fact, as set out in s102(4) of the Planning Act 2008. The representations provided by RM were not in the prescribed form and were received later than the applicable deadline under s56 (3 October 2016). RM’s submission therefore could not be treated as a Relevant Representation. Please see my attached email to you dated 25 November 2016.

Notwithstanding this, statutory consultees such as RM can notify an Examining Authority of their wish to be considered as an Interested Party at any time prior to the close of an Examination.

In short, RM became an IP following our receipt of your 19 October 2016 email request, but the attached submission could not be treated as Relevant Representation. The submission was however accepted by the ExA to be read in conjunction with the Examination.

20 December 2017
BNP Paribas for Royal Mail - Daniel Parry-Jones
M20 Junction 10A
Enquiry received via post
response has attachments
Please see attached
As the project has not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate we have no formal powers to intervene on consultees behalf. The Applicant, Vattenfall Wind Power Ltd, has recently consulted on their proposed development and, while this closed on 11 December 2017, you may wish to contact them to give them your views, including on your preferred transmission technology.

National Policy Statements (NPS) set out Government policy which the Secretary of State is required to take into account when determining a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project. The overarching NPS for Energy (EN-1) recognises that virtually all nationally significant energy infrastructure will have effects on the landscape but the aim should be to minimise harm to the landscape, having regard to siting, operational and other relevant constraints and provide reasonable mitigation where possible. EN-1 also requires the Applicant to carry out a landscape and visual assessment and report it in the Environmental Statement which will be submitted as part of the application.

Once an application is made (currently anticipated to be in Q2 2018), the Inspectorate will have 28 days to decide whether to accept the application for Examination. A copy of your correspondence has been placed on our records and will be presented to the Inspector at the Acceptance stage, together with the application documents and local authorities’ comments on the Applicant’s consultation.
After the decision has been made regarding whether to accept the application for Examination all documents used to inform the decision will be published on our website. If the application for development consent is formally accepted you will be able to submit your views in relation to the project which will be considered by the Examining Authority during the Examination. The Inspectorate has published a series of advice notes which explain the Examination process, including information on how to get involved; of particular interest are advice notes 8.1 to 8.5. These are available at: [attachment 1]

19 December 2017
Little Dunham Parish Council - Simon Fowler
Norfolk Vanguard
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Inception Meeting
Please see attached

16 December 2017
SSE - anon.
Ferrybridge D Combined Cycle Gas Turbine (CCGT) Power Station Project
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Nodyn Cyfarfod - 15 Rhagfyr 2017 / Meeting Note - 15 December 2017

15 December 2017
Abergelli Power Limited - anon.
Abergelli Power
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Thank you for your prompt response to my queries about RSP's forthcoming consultation exercise. Needless to say, your response is very unsatisfactory.

It may well be true that you are ticking all of the correct boxes to show that you did things by the book. But even you must be able to see how ridiculous your position is. You are suggesting that this company can go ahead and organise as many pre-application consultations as they like, and that none of them needs to include essential details like how many night flights they are planning to have or the mitigation measures they are planning. What on Earth is the point of the consultation? Meanwhile RSP are popping into your office on a regular basis for cosy chats over tea and biscuits. During those cosy chats you are under no obligation whatsoever, to steer them on what should or should not be included in a consultation. What on Earth is the point of your cosy chats? Is it not about time you had a meeting with the Minister to explain how this application is exposing some major shortcomings in the procedure which you are following in order to tick the boxes? Is it not about time the Planning Inspectorate told this company to do it properly or not at all?
Our Pre-application meetings with applicants are undertaken within the procedures set out in the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008). In accordance with section 51 of the PA2008 we record all advice that is issued in the meeting dialogue, along with a summary of the key issues discussed. Pre-application meetings form an important part of the Pre-application service for applicants for the reasons set out in our Pre-application Prospectus: [attachment 1]

The PA2008 process is frontloaded, meaning the onus is on applicants to get their applications right before they are submitted to the Planning Inspectorate. On that basis, provided that the statutory procedures set out in the PA2008 are satisfied there is no limit placed on the number of statutory Pre-application exercises a particular applicant may choose to undertake, and it is not unprecedented or unusual for an applicant to carry more than one statutory consultation exercise. Whether an application is sufficiently progressed and ready for submission is a judgment for applicants to take, at their own risk.

As you are aware, the Applicant has publicly summarised justification for its 2018 statutory consultation exercise and states that further details will follow in due course: [attachment 2]

14 December 2017
Peter Binding
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I’m writing to share my concerns regarding the proposed West Mids. Rail Freight Interchange at Four Ashes, in South Staffordshire. Please could these be forwarded directly to one of the case officers dealing with the application?

I believe it would be in everybody's best interests including the developers for these issues to be addressed sooner rather than later given the extent of the impact they are likely to have on the viability of the scheme.

I've expressed my concerns through the regular channels in the statutory and non-statutary consultations. However, given the fact the Stage 2a consultation is still completely failing to recognise these issues, I would suggest the developers have no intention to reconfigure their plans or offer any mitigating solutions this side of your decision.

If you could look at our concerns my family and I would be extremely grateful.
Thank you for your email.

We note that you have contacted the applicant in relation to the proposed West Midlands Interchange.

At this stage the application for this proposed development has not been finalised, and as such we advise for any concerns related to the project to be submitted directly to the developer, in order for your views to inform the application before formal submission to the Planning Inspectorate.

If your concerns are related to the applicant's consultation activities and you have not already done so, we would also advise you to contact the relevant local authority to inform them of your concerns, as your views may inform their Adequacy of Consultation response, once the application has been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate (the Acceptance stage of the Planning Act 2008 planning process for Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIPs)).

If the application for the West Midlands Interchange is submitted and subsequently accepted for examination, you will also have the opportunity to register to participate in that examination and make submissions on whether or not the form of the proposal that is described in the application is acceptable, and whether development consent should be granted.

The Planning Inspectorate has recently published to our website a Frequently Asked Questions document (attached to this email) which provides information on the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 planning process for Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIP), which you may find helpful.

Please contact us if you have any further queries

14 December 2017
Daniel Williams
West Midlands Interchange
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Meeting regarding update on the proposed scheme, feedback on the Scoping Opinion and outline of consultation approach
Please see attached

14 December 2017
Highways England - anon.
M42 Junction 6 Improvement
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I see that RSP did not submit their application for a DCO before the end of December 2017, as had been advertised on the Planning Inspectorate's website. I see that they now plan to engage in another round of consultation.

It has not been made clear how the new consultations will differ from the previous ones, or why new consultations are needed. One of the key issues with the previous consultations was the lack of clarity over what RSP is intending to do and how this was likely to affect local communities. The people staffing the consultations, who included senor directors of RSP, did not seem to be able to answer basic questions, such as whether there would be night-flights. Despite receiving many complaints about the previous consultations, the Planning Inspectorate has made no note of any criticism. If the Planning Inspectorate agreed that the previous consultations were inadequate, surely the organisation should have made some comment to RSP in advance of them repeating the consultation exercise?

Since meeting with the planning inspectorate, RSP has stated that they intend to introduce environmental controls on the levels of noise using a quota count system. None of this has been set out in black and white so that local people can read what they are planning to do.

It is very unclear what rationale there is for RSP's proposed controls. They have not produced any data to show how many flights there would be, what types of aircraft would be involved, the times of the day when these flights would be taking place and how much noise this would generate. This data, which would be an essential component of a statutory Environmental Impact Assessment, is needed before it is possible to decide which environmental controls are appropriate or required. In the absence of any companies who have said they would use Manston, I appreciate that the prediction of what will take place is difficult to achieve, but there are professional companies out there who specialise in making these kinds of projections. It would only require RSP to spend a small slice of the hundreds of millions to which they claim to have access to have a report prepared which would inform people about the likely environmental impact.

This brings me to my final. and most important point. The quota count system was devised at Heathrow to deal with the environmental impact of night-flights on local residents. It does not prevent night-flights from taking place, but restricts movements of the noisiest categories of aircraft and levies financial penalties on operators who breach the rules. It is the government which has imposed this system on the airport. However, it is not a perfect system and people living in the vicinity of the airport will confirm that it is nowhere near as effective as a total ban on night-flights such as they have at Frankfurt airport.

Who has decided that a quota count system is appropriate for Manston and will address the environmental issues which will arise from having freight aircraft overflying a historic seaside town at low altitude? Why is a quota count system being proposed when the local MP has been telling local people that RSP do not need or intend to have night-flights? The contradictions is glaring and ought to be resolved before any further consultation takes place.

In summary, the previous consultations were inadequate because the prospective applicants did not have an Environmental Impact Assessment including noise contour maps and projected noise levels over the residential areas adjacent to the site of the former airport. Can the Planning Inspectorate confirm that RSP will be required to produce this information in any new consultations? Can the Planning Inspectorate confirm that RSP will be required to confirm in writing whether or not their new freight depot will require night flights and, if so, the likely levels and patterns of this activity, before they engage in further consultation? Can the Planning Inspectorate confirm that RSP will be required to produce written details of their proposed quota count system before engaging in any further consultation? Can the Planning Inspectorate confirm that RSP will be required to discuss and agree their proposed quota count system with the local planning authority before presenting it to the public? (As far as I'm aware, RSP has not approached Thanet District Council to discuss their proposed quota count system).
If the Planning Inspectorate agreed that the previous consultations were inadequate, surely the organisation should have made some comment to RSP in advance of them repeating the consultation exercise?

The Planning Inspectorate cannot take a view on the adequacy of an applicant’s Pre-application consultation until an application is formally submitted to it. The Planning Inspectorate has therefore to date not tested the adequacy of the Applicant’s Pre-application consultation, has not ‘agreed’ that it was inadequate, or provided any advice to that effect. The Applicant’s rationale for carrying out a further round of consultation is explained on its website ([attachment 1]) and the Planning Inspectorate is not sighted on any further justification beyond that which is already in the public domain.

Can the Planning Inspectorate confirm that RSP will be required to produce this information [noise contour maps and projected noise levels] in any new consultations?

The Applicant summarised in its teleconference with the Planning Inspectorate on 22 November 2017 the materials which would inform its 2018 consultation exercise: [attachment 2]. The Planning Inspectorate cannot compel an applicant to include particular information in its Preliminary Environmental Information, which is defined in Regulation 2 of the 2009 EIA Regulations (and Regulation 12 of the 2017 EIA Regulations).
Can the Planning Inspectorate confirm that RSP will be required to confirm in writing whether or not their new freight depot will require night flights and, if so, the likely levels and patterns of this activity, before they engage in further consultation?

The position in respect of night flights remains the same as that outlined in previous advice issued by the Planning Inspectorate: [attachment 3]. The Planning Inspectorate has access to the same information as the local community and statutory consultees ie the Applicant’s Scoping Report states at paragraph 11.6.10 that “The airport will be operational during the day and may be operational to some extent at night. The noise generated due to this activity may give rise to potentially significant effects”. If night flights are proposed for the airport, the likely significant effects will need to be assessed by the Applicant as part of its Environmental Impact Assessment and presented in the Environmental Statement. The content of the Environmental Statement cannot be examined by an appointed Examining Authority until the Examination stage of the process.

Can the Planning Inspectorate confirm that RSP will be required to produce written details of their proposed quota count system before engaging in any further consultation?

Details of the Applicant’s proposed Noise Quota Count will be included in the application when it is formally submitted. This was confirmed by the Applicant in its meeting with the Planning Inspectorate on 2 November 2017. The strategy will be open to examination by an appointed Examining Authority, and members of the local community will be able to register to become an Interested Party and make representations to the Examining Authority about any mitigation strategies proposed by the Applicant. For more information about how (and when) to have your say please see the Planning Inspectorate’s Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 4]

Can the Planning Inspectorate confirm that RSP will be required to discuss and agree their proposed quota count system with the local planning authority before presenting it to the public?

The Applicant confirmed in the 22 November 2017 teleconference (link above) that its draft Development Consent Order (dDCO) would include provisions to secure its proposed Noise Mitigation Plan and Noise Quota Count. Applicants are encouraged to share draft iterations of their dDCOs with key stakeholders (including local authorities) at the Pre-application stage. See the Pre-application Prospectus: [attachment 5]. Local authorities are otherwise able to make representations to an appointed Examining Authority about the content of a submitted dDCO in the same way as the local community. They also have a special role in the Planning Act 2008 process as outlined in the Planning Inspectorate’s Advice Note 1 and Advice Note 2 ([attachment 6].

12 December 2017
Peter Binding
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I have written to you before with the argument that since Kent Health Protection Agency in 2009 said epidemiology inquiry is needed to investigate long term health impact of chemical contamination of Thanet water supply. This is preliminary scientific examination that triggers the compulsory application of precautionary principle. The situation is, as I understand it, when and if the application is made I can submit argument?
As you correctly anticipate, the matters covered in your email cannot be considered by the Planning Inspectorate at this stage. If an application is submitted and accepted for examination, the Applicant will advertise a period within which you and anybody else can register and make a Relevant Representation about RiverOak Strategic Partner’s proposals.

For information about how to engage with the process please refer to the Planning Inspectorate’s Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

11 December 2017
Richard Card
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Having now had the opportunity to review the re-aligned boundaries we are concerned that there is land identified (significant amounts) outside of the original NSIP boundary. Clearly this is being utilised for non-infrastructure purposes (eg land inside the Nissan MUK plant).

Can you confirm that the revised plan which has been signed off includes more land that that shown on the original NSIP? Could you also clarify the instances where greater land take is acceptable.
As you will be aware, the International Advanced Manufacturing Park Area Action Plan was adopted in November 2017, you may find this link helpful: [attachment 1] The Inspector’s final report on page 3 refers to ‘Allocation of 150ha (instead of 100ha) of employment land and deletion of proposed safeguarded land’.

As the IAMP Two Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP) application has yet to be submitted, the Applicant will need to ensure they undertake adequate statutory pre-application consultation on the proposal, in accordance with the Planning Act 2008 (as amended) and associated guidance. During this pre-application phase, I recommend that you contact the Applicant directly to discuss the details of their proposals, to ensure they are aware of any comments you may have, prior to submission.

11 December 2017
Hedley Planning Services Ltd - Sean Hedley
International Advanced Manufacturing Park (IAMP)
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I note that the notes of the meeting held on 2nd November 2017 have been published by the Planning Inspectorate. However, when considering the comments made in the Annex to the meeting note, it is difficult to understand these notes because they specifically reference the applicant's documentation but these documents are not available. I am sure that you will appreciate that this is not helpful with regards to transparency.

Please could you either make copies of the documentation available, or update the meeting notes to include a copy or quote of the specific elements of the documents which are being referred to.
The draft application documents review offer is a bespoke service for applicants. For more information please refer to our Pre-application Prospectus, available here: [attachment 1]

The advice that we issue in this respect is recorded and published in accordance with s51 of the Planning Act 2008, as per the meeting note that you have viewed.

It is not our policy to publish draft iterations of application documents that we do not own, however the Applicant in this case may be prepared to do so. Please therefore contact RSP with your request.

08 December 2017
Jonathan Fowler
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The Ramsgate Society of which I am a member of the Executive Committee understands you have recently published an interim report on the RSP DCO application.

I have been unable to trace such a document on your website and would be grateful if you could advise me as to whether you have issued anything of this nature.
The Planning Inspectorate has not issued a report on the emerging RSP application, but we have recently reviewed and provided advice about a suite of draft applications documents. The record of that exercise has been published and is available to view here:
[attachment 1]

08 December 2017
Nigel Phethean
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Telecon with IAMP LLP to discuss the IAMP Two proposal, following the section 35 Direction Variation
Please see attached meeting note

08 December 2017
IAMP LLP
International Advanced Manufacturing Park (IAMP)
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Introduction to the Southampton to London Pipeline Project
Please see attached

08 December 2017
Esso - anon.
Southampton to London Pipeline Project
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The note [of the telecom between the Planning Inspectorate and the Applicant on 22 November 2017] suggests that the primary reason for the third consultation is to conform to the 2017 Environmental Regulations (implementing the latest EU Directive on the topic).

I note that this topic is recorded as having come up several times in the past few months but that RSP have been insistent that they need not comply with the new Regulations.

Perhaps they have now taken Counsel's advice.

Be that as it may, the present position feels like an abuse of process: how many bites at the cherry are these guys allowed? If they make a mess of this third consultation will they be able to undertake a fourth? A fifth? These things are divisive in the local community and waste a great deal of time and energy for all concerned.
Please refer to the DCLG’s statutory guidance on the Pre-application process which, amongst other things, sets out the principles in respect of the Pre-application consultation duties placed on applicants (in particular pages 5 through 22): [attachment 1]

Practically, provided that the statutory procedures set out in the Planning Act 2008 are satisfied there is no limit placed on the number of statutory Pre-application exercises a particular applicant may choose to undertake.

07 December 2017
Mark de Pulford
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
This is a bit of a lateral question in a way, but something that puzzles us greatly. Can you tell us why in a lot of the Vattenfall documents (SOCC and PEIR for instance) the Secretary of State refers to the life of the projects as being 50 years? Vattenfall say 25 years.

I hope you can help us understand.
Thank you for your email. The SoCC and PEIR are the Applicant’s documents and therefore the Secretary of State would not have stated anything within these. I note from the Applicant’s PEIR that they state the design life of the project is 25 years.

07 December 2017
Jenny Smedley
Norfolk Vanguard
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Planning Inspectorate project update and draft document feedback meeting with Suffolk County Council
See attached meeting note and draft docs review

07 December 2017
Suffolk County Council - anon.
Lake Lothing Third Crossing
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Could the department please clarify procedure for a Nuclear New Build projected for Bradwell in Essex.

The Government has given the project the go-ahead subject to planning.

Now the developer has submitted documents to Maldon Council for planning for groundwork investigation and our concern is that the site is surrounded by European protected sites and a MCZ yet there is no EIA.

There is an ecological statement which is frustratingly redacted for certain species on site.
The site is also a 'contaminated site' next to the old Bradwell Magnox site so a linked site with potential radioactive contamination. Maldon Council are aware of contamination but are relying on developer supplied data not their own.

I understand its up to the Council whether to declare this is as a 'special site' and if so its passed to the EA but relying on developer data alone seems to be avoiding legal obligations on the Council’s part.

Data supplied by the developer for planning supports concerns over site contamination, further adding that contamination through drilling could breach water courses effecting protected sites.

Our concern is that for a NIP there is no early public engagement and questions hang over planning procedures. The process appears biased from the start as Maldon Council have from the beginning announced support for the project.

Maldon Council stated to me that no EIA is required as this is not a planning application to build the new reactor but purely groundworks.

Surely at this stage we are looking at pre consultation work, the documents provided by the developer all refer to Bradwell B New Build and there is an obligation to meet Environmental Impact Assessment: Screening, Scoping and Preliminary Environmental Information.

Clarification of planning in this matter would be appreciated. This is going to planning on Thursday of next week.
Please see the attached meeting note

07 December 2017
Graham Farley
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting

06 December 2017
D S Smith - anon.
Kemsley Paper Mill (K4) CHP Plant
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please find attached my letter outlining my objections to Vattenfall's flawed proposal to put two huge substation at Necton/Ivy Todd in Norfolk. Please also find attached Necton Substation Action Group's objection document, which goes into wider detail. I look forward to hearing from you, thank you.
Thank you for your email. As the project has not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate (the Inspectorate) all responses to the Applicant’s consultation should be sent directly to them. We have no formal powers to intervene on consultees behalf therefore I would encourage you to contact the developer directly to make your concerns heard as the Applicant has a statutory duty to take your views into account. However, if you feel your comments are not being taken into account, I would advise you to write to your local authority and set out why you think the Applicant is failing to conduct its consultation properly. Your comments should be taken into account when the local authority sends the Inspectorate its comments on whether the Applicant has fulfilled its consultation duties. The local authority’s comments on the Applicant’s consultation will be taken into account when the Acceptance Inspector makes their decision whether to accept the application for Examination.

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

After the decision has been made regarding whether to accept the application for Examination all documents used to inform the decision will be published on our website. If the application for development consent is formally accepted you will be able to submit your views in relation to the project which will be considered by the Examining Authority during the Examination. The Inspectorate has published a series of advice notes which explain the Examination process, including information on how to get involved; of particular interest are advice notes 8.1 to 8.5. These are available at: [attachment 1]

We have also published a Frequently Asked Questions document regarding Pre-application consultation and this can be viewed on our website here: [attachment 2].

05 December 2017
H Phoenix
Norfolk Vanguard
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Note of tripartite meeting between the Planning Inspectorate, Heathrow Airport Ltd and the Civil Aviation Authority.
Please see attached meeting note.

05 December 2017
Heathrow Airport Ltd and Civil Aviation Authority - anon.
Expansion of Heathrow Airport (Third Runway)
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting.
See attached meeting note.

05 December 2017
Heathrow Airport Ltd - anon.
Expansion of Heathrow Airport (Third Runway)
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Meeting between Planning Inspectorate and Highways England
See attached meeting note

30 November 2017
Highways England - anon.
A19 Downhill Lane Junction Improvement
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Nodyn Cyfarfod - 29 Tachwedd 2017 / Meeting Note - 29 November 2017

29 November 2017
Horizon Nuclear Energy - David Palmer
Wylfa Newydd Nuclear Power Station
Enquiry received via email
Whilst I do understand that each case would be judged on its individual merits, for example there must surely be a point at which the cumulative impact of two schemes competing for rail connectivity on a stretch of track that is already nearing capacity is considered. If, as is widely thought to be the case, the West Coast Main Line could only handle the freight paths for one additional SRFI in the area, if one SRFI application is granted a DCO then any other similar proposals in the area would become “road-served” and non-compliant with the National Networks National Policy Statement. This would then remove other existing proposals from PINS’ jurisdiction.
At what stage would this happen?
In your email you refer to removing proposals from PINS’ jurisdiction and at what stage this would occur. To confirm, a proposal will be considered a nationally significant infrastructure project (NSIP) if it meets the thresholds set within the Planning Act 2008 (as amended). A decision to grant a development consent order for one project will not therefore remove the NSIP ‘status’ of another project.

It is for Applicant’s themselves to decide whether or not to progress with submitting their application for a development consent order under the Planning Act 2008 (as amended). The Planning Inspectorate would deal with any submitted application(s) [as detailed in our previous advice dated 2nd November 2017].

29 November 2017
Tommy Gilchrist Parliamentary Assistant to the Rt Hon Andrea Leadsom MP
Rail Central (Strategic Rail Freight Interchange)
Enquiry received via email
Whilst I do understand that each case would be judged on its individual merits, for example there must surely be a point at which the cumulative impact of two schemes competing for rail connectivity on a stretch of track that is already nearing capacity is considered. If, as is widely thought to be the case, the West Coast Main Line could only handle the freight paths for one additional SRFI in the area, if one SRFI application is granted a DCO then any other similar proposals in the area would become “road-served” and non-compliant with the National Networks National Policy Statement. This would then remove other existing proposals from PINS’ jurisdiction.
At what stage would this happen?
In your email you refer to removing proposals from PINS’ jurisdiction and at what stage this would occur. To confirm, a proposal will be considered a nationally significant infrastructure project (NSIP) if it meets the thresholds set within the Planning Act 2008 (as amended). A decision to grant a development consent order for one project will not therefore remove the NSIP ‘status’ of another project.

It is for Applicant’s themselves to decide whether or not to progress with submitting their application for a development consent order under the Planning Act 2008 (as amended). The Planning Inspectorate would deal with any submitted application(s) [as detailed in our previous advice dated 2nd November 2017].

29 November 2017
Tommy Gilchrist Parliamentary Assistant to the Rt Hon. Andrea Leadsom MP
Northampton Gateway Rail Freight Interchange
Enquiry received via email
We are instructed by the Kent County Council (the “KCC”). KCC has been approached by developers in connection with the proposed redevelopment of Manston Airport (formerly RAF Manston) situated near Ramsgate. The developers have sought information from the KCC in connection with land they believe to be owned or leased or otherwise connected with KCC which surrounds Manston Airport.

Manston Airport itself is a very large site with a perimeter measured in miles and the developers’ request is, as you might expect, demanding given the vast space Manston Airport comprises. The developers have provided KCC with a very extensive list comprising 11 pages for which they have requested details of all the property they believe KCC has an interest in. Having examined the list and the map schedules attached to the developer’s letter, we had to conduct an exercise which necessitated further examination of the maps supplied by the developer, which did not necessarily accord with the data available from HM Land Registry, that we would have ordinarily expected a sophisticated developer to have supplied our client with.

On the basis that the information supplied by the developer has not been as accurate as it would have wished, our client is concerned at the level of costs it would need to incur at this stage in order to comply with the request. As such we have asked the developer to meet our client’s costs in order to provide all the information and correct any inaccuracies but the developer’s land agent is very reluctant to accept responsibility for costs. This seems inequitable.

The results of our initial searches revealed a mixture of registered land as well as public highways. In order to be thorough and conduct the exercise in accordance with the spirit of the law, and further to other recent development in the area, this exercise would require significant input from Kent Highways too. Having reverted to our client, KCC is concerned that it is being asked, in effect, to provide a free service to the developer, entirely at KCC’s not inconsiderable cost, which, if the developer is proposing to redevelop an airport, surely has resources of its own to identify individual parcels of land and highways with absolute granularity in the same we can from HM Land Registry rather than taking a rather more general approach.

Our client is in no way seeking to shirk its responsibility but does not feel that it represents good value to the public purse to be conducting searches and research, which constitutes significant work, for and on behalf of commercial entities who stand to reap vast reward, at the expense of the council taxpayers.

Having looked at the Guidelines, we see that there is no apparent mention as to how costs are addressed.

Please can you provide us with your thoughts and guidance as to how the matter of costs for local authorities have been addressed in the past with regards to significant projects such as this. As we have stated, our client is not trying to absolve itself of responsibility but does not feel it is appropriate to have to conduct research on behalf of a sophisticated developer who has the resources and acumen to ensure that its requests are presented in sufficient but not adequate detail.
A person (‘the Applicant’) who proposes to make or who has made a Development Consent Order (‘DCO’) application under the Planning Act 2008, as amended (the
‘PA2008’) may apply for authorisation to serve a written notice (‘a land interests notice’) which requires the recipient to provide information to the Applicant about interests in land under s52 of the PA2008. This process is administered by the Planning Inspectorate (the Inspectorate) on behalf of the Secretary of State in line with our Advice Note 4: Section 52: Obtaining information about interests in land (Planning Act 2008).

No application for authorisation under s52 has been received by the Inspectorate at this time, although any DCO Applicant is entitled to make such a request.

The Inspectorate cannot comment on any private financial arrangements made between organisations.

28 November 2017
Invicta Law for Kent County Council - anon.
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
In the notes of the meeting held on the 26th September between RiverOak Strategic Partners and the Planning Inspectorate it states that :

"It was agreed that draft versions of certain documents would be submitted to the Inspectorate on Friday 29 September 2017, including the Development Consent Order (DCO), Explanatory Memorandum, Statement of Reasons, Book of Reference, Consultation Report and Funding Statement. Draft versions of the Land Plans and Works Plans would be submitted the following week, and chapters of the Environmental Statement and Habitats Regulations Assessment Report submitted the week after that. The Inspectorate advised that their review at this stage would involve examining the structure of the documents as well as their content, and requested at least one hard copy version of the draft documents."

Can the Planning Inspectorate please provide confirm the following:

1. Whether any of the above documents were submitted by RSP, and if so, what date these submissions were made, specifying which documents were submitted on which date.

2. What feedback, if any, the Planning Inspectorate have provided to RSP as a result of these submissions. Please provide copies of any written feedback, or, if the feedback was verbal, an indication of the general content of the feedback provided.

3. If RSP did not submit any of the documents listed above, please could you provide copies of any communication between the Planning Inspectorate and RSP in relation to their failure to submit those documents to the Planning Inspectorate, or, if the feedback was verbal, an indication of the general content of the feedback provided.
A meeting at which the Planning Inspectorate fed back to the Applicant on its suite of draft documents took place on 2 November 2017.

A note of that meeting is being finalised and will be published imminently, and I will provide a link to you directly as soon as I am able.

I believe that the content of the meeting note should answer each element of your enquiry, however, if having read the note you have any further questions or require clarification about its content, please do not hesitate to contact me again directly.

28 November 2017
Jonathan Fowler
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
In the name of honesty and of transparency, can PINS please shed some light on the facts behind the applicant’s news release, which appeared in my in box earlier today?

[attachment 1]

RSP’s position had been that they have done everything lawfully required of them in relation to the statutory consultation.

My question is a simple one: had they done everything required of them, according to PINS?

I don’t expect to be given commercially sensitive information, but I do not believe it is right to allow the wool to be pulled over the public’s eyes. That’s what has been so objectionable about the earlier consultations by RSP. If PINS, a public, accountable body, has advised the applicant to do another public consultation then I think we should be told plainly that this is the case.

I am sure you will understand the annoyance that three public consultations on the same basic subject will create. Fine, if a third is necessary for statutory reasons. Not fine, if it is – as RSP suggest – an optional matter.

Can we please have some transparency and truth here?

The 2008 planning regime does not appear to envisage three consultation exercises. What is going on?

If we must have a third consultation let’s start things off truthfully and not in a miasma of elision and half-truth.

Could you please include with your reply some information on any public bodies to whom you are accountable for the quality and impartiality of your advice?
By way of update, a meeting at which the Planning Inspectorate fed-back to the Applicant on its suite of draft application documents took place on 2 November 2017. A note of that meeting is being finalised and will be published to the project webpage imminently. I will provide a link to you directly as soon as I am able.

Arising from some elements of the advice issued by the Planning Inspectorate on 2 November 2017, a follow-up meeting was requested by the Applicant. This took place on 22 November 2017 by teleconference. A note of that meeting is also being finalised and will be published imminently. I will provide a link to you directly, as above.

I believe that the content of these meeting notes will provide the clarifications sought in your email, however, if having read the notes you have any further questions please do not hesitate to contact me again directly.

In respect of accountability, the Planning Inspectorate is an executive agency of the Department for Communities and Local Government. Our fundamental values are our commitment to openness, transparency and impartiality in the conduct of our business. We are committed to proactively publishing information which we hold unless to do so would be likely to damage the effective conduct of our statutory functions or the conduct of our business. Under section 51 of the Planning Act 2008 we have powers to issue advice about applying for an order granting development consent or making representations about an application (or proposed application). A record of all of the advice we provide is published on our website. Importantly, none of the advice that we issue under s51 of the PA2008 constitutes legal advice upon which applicants (or others) should rely.

28 November 2017
Mark de Pulford
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Hi thank you for the response, for clarity:-

The consultees to non material changes do not include interested or registered persons from the full formal process?
Who are the required consultees?
How do i register to receive or be made aware of any published item on the HPC inspectors page?
Increasing the size of a building by some 50% to form one of the largest building on site and major changes to the sea wall are not seen as a material change?

Thank you for your time.
Thank you for your email. I will attempt to answer your questions. The answers to questions 1 and 2 are found in regulation 7 of the Infrastructure Planning (Changes to, and Revocation of, Development Consent Orders) Regulations (as amended).

[attachment 1]

The copy on legislation.gov.uk does not include the amendments made in 2015:

[attachment 2]

1) Parties who registered as interested parties are not automatically consulted on a proposed non-material change.

2) The required consultees are each person for whose benefit the development consent order has effect; each person that was notified of the acceptance of the original application for a Development Consent Order by the applicant under S56 of the Planning Act 2008; and any other person who may be directly affected by the changes proposed in the application. This is subject to a provision that allows the Secretary of State to consent to a shorter list of consultees on a case-by-case basis. By way of an example, please see this letter here:

[attachment 3]

3) There is no way to register to be informed directly every time a document is published on our website.

4) This is a matter for the Secretary of State. The decision on the application will include a decision on whether or not the proposed change is material.

As I mentioned below, there is guidance on changes to development consent orders, which can be found here:

[attachment 4]

27 November 2017
Leigh Redman
Hinkley Point C New Nuclear Power Station
Enquiry received via phone
Query in relation to responding to the developer’s consultation during pre-application and, if the application is accepted to proceed to examination what a relevant representation could include.
Consultation material presented by the developer at the pre-application stage is not “the application”. The pre-application process is intended to allow the developer to gather useful information from the public and others that will influence the preparation of the application that is eventually submitted. Further information about responding to the developers pre-application consultation can be found in Advice Note 8.1 (see links below).

If an application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate and is accepted to proceed to examination there will be an opportunity for anyone who would like to register to take part in the examination, by making a Relevant Representation during the pre-examination stage of the process. The Applicant will advertise the period when a Relevant Representation can be made. There is no requirement for an individual to have responded to the developer’s pre-application consultation, to enable them to make a relevant representation.

If you participated in the pre-application consultation your views on the project at that stage should have been reflected in the Consultation Report that was submitted as part of the application. However, at this stage we are seeking your views on the application as it has been submitted. Remember, the project you commented on previously may have changed in response to the pre-application consultation carried out by the applicant. A Relevant Representation should relate to the application. It must include a summary of points which you agree and/or disagree with about the application, highlighting what you consider to be the main issues and impacts. Further information about registering to participate in an examination can be found in Advice Note 8.2 (see links below).

The Advice Note 8 series provides an overview of the Nationally Significant Infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others. I have included links to these documents below for your information:

Advice note eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others (PDF 2.2 MB) Published February 2017 Advice note eight has been produced in five sections and aims to take you step by step through the planning process for major infrastructure projects: Advice note 8.1: Responding to the developer’s pre-application consultation (PDF 2.1 MB) (version 2) Advice note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination (PDF 1.4 MB) (version 2) Advice note 8.3: Influencing how an application is Examined: the Preliminary Meeting (PDF 2 MB) (version 4) Advice note 8.4: The Examination (PDF 1.4 MB) (version 4) Advice note 8.5: The Examination: hearings and site inspections (PDF 2 MB) (version 4)

24 November 2017
Andrew Bodman
Northampton Gateway Rail Freight Interchange
Enquiry received via
response has attachments
Please find attached the report we commissioned from BLB Utilities on the alternative site we suggested to Vattenfall. This was paid for with donations from the residents of Necton. It has been send direct to Vattenfall, and will of course also go to other relevant bodies.
Thank you for your email. As the project has not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate (the Inspectorate), we have no formal powers to intervene on consultees behalf. I would therefore encourage you to contact the developer directly to make your concerns heard as the Applicant has a statutory duty to take your views into account. However, if you feel your comments are not being taken into account, I would advise you to write to your local authority and set out why you think the Applicant is failing to conduct its consultation properly. Your comments should be taken into account when the local authority sends the Inspectorate its comments on whether the Applicant has fulfilled its consultation duties. The local authority’s comments on the Applicant’s consultation will be taken into account when the Acceptance Inspector makes their decision whether to accept the application for Examination.

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

After the decision has been made regarding whether to accept the application for Examination all documents used to inform the decision will be published on our website. If the application for development consent is formally accepted you will be able to submit your views in relation to the project which will be considered by the Examining Authority during the Examination. The Inspectorate has published a series of advice notes which explain the Examination process, including information on how to get involved; of particular interest are advice notes 8.1 to 8.5. These are available at: [attachment 1]

We have also published a Frequently Asked Questions document regarding Pre-application consultation and this can be viewed on our website here: [attachment 2].

23 November 2017
Necton Substation Action Group - anon.
Norfolk Vanguard
Enquiry received via post
response has attachments
Please see attached letter from the North Wales Wildlife Trust, dated 24 October 2017
Please see the attached letter from the Planning inspectorate, dated 23 November 2017

23 November 2017
North Wales Wildlife Trust
Wylfa Newydd Nuclear Power Station
Enquiry received via
response has attachments
Please find attached the report we commissioned from BLB Utilities on the alternative site we suggested to Vattenfall. This was paid for with donations from the residents of Necton. It has been send direct to Vattenfall, and will of course also go to other relevant bodies.
Thank you for your email. As the project has not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate (the Inspectorate), we have no formal powers to intervene on consultees behalf. I would therefore encourage you to contact the developer directly to make your concerns heard as the Applicant has a statutory duty to take your views into account. However, if you feel your comments are not being taken into account, I would advise you to write to your local authority and set out why you think the Applicant is failing to conduct its consultation properly. Your comments should be taken into account when the local authority sends the Inspectorate its comments on whether the Applicant has fulfilled its consultation duties. The local authority’s comments on the Applicant’s consultation will be taken into account when the Acceptance Inspector makes their decision whether to accept the application for Examination.

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

After the decision has been made regarding whether to accept the application for Examination all documents used to inform the decision will be published on our website. If the application for development consent is formally accepted you will be able to submit your views in relation to the project which will be considered by the Examining Authority during the Examination. The Inspectorate has published a series of advice notes which explain the Examination process, including information on how to get involved; of particular interest are advice notes 8.1 to 8.5. These are available at: [attachment 1]

We have also published a Frequently Asked Questions document regarding Pre-application consultation and this can be viewed on our website here: [attachment 2].

23 November 2017
Necton Substation Action Group - anon.
Norfolk Boreas
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project feedback meeting with Wrexham Power Limited
Please see attached meeting note

23 November 2017
Wrexham Power Limited - anon.
Wrexham Energy Centre
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Good afternoon, i note on your website a number of ‘non material changes’ have both been advertised and confirmed, i was part of the original inspection, registering and speaking.

I am interested to understand why as has been indicated, I have an interest in the process, i do not appear to have received formal notification from you of these requests to change/vary the DCO.

During the process great play was made of the fact that ‘once agreed there will be no change to the DCO’.

Your response would be welcomed.
Thank you for your email. The process for making non-material changes to a Development Consent Order is governed by the Infrastructure Planning (Changes to, and Revocation of, Development Consent Orders) Regulations (as amended) which set out the parties who must be consulted, and allow the Secretary of State to give consent for the applicant to consult less widely.

The process can only be used if the change is not material. There are alternative processes for material changes, which can include a further examination of those changes in a similar fashion to the examination of the original application. The Secretary of State has published guidance on changes to development consent orders which can be found here and may answer many of your questions.

[attachment 1]

22 November 2017
Leigh Redman
Hinkley Point C New Nuclear Power Station
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting (teleconference).
See attached meeting note.

22 November 2017
RiverOak Strategic Partners - anon.
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via
response has attachments
West Burton C Project Draft Documents Feedback Meeting
Please see attached

22 November 2017
EDF Energy - anon.
West Burton C power station
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached meeting note

21 November 2017
Ørsted (previously DONG Energy) - Stuart Livesey
Hornsea Project Three Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via phone
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

17 November 2017
Vattenfall - anon.
Thanet Extension Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
As you are more than aware LRCH has now delayed the submission of its DCO Application for the The London Resort for a fourth time, further extending the uncertainties and potential disruption faced by local businesses, residents and communities, many of which are already treading on eggshells.

PMG, representing the 140 businesses on the Swanscombe Peninsular, has had some meetings with LRCH representatives and despite assurances that they want to work with us, it is now evident that they are pursuing a course through the Compulsory Acquisition route as LRCH currently has no funds to buy properties or relocate businesses. Thus, if the DCO Application is granted it could mean the extinguishment of many very successful, profitable and valuable businesses and the loss of thousands of full-time jobs, not to mention the impact on local communities.

Furthermore, LRCH and its sister businesses' financial credibility is open to question as they have yet again - for the third year running - failed to file annual accounts to Companies House on time, apart from for one dormant company. Surely the commercial NSIP process was not introduced to allow a near 'insolvent' business to undermine and kill-off many very successful smaller businesses.

I would welcome the DCLG's opinion on this situation and, in particular:

• Did DCLG undertake any financial checks on LRCH prior to granting NSIP status?
• Does PINS monitor applicants' financial credibility (accounts etc) during a DCO Application process?
• How long will DCLG allow an applicant to submit a potential commercial DCO Application before suggesting that any NSIP should be withdrawn if the timescales are constantly being deferred? Technically, I know there is no time limit but, in this case, I would be surprised if DCLG thought such applications could be used to undermine local businesses and communities. This is totally against the current Government's ethos and, if this commercial NSIP status is allowed to continue, will be a sign to any developer that there is potential to acquire land and property through this process irrespective of existing uses.

If you feel this matter is beyond your remit, I'd be grateful of you could forward it to the relevant contact within DCLG and the appropriate Minister. Many thanks for your time.
I apologise for the delay in replying to you. Two of your direct questions were matters for the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG). Having consulted my colleagues there, I will attempt to answer your questions:

1. DCLG is not required to undertake financial checks on applicants prior to making a direction that a project is nationally significant (where the project will be treated as development for which development consent is required). This is a matter which is explored during the examination of an application, please see below.

2. Any application for a development consent order must be accompanied by a statement to indicate how an order that contains the authorisation of compulsory acquisition is proposed to be funded. This is called a ‘funding statement’. The Secretary of State has published guidance which explains that this statement should provide as much information as possible about the resource implications of both acquiring the land and implementing the project for which the land is required.

You can find a copy of that guidance here: [attachment 1]

That funding statement, along with the remainder of the application documents, will be carefully considered by the examining authority if the application is accepted for examination; and the examining authority’s report will have regard to all relevant and important matters. If, having seen the funding statement, you wish to register to participate in the examination and make submissions to the examination on matters of funding, you are welcome to do so. Landowners identified by the applicant as affected by compulsory acquisition do not need to register in order to participate in the examination.

3. The Secretary of State took the view in issuing the direction on 9 May 2014 that this project is nationally significant for the reasons given in his letter, here: [attachment 2] Letter.pdf

The project is therefore considered to fall under the nationally significant infrastructure regime. Once a project has been directed into the regime in this way, it is for the applicant to take it forward to submit an application under the provisions of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended). As you indicate, the Secretary of State’s direction letter sets no time limit for that to happen and there is no legislative requirement to do so.

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

16 November 2017
Dan Bramwell
The London Resort
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I understand that when EDFE submit their DCO for Sizewell C to the Planning Inspectorate for deliberation, the documents that the case will be considered against will be EN1 and EN6.

Are there any other Planning documents that will be pertinent to the Application?

As the Sizewell C site is in the Suffolk Coast and Heaths AONB I understand that IROPI may be used to by pass the AONB designation. Would you please tell me if this is the case.
I can confirm that, on the information currently before us, the relevant National Policy Statements are EN-1 (Energy) and EN-6 (Nuclear Power Generation). It would not be appropriate for us to advise what the relevant planning policy will be before the application has been submitted. This will be set out by the Applicant in their Planning Statement and, if the application is accepted for examination, the local authority(ies) will be invited to set out their local planning policy considerations as they relate to the proposed development in their Local Impact Report.

With regard to IROPI, this acronym is used with reference to impacts on European sites designated for nature conservation (for example Special Areas of Conservation, Special Protection Areas, Ramsar sites) that are protected under the Habitats Directive (The Habitats Regulations in the UK), not AONB. We are aware that there are a number of European nature conservation sites within the vicinity of the existing power station (and therefore, in the absence of a proposed boundary, within the likely vicinity of any proposals). For further information on this you may wish to see our Advice Note 10: Habitats Regulations Assessment relevant to nationally significant infrastructure projects: [attachment 1]

Alternatively, perhaps your reference to IROPI is in relation to EN1, which in paragraph 5.9.10 makes reference to demonstrating ‘public interest’ when considering development in an AONB. It will be for the applicant to present their case with regard to the ‘public interest’ (in whatever context) in their application.

14 November 2017
Joan Girling
Sizewell C New Nuclear Power Station
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached meeting note

14 November 2017
Drax Power Limited - Jim Doyle
Drax Re-power
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I have come across a fault in the traffic assessment submitted and accepted for the DIRFT III project. That project has not developed sufficiently for the local community to 'encounter' that fault.

I am a retired scientist resident in Blisworth which is very near the sites of two major SRFI projects that are being presently prepared for submission to PINS. In my research associated with analysing the traffic forecasts for these projects I noticed how closely the applicants have formatted their traffic figures on the figures presented for DIRFT III and accepted a few years ago.

Just the current figures gave me concern enough and I will deal with them at the appropriate time.

However I wish to report the faulty DIRFT format, as it appears to me, found in the DIRFT data. This was prepared by Vectos and I refer you to Table 8.1 in the document entitled "Document 6.2 Regulation 5(2)(a) Environmental Statement Technical Appendices Transport Assessment, February 2013". The table is reproduced and annotated in the attachment.

Dealing with only the "total persons trips" there are six readily identifiable peak values in the one hour slots and these are coloured red for arrivals and blue for departures. There appears to be evidence for a traditional 3-shift employment system, the figures for which overlay 'background' streams of arrivals and departures throughout the day that correspond to office staff and support workers.

I try to concentrate on the shift worker contingents which I separate from the aforementioned background by a straight forward arithmetical procedure. I get from this:

1. 0600 shift, 1227 arrive and 8 hours later 731 depart.
2. 1400 shift, 550 arrive 430 depart.
3. 2200 shift, 440 arrive 311 depart.

If compared with the steady arrival of loads that need processing at a high and steady rate throughout the day (but with 10s of percentage fewer during night time), this profile of 1227, 550 and 440 contingents does not look right at all - the figures are too small. Here I suspect massaging of the figures at source probably in order to avoid local traffic overload in their forecast.

There is another issue: the contingents departing are only 60 to 78% of the corresponding arrivals. The rather obvious reason for this is that workers are charged with a shift duration that in many cases will differ from 8 hours, usually longer by up to 4 hours. Indeed it is entirely plausible that a proportion of workers are taken on with 12 hour shifts starting at various times.

There is choice in interpretation here: either the figures are carelessly massaged to avoid forecasting a traffic overload or a CONFIGURATION of shift allocations has been invoked and this done without any supporting textual description in the document as far as I can find. Both are a serious problem but what worries me most is that any 'configuration', whether explained to PINS or not, rather assumes that the group of various occupiers (or rather the group of CEOs) would be expected to form a 'club' in which it is agreed that such configuration shall be observed at least until such time that either (a) Highways England can continue to maintain a program of adequate improvements or (b) the onset of warehouse automation sweeps the problem away.

What is clearly unacceptable would be traffic pulses on completion of DIRFT III corresponding to 1500-2000 cars at each shift change arriving and departing whilst far fewer were actually forecasted.

I hope to receive a reply on the points in this letter so I will know whether I am barking at the wrong tree and this is why the letter is entitled "Seeking advice". This letter is not copied to anyone other than PINS but I wonder whether that is wisest.
Following an examination, which considered the Environmental Statement submitted alongside the application, a decision on the application for a development consent order for Daventry International Rail Freight Terminal was taken on 03 July 2014 and has now been issued. That examination cannot be reopened and that decision can only be challenged in the courts. You can find a copy of the Statement of Reasons and the Examining Authority's report to the Secretary of State on our website, here:

[attachment 1]

The period for legal challenge is defined in s118 of the Planning Act 2008. Further information about legal challenge can be found in the letter sent to all interested parties accompanying the statement of reasons.

If you have concerns about how the Development Consent Order is being implemented, I suggest you contact your local planning authority in the first instance.

If you have any questions about the process for considering applications for development consent, please do not hesitate to contact me.

13 November 2017
Tony Marsh
Daventry International Rail Freight Terminal
Enquiry received via phone
response has attachments
I recently attended a consultation event for the A303 Sparkford to Ilchester scheme and would like to register my interest in the application.
Further to our telephone conversation, please see the links below to the Planning Inspectorate Advice Notes Series 8 which give an overview of the planning process for Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects:

Advice note eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others (PDF 2.2 MB) Published February 2017
Advice note eight has been produced in five sections and aims to take you step by step through the planning process for major infrastructure projects:
Advice note 8.1: Responding to the developer’s pre-application consultation (PDF 2.1 MB) (version 2)
Advice note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination (PDF 1.4 MB) (version 2)
Advice note 8.3: Influencing how an application is Examined: the Preliminary Meeting (PDF 2 MB) (version 4)
Advice note 8.4: The Examination (PDF 1.4 MB) (version 4)
Advice note 8.5: The Examination: hearings and site inspections (PDF 2 MB) (version 4)

A project specific webpage for the A303 Sparkford to Ilchester proposal will be published on our website shortly. Once published, you will be able to sign up for project specific email updates. The Planning Inspectorate website can be accessed at the link below:

[attachment 1]

The project is currently at the pre-application stage of the process. During this stage of the process any comments you have regarding the proposals should be directed to the developer. The developer must demonstrate that they have had regard to consultation responses received during pre-application statutory consultation. You can access information about the project by visiting the developers website, which can be found at the link below:

[attachment 2]

If once an application is received, it is accepted to proceed to examination you will be able to register as an Interested Party and take part in the examination of the application.

13 November 2017
Clare Garrard
General
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I would like to add my name to what I believe is a growing list of people concerned with the potential adverse effects on the environment of Norfolk by the increasing amount of onshore infrastructure inflicted on the County for offshore windfarms. My personal concern being Vattenfalls Norfolk Vanguard and Norfolk Boreas offshore windfarms and the location of the onshore substation at Necton.
I believe that Vattenfall, et al are riding roughshod over the Norfolk populace by hiding behind an outdated mandate used by the National Grid. This is resulting in, among other things, the ludicrous cable routing and crossing issues ensuing between Vattenfall and Dong near Salle. Plus the building of huge onshore substations in totally inappropriate locations.
In addition I am very concerned that companies such as Vattenfall are being economical with the truth when explaining/indoctrinating local people on their consultations.
Despite what is said, in usually patronising terms, local people have no real say in determining the final outcome of such consultations. Companies such as Vattenfall do them purely as a paper exercise because they are required to consult, without actually heeding too much to local opinion. To them we are a nuisance to be brushed aside.
They are not doing these projects to be altruistic and save the world. They do them to make money. And by the way, Vattenfall, which is owned by the Swedish Government, also build coal fired power stations. Are they being selective in which parts of the world they want to save? Or is it all down to money?
Thank you for your email. As the projects have not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate (the Inspectorate), we have no formal powers to intervene on consultees behalf. I would therefore encourage you to contact the developer directly to make your concerns heard as the Applicant has a statutory duty to take your views into account. However, if you feel your comments are not being taken into account, I would advise you to write to your local authority and set out why you think the Applicant is failing to conduct its consultation properly. Your comments should be taken into account when the local authority sends the Inspectorate its comments on whether the Applicant has fulfilled its consultation duties. The local authority’s comments on the Applicant’s consultation will be taken into account when the Acceptance Inspector makes their decision whether to accept the applications for Examination.

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

After the decision has been made regarding whether to accept the applications for Examination all documents used to inform the decisions will be published on our website. If the applications for development consent are formally accepted you will be able to submit your views in relation to the projects which will be considered by the Examining Authority during the Examinations. The Inspectorate has published a series of advice notes which explain the Examination process, including information on how to get involved; of particular interest are advice notes 8.1 to 8.5. These are available at: [attachment 1]

We have also published a Frequently Asked Questions document regarding Pre-application consultation and this can be viewed on our website here: [attachment 2].

09 November 2017
Tony Smedley
Norfolk Vanguard
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I would like to add my name to what I believe is a growing list of people concerned with the potential adverse effects on the environment of Norfolk by the increasing amount of onshore infrastructure inflicted on the County for offshore windfarms. My personal concern being Vattenfalls Norfolk Vanguard and Norfolk Boreas offshore windfarms and the location of the onshore substation at Necton.
I believe that Vattenfall, et al are riding roughshod over the Norfolk populace by hiding behind an outdated mandate used by the National Grid. This is resulting in, among other things, the ludicrous cable routing and crossing issues ensuing between Vattenfall and Dong near Salle. Plus the building of huge onshore substations in totally inappropriate locations.
In addition I am very concerned that companies such as Vattenfall are being economical with the truth when explaining/indoctrinating local people on their consultations.
Despite what is said, in usually patronising terms, local people have no real say in determining the final outcome of such consultations. Companies such as Vattenfall do them purely as a paper exercise because they are required to consult, without actually heeding too much to local opinion. To them we are a nuisance to be brushed aside.
They are not doing these projects to be altruistic and save the world. They do them to make money. And by the way, Vattenfall, which is owned by the Swedish Government, also build coal fired power stations. Are they being selective in which parts of the world they want to save? Or is it all down to money?
Thank you for your email. As the projects have not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate (the Inspectorate), we have no formal powers to intervene on consultees behalf. I would therefore encourage you to contact the developer directly to make your concerns heard as the Applicant has a statutory duty to take your views into account. However, if you feel your comments are not being taken into account, I would advise you to write to your local authority and set out why you think the Applicant is failing to conduct its consultation properly. Your comments should be taken into account when the local authority sends the Inspectorate its comments on whether the Applicant has fulfilled its consultation duties. The local authority’s comments on the Applicant’s consultation will be taken into account when the Acceptance Inspector makes their decision whether to accept the applications for Examination.

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

After the decision has been made regarding whether to accept the applications for Examination all documents used to inform the decisions will be published on our website. If the applications for development consent are formally accepted you will be able to submit your views in relation to the projects which will be considered by the Examining Authority during the Examinations. The Inspectorate has published a series of advice notes which explain the Examination process, including information on how to get involved; of particular interest are advice notes 8.1 to 8.5. These are available at: [attachment 1]

We have also published a Frequently Asked Questions document regarding Pre-application consultation and this can be viewed on our website here: [attachment 2].

09 November 2017
Tony Smedley
Norfolk Boreas
Enquiry received via email
I would like to know whether the decision to go ahead with a Development Consent Order is based on what is theoretically possible or what is actually being proposed. I am asking this question because one prominent campaigner in favour of the airport, XXX, is claiming that she attended a meeting organised by RSP to keep their faithful supporters updated. At this meeting, XXX says that they drew a distinction between the plans which had been presented to the Planning Inspectorate and what they were actually intending to do. The essence of the comments is that RSP are only putting forward plans for a very large cargo hub to justify the DCO. They don't actually intend to deliver anything of that scale.

I don't know what was said at this meeting. I wasn't there because I'm not one of RSP's faithful supporters. However, in light of XXX's comments, I have serious concerns that the Planning Inspectorate may be being misled. I don't know whether this would be a criminal offence, but I am concerned that the DCO process should only be used where and when it is needed. It should not be used as a technique for one developer to wrest control of a plot of land from another developer.

I have pasted a screenshot of XXX's comments below. There are others I could supply but please can you explain whether the application for a DCO has to specify what will be done, rather than portraying a hypothetical scenario which the company involved has not intention of delivering?
Development consent can be granted where the project is for the alteration of an airport where the alteration is expected to have the effect of increasing the number of cargo aircraft movements by at least 10,000 per year (s23(4) and (5) of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008)). The Applicant should be able to demonstrate in its application that the alteration it is proposing would be expected to increase the number of aircraft movements by the legislated amount. The extent of the alterations which will lead to the increase should be clear from the description of the works in the draft Development Consent Order (dDCO) and the accompanying plans.

If there is doubt as to whether an Applicant will build out a full Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project under s23(4) and (5) of the PA2008 and if the application is accepted the appointed Examining Authority, if it considered it necessary or appropriate, would be able to explore with/ suggest to the Applicant the possibility of including wording in the dDCO to specify a minimum number of works that when provided could have the effect of increasing aircraft movements. Alternatively, it would be possible for the Examining Authority to ask the Applicant to include a Requirement in the dDCO to specify that particular parts of the development must not be commenced until other enabling infrastructure is provided (eg a sufficient number of aircraft stands must be provided which would be expected to have the effect of increasing the number of aircraft movements to at least 10,000).

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

09 November 2017
Peter Binding
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via
response has attachments
Meeting regarding a potential non-material change request
Please see the attached meeting note

09 November 2017
North London Waste Authority - Ursula Taylor
North London Heat and Power Project
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Inception Meeting
Please see attached

08 November 2017
Highways England - anon.
A303 Sparkford to Ilchester Dualling
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Meeting with SSE Group
Please see attached

07 November 2017
SSE - anon.
Dogger Bank Creyke Beck
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Meeting with SSE Group
Please see attached

07 November 2017
SSE - anon.
Dogger Bank Teesside A&B
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Below is a copy of my email to Vattenfall. Astonishingly, Necton and Ivy Todd residents haven't been given any graphical projection as to what we are really talking about in terms of mass and position. I would hope that we can look forward to this information.

Dear Vattenfall

I am writing to ask if you would please supply us with aerial views, accurately plotting the positions of the 4 proposed sitings, to scale.

So far, there haven't been any simulations to show the mass, the perspective from the villages, in order to gain an insight as to what is being proposed. We need graphics to be able to understand the actual impact the substations will have. Your photomontages show small distant views which do not serve the purpose of letting residents clearly see the true impact of the proposals. We need the views to represent Necton and Ivy Todd, with the inclusion of the properties which will be worst affected, and showing the substations in relation to the properties.

I was astounded at the July presentation at Swaffham, that your photomontages were so inadequate, and were, what I felt to be less than truly representative and transparent.

Thank you.
Yours faithfully
Diana Lockwood
Thank you for the copy of your email to Vattenfall. As the project has not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate (the Inspectorate), we have no formal powers to intervene on consultees behalf. You are doing what we would encourage you to do, which is to contact the developer directly to make your concerns heard as the Applicant has a statutory duty to take your views into account. However, if you feel your comments are not being taken into account, I would advise you to write to your local authority and set out why you think the Applicant is failing to conduct its consultation properly. Your comments should be taken into account when the local authority sends the Inspectorate its comments on whether the Applicant has fulfilled its consultation duties. The local authority’s comments on the Applicant’s consultation will be taken into account when the Acceptance Inspector makes their decision whether to accept the application for Examination.

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

After the decision has been made regarding whether to accept the application for Examination all documents used to inform the decision will be published on our website. If the application for development consent is formally accepted you will be able to submit your views in relation to the project which will be considered by the Examining Authority during the Examination. The Inspectorate has published a series of advice notes which explain the Examination process, including information on how to get involved; of particular interest are advice notes 8.1 to 8.5. These are available at: [attachment 1].

We have also published a Frequently Asked Questions document regarding Pre-application consultation and this can be viewed on our website here: [attachment 2].

06 November 2017
Diana Lockwood
Norfolk Vanguard
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
A number of my constituents are of the opinion that the Northampton Gateway proposals have now leapfrogged Rail Central, with Roxhill having now entered the statutory consultation phase. Some months ago it appeared that Rail Central / Ashfield Land were more progressed in their plans.

Does PINS have a view on whether it is likely that both SRFIs could be granted a Development Consent Order? I appreciate you won’t be able to comment on the merits of either scheme – I do not seek any such – but I would be interested to know if it was a case of “first come first served”, and if the granting of one would remove the business case for the other.
Thank you for your correspondence below. It would be for the Applicant for each scheme to make the case for, and to assess the impacts of, their proposed development taking into consideration the cumulative effects of the relevant built, consented and/or proposed developments as appropriate at the time that their application is lodged. Each case would be judged on its individual merits, where the appointed Examining Authority (ExA)/Panel would assess the material of the Applicant’s application documents and submissions received during the Examination (should the application be Accepted for Examination by the SoS via the Acceptance process) from interested parties. It is not possible to state whether the granting of consent for one project would necessarily remove the business case for another, it would be for the appointed ExA/Panel to assess all relevant material during the Examination on its individual merits to conclude on such matters and provide to the Secretary of State a recommendation on the matters assessed during the Examination. It would ultimately be the decision of the relevant Secretary of State (in this instance DfT) to decide on such matters.

PINS acts on behalf of the relevant Secretary of State on Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIP) and does not consider any NSIP proposals on a “first come first served” basis. All material and discussions had with the Applicants have all been published on the relevant webpage for their projects. It is the Applicant’s decision to determine when they deem their proposal is adequate for submission.

We provide for information a link to the note of our last meeting with Rail Central and subsequent advice issued to them:

[attachment 1];ipcadvice=c2a692a96e

02 November 2017
Andrea Leadsom MP
Rail Central (Strategic Rail Freight Interchange)
Enquiry received via email
Vattenfall sent their draft Statement of Community Consultation to the Planning Inspectorate for comment
We note that you have consulted Thanet and Dover District Councils and Kent County Council on the SoCC however due to the offshore elements of the project you may wish to also consult the Marine Management Organisation.

We note that the table at 10.1 lists the places that the SoCC will be available to view. Paragraph 57 of the Communities and Local Government pre-application guidance also advises that the SoCC should be made available online, at any exhibitions or other events (such as those listed at 10.3), placed at local deposit points (such as those listed at 10.2) and sent to local community groups as appropriate.

We note the list of newspapers in which the consultation will be advertised at table 7.1.1.1. Due to the offshore element of the project you may also wish to advertise in a fishing trade journal. Please note that a notice stating where the SoCC can be inspected must be published in a local newspaper.

The dates for the consultation period are not yet set out in the SoCC. In accordance with paragraph 23 of the Communities and Local Government pre-application guidance the deadline for consultation responses should be not less than 28 days from the day after receipt/last publication.

02 November 2017
Vattenfall Wind Power Ltd - Joanna Clements
Thanet Extension Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
A number of my constituents are of the opinion that the Northampton Gateway proposals have now leapfrogged Rail Central, with Roxhill having now entered the statutory consultation phase. Some months ago it appeared that Rail Central / Ashfield Land were more progressed in their plans.

Does PINS have a view on whether it is likely that both SRFIs could be granted a Development Consent Order? I appreciate you won’t be able to comment on the merits of either scheme – I do not seek any such – but I would be interested to know if it was a case of “first come first served”, and if the granting of one would remove the business case for the other.
Thank you for your correspondence below. It would be for the Applicant for each scheme to make the case for, and to assess the impacts of, their proposed development taking into consideration the cumulative effects of the relevant built, consented and/or proposed developments as appropriate at the time that their application is lodged. Each case would be judged on its individual merits, where the appointed Examining Authority (ExA)/Panel would assess the material of the Applicant’s application documents and submissions received during the Examination (should the application be Accepted for Examination by the SoS via the Acceptance process) from interested parties. It is not possible to state whether the granting of consent for one project would necessarily remove the business case for another, it would be for the appointed ExA/Panel to assess all relevant material during the Examination on its individual merits to conclude on such matters and provide to the Secretary of State a recommendation on the matters assessed during the Examination. It would ultimately be the decision of the relevant Secretary of State (in this instance DfT) to decide on such matters.

PINS acts on behalf of the relevant Secretary of State on Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIP) and does not consider any NSIP proposals on a “first come first served” basis. All material and discussions had with the Applicants have all been published on the relevant webpage for their projects. It is the Applicant’s decision to determine when they deem their proposal is adequate for submission.

We provide for information a link to the note of our last meeting with Rail Central and subsequent advice issued to them:

[attachment 1];ipcadvice=c2a692a96e

02 November 2017
Andrea Leadsom MP
Northampton Gateway Rail Freight Interchange
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

02 November 2017
Cory Riverside Energy - anon.
Riverside Energy Park
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Draft application documents feedback meeting.
See attached meeting note.

02 November 2017
RiverOak Strategic Partners - anon.
Manston Airport
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
A meeting was held to discuss EIA scoping for the A1 Morpeth to Felton scheme
A note of the meeting is attached

02 November 2017
Highways England - anon.
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached meeting note

01 November 2017
Highways England
A63 Castle Street Improvement-Hull
Enquiry received via email
Further to our telephone call letting me know that members of the public cannot comment on the published “scoping report” for the A303 by Stonehenge WHS, would you be kind enough to let me know who the consultees are? I might be able to contact one of them to discuss further.

I’ve obviously not understood the report’s status or the opportunity it presents.
Thank you for your email. There is no statutory provision for us to issue the full list of consultation bodies at this point. However, the Scoping Opinion (when it is published on or before 30 November) will include in it, a list of all the EIA scoping consultation bodies.

The process of identifying EIA consultation bodies is set out in the Planning Inspectorate’s Advice note three: EIA consultation and notification and they include the relevant parish councils which have responsibility for the location where the proposals may or will be sited (ie parishes within which the application site boundary falls). I understand from your discussion with my colleague Rob that it is the parish councils which we consulted that you were particularly interested in, and these are as follows:

• Berwick St. James Parish Council
• Winterbourne Stoke Parish Council
• Shrewton Parish Council
• Amesbury Town Council
• Durrington Town Council
• Bulford Parish Council
• Steeple Langford Parish Council
• Woodford Parish Council
• Wilsford cum Lake Parish Meeting
• Cholderton Parish Meeting

We would encourage you, if possible, to engage with one of the parish councils and seek to convey your views as part of their response to the EIA scoping consultation if you wish to do so.

You should also note that there are statutory pre-application consultation requirements which the applicant must undertake in accordance with section 42 (Duty to consult) and section 47 (Duty to consult local community) of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended). There is further information on this process in the Planning Inspectorate’s Advice note eight series, including information as to how members of the public and other persons interested in the project can participate in the process. The statutory consultation process under the Planning Act is separate to the EIA scoping consultation process and is undertaken by the applicant themselves. I understand from Highways England’s own A303 Stonehenge project page that the statutory consultation process is planned to take place in “early 2018” and this is also referred to at section 4.4 of their Scoping Report which I understand you may have already seen. I would encourage you to speak to the applicant directly regarding the specific arrangements for their consultation process, and you will be able to participate in this process that the applicant is required to undertake (should you wish to do so). It is also worth noting that the applicant has a specific duty under s49 of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended) to have regard to relevant responses to their consultation in the preparation of their application.

26 October 2017
Kate Freeman
A303 Stonehenge
Enquiry received via email
I am contacting you on behalf of Holme Hale Parish Council in Norfolk who have an interest in the proposals coming forward from Vattenfall concerning the development of the Norfolk Vanguard Offshore windfarm. In particular, councillors are seeking information as to whether the parish council would be regarded as a statutory consultee for this project (as prescribed in Schedule 1 of the Infrastructure Planning Regulations 2009) with whom the developer has a duty to consult, as prescribed under s.42 of the Planning Act 2008?
This development is a large scale project and the proposals are likely to have a significant impact upon the landowners and parishioners in the local communities like Holme Hale. As such, councillors in Holme Hale would wish to be included in the statutory consultation phase/process relating to the application from Norfolk Vanguard.

Any help you can give in relation to this matter would be most appreciated.
Thank you for your email. We can confirm that, on the information provided to us by Vattenfall when they submitted their Scoping Report to the Planning Inspectorate, Holme Hale Parish Council are a statutory consultee as prescribed in Schedule 1 of the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009. You should have a received a letter from us, dated 5 October 2016, advising that the Secretary of State had identified Holme Hale Parish Council as a consultation body for the scoping opinion and inviting comments on the information to be provided in the Environmental Statement.

However, regardless of the information above anyone, with an interest in the project, whether they are a statutory consultee or not, is encouraged to respond to the consultation.

25 October 2017
Holme Hale Parish Council - Ron Graham
Norfolk Vanguard
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
In the course of conversation with friends I have discovered that parish council has been sent a letter from The Planning Inspectorate in respect of Highways England Development Consent for the A303 Stonehenge to Berwick Down.
I am aware that I am not a consultation body as such, but as the owner and farmer of land where the western portal and surface carriageway is being proposed I am surprised that I am not also included in these communications. I have a lifetime of knowledge of this landscape but as time progresses I am feeling increasingly marginalised with little opportunity to feed in this information until decisions have already been made. I would like to be able to add my experience into the development process so the resulting scheme will be harmonious to our environmental projects and farm business as well as benefit the whole of the World Heritage Site.
The applicant has requested a Scoping Opinion under Regulation 10 of The Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 (the EIA Regulations). They have also formally notified the Secretary of State under Regulation 8(1)(b) of the same regulations that they are proposing to provide an Environmental Statement in respect of the development. The Planning Inspectorate administers the processes relating to requests for scoping opinions on behalf of the Secretary of State.

Under Regulation 10 of the EIA Regulations, the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) must not adopt a scoping opinion until they have consulted the “consultation bodies”, which are defined as:

(a) a body prescribed under section 42(1)(a)(c) (duty to consult) [of the Planning Act 2008] 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;

(b) each authority that is within section 43(e) (local authorities for purposes of section 42(1)(b)) [of the Planning Act 2008]; and

(c) 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;

These “consultation bodies” includes local planning authorities, parish councils, statutory advisory bodies (such as Historic England, Natural England and the Environment Agency) and others. Further details on the process of defining the consultation bodies can be found in the Planning Inspectorate’s Advice note three: EIA consultation and notification.

By way of a response to your query, the regulations do not provide for any other persons outside of the defined “consultation bodies” being consulted as to the scope of the Environmental Statement, so you are correct in that you cannot be a consultation body as such under the EIA Regulations. It should also be noted that the requesting of a Scoping Opinion is not a mandatory requirement in the Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project process, but it is an option which applicants typically take.

However, there are statutory pre-application consultation requirements which the applicant must undertake in accordance with section 42 (Duty to consult) and section 47 (Duty to consult local community) of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended). There is further information on this process in the Planning Inspectorate’s Advice note eight series, including information as to how members of the public and other persons interested in the project can participate in the process. The statutory consultation process under the Planning Act is separate to the EIA scoping consultation process and is undertaken by the applicant themselves. I understand from Highways England’s own A303 Stonehenge project page that the statutory consultation process is planned to take place in “early 2018” and this is also referred to at section 4.4 of their Scoping Report which I understand you may have already seen. I would encourage you to speak to the applicant directly regarding the specific arrangements for their consultation process.

I understand your wish to participate in the EIA scoping process at this time, and to this end I would encourage you, if possible, to engage with your local parish council and seek to convey your views as part of their response to the EIA scoping consultation. You will also be able to participate in the separate statutory consultation process that the applicant is required to undertake as described above (should you wish to do so) and the applicant has a specific duty under s49 of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended) to have regard to relevant responses to their consultation in the preparation of their application.

The relevant pieces of legislation referred to in this email can be found on our website: [attachment 1]

Whilst we are not able to accommodate your request to be a consultation body for the purposes of the EIA Regulations, I trust the above is helpful.

25 October 2017
Rachel Hosier
A303 Stonehenge
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
We spoke on the telephone this morning about the statutory consultation on Highways England’s scoping report on the A303 Stonehenge scheme. You advised me that only statutory consultees could be asked to comment on the report.

I am wondering if you are able to tell me, please, whether the National Trust is being consulted on the report and, if so, on what basis? I’d also be grateful if you should tell me whether all land owners whose land would be affected by the scheme are being consulted on the scoping report.
The applicant has requested a Scoping Opinion under Regulation 10 of The Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 (the EIA Regulations). They have also formally notified the Secretary of State under Regulation 8(1)(b) of the same regulations that they are proposing to provide an Environmental Statement in respect of the development. The Planning Inspectorate administers the processes relating to requests for scoping opinions on behalf of the Secretary of State.

Under Regulation 10 of the EIA Regulations, the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) must not adopt a scoping opinion until they have consulted the “consultation bodies”, which are defined as:

(a) a body prescribed under section 42(1)(a)(c) (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;

(b) each authority that is within section 43(e) (local authorities for purposes of section 42(1)(b)); and

(c) 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 relevant pieces of legislation referred to here can be found on our website: [attachment 1]

As discussed on the phone yesterday the “consultation bodies” includes local planning authorities, parish councils, statutory advisory bodies (such as Historic England, Natural England and the Environment Agency) and others. Further details on the process of defining the consultation bodies can be found in the Planning Inspectorate’s Advice note three: EIA consultation and notification.

By way of a response to your query, the National Trust and land owners whose land would be affected by the scheme do not fall within the definition of “consultation bodies” for the purposes of the EIA Regulations. However, there are other statutory pre-application consultation duties which the applicant must undertake in accordance with section 42 (Duty to consult) and section 47 (Duty to consult local community) of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended). There is further information on this process in the Planning Inspectorate’s Advice note eight series. I understand from Highways England’s own A303 Stonehenge project page that the statutory consultation process is planned to take place in “early 2018” and this is also referred to at section 4.4 of their Scoping Report which I understand you have already seen.

25 October 2017
Kate Fielden
A303 Stonehenge
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I thought I would give you the heads up that, as previously indicated, we will shortly be sending to you draft documentation for consideration. This will comprise the documentation identified with a “Y” in the fourth column on the attached document list. I anticipate sending the documentation during the course of next week with the exception of the Consultation Report which will follow in approximately 3 weeks’ time.

In the meantime I have an urgent query on the above scheme relating to the need for further consultation. In response to consultation responses there are some changes that we intend to make to the scheme basically comprising:
- some tweaks to junction improvements which may require additional third party land;
- the inclusion of a lorry park within the SRFI scheme; and
- the inclusion of a facility for an aggregate terminal within the rail terminal

We obviously will do a focussed consultation with the owners of any additional land required for highway works but wanted to check whether you would expect a full consultation be undertaken in respect of the second two issues. We intend to submit our application by the end of January 2017 and wish to be sure we have undertaken all necessary consultation you feel is required.
Thanks for your correspondence provided below regarding submission of draft application documents for PINS to review.

Regarding your query on the other matters below, please be advised that the decision on whether to undertake full statutory consultation is a decision for yourselves (‘the Applicant’) to consider and dependent on whether the changes described below amount to material changes to the proposed application. If the Applicant is of the opinion that any of these changes is a material change then this indicates that a full consultation would need to be facilitated. The Applicant should also consider whether these changes have previously been consulted on as part of the preparation of the ES or adequately addressed within the ES (e.g. introduction of Lorry Park, could increase traffic movement not previously assessed). If not, then this points to a need to carry out a full statutory consultation including consultation with the relevant statutory bodies.

It should be noted that as the scoping request was submitted in December 2016, under the transitional provisions (regulation 37) in the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017, the 2009 Infrastructure Planning (EIA) Regulations would normally apply. However, if the Proposed Development has altered since the version described in the Scoping Report, the 2009 EIA Regulations may no longer apply. You should satisfy yourselves that the ES has been based on the appropriate set of EIA Regulations.

We note in your correspondence below that you intend to submit a draft Consultation Report for comment within the next 3 weeks (separate from those to be received shortly), if you could provide us with a specific date that would be appreciated, so we can take this into consideration when issuing final comments on all draft documents. We would also like to draw your attention to PINS Prospectus for Applicants, regarding reviewing of draft application documents (Section 3.3)

[attachment 1]

It is note therein, that the Applicant should allow around 3 months for review of draft documents and/or as a minimum 6 weeks. Given the timing of these submission and the Applicants anticipated submission date (end January 2018), it would be useful if you could confirm whether there are any specific documents you would like us to review? We would also need to diarise a date for PINS case team to meet your project team to discuss our feedback, which we could hopefully discuss upon receipt of draft documents. Please note that owing to resource constraints we are not able to provide comments on the whole ES. We are however happy to comment on the chapter that deals with the project description and on any report relating to the Habitats Regulations.

25 October 2017
Morag Thomson
Northampton Gateway Rail Freight Interchange
Enquiry received via phone
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

24 October 2017
Scottish Power Renewables - anon.
East Anglia ONE North Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via phone
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

24 October 2017
Scottish Power Renewables - anon.
East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm
Enquiry received via
response has attachments
A project update meeting took place on 23 October 2017
A note of that meeting is attached.

23 October 2017
Highways England - anon.
Lower Thames Crossing
Enquiry received via email
I have a query about some of the Regulation 5 plans – specifically the Location Plan and the historical/ecological plans.

Due to the scale of both the project, and the search area for these topics, some of these plans will need to be at a smaller scale that 1:2500 as required by the Regulations in order that the appropriate context can be seen for the location of the Scheme, historical assets and ecological sites.

I am seeking to ensure that despite this that scale bars and north arrows are included in all these plans, but it will not be feasible to change the plan scale.

In light of the above, please could you confirm that it would be acceptable for such smaller scale plans to be submitted?
An application can only be accepted for examination if the application is of a standard that the Secretary of State considers satisfactory. Applications can be accepted if there are minor discrepancies.

Whether an application is of a satisfactory standard is a decision that is made after it is submitted. There is precedent for the plans you mention to be submitted at a smaller scale, and for the application to be accepted for examination. You may wish to explicitly justify departures of this sort in the covering letter to your application.

19 October 2017
Pinsent Masons LLP - Matthew Fox
Tilbury2
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
See attached meeting note

19 October 2017
Vattenfall - anon.
Norfolk Boreas
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project feedback meeting with National Grid
Please see attached meeting note

19 October 2017
National Grid
Richborough Connection Project
Enquiry received via email
In the MetroWest Scoping Opinion (August 2015), PINS identified LNG at Appendix 1 as a "relevant statutory undertaker" for EIA consultation purposes.

In March 2017, LNG was dissolved and struck off the Companies House register. The relevant strike-off notice published by Companies House (dated 27 December 2016) stated that "Upon dissolution all property and rights vested in, or held in trust for, the company are deemed to be bona vacantia, and accordingly will belong to the crown."

As we finalise our list of MetroWest S42 consultees, could you confirm please if MetroWest should remove any successor to LNG from the list of consultees? We are not aware of any successor company, and do not know if LNG's property and rights now belong to Crown. We could send a consultation letter to the Treasury Solicitor as the relevant Crown representative in case LNG's property and rights are bona vacantia, but we would welcome PINS' view before doing so.
If there is a possibility that the property and rights of LNG Portable Pipeline Services Limited are bona vacantia then our advice would be for you to consult the relevant part of the Government Legal Department in respect of this matter.

17 October 2017
Bond Dickinson LLP - George Morton Jack
Portishead Branch Line - MetroWest Phase 1
Enquiry received via email
My query relates to Regulation 11(c)(ii) of the Infrastructure Planning (EIA) Regulations 2017.

Regulation 11(c)(ii) requires the Secretary of State or relevant authority to notify the applicant in writing of any particular person it considers likely to be affected by the proposed development, but unlikely to become aware of the development by means of the measures taken in compliance with Part 5 (applications for orders granting development consent) of the Planning Act 2008.

Our understanding is that for MetroWest, there has been no Regulation 11(c)(ii) notification in writing from PINS to North Somerset District Council as the promoter. Please can you confirm?
Regulation 11(c)(ii) is part of the Infrastructure Planning (EIA) Regulations 2017. As far as we are aware, the Applicant is relying on the transitional provisions in the new Regulations and therefore would be subject to the Infrastructure Planning (EIA) Regulations 2009. This means that there is no requirement for a Regulation 11(c)ii notification. However, as part of the scoping process, we considered whether there were any Regulation 9(1)c persons when preparing the Regulation 9 list that was issued to the Applicant. We did not identify any 9(1)c persons for the MetroWest project.

17 October 2017
Bond Dickinson LLP - George Morton Jack
Portishead Branch Line - MetroWest Phase 1
Enquiry received via email
Could you please clarify for us the position of our Parish Council in respect to the above project?

You already kindly said this in a previous email: “Parish Councils are one of the bodies we would expect the developer to engage with at the pre-application stage.” (their pre-application stage started 7th October and will run to 11th December – according to Norfolk County Council ).

However, despite this our Parish Council are still saying “"when the planning application is presented, this Council will be in a position to deliberate and make decisions", a quote from their minutes which seems to indicate that they still believe that they are not allowed to make any comments on suitability or otherwise of sitings until after planning application is put it, by which time of course it will be too late.

Could you be very kind and clarify things for us from your point of view?
We understand from the Applicant that they have engaged fully with the local parish councils. Statutory consultation for the Norfolk Vanguard project will open on 7 November and run until 11 December 2017 and all members of the community, including parish councils, are encouraged to participate and respond to the consultation material provided by the Applicant.

17 October 2017
Jenny Smedley
Norfolk Vanguard
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached note.

17 October 2017
Ørsted Hornsea Project Three (UK) Ltd - Stuart Livesey
Hornsea Project Three Offshore Wind Farm
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
My late father came to xxxx, Necton in 1956, and I have lived and worked here all of my life.
The proposed Norfolk Vanguard Substation site would be closest to my home and also too close to many other homes. No body wants it here, spoiling a peaceful rural area which provides much habitat for wildlife and productive farmland. People choose to live here because they want the quiet surroundings it offers.

As I am farming on a relatively small scale, it is becoming financially necessary to look at farm diversification. I have been looking into offering bespoke holiday accommodation and in particular maximising the asset of our tranquil rural countryside.
I consider the location of my farm very important to my livelihood, and the potential to offer rural retreats, away from noise and pressures of everyday life, would be lost.
Necton already has the Dudgeon Substation and the far reaching views across my fields have been spoilt; I do not want more large structures encroaching my view, especially when even closer to xxxx.

What can be done to protect my potential farm diversification plans and earnings?
Planting tall screening to try and hide the substation would restrict views and would not compensate for such a terrible loss of countryside.

My mother, aged 82, does not want this industrial monstrosity so close to her home, she is very worried, as this would change and spoil the area where she has lived for 61 years.

Property devaluation (obviously, any houses in close proximity to giant substations would be much less desirable ) would also effect the potential development of a range of old farm buildings, which would not be viable anymore.

There is a small stream, tributary of the river Wissey, running along side my house which regularly floods into the adjoining road, and in 1982 after prolonged heavy rain, flooded the ground floor of the house.

This small watercourse would need significant work to enable it to cope with excess run off water from the substation and to protect an area already prone to flooding. Land drains stop this land being waterlogged, so it is not an ideal site for infrastructure, and I am very concerned of further flood risk.
This is a real worry, can it be guaranteed this would not flood our house again?

The EMF of this substation is very concerning due to its enormity The biological effectof EMFs is currently under debate and still a controversial issue. Is comparable data even available for a site of this size? .

Background noise is another concern, a hum would be especially noticeable in the quiet of night or crackleing in damp weather . This would be unacceptable and a cause anxiety which can also impact health. There was a misunderstanding regarding background noise monitoring carried out on behalf of Vattenfall so I can only hope their results are accurate. Can it be guaranteed there would be no background noise hum or crackle?

xxxx wants to sell his farm to Vattenfall, (I think 172 acres) but they have declined to purchase. Please could you look into this? It is close to Vattenfall's preferred connection point and further away from the many residents of Ivy Todd, Necton and Necton Village. It does however affect the residents of xxxx, who have recently moved there, but overall this seems a better option.

Infrastructure of this scale and capacity shouldn't be cited so close to any populated area. It is too invasive, but the worst thing for me would be to walk a short distance from my house, along a farm track, and instead of wonderful field views see an ugly industrialised area of massive substations.

If Norfolk Vanguard receives development consent then Boreas will be sure to follow and how many more? We do not want Necton surrounded by Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects.

The stress of many years of construction disturbance and then to have the imposition of living next to this intrusive site is causing much distress and anxiety to both myself and my mother.
As the project has not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate (the Inspectorate), we have no formal powers to intervene on consultees behalf. I would therefore encourage you to contact the developer directly to make your concerns heard as the Applicant has a statutory duty to take your views into account. However, if you feel your comments are not being taken into account, I would advise you to write to your local authority and set out why you think the Applicant is failing to conduct its consultation properly. Your comments should be taken into account when the local authority sends the Inspectorate its comments on whether the Applicant has fulfilled its consultation duties. The local authority’s comments on the Applicant’s consultation will be taken into account when the Acceptance Inspector makes their decision whether to accept the application for Examination.

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

After the decision has been made regarding whether to accept the application for Examination all documents used to inform the decision will be published on our website. If the application for development consent is formally accepted you will be able to submit your views in relation to the project which will be considered by the Examining Authority during the Examination. The Inspectorate has published a series of advice notes which explain the Examination process, including information on how to get involved; of particular interest are advice notes 8.1 to 8.5. These are available at: [attachment 1]

We also recently published a Frequently Asked Questions document regarding Pre-application consultation and this can be viewed on our website here: [attachment 2].

16 October 2017
Colin King
Norfolk Vanguard
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I came to **** in 1956 with my husband, the farm has been my life, providing work place and home, where we raised 3 children.

My husband passed away in 2010 and I now live here with my son and we rely on farming our 80 acres for income, which is becoming more difficult to achieve due to changing markets etc.

I am very upset, that without our agreement, this massive substation can violate the quality of my life by ruining the beautiful location of our home. We are looking into farm diversification ideas too, which rely on the peaceful, rural nature of where we live.

Our house was flooded in 1982, as the adjacent stream could not contain excessive storm water. I am very concerned about increased flood risk, will there be more run off water from the substation than our stream can cope with?

I am retired and enjoy the peace and tranquillity of my life here, and strongly object to Vattenfall building giant substations so close by.
As the project has not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate (the Inspectorate), we have no formal powers to intervene on consultees behalf. I would therefore encourage you to contact the developer directly to make your concerns heard as the Applicant has a statutory duty to take your views into account. However, if you feel your comments are not being taken into account, I would advise you to write to your local authority and set out why you think the Applicant is failing to conduct its consultation properly. Your comments should be taken into account when the local authority sends the Inspectorate its comments on whether the Applicant has fulfilled its consultation duties. The local authority’s comments on the Applicant’s consultation will be taken into account when the Acceptance Inspector makes their decision whether to accept the application for Examination.

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

After the decision has been made regarding whether to accept the application for Examination all documents used to inform the decision will be published on our website. If the application for development consent is formally accepted you will be able to submit your views in relation to the project which will be considered by the Examining Authority during the Examination. The Inspectorate has published a series of advice notes which explain the Examination process, including information on how to get involved; of particular interest are advice notes 8.1 to 8.5. These are available at: [attachment 1]

We also recently published a Frequently Asked Questions document regarding Pre-application consultation and this can be viewed on our website here: [attachment 2].

16 October 2017
Margaret King
Norfolk Vanguard
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
As a local resident of South Staffordshire, we are at present campaigning against the proposed West Midland Strategic Rail Freight Interchange (WM SFRI)
We have had public consultations with the developers where we have expressed our opinions and opposition to this proposal, on many issues.
One of the issues being the development on 700 acres of Green Belt land, and the impact this will have on the Wildlife and destruction of Mature Trees.
I urge you to look into your governments policies regarding Green Belt and the Natural Environment and Rural communities, with regard to this matter.
At present this proposed development is in the Pre-Application stage of the planning process for nationally significant infrastructure projects (NSIPs); during this stage the developer will be preparing their application documents to be submitted to us, as well as consulting with the local community on their proposals. At this stage the application has not been finalised, and as such we advise for any concerns related to the project to be submitted directly to the developer, in order for your views to inform the application before the final version is submitted to us for consideration.

The contact information for the developer is as follows:

[email protected]
tel. 0800 377 7345

We also advise you to contact the relevant local authority with any concerns, as they are required to submit a report to us on the consultation activities undertaken by the Applicant during the Pre-Application stage once the application for the project has been submitted.

If the application is submitted and accepted by us, the appointed Examining Authority is required to take the relevant National Policy Statement into consideration, along with any other relevant policies as part of their Examination of the application prior to submitting their recommendation to the Secretary of State.

I have attached a copy of our Advice Note: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public, which I hope you will find helpful. Please also refer to our website for further information.

16 October 2017
Mary Jones
West Midlands Interchange
Enquiry received via email
GEFS and UK partners are looking to build a biorefinery under two Department for Transport programmes to provide alternative fuels for transport and aviation. The project will take waste wood category B and C and ligno cellulosic waste from composting operations. This material is unsuitable for normal combustion and must be treated in WID compliant biomass plant and we propose also in MECC biorefinery process producing diesel.

The question is would the scope and definition of the project fall under National Infrastructure Planning either as a stand alone project or as an adjunct to an existing biomass waste recycling and/ energy facility and or an oil storage and refinery facilities. The answer would clearly impact on the location of any project and the timeframe predicated by DfT.

Project definition

The Project is to provide a MECC biorefinery processing waste wood into drop in fuel as part of licenced materials recycling facility incorporating

• Waste materials handling
• Biomass CHP plant providing all heat and electricity
• MECC 4/600 or MECC 8/1200 conversion process from organic material to synthetic fuel MSF
• Hydrotreating or Na-DSF process to upgrade fuel to drop in diesel MSF-D

Project Boundaries

Single site, in or over the fence supply of WID designated waste ligno cellulosic (LC) feedstock
Road transport supply of waste lubricating oil
Biomass WID compliant CHP plant
On site conversion of feedstock into Biofuels and Bitumen’s
Small scale fuel upgrading (hydrotreater) to en590
Fuel distribution

Feedstocks

Wood waste fines sawdust B/C 0-10
Wood waste unsuitable for other uses i.e. contaminated.
Waste lubricating oil

Bio-refinery processes.

1/ Feedstock preparation

• Sorting and size screening
• Metal and inorganic separation
• Feedstock selection for CHP or MECC lines.
• Drying and particle size reduction
• Conveyance and storage
• Feedstock induction without O2 into MECC.

2/ Biomass Heater and Rankin cycle CHP plant SUGIMAT-TURBODEN.
• Inputs 12000 tons biomass producing…..
• 950kwh electricity providing all electricity and work for MECC conversion process
• 3.8 mw heat to be utilised in reducing moisture of feedstocks to nominal 10%

3/ MECC conversion process

1. Induction of feedstock into mixing circuit of hot waste oil which is used to transport the feedstocks and catalyst at 180C < 1barm
2. Transfer from mixing circuit into the reactor circuit at 370C 1.5 bar
3. Splitting of molecular structures where decomposition progress is optimized by temperature, mechanical shearing forces and catalyst
4. Solid components are transformed into a gaseous phase
5. Resultant fuel gas immediately leaves the reaction zone
6. Regulation and fractionation of the gaseous fuel
7. Condensation / Liquefaction
8. Separation of solid process remains to be further processed into MSF & Carbon Black or Bio-bitumen.

Conversion Efficiency based on mass/energy balance

Process-related conversion losses, H2O and CO2 = 11,3%
Process and plant parasitic energy load = 11,6 %, (energy provided by CHP plant)

4/ Hydrotreating scaled fuel upgrading facility;

• Secondary distillation to remove residual water
• Reduction of Sulphur from +/- 200ppm to > 10ppm
• Control of aromatics
• Enhance oxidation stability
Final product, MSF-D, meets EN590 diesel standard for fossil fuels

Whilst capacity for initial project would be a single module MECC 4, the final economic model would be double the size a MECC 8

The biomass unit would utilise 1200tons and each MECC module 12,000 tons. Producing 4 mw heat, 1 mw electricity and 5 or 10ml of fuel. So the headline figure could be 36kton of feedstock and 10ml of fuel.

Appreciate your help as I cannot find the exact definitions that might apply to our pathway and project scope.
Thank you for your email. The definition of Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects, which require Development Consent, is found in Section 14 of the Planning Act 2008. It includes:

• generating stations that meet certain criteria set out in Section 15 (notably, that when constructed or extended they generate more than 50 megawatts if in England); and,

• hazardous waste facilities that meet the criteria in Section 30 (notably that they are in England, are not landfills or deep storage facilities, and can process more than 30,000 tonnes per annum, or an additional 30,000tpa if the proposal is the alteration of an existing facility).

Whether or not your proposal would be a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project may depend upon what the quantity of waste capable of being processed in your proposed facility would be, whether it would classed as hazardous and/or what the facility’s maximum generating capacity would be. In any case, we would not be able to advise you on whether or not your proposed facility represents an NSIP, because this would be legal advice that we cannot provide.

I suggest that you seek your own legal advice if you are unsure as to the correct consenting route for your proposed scheme. If you have any questions about the process by which applications for Development Consent are considered, please do not hesitate to contact me.

16 October 2017
Global Ecofuel Solutions S.L. - Barrie King
General
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Draft documents review meeting
Please see attached documents.

13 October 2017
Sembcorp Utilities (UK) Limited - Scott Taylor
Tees CCPP
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
See attached meeting note

12 October 2017
Vattenfall - anon.
Norfolk Vanguard
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached meeting note

12 October 2017
RPS for Wheelabrator Technologies Inc - Chris LeCointe
Wheelabrator Kemsley Generating Station (K3) - Power Upgrade
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
A meeting to discuss draft documents took place on 12 October 2017
A note of the meeting is attached

12 October 2017
Port of Tilbury London Limited - anon.
Tilbury2
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I have lived in Necton for over twenty years now and have always enjoyed village life and loved living with open views and rolling countryside.
When Dudgeon substation came along as a whole residents had no conception of how much land would be taken up by this huge monstrosity
and I, as one that overlooks the present one, have been affected for the past three years with noise and light pollution. With full blackout
curtains searchlights, which were left on continually overnight, lit up my bedroom despite various promises and apologies this problem
continued. Of course, as the hedgerows are lowered and the winter months approach bringing lacing to the hedgerows we will view more of
this substation. Of course we then had our lanes and roads dug up to accommodate the underground electrical cabling which went on and on
and on.
Vattenfall who also now want to invade our village of course say they are very aware of environmental issues, respect the wishes of residents, etc.
etc., have listened and have 'learned from the Dudgeon mistakes' - I DON'T THINK SO! We are now at the pre-application stage and have been
told that no views can be taken into consideration until the application has been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate - of course this gives no time
for changes.
Two very obvious alternative sites have been put before Vattenfall by Necton Substations Action Group as very much more suitable positions which
are away from villages. We are not prepared to sit down and be bullied by these people who put profit before people and the environment.

The Vattenfall proposal is much larger than the Dudgeon site which I understand will in total take up 70 acres and be 80ft high. How can anybody
in their right mind give the OK for our village, or any other, to be invaded and spoilt forever by these people. I understand these substations have
a very limited life so, of course, once all this countryside has been concreted over we are left with large areas of farmland which can then only be used
for industrial purposes - GREAT!

Has anyone got the message yet - WE DON'T WANT ANY MORE SUBSTATIONS - WE'VE DONE OUR BIT.
As the project has not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate (the Inspectorate), we have no formal powers to intervene on consultees behalf. I note you have contacted the developer directly and we would encourage you to do this to make your concerns heard as the Applicant has a statutory duty to take your views into account. However, if you feel your comments are not being taken into account, I would advise you to write to your local authority and set out why you think the Applicant is failing to conduct its consultation properly. Your comments should be taken into account when the local authority sends the Inspectorate its comments on whether the Applicant has fulfilled its consultation duties. The local authority’s comments on the Applicant’s consultation will be taken into account when the Acceptance Inspector makes their decision whether to accept the application for Examination.

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

After the decision has been made regarding whether to accept the application for Examination all documents used to inform the decision will be published on our website. If the application for development consent is formally accepted you will be able to submit your views in relation to the project which will be considered by the Examining Authority during the Examination. The Inspectorate has published a series of advice notes which explain the Examination process, including information on how to get involved; of particular interest are advice notes 8.1 to 8.5. These are available here: [attachment 1].

You may also wish to see our compilation of advice about the Pre-application procedure and community consultation: [attachment 2]

09 October 2017
Edna Greening
Norfolk Vanguard
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
We are writing to all concerned regarding the proposed location for Vattenfalls Substation which they hope to site close to Necton Village.
We are deeply concerned that Vattenfall are still hell bent on siting this monstrosity so close to a rural village. It is a quiet village consisting of a large percentage of retired and elderly residents who are distressed that their way of life will be ruined by siting this substation close to residential properties.
There is also a primary school which will also be affected - who knows what impact this will have on young lives.
We feel our complaint is justified especially as two other sites have been put forward for consideration that would have little or no impact on peoples lives and way of living.
One site - 185 acres at Top Farm is available for purchase by the owner who contacted Vattenfall . Joe Hill had thought they were definitely buying it, but had then heard no more until VF announced their preferred site on the land that is NOT for sale on Necton Farm (close to Ivy Todd). Necton Farm is not for sale and would therefore have to be subject to a compulsory purchase. This seems madness !
Top farm would be an appropriate site because it has no flooding issues, it is closer to the pylon than Necton Farm would be. It also has natural landscaping and topography . The structures would not been seen from Necton, Holme Hale, West End or Ivy Todd.

Other alternative sites would be near Scarning as proposed by Tony Smedley. One site would be close to the cable corridor at a crossing point on the A47.
The other site being beyond this one down Watery Lane where there is land on either side of the road. This total lot being 165 acres which is for sale on the open market.
Both sites at Scarning are sparsely populated and would have little or no impact on peoples lives. So why does Vattenfall refuse to consider these sites?

Why also is Necton Parish Council only able to speak against the proposals once the planning applications have gone in. By that time it is too late for them to make any objections as the chosen site would by then be impossible to change. This to us seems extremely unfair and biased. This means that Vattenfall have no consideration for the lives of the people who live in Necton and the impact on them.
Why are our human rights not being considered ???

We have sent various emails to Vattenfall in the past but have never had any reply from them. Only an automatic reply saying they will get back to us.
It shows their contempt for the people of Necton. !!
As the project has not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate (the Inspectorate), we have no formal powers to intervene on consultees behalf. I note you have contacted the developer directly and we would encourage you to do this to make your concerns heard as the Applicant has a statutory duty to take your views, as well as any Parish Council’s views, into account. However, if you feel your comments are not being taken into account, I would advise you to write to your local authority and set out why you think the Applicant is failing to conduct its consultation properly. Your comments should be taken into account when the local authority sends the Inspectorate its comments on whether the Applicant has fulfilled its consultation duties. The local authority’s comments on the Applicant’s consultation will be taken into account when the Acceptance Inspector makes their decision whether to accept the application for Examination.

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

After the decision has been made regarding whether to accept the application for Examination all documents used to inform the decision will be published on our website. If the application for development consent is formally accepted you will be able to submit your views in relation to the project which will be considered by the Examining Authority during the Examination. The Inspectorate has published a series of advice notes which explain the Examination process, including information on how to get involved; of particular interest are advice notes 8.1 to 8.5. These are available here: [attachment 1].

You may also wish to see our compilation of advice about the Pre-application procedure and community consultation: [attachment 2]

09 October 2017
Roy and Angela Campbell
Norfolk Vanguard
Enquiry received via email
This is a general question on Projects of National Importance and the Statutory Consultations that I hope you can help with, as to us people ‘on the ground’ these parts of the process are most puzzling and, a lot of the time, most infuriating.

Can you tell us why the very people who should be available to represent the residents at this time, and those with the most knowledge of the village in general, and it’s needs, are effectively gagged by the consultation process?

I’m talking about our Parish Councils, who are apparently, only able to speak for or against a proposal, once siting has been decided and planning permission has been applied for.

It seems totally bizarre to us that our PC are not allowed to give an opinions, good or bad, on the various proposals being considered for planning applications. Because of course by the time planning applications go in, the site has been refined and chosen and would be, at that stage, almost impossible to change.

Surely the PC, as our representative body, should be consulted, and allowed to represent Necton, before the final site is chosen, ie before planning is applied for, as afterwards it is far too late for them to have any useful input.

Please can you help us with this, as it has caused terrible dissent and fracturing of the society of our village because so many people think that the PC is not responding by choice, and don’t understand that they are effectively gagged by the terms of the consultation process?
Parish Councils are one of the bodies we would expect the developer to engage with at the pre-application stage. As advised previously, as the projects have not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate we have no formal powers to intervene on consultees behalf therefore if the Parish Council has concerns about the consultation process then they should contact the developer directly to make their concerns heard as the Applicant has a statutory duty to take their views into account. If the Parish Council feels their views are not being taken into account I would advise them to contact the local authority.

06 October 2017
Jenny Smedley
Norfolk Boreas
Enquiry received via email
This is a general question on Projects of National Importance and the Statutory Consultations that I hope you can help with, as to us people ‘on the ground’ these parts of the process are most puzzling and, a lot of the time, most infuriating.

Can you tell us why the very people who should be available to represent the residents at this time, and those with the most knowledge of the village in general, and it’s needs, are effectively gagged by the consultation process?

I’m talking about our Parish Councils, who are apparently, only able to speak for or against a proposal, once siting has been decided and planning permission has been applied for.

It seems totally bizarre to us that our PC are not allowed to give an opinions, good or bad, on the various proposals being considered for planning applications. Because of course by the time planning applications go in, the site has been refined and chosen and would be, at that stage, almost impossible to change.

Surely the PC, as our representative body, should be consulted, and allowed to represent Necton, before the final site is chosen, ie before planning is applied for, as afterwards it is far too late for them to have any useful input.

Please can you help us with this, as it has caused terrible dissent and fracturing of the society of our village because so many people think that the PC is not responding by choice, and don’t understand that they are effectively gagged by the terms of the consultation process?
Parish Councils are one of the bodies we would expect the developer to engage with at the pre-application stage. As advised previously, as the projects have not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate we have no formal powers to intervene on consultees behalf therefore if the Parish Council has concerns about the consultation process then they should contact the developer directly to make their concerns heard as the Applicant has a statutory duty to take their views into account. If the Parish Council feels their views are not being taken into account I would advise them to contact the local authority.

06 October 2017
Jenny Smedley
Norfolk Vanguard
Enquiry received via
When does the inspectors work start officially? Is there a public announcement and can members of the public attend.
Once an application has been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate we have 28 days to decide whether it is of a satisfactory standard to be examined. An Acceptance Inspector, along with the Case Team, will check the application against the statutory Acceptance tests under section 55 of the Planning Act 2008, on behalf of the Secretary of State. This process is not open to the public, however we will invite the host and neighbouring local authorities to submit a representation on the adequacy of consultation. We will also pass the Acceptance Inspector all correspondence that we have received in the pre-application period. Our website will be updated to advise the public that an application has been received and, if the applicant agrees, the application documents will be published on our website.

05 October 2017
Katie Taylor
Norfolk Vanguard
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I OBJECT to the current plans to build West Burton C Power Plant (a gas-fired peaking plant) adjacent to the existing power stations in West Burton, Nottinghamshire.

I strongly believe if this development is approved it will have an adverse impact on the local community: this structure will further spoil the landscape character of the surrounding countryside, generate more traffic during the construction stages and ongoing maintenance, as well as reduce the quality of air, once commissioned.
Please see attached letter

05 October 2017
Caroline Merriman
West Burton C power station
Enquiry received via email
I am writing regarding a query on the Planning Act 2008 requirements of an NSIP. I would like to find out whether it would be possible to gain any clarification whether the requirements that qualify a generating station as a NSIP within the Planning Act 2008 would include the generating stations associated gas pipeline that exceeds the 16.093 km (Pipelines Act 1962) requirement. Where in general a pipeline that exceeds this limit, and is not a gas transporter, is classed as a NSIP and therefore must have a single DCO application.

It is not clear by reading between the lines that a pipeline exceeding the requirement above could fall under the main generating station projects DCO application, but it also does not make sense why these would be separated, unless the pipeline was of such an extent (e.g. possibly >100 km), that the Secretary of State deems the pipeline to be a NSIP in its own right, and therefore would request a single DCO application.
If I correctly understand the crux of your enquiry, there is nothing to prevent more than one Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP) being included in a Development Consent Order (DCO), and there are precedents for this (see for example the East Midlands Gateway Rail Freight Interchange and Galloper Offshore Wind Farm). In effect, an NSIP generating station and an NSIP pipeline could be delivered through the same DCO.

I would caveat that development for which development consent is required a matter of fact, in accordance with the provisions set out in sections 14 to 30A of the Planning Act 2008; but the Planning Inspectorate cannot take a decision on whether development constitutes an NSIP until such time as the associated application for development consent is formally submitted.

05 October 2017
Wood Group - Jonathan Capanda
General
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I am interested in having a much better understanding the road safety implications of two major projects under consideration:-

Rail Central (Strategic Rail Freight Interchange)
Ashfield Land Limited Pre Application

Northampton Gateway Rail Freight Interchange
Roxhill Developments Limited Pre Application

I want to see any information you have regarding:-

• Projected increases in traffic density on the local roads M1 A508, A45, A43, A5 and all the Rat Runs trough the local villages such as Stoke Bruerne, Shutlanger, Blisworth, Whittlebury etc.
• Increase in Dark Hours HGV (24 Hour Operation).
• Road Traffic Accident assessment due to the increased traffic density, increase HGV volume and HGV night operations.
• Increased delay times at the well known rush hour blackspots such as J15 and J15A
• Contingency plans for traffic diversion when say the M1 or A45 is closed due to RTA
• Anything else you think may be of interest.

Thank you.
Both the Rail Central and Northampton Gateway Rail Freight Interchange projects are currently in the Pre-Application stage of the planning process for nationally significant infrastructure projects under the Planning Act 2008 (as amended) (PA2008). During this stage the developer is responsible for all information submitted, and we advise you to contact them directly in the first instance.

The contact information for both projects is as follows:

Rail Central (Strategic Rail Freight Interchange): Point of Contact: Ben Copithorne, 0207 6367366, Website: [attachment 1]

Northampton Gateway Rail Freight Interchange:
Email: [email protected],
Tel: 01788 538 440
Postal Address: Northampton Gateway SRFI, P O Box 10570, Nottingham, NG2 9RG
Online contact form: [attachment 2]

I have also attached our Advice Note 8: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public, which I hope you will find helpful.

03 October 2017
Terry Owen
Rail Central (Strategic Rail Freight Interchange)
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update and draft documents review meeting
Please see attached meeting note

03 October 2017
Horizon Nuclear Power
Wylfa Newydd Nuclear Power Station
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Cyfarfod Diweddaru Prosiectau
Gweler y nodyn cyfarfod sydd ynghlwm

03 October 2017
Horizon Nuclear Power
Wylfa Newydd Nuclear Power Station
Enquiry received via email
Queries raised following the issue of the Kemsley Paper Mill (K4) CHP Plant Scoping Opinion
Further to my email below we have looked into your queries and have the following comments. For ease of reference my comments are made under the same headings as in your email.

Risks of Accidents and Disasters

You have asked the Inspectorate to confirm if your proposed approach to assessing the risk of major accidents and disasters during construction and decommissioning set out in your email below is an acceptable one. The approach described was not contained in your Scoping Report and so the Inspectorate did not address this specifically in the Scoping Opinion. The Inspectorate does not consider it appropriate to comment in detail on the scope of an assessment outside of the formal Scoping Opinion process. However, the Applicant is reminded that an Environmental Statement (ES) must include (amongst other things) a description of the likely significant effects and of any features of the Proposed Development or measures envisaged in order to avoid, prevent or reduce and, if possible, offset likely significant adverse effects on the environment. Therefore, if the proposed approach described by the Applicant is sufficient to address the requirements of the EIA Regulations in this regard then it may be regarded as an acceptable one. The Applicant should note that in any event the Inspectorate, on behalf of the Secretary of State, is required to consider the overall adequacy of the information provided with an application for a Development Consent Order. The consideration will include whether the ES is adequate according to the EIA Regulations.

The Inspectorate’s comments contained in the ‘Risk of accidents and disasters’ section of the topic-based scoping table (page 46) in the Scoping Opinion the location of which you have queried refer to points raised at paragraphs 3.3.19 – 3.3.20 of the Scoping Opinion.

Human Health

It is correct that the Inspectorate did not comment specifically on human health in the Scoping Opinion. The information contained in Table 2.1 of the Scoping Report indicated that matters relating to human health would be scoped in for all phases of the Proposed Development, and that it will be considered under other topics, such as, for example, air quality, ground conditions and noise. The Inspectorate did not feel the need to comment on this approach.

Community, Social and Economic, Land Use and Waste Effects

To clarify, the Inspectorate agreed, in paragraph 3.3.7 of the Scoping Opinion, that these topics do not need to be included in the ES as standalone chapters. However, as you note, the Inspectorate considers that matters relating to waste should be considered within relevant topic chapters as appropriate and in particular where there may be potential for significant effects, such as, for example, in relation to increased traffic.

In relation to your final point, our understanding according to paragraph 1.4.9 of the Scoping Report is that K3 will supply energy in the form of steam to the paper mill; not to K4, the Proposed Development.

02 October 2017
DHA Planning - Tim Spicer
Kemsley Paper Mill (K4) CHP Plant
Enquiry received via email