The list below is a record of advice the Planning Inspectorate has provided in respect of the Planning Act 2008 process.
There is a statutory duty under section 51 of the Planning Act 2008 to record the advice that is given in relation to an application or a potential application and to make this publicly available. Advice we have provided is recorded below together with the name of the person or organisation who asked for the advice and the project it relates to. The privacy of any other personal information will be protected in accordance with our Information Charter which you should view before sending information to the Planning Inspectorate.
Note that after a project page has been created for a particular application, any advice provided that relates to it will also be published under the ‘s51 advice’ tab on the relevant project page.
Advice given between between 1 October 2009 and 14 April 2015 has been archived. View the archived advice.
Sheringham and Dudgeon Extension Projects View all advice for this project
Dudgeon and Sheringham extensions is an NSIP project which is currently consulting on its PEIr (Section 42 consultation) that incorporates extensions to the Dudgeon and Sheringham Round 2 OWFs. However, it is not that simple as dudgeon extension consists of two areas Dudgeon North and Dudgeon South that are completely separated by the original array which are again separated from the Sheringham extension by some distance. So effectively you have 3 spatially separate projects/array areas with interlinking cables where the impacts are significantly different. The Applicant wants ultimate flexibility so their assessment under each thematic area includes options for building the project as a whole, sequentially (phased build) or only taking forward one of the extensions and not the other (either/or). We are therefore faced with a situation of not only assessing/advising on the impacts in each of the 3 (different) arrays separately but then under each of the 4 construction options. Unfortunately the DCO/dML is still to be drafted so we are struggling to see how the above issues will all be addressed and to inform on mitigation measures to minimise the impacts Therefore we would really appreciate some steer from PINs as to whether or not on the information presented above, and experience from EA1N and EA2, if this should actually be taken forward as one project? And if it is, then would it then be considered that options to only part build out the project would be for the developer to decide post consent and impacts for the individual extensions are not needed to be considered in the application as not worst case scenario?
Thank you for your email of 21 May in which you seek advice about the proposed Sheringham and Dudgeon Extension Project (SADEP). We discussed the scale and nature of the proposed application with the Applicant and our published advice is set out here in the published meeting note (Attachment). We won’t comment on the East Anglia One North and East Anglia 2 parallel examinations as they are ongoing and you have the opportunity to put your views on the applications directly to the Examining Authority. With regard to SADEP, it’s for the Applicant to decide what to include in their application, including any construction phasing plan. It’s also not unusual for a DCO to contain more than one NSIP. We note the complexities you describe in respect of the current PEIR consultation; however, during the pre application stage, statutory bodies and other consultees have the opportunity to put their views on the structure of the emerging ES directly to the Applicant as part of the ongoing engagement process. In general terms, the Applicant would need to assess the worst case i.e. the maximum extent of development. If the Applicant chose to build out less than the maximum development, this would be assumed to have less environmental impact than the worst case. PINS also has regular meetings with Natural England at the corporate level, which are non-case specific – you can also feed in any views or thoughts on the difficulties you have identified to your colleagues who attend those meetings.