East Midlands Gateway Rail Freight Interchange | National Infrastructure Planning

The list below includes a record of advice we have provided for this project. For a list of all advice issued by the Planning Inspectorate, including non-project related advice, please go to the Register of advice page.

There is a statutory duty, under section 51 of the Planning Act 2008, to record the advice that is given in relation to an application or a potential application, including the name of the person who requested the advice, and to make this publicly available.

Preview
A meeting was held between Eversheds LLP and The Planning Inspectorate to provide feedback on the examination experience. Note of meeting attached. 03 March 2016 Eversheds LLP
Email received informing the Planning Inspectorate of change of name. The Planning Inspectorate advised that the statutory 6 month examination had closed on 12 July 2015, and that the Examining Authority was unable to take into account any submissions received after that date. It was confirmed however that Nabarro's correspondence would be forwarded to the Secretary of State for Transport alongside the recommendation report, enabling the change of name to be applied, where appropriate, in taking his final decision about whether or not development consent should be granted. 27 August 2015 Nabarro LLP for Lafarge Tarmac - Rebecca Roffe
Thank you for your email regarding the examination and timetable procedure for the application by Roxhill (Kegworth) Ltd for an Order Granting Development Consent for the East Midlands Gateway Rail Freight Interchange, for which I am writing to acknowledge receipt. The Commission receives many requests for our views on, and notices about, planning issues. We do not have the resources to respond to all, and it is not our practice to respond to consultations on major infrastructure projects. Therefore, we would request you do not send us further information on this project, unless there is a clear and specific equality and human rights concern you wish to raise (for example, impact on minority communities such as BME groups, or on accessibility for disabled people), to which we can add value. Thank you for your correspondence, below. As you will be aware, the Planning Inspectorate has a legal duty to consult all statutory parties that are identified as potentially having an interest in a nationally significant infrastructure project. For each project that EHRC are identified in relation to, you should only automatically receive two pieces of correspondence; an invitation to the Preliminary Meeting, and confirmation of the finalised examination timetable. If you do not wish to participate in the examination of a project that you have received these initial correspondences in relation to, then you do not need to respond to ?opt out? for each project. If you do wish to participate in the examination of a particular project, you should actively respond by the appropriate deadline set out in the examination timetable, confirming you wish to become an interested party. Statutory parties also have a unique right to request interested party status at any point during the examination of an application. 27 January 2015 Equality and Human Rights Commission
Request from an interested party to extend an examination deadline and enquiry about hard copy deposit locations. Thank you for your email with the summary of the sites and map that the J24 Action Group recommends for the Examining Authority (ExA) to visit during its site inspection on 3 February 2015. Your recommendations have been forwarded to the ExA for consideration. I would be grateful if you could please confirm whether you or/and any other members intend to attend that site visit on behalf of J24 Action Group. If a wish to attend is expressed, please could you confirm the number of attendees, providing the name and contact telephone number (mobile) of each individual by 23 January 2015. This information will be most helpful to enable the day to be effectively planned. In terms of your email received yesterday (19:30pm) requesting that Deadline V of the examination timetable is extended to 2 April 2015, you should by now be aware from the latest correspondence from the Examining Authority that to accommodate requests made by interested parties, the ExA has extended Deadline V to 7 April 2015 (12 noon). The Rule 8 letter (including the final examination timetable) is available to view here: [attachment 1] Regarding the availability of hard copies documents in deposit locations, I apologise for any inconvenience caused. Please note however that our policy is limited to electronic deposit locations to avoid any additional costs that would otherwise be imposed on interested parties. We do however provide hard copies of any procedural letters issued by the ExA to interested parties to date, upon request. To ensure that everyone involved in the process of the nationally significant infrastructure projects has fair access to information at all time in the required format, we do select deposit locations carefully. In addition, when selecting potential locations we ensure that venues provide photocopying/printing facilities and that staff are able to offer assistance to members of local communities if needed. Internally, the project case team also ensures that all examination documents received for each examination deadline are published on the National Infrastructure portal project webpage as soon as is practicable. With regard to documentation referred to in your email, documentation submitted to the Planning Inspectorate on the 22 December 2015 is available to view on the project webpage from here: [attachment 2];stage=3&filter=Other I also suggest contacting developer with your request who may be able to provide you with a copy of their submission made on 22 December. I hope this information is useful and please contact us if you have any more questions. 20 January 2015 Toni Harrington
Advised given on the status of an interested party. I am glad to hear that you found the Preliminary Meeting held on 12 January 2015 useful. However to clarify, you are registered as an interested party for the examination of the application by Roxhill (Kegworth) Ltd for the East Midlands Gateway Rail Freight Interchange project, proposed to be located on approximately 336 hectares of land to the immediate north of East Midlands Airport, and south of the villages of Lockington and Hemmington. The location of the proposed scheme is shown edged red on the location plain available here: [attachment 1]. It was this application only that was the subject of discussions at the meeting on 12 January 2015. There are currently two applications for strategic rail freight interchanges registered with the Planning Inspectorate as nationally significant infrastructure projects (NSIPs). These are the application described above, and a separate application by Goodman Shepherd (UK) Ltd for the proposed East Midlands Intermodal Park (near Burnaston). The latter has not yet been formally submitted to the Planning Inspectorate and no decision about its merits will be made as part of the examination of the Roxhill application. To be absolutely clear, both applications are separate and if/when the application by Goodman Shepherd is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, any decision about whether development consent should be granted will be made in consideration of the proposal?s own merits. If/when the application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, and if it is accepted to be of a satisfactory standard for the Secretary of State to examine, a registration period will be advertised within which persons may make a relevant representation and become an interested party. You can keep up to date with the progress of the application concerning the site near Burnaston on the National Infrastructure portal, here: [attachment 2] Please note that as a registered interested party for the examination of the application by Roxhill (Kegworth) Ltd for the site adjacent to East Midlands Airport, you will receive further correspondence from the Examining Authority throughout its 6 month duration. Taking part in the examination is not obligatory, however should you wish to continue being involved please follow the timetable that will be issued to all interested parties later today. Alternatively, if you wish to cease to be an interested party for the examination of the application, please make this request in writing. I hope this information is helpful, please contact us (email/telephone) should you have any more questions or require clarification about the above. 19 January 2015 Merelyn Lobb
The Planning Inspectorate gave advice to interested party regarding examination events. I am sorry to hear that you may not be able to attend the hearing on 4 February 2014. As you may be aware, the Preliminary Meeting to discuss draft timetable for examination of the application took place yesterday. At that meeting, all interested parties were invited to provide the ExA with their thoughts and comments with regard to dates, timing and location for the proposed hearings and deadlines set in the draft timetable, in writing and/or at the Meeting itself. We understand that holding hearings on weekdays will often require participants to make arrangements to attend and this is why the hearing dates are notified at least 21 days in advance. The hearings usually take place during the working week because often technical consultees from other organisations need to attend and indeed members of the public also wish to hear from them. Unfortunately it?s not possible to produce an examination timetable that will please everyone; we are grateful to interested parties who take the time to contribute to the process and we try to accommodate as many interested parties as possible, so they can put forward their views in the most convenient and appropriate way. With that in mind, please be assured that this is primarily a written process and hearings are supplemental to the written material put before the Examining Authority. The Examining Authority will shortly issue the final timetable for examination having regard to other comments received at above meeting and in writing. The final timetable will set out dates of future hearings, site visits and deadlines for written submissions. For instance, the timetable will also set out the date of any open floor hearing (?OFH?) that takes place. The purpose of the hearing on 4 February 2015 is to discuss technical requirements contained in the draft Development Consent Order (?DCO?) submitted by the applicant. If you are not able to attend then you are welcome to submit the points you wanted to make at the hearing in writing by the corresponding deadline in the examination timetable. You will be able to listen to an audio recording of any hearings you are not able to attend. These will be published on the project web page as soon as practicable after the hearing. I hope this information is helpful and please contact us should you have any questions. 13 January 2015 Andy Yeomans
The Planning Inspectorate gave advice to interested party regarding examination events. Thank you for notifying us that you wish to attend the draft Development Consent Order (DCO) Hearing on 4 February 2015. As indicated in the letter issued today by the ExA, the purpose of the hearing is to discuss the requirements contained in the draft Development Consent Order (DCO) submitted by the applicant. I added your name to the list of attendees and speakers should you decide to participate at the hearing as indicated in your email. I understand that you are also concerned with the attendance of another interested party. MPs and other political representatives have to register a relevant representation and become interested parties in the same way as the public do. Once registered as an interested party they have the same status and entitlements as any other interested party in terms of their participation in the examination. The Examining authority will not assume that the views of any interested parties who are also political representatives are necessarily indicative of the views of local communities affected by an application. At any hearing the Examining Authority have discretion to hear from people who have not registered as an interested party if they are raising matters of interest and there is time to hear them. Please do not hesitate to contact us should you need any more assistance. 13 January 2015 Steve Haberfield
Request to become an interested party Advised the registration period to be an interested party for this application closed on 3 November 2014 (23:59), as such The Planning Inspectorate is no longer able to register individuals or groups as interested parties for the purposes of this application. The term interested party in relation to this process is a legally defined status and the fact that you have been unable to register your interest in time is not in any way meant to suggest that you are not interested in this application. We are not able to extend the deadline and have no statutory powers that would enable us to do so. However, we will keep your comments on file and make them available to the Examining Authority ?ExA? who is able to exercise discretion to consider views and evidence from those who did not register a relevant representation on time. However, this does not mean that you would be regarded as an interested party for the purposes of the examination. From your email, I also understand that you and other persons in the household share the same views about above project and that your son is registered as an interested party (IP) for the project. Please note that you may wish therefore consider submitting joint submissions for the project on behalf of the household through the already registered IP. All submissions must be made within the deadlines as specified in the final timetable for the application. Please note that following the Preliminary Meeting the ExA will issue final timetable for examination of the application that will be also published on the project webpage available from below link: [attachment 1] 18 December 2014 Gillian Wilmot
Marrons Shakespeares provided its response to post-Acceptance advice issued by the Inspectorate on 19 September 2014. It also drew attention to a number of potential changes to the application documentation following issues that had arisen since its submission to the Inspectorate on 29 August 2014. The Inspectorate issued procedural advice set out in the attached letter. 20 November 2014 Marrons Shakespeares
Andrew Bridgen MP made submissions after the elapse of the statutory relevant representations period on 3 November 2014. A letter dated 13 November 2014 and received by the Inspectorate on 20 November 2014 enclosed several pieces of correspondence sent to Mr Bridgen from his constituents expressing concern about the proposed development. The Inspectorate advised that Mr Bridgen's submissions would be made available to the Examining Authority (ExA), once appointed. The Inpsectorate explained that Mr Bridgen's opportunity to register as an ?interested party? had elapsed, however he would be able to make written submissions to the appointed ExA which would have discretion to accept them to be read in conjunction with the examination. It was also advised that Mr Bridgen would likely be invited to the Preliminary Meeting as an 'other person' and that his status would not preclude him from requesting to speak at any open floor, issue specific or compulsory acquisition hearings that were held. The next stage of the process was explained, and reassurances were made about the Planning Inspectorate's handling of Mr Bridgen's constituents concerns which in the main had been responded to at the Pre-Application stage of the process. Those responses are available on the National Infrastructure portal, here: [attachment 1] 20 November 2014 Andrew Bridgen
Advice given on late relevant representation not made on prescribed form. Thank you for your email with regards to the East Midlands Gateway RFI project received on 4 November 2014. As you may be aware, the relevant representations period for the project closed on 3 November 2014. In order to become an interested party, your comments must be submitted on the prescribed form within the deadline set. I am sorry to inform you that it was not possible to register you as an interested party on this occasion as your submission did not comply with above requirements. Please note however that that your comments will be made available to the Examining Authority (ExA) once appointed. The ExA may then choose to exercise its discretion and consider some or all of the late submissions received, and decide whether to allow those persons to take a part in the examination of the application. Meanwhile, you may find it helpful to follow the project website, available at the link below, in order to keep up to date with the progress of the application process. [attachment 1] I hope this information is helpful. 11 November 2014 Julie McCarthy
The Planning Inspectorate provided advice to local planning authority on submission made at relevant representation stage. The legislation is quite prescriptive about what constitutes a relevant representation. One of the defining characteristics is that the representation is made on the prescribed form. Your submission was not made on the form, however, your local authority is a prescribed consultee and as such this only means that we will ask you to confirm your status as an interested party at a later date, as explained below. Your submissions, as made on 3rd November, will be made available to the Examining Authority (ExA) who we expect to be appointed shortly. They will have an opportunity to consider the points you have raised when undertaking their initial assessment of the principal issues, ahead of the Preliminary Meeting, which you will be invited to. Once appointed, the ExA will issue the letter containing the draft examination timetable and will invite all interested parties and prescribed consultees to attend the Preliminary Meeting. This letter will also ask you to confirm your status as an interested party. Following the Preliminary Meeting, the ExA will issue its final examination timetable setting out deadlines for submissions of detailed representations and dates for other potential examination events. Meanwhile, you may find it helpful to follow the project website, available from the link below, in order to keep up to date with the progress of the application process. [attachment 1] I hope this information is helpful. 11 November 2014 Steve Buffery
The Planning Inspectorate received request to become an interested party after close of relevant representation stage. Thank you for your email with regard to the East Midlands Gateway RFI project. I am sorry to hear that you have experienced difficulties when trying to register as an interested party for above project. As you are likely to be aware, the registration period for becoming an interested party closed on 3 November 2014, 23:59. It is not possible to register you as an interested party; however, you may still make a submission that can be made available to the Examining Authority. The Examining Authority?s ?ExA? can exercise its discretion to consider any late submissions received. Please send this through as soon as you are able to via this project email address. The ExA for the project is due to be appointed shortly. Once appointed, the ExA will set the date and time for the Preliminary Meeting to be held in order to discuss the draft examination timetable and other procedural matters. The ExA will issue the letter (known as a Rule 6 Letter) inviting interested parties to attend that meeting. In addition, the ExA may also wish to choose to invite any other person who expressed an interest in the application. Meanwhile, you may find it helpful to follow the project website, available from the link below, in order to keep up to date with the progress of the application process. [attachment 1] I hope this information is helpful. Please contact us should you have any questions about the above matter. 10 November 2014 Andrew Bridgen
The Planning Inspectorate received comments on the application during relevant representation stage not made on prescribed form. The Planning Inspectorate issued following advice: Thank you for your email concerning the application by Roxhill (Kegworth) Ltd for the proposed East Midlands Gateway RFI. As you may be aware, before submission of the application, the applicant is under duty to carry out its statutory consultation in accordance with the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008). This requires for consultation to be carried out in a certain manner and to a certain standard. Where a person feels that consultation has not been carried out adequately, it should seek resolution by approaching the applicant directly in the first instance. Where dissatisfaction remains, the appropriate mechanism is to make a complaint to the relevant local authority (who can consider this complaint as part of their representation to the Secretary of State on the adequacy of consultation), or to the Secretary of State (via the Planning Inspectorate). Any complaint should be made promptly following the close of pre-application consultation to ensure that it was received no later than the point at which an application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate. In all cases, the final decision as to whether pre-application consultation was adequately carried out rests with the relevant Secretary of State. As you are likely aware, on 19 September 2014 the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) made its decision that the application by Roxhill (Kegworth) Ltd was of a satisfactory standard to be accepted for examination. The period within which complaints about pre-application consultation could be made and considered by the Inspectorate as part of its acceptance decision has therefore elapsed. Local authorities were invited to make representations to the Inspectorate concerning the adequacy of the applicant?s pre-application consultation, and any complaints made to them should have been taken into account. Those representations are available to view by clicking the following link: [attachment 1] interchange/?ipcsection=docs&stage=2&filter=Adequacy+of+Consultation On submission of the application the Inspectorate applied the associated legal tests (under s55 of the PA2008) to the application documentation, including the consultation evidence provided by the applicant. The Inspectorate decided that the applicant?s pre-application consultation had been of a satisfactory standard, and its commentary and conclusions are available to be read in the ?Acceptance of Applications Checklist?: [attachment 2] I note that you have submitted a relevant representation (RR) which helpfully sets out your comments in relation to the merits of the scheme. Once appointed, the Examining Authority will read all RRs as part of its preparation to examine the application. To clarify the content of this letter however, comments relating to the adequacy of the applicant?s pre-application consultation can no longer be considered. 03 November 2014 Michael Davies
As an interested party, I have completed the online form however wonder how and when I will be prompted to provide further information in relation my representation. Thank you for your email and submission of a relevant representation in relation to the East Midlands Gateway Rail Freight Interchange. Please note that after the relevant representation period closes on 3 November 2014 a single Examining Inspector or panel of Inspectors known as Examining Authority (ExA) will be appointed to examine the above application. On appointment, the ExA will read the application documents and the relevant representations which will inform an initial assessment of principal issues. The ExA will then issue a letter to all interested parties (IP) which will include a draft timetable for examination of the application. This letter will als'o invite IPs to attend an initial meeting (known as the Preliminary Meeting) at which the ExA will invite representations on the draft timetable and about how the application is proposed to be examined. Shortly after the meeting, the ExA will issue a second letter inproviding the final examination timetable to IPs. The timetable will set out deadlines for written submissions and the dates for any hearings. All submissions must be made by the deadlines specified in the timetable. Please note these letters will be sent to you via your preferred contact method as requested on your relevant representation form. They will also be published to the project webpage on the Planning Portal, here: [attachment 1] For more information on how the process works, you are likely to find the Planning Inspectorate's advice notes (particularly 8.1 through 8.5) useful. They are available here: [attachment 2] The Inspectorate has also produced a short film explaining the decision-making process from end to end, available here: [attachment 3] 15 October 2014 Emma Clowes
The Planning Inspectorate provided advice about the process of making a relevant representation in response to comments received during relevant representation period. The Planning Inspectorate advised: As you may be aware the application has been recently accepted for examination and is currently at the pre-examination stage of the decision-making process. During the pre-examination stage anybody can register to become an ?interested party? by submitting a summary of their comments about an application. This registration must be done by filling in a ?relevant representation? form which is available on the project webpage by clicking the following link: [attachment 1] In order for the appointed Examining Authority 'ExA' to read the comments about the application comprising your email, I must ask that they are repeated on the relevant representation form. Please be aware that the period within which relevant representations can be made is time-limited, and will elapse on 3 November 2014. As previously stated, anybody who submits a relevant representation will become an interested party and may therefore submit further written and oral representations during the six month examination period. Please refer to the Planning Inspectorate?s advice notes 8.1 - 8.5 for more information on how to register as an interested party, the preliminary meeting, and the examination process: [attachment 2] I hope this information is helpful to you. 07 October 2014 Paul Husbands
The proposed SRFI Warehouse Park at Lockington, since it's first incepetion, has been promoted to all concerned under a number of false pretences by the developer and by developers lobbyist, local Conservative MP, Andrew Bridgen. Namely.... 1. It was origimnally stated from the outset (at the initial public meeting which took place in the Castle Donington Spittal building) that use of this high quality green belt agricultural land on which to site this development was vital, as it was located in a unique position due to the coincident presence of both the airport and a nearby freight rail line.... This has turned out to be totally untrue as it has now been confirmed by the developers representatives that there will be virtually zero air side business benefit crossover and that the proposed development will be operating in, and I quote, "a totally different market" to the air freight operation at the airport. Air freight pre-dominantly deals in small packaging, whereas the propsed development will specifically focus on the large packaging marketplace. So in reality the coincident presence of the airport in relation to the proposed site offers no business or ecological advantage whatsoever and in essence therefore has absolutely nothing to do with the application to use this land. 2. The development was stated to be a totally privately financed initiative... again, not true as the taxpayer will now have to pay for a £121M subsidy to enable the extension of the HS2 tunnel required to get under this development. The developers representatives confirmed to me personally that HS2, i.e. the UK taxpayer, will be meeting all of these additional tunnelling costs, which would be totally unnecessary should the development be sited elsewhere. 3. That the proposed capacity required by this project was far greater than already existing, freely available, totally underutilised and identical facilities at the nearby Castle Donington power station development.... Self evidently not true as this site has enjoyed only a 30% takeup over the past fifteen years or so since it's original inception, and remains at this level today. There is masses of vacant space yet to be taken up here which should be fully exploited before building any more white elephant projects where capacity take up projections have been massively overstated. Especially at the taxpayers expense. 4. It was further stated that the existing road to rail terminal facilities at the Castle Donington site ' belonged' to Marks and Spencer and could not be accessed by any other users. This also self evidently cannot be true as the whole point and scale of the power station freight to rail site was scoped on enabling all site users access to rail mounting facilities. The lobbyists for this project also state that the Castle Donington site is regionally managed and therfore not accessible to potential national users, and outside of the governments national SFRI remit. This is akin to the government choosing not to take account of what exists in a locality before spending money on unnecessary duplication, and is simply illogical nonsense. This is quite obviously a red herring being used by the developers lobbyists to confuse and obfiscate local objections on grounds of sensible utilisation of existing facilities. 5. A number of assurances offered by the developers lobbyist, MP Andrew Brigden, have already been broken by the developer. Primary amongst these is the backtracking (if that is what it in fact was?) on the measure to prevent both noise and light pollution on the North side of the village from the proposed new rail link and goods yard. Andrew Brigden stated quite clearly to me in writing that the line would be in a 15m cutting below ground level around the North of the village to mitigate against noise and light pollution etc. At the developer 'consultation' event at Lockington Village Hall, it was clearly shown on the plans that no such cutting will be provided, a simple fence being erected in front of the surface level line instead. A cutting was stated by the developer to be 'far too expensive'. 6. The SFRI initiative in general was designed to get freight off UK motorways and onto the railways. All well and good in principle, and one which I have no objection to, however in respect of the Lockington site, the developers representatives have also stated that a large proportion of the incoming freight for transfer to rail will be driven up to the site by road from the south coast!! This hardly meets the stated intention or sentiment of such an objective, and in my opinion should be strongly challenged in any planning adjudication. This presumably as there is a lack of enthusiasm for siting an alternative development more sensibly nearer to the coast...... Again this serves to illustrate that the whole national SFRI concept has not been sufficiently thought through and siting this development at Lockington will not meet it's conceptual requirements. 7. Despite repeated requests of the developer and his lobbyist local MP, to produce metricated documentary evidence of the supposed seven thousand long term jobs said to be associated with this development, both parties have repeatedly refused to do so. This fact alone has to be regarded as highly suspicious, given the other 'changes of planning detail' that have transpired since the first round of public meetings. In submitting these comments, I respectfully request all those who are in a position to influence the planning decision to take detailed consideration of the above facts, and in particular the cost of this development to the UK taxpayer when considering the developers application. The alternaitve site at Egginton attracts no such UK taxpayer subsidy burden and given the now disproved claims by the developer and his MP representative regarding the close proximity of the airport, should be considered as the sensible first choice location for this inept and totally redeundant development should the proposal be allowed to go ahead. As you are likely aware, on 19 September 2014 the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) made its decision that the application by Roxhill (Kegworth) Ltd was of a satisfactory standard to proceed to be examined. Importantly, the Inspectorate?s decision to accept the application to be examined did not comprise any consideration of the merits of the application. These issues will be tested in detail by an appointed Examining Authority at the appropriate time. The examination of the application cannot commence until a ?relevant representations? period has elapsed; a minimum period of 28 days within which anybody can register to become and ?interested party?, enabling them to make written and oral representations about the application throughout the six month examination period. The applicant advertised the acceptance of the application today (26 September 2014), and the relevant representations period for the application period opened concurrently. In order for the comments comprised within your email to be considered by an Examining Authority, once appointed, I must request that you register as an interested party as described above. The comments comprised within your email concerning the merits of the application should be repeated on the appropriate prescribed form. The form is available by clicking the following link: [attachment 1] Please be aware that the deadline for making a relevant representation is 3 November 2014. For more information on how to register as an interested party please read the Inspectorate?s associated advice note (Advice note 8.3: How to register and become an interested part in an examination), available here: [attachment 2] The Inspectorate has also produced a short film explaining the process from end-to-end, available here: [attachment 3] 26 September 2014 Simon Gibson
The following was forwarded from North West Leicestershire District Council and the Planning Inspectorate offered the following advice in response: I have carefully studied the proposals presented by Roxhill in two public exhibitions and their published supporting documentation. I wish to register that this application should not be accepted as there has been insufficient consultation on the following issues outlined below;- 1. The scale of the proposed development dwarfs all surrounding villages. It is larger than Kegworth, as big as Castle Donington and almost as large as the East Midlands Airport. This scale of development will irreversibly change the character and social structure of the surrounding villages and form one large industrial complex co-joining all of the surrounding the villages. AT NO STAGE IN THE PRESENTATIONS TO THE LOCAL COMMUNITY WAS THE TRUE IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ILLUSTRATED FROM STRATEGIC LOCATIONS AGREED AND DISCUSSED WITH THE LOCAL COMMUNITY AND COUNCILS 2. The proposed alterations to the A50 and M1 roads will transform and restrict still further access into the surrounding villages . The very serious congestion existing at Junction 24 M1 will be increased with the predicted additional 18,000 vehicles per day using this proposed site. The Roxhill proposal also includes for the construction of a 1.9 mile long part elevated freight rail line link connecting the proposed site to an existing freight line. This elevated line, which will circum-navigate Lockington village, will operate 24 hours a day 7 days a week with 16 freight trains a day. AT NO STAGE IN THE PRESENTATIONS TO THE LOCAL COMMUNITY HAS THE TRUE IMPACT OF PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS AND AIR POLLUTION LEVELS BEEN DISCUSSED AT AGREED LOCATIONS AND UNDER DIFFERING WIND DIRECTIONS, IN DIFFERENT SEASONS OF THE YEAR, AND AGREED WITH THE LOCAL COMMUNITY AND COUNCILS. The elevated re- construction of the A6 to the A50 was permitted to be built without any acoustic or visual protection to the local villages, despite appeals to the Highway Agency. With this experience there is little faith in this Planning Process protecting the Environment of the local villages affected by this proposed development. 3. The Roxhill proposal to build warehouses on this 300Ha ?Green Field? site appears to be a very poor commercial decision. As the site has a cross fall of nearly 30 metres. This would necessitate ?cut and fill? profiling of the site of extraordinary dimensions. To achieve the terraced profiles suggested would necessitate over 24 million cubic metres of excavation. This quantity of excavation and removal from site would further increase the transport problems in this location along with the noise and associated air pollution. As a Chartered Architect and Structural Engineer with nearly 40 years of experience of building large industrial buildings I have never recommended or built large floor-plan warehousing on a sloping site as proposed in this development. Then to propose that this site could then accommodate the later construction of the HS2 elevated rail line and tunnel under the East Midlands Airport and still manage to continue to operate securely and efficiently is extremely questionable. THIS IS NOT A GOOD SITE LOCATION FOR LARGE SCALE WAREHOUSING. IT IS ON A SLOPING SITE AND WILL BE DISSECTED BY THE PROPOSED HS2 RAIL LINE AND TUNNEL. THE CONSTRUCTION AND SECURITY ISSUES INVOLVED IN THIS CLASH OF INTERESTS NEEDS TO BE PRESENTED AND AGREED BEFORE SUCH A SITE IS CONSIDERED SUITABLE FOR DEVELOPMENT 4. The impact of this large scale civil engineering project on the natural geology of the area would cause serious surface water problems. Hemington and Lockington have a long history of flash flooding caused by surface water run-off from this proposed site into the surface water brooks in Hemington and Lockington.This development will create 1.6 million square metres of hard standing and roofing. The balancing ponds indicated on the developers plans will overflow into these brooks. No further provisions for surface water removal are proposed and there has been no technical survey data presented to satisfy the residents of Hemington and Lockington that this development has been sufficiently designed to protect the local villages from flooding. AT NO STAGE HAVE THE DEVELOPERS PRESENTED A CLEAR AND CONFIDENT DESIGN BASED UPON SITE MEASUREMENTS OF THE BROOKS CAPACITY AGREED AND WITNESSED BY THE RESIDENTS AND THE COUNCILS. AND SHOWN THAT THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WILL NOT FLOOD HEMINGTON AND LOCKINGTON. 5. North West Leicestershire District Council have drawn-up over 25 years a conservation area policy for Hemington and Lockington Villages and have gone to great lengths to administer strict development control over these villages. This proposal will destroy this policy at a stroke and lose the historic quality of these villages for ever. It is essential that the natural wooded barriers that exist along the Daleacre Ridge need to be protected and reinforced. This development threatens the natural survival for these woods by the scale o the ?cut and fill? proposal and the affects upon the drainage and general construction close to these woods. In addition if the rail connection is built as indicated by the developers at an elevated level it will destroy the woodlands along the A50 edge of Lockington. Conservation areas like Hemington and Lockington are not just about buildings but about the balance of natural space and boundaries surrounding them. ROXHILL?S PROPOSALS PRESENTED ON ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION AND PROTECTION TO THE CONSERVATION OF THE VILLAGES HAS BEEN SCANT. THESE ISSUES INCLUDE INAPPROPRIATE TREE SCREEN PLANTING AND INADEQUATE VISUAL AND ACOUSTIC PROTECTION FROM THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT In conclusion, I most strongly request that this application is withdrawn until the issues outlined above are genuinely and honestly answered. NWLDC have a ?duty of care? to protect the historic and natural assets of their District . The East Midlands has areas of ?Brown Field? sites of old industrial development and within a few miles of this site. These sites were identified in the AECOM report 2010 and ranked higher than this site. The site at Egginton Common, Derby is also within easy reach of major road and motorway links and offers far stronger strategic potential for development and job opportunities for the unemployed. The East Midland Gateway site has been identified by private land asset searching and not by intelligent analysis of where a Strategic Rail and Freight Distribution Centre would best serve the East Midlands and reuse redundant industrial land with high populations of unemployed. Pre-application consultation is a statutory duty for applicants, and the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) requires for it to be carried out in a certain manner and to a certain standard. Where any person feels that an applicant?s pre-application consultation was inadequately carried out, they should seek resolution by approaching the applicant in the first instance. Where dissatisfaction remains, the appropriate mechanism is to make a complaint to the relevant local authority (who can consider this complaint as part of their representation to the Secretary of State on the adequacy of consultation), or to the Secretary of State (via the Inspectorate). Any complaint should be made promptly following the close of pre-application consultation to ensure that it was received no later than the point at which an application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate. In all cases, the final decision as to whether pre-application consultation was adequately carried out rests with the Secretary of State. As you are likely aware, on 19 September 2014 the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) made its decision that the application by Roxhill (Kegworth) Ltd was of a satisfactory standard to proceed to be examined. The period within which complaints about pre-application consultation could be made and considered by the Inspectorate as part of its acceptance decision has therefore elapsed. Local authorities were invited to make representations to the Inspectorate concerning the adequacy of the applicant?s pre-application consultation, and any complaints made to them should have been taken into account. Those representations are available to view by clicking the following link: [attachment 1];stage=2&filter=Adequacy+of+Consultation On submission of the application the Inspectorate applied the associated legal tests (under s55 PA2008) to the application documentation, including the consultation evidence provided by the applicant. The Inspectorate decided that the applicant?s pre-application consultation had been of a satisfactory standard, and its commentary and conclusions are available to be read in the ?Acceptance of Applications Checklist?: [attachment 2] Importantly, the Inspectorate?s decision to accept the application to be examined did not comprise any consideration of the merits of the application. These issues will be tested in detail by an appointed Examining Authority at the appropriate time. The examination of the application cannot commence until a ?relevant representations? period has elapsed; a minimum period of 28 days within which anybody can register to become and ?interested party?, enabling them to make written and oral representations about the application throughout the six month examination period. The applicant advertised the acceptance of the application today (26 September 2014), and the relevant representations period for the application period opened concurrently. In order for the comments comprised within your email to be considered by an Examining Authority, once appointed, I must request that you register as an interested party as described above. The comments comprised within your email concerning the merits of the application should be repeated on the appropriate prescribed form. The form is available by clicking the following link: [attachment 3] Please be aware that the deadline for making a relevant representation is 3 November 2014. For more information on how to register as an interested party please read the Inspectorate?s associated advice note (Advice note 8.3: How to register and become an interested part in an examination), available here: [attachment 4] The Inspectorate has also produced a short film explaining the process from end-to-end, available here: [attachment 5] 26 September 2014 Peter Hill
Although probably too late to address the above,I would like to mention a few points. 1- We have had ONE display to explain what this development is about and how it will affect us. No further information has been given to us by leaflet, or any form of consultation. 2- As both current exits to the A50 will be permanently closed, we do not now how to get out of the village to Kegworth and the M1. 3- The development will increase both the traffic and pollution in an area suffering from an excess of both. 4- 24 hour working in an area already having 24 hour working by the airport. Also the noise from the rail traffic will be 24 hours a day. 5- Currently we have a lovely walk up to and around the airport. This is used by the local residents and visitors, but will be closed with this development? 6- Permanant destruction of the local Green Belt. 7- The development of the area of North West Leicestershire is already saturated. 8- Lockington is a delightful and beautiful village. For how much longer.In 20 years we will have HS2 very close by. 9- Is this development really needed? 10- Finally although not relevant to this, have been advised that while the rest of the area (Kegworth, Castle Donington, and Hemington) will already or shortly be able to use fibre optic broadband, Lockington will not be attached to this until 2018 at the earliest and then dependent on resources. It appears that this development will go ahead. Maybe somebody should consider the long term affects of this on the area and its residents. Lockington seems to have been forgotten, totally forgotten. Pre-application consultation is a statutory duty for applicants, and the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) requires for it to be carried out in a certain manner and to a certain standard. Where any person feels that an applicant?s pre-application consultation was inadequately carried out, they should seek resolution by approaching the applicant in the first instance. Where dissatisfaction remains, the appropriate mechanism is to make a complaint to the relevant local authority (who can consider this complaint as part of their representation to the Secretary of State on the adequacy of consultation), or to the Secretary of State (via the Inspectorate). Any complaint should be made promptly following the close of pre-application consultation to ensure that it was received no later than the point at which an application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate. In all cases, the final decision as to whether pre-application consultation was adequately carried out rests with the Secretary of State. As you are likely aware, on 19 September 2014 the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) made its decision that the application by Roxhill (Kegworth) Ltd was of a satisfactory standard to proceed to be examined. The period within which complaints about pre-application consultation could be made and considered by the Inspectorate as part of its acceptance decision has therefore elapsed. Local authorities were invited to make representations to the Inspectorate concerning the adequacy of the applicant?s pre-application consultation, and any complaints made to them should have been taken into account. Those representations are available to view by clicking the following link: [attachment 1];stage=2&filter=Adequacy+of+Consultation On submission of the application the Inspectorate applied the associated legal tests (under s55 PA2008) to the application documentation, including the consultation evidence provided by the applicant. The Inspectorate decided that the applicant?s pre-application consultation had been of a satisfactory standard, and its commentary and conclusions are available to be read in the ?Acceptance of Applications Checklist?: [attachment 2] Importantly, the Inspectorate?s decision to accept the application to be examined did not comprise any consideration of the merits of the application. These issues will be tested in detail by an appointed Examining Authority at the appropriate time. The examination of the application cannot commence until a ?relevant representations? period has elapsed; a minimum period of 28 days within which anybody can register to become and ?interested party?, enabling them to make written and oral representations about the application throughout the six month examination period. The applicant advertised the acceptance of the application today (26 September 2014), and the relevant representations period for the application period opened concurrently. In order for the comments comprised within your email to be considered by an Examining Authority, once appointed, I must request that you register as an interested party as described above. The comments comprised within your email concerning the merits of the application should be repeated on the appropriate prescribed form. The form is available by clicking the following link: [attachment 3] Please be aware that the deadline for making a relevant representation is 3 November 2014. For more information on how to register as an interested party please read the Inspectorate?s associated advice note (Advice note 8.3: How to register and become an interested part in an examination), available here: [attachment 4] The Inspectorate has also produced a short film explaining the process from end-to-end, available here: [attachment 5] 26 September 2014 Richard Burns
I am writing to lodge my complaint that the consultation for the proposed SRFI development by Roxhill was woefully inadequate and I request that the process be repeated with full and proper due process including proper advertising of the meetings and with a reasonable notice period of meetings. Many people were (and still are!) completely unaware of the details of this proposal. I only found out about the meetings through a friend and was lucky that I could attend that evening. I have never received one of the flyers that was supposedly put through the door of Castle Donington residents. I live in Castle Donington and this is totally unacceptable. What physical radius was allowed for this supposed consultation? Did it include Kegworth and other close lying localities? This proposal is deeply unpopular in the area and should never even be considered in the proposed location which is prime farming land. This is a brown-field site development if ever there was one. I look forward to hearing from you with a commitment to do the right thing and ensure that this proposal is forced to go back through a full and proper consultation process. Pre-application consultation is a statutory duty for applicants, and the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) requires for it to be carried out in a certain manner and to a certain standard. Where any person feels that an applicant?s pre-application consultation was inadequately carried out, they should seek resolution by approaching the applicant in the first instance. Where dissatisfaction remains, the appropriate mechanism is to make a complaint to the relevant local authority (who can consider this complaint as part of their representation to the Secretary of State on the adequacy of consultation), or to the Secretary of State (via the Inspectorate). Any complaint should be made promptly following the close of pre-application consultation to ensure that it was received no later than the point at which an application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate. In all cases, the final decision as to whether pre-application consultation was adequately carried out rests with the Secretary of State. As you are likely aware, on 19 September 2014 the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) made its decision that the application by Roxhill (Kegworth) Ltd was of a satisfactory standard to proceed to be examined. The period within which complaints about pre-application consultation could be made and considered by the Inspectorate as part of its acceptance decision has therefore elapsed. Local authorities were invited to make representations to the Inspectorate concerning the adequacy of the applicant?s pre-application consultation, and any complaints made to them should have been taken into account. Those representations are available to view by clicking the following link: [attachment 1];stage=2&filter=Adequacy+of+Consultation On submission of the application the Inspectorate applied the associated legal tests (under s55 PA2008) to the application documentation, including the consultation evidence provided by the applicant. The Inspectorate decided that the applicant?s pre-application consultation had been of a satisfactory standard, and its commentary and conclusions are available to be read in the ?Acceptance of Applications Checklist?: [attachment 2] Importantly, the Inspectorate?s decision to accept the application to be examined did not comprise any consideration of the merits of the application. These issues will be tested in detail by an appointed Examining Authority at the appropriate time. The examination of the application cannot commence until a ?relevant representations? period has elapsed; a minimum period of 28 days within which anybody can register to become and ?interested party?, enabling them to make written and oral representations about the application throughout the six month examination period. The applicant advertised the acceptance of the application today (26 September 2014), and the relevant representations period for the application period opened concurrently. In order for the comments comprised within your email to be considered by an Examining Authority, once appointed, I must request that you register as an interested party as described above. The comments comprised within your email concerning the merits of the application should be repeated on the appropriate prescribed form. The form is available by clicking the following link: [attachment 3] Please be aware that the deadline for making a relevant representation is 3 November 2014. For more information on how to register as an interested party please read the Inspectorate?s associated advice note (Advice note 8.3: How to register and become an interested part in an examination), available here: [attachment 4] The Inspectorate has also produced a short film explaining the process from end-to-end, available here: [attachment 5] 26 September 2014 Janice Evans
I feel I must write to lodge my disapproval to the proposed industrial developmentaround Kegworth & Castle Donington. It amazes me that we talk about saving the environment, reduce health risks and reduce air pollution then when something like this development is proposedall this is forgotten. The roads around the M1 & A50 get grid locked now, what will happenif this development goes ahead. Drivers will start using minor roads to avoid congestion, these are nt suitable for HGV`s. This has only been brought to our attention via campaigners. The Government and planners have not involved us as TAX payers and people who will have to live and (DIE wit it ). My TAX money would be better spent on the NHS, crime prevention, education, social services, immigrant control, etc. In my opion this development comes way down the list. As you are likely aware, on 19 September 2014 the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) made its decision that the application by Roxhill (Kegworth) Ltd was of a satisfactory standard to proceed to be examined. Importantly, the Inspectorate?s decision to accept the application to be examined did not comprise any consideration of the merits of the application. These issues will be tested in detail by an appointed Examining Authority at the appropriate time. The examination of the application cannot commence until a ?relevant representations? period has elapsed; a minimum period of 28 days within which anybody can register to become and ?interested party?, enabling them to make written and oral representations about the application throughout the six month examination period. The applicant advertised the acceptance of the application today (26 September 2014), and the relevant representations period for the application period opened concurrently. In order for the comments comprised within your email to be considered by an Examining Authority, once appointed, I must request that you register as an interested party as described above. The comments comprised within your email concerning the merits of the application should be repeated on the appropriate prescribed form. The form is available by clicking the following link: [attachment 1] Please be aware that the deadline for making a relevant representation is 3 November 2014. For more information on how to register as an interested party please read the Inspectorate?s associated advice note (Advice note 8.3: How to register and become an interested part in an examination), available here: [attachment 2] The Inspectorate has also produced a short film explaining the process from end-to-end, available here: [attachment 3] 26 September 2014 Paul and Lorraine Missin
I would like you to reconsider the proposal for the EAST MIDLANDS GATEWAY SCHEME. It truly will be a disaster for the surrounding villages to build such a big site on a green belt site. We have quite enough industrial sites in the surrounding villages. As it is, without adding to more?????? It would be such a shame to spoil (FOREVER) such a large chunk of GREEN BELT LAND enjoyed by so many people? SO I BEG YOU TO STOP this proposal. As you are likely aware, on 19 September 2014 the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) made its decision that the application by Roxhill (Kegworth) Ltd was of a satisfactory standard to proceed to be examined. Importantly, the Inspectorate?s decision to accept the application to be examined did not comprise any consideration of the merits of the application. These issues will be tested in detail by an appointed Examining Authority at the appropriate time. The examination of the application cannot commence until a ?relevant representations? period has elapsed; a minimum period of 28 days within which anybody can register to become and ?interested party?, enabling them to make written and oral representations about the application throughout the six month examination period. The applicant advertised the acceptance of the application today (26 September 2014), and the relevant representations period for the application period opened concurrently. In order for the comments comprised within your email to be considered by an Examining Authority, once appointed, I must request that you register as an interested party as described above. The comments comprised within your email concerning the merits of the application should be repeated on the appropriate prescribed form. The form is available by clicking the following link: [attachment 1] Please be aware that the deadline for making a relevant representation is 3 November 2014. For more information on how to register as an interested party please read the Inspectorate?s associated advice note (Advice note 8.3: How to register and become an interested part in an examination), available here: [attachment 2] The Inspectorate has also produced a short film explaining the process from end-to-end, available here: [attachment 3] 26 September 2014 John Hallam
The amount of consultation that has taken place for such a major development has been minimal and has left so many questions unanswered. This area of NW Leics has taken the brunt of so many developments over many years ? not least EM Airport, but also the M1, the A50, Donington Park Race Track and lots of green spaces that have been swallowed up by manufacturing and warehouse units on the basis of geographical position ? and this shows no sign of stopping. The piece of land in question means a great deal to the people who live in this area as it is one of the few remaining green spaces and indeed is agricultural land. We fail to understand from the developers why they cannot find a brown field site (of which there are a number) to develop instead. This would be more environmentally friendly and would allow the land at Lockington to continue to be used for farming. This feels very much like a stitch up between the land owner and the developer and it is almost impossible for ordinary people to be able to fight them when they have the power of big money at their disposal. This development is not for the good of the area, it is designed to line a few people?s pockets. Big business always seems to hold sway and it is soul destroying for ordinary people. The developer?s display boards with their diagrams and artist?s impressions give no definitive answers, they simply appear ?professional?, but do not impress. Not only have we not received clear answers from the developers to questions about the increased amount of noise, pollution and traffic movements, (which may well create more congestion at an already over-used junction of the M1), but we are concerned too about the issue of drainage and the possibility of more water running into the existing water courses, given that this is a designated flood area. This issue has not been properly addressed either. Pre-application consultation is a statutory duty for applicants, and the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) requires for it to be carried out in a certain manner and to a certain standard. Where any person feels that an applicant?s pre-application consultation was inadequately carried out, they should seek resolution by approaching the applicant in the first instance. Where dissatisfaction remains, the appropriate mechanism is to make a complaint to the relevant local authority (who can consider this complaint as part of their representation to the Secretary of State on the adequacy of consultation), or to the Secretary of State (via the Inspectorate). Any complaint should be made promptly following the close of pre-application consultation to ensure that it was received no later than the point at which an application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate. In all cases, the final decision as to whether pre-application consultation was adequately carried out rests with the Secretary of State. As you are likely aware, on 19 September 2014 the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) made its decision that the application by Roxhill (Kegworth) Ltd was of a satisfactory standard to proceed to be examined. The period within which complaints about pre-application consultation could be made and considered by the Inspectorate as part of its acceptance decision has therefore elapsed. Local authorities were invited to make representations to the Inspectorate concerning the adequacy of the applicant?s pre-application consultation, and any complaints made to them should have been taken into account. Those representations are available to view by clicking the following link: [attachment 1];stage=2&filter=Adequacy+of+Consultation On submission of the application the Inspectorate applied the associated legal tests (under s55 PA2008) to the application documentation, including the consultation evidence provided by the applicant. The Inspectorate decided that the applicant?s pre-application consultation had been of a satisfactory standard, and its commentary and conclusions are available to be read in the ?Acceptance of Applications Checklist?: [attachment 2] Importantly, the Inspectorate?s decision to accept the application to be examined did not comprise any consideration of the merits of the application. These issues will be tested in detail by an appointed Examining Authority at the appropriate time. The examination of the application cannot commence until a ?relevant representations? period has elapsed; a minimum period of 28 days within which anybody can register to become and ?interested party?, enabling them to make written and oral representations about the application throughout the six month examination period. The applicant advertised the acceptance of the application today (26 September 2014), and the relevant representations period for the application period opened concurrently. In order for the comments comprised within your email to be considered by an Examining Authority, once appointed, I must request that you register as an interested party as described above. The comments comprised within your email concerning the merits of the application should be repeated on the appropriate prescribed form. The form is available by clicking the following link: [attachment 3] Please be aware that the deadline for making a relevant representation is 3 November 2014. For more information on how to register as an interested party please read the Inspectorate?s associated advice note (Advice note 8.3: How to register and become an interested part in an examination), available here: [attachment 4] The Inspectorate has also produced a short film explaining the process from end-to-end, available here: [attachment 5] 26 September 2014 Susan and Philip Salaun
I am writing to lodge my complaint that the consultation for the proposed SRFI development by Roxhill was woefully inadequate and I request that the process be repeated with full and proper due process including proper advertising of the meetings and with a reasonable notice period of meetings. Many people were(and still are!) completely unaware of the details of this proposal. I only found out about the meetings through a friend and was lucky that I could attend that evening. I have never received one of the flyers that was supposedly put through the door of Castle Donington residents. I live in Castle Donington and this is totally unacceptable. What physical radius was allowed for this supposed consultation? Did it include Kegworth and other close lying localities? This proposal is deeply unpopular in the area and should never even be considered in the proposed location which is prime farming land. This is a brown-field site development if ever there was one. I look forward to hearing from you with a commitment to do the right thing and ensure that this proposal is forced to go back through a full and proper consultation process. Pre-application consultation is a statutory duty for applicants, and the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) requires for it to be carried out in a certain manner and to a certain standard. Where any person feels that an applicant?s pre-application consultation was inadequately carried out, they should seek resolution by approaching the applicant in the first instance. Where dissatisfaction remains, the appropriate mechanism is to make a complaint to the relevant local authority (who can consider this complaint as part of their representation to the Secretary of State on the adequacy of consultation), or to the Secretary of State (via the Inspectorate). Any complaint should be made promptly following the close of pre-application consultation to ensure that it was received no later than the point at which an application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate. In all cases, the final decision as to whether pre-application consultation was adequately carried out rests with the Secretary of State. As you are likely aware, on 19 September 2014 the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) made its decision that the application by Roxhill (Kegworth) Ltd was of a satisfactory standard to proceed to be examined. The period within which complaints about pre-application consultation could be made and considered by the Inspectorate as part of its acceptance decision has therefore elapsed. Local authorities were invited to make representations to the Inspectorate concerning the adequacy of the applicant?s pre-application consultation, and any complaints made to them should have been taken into account. Those representations are available to view by clicking the following link: [attachment 1];stage=2&filter=Adequacy+of+Consultation On submission of the application the Inspectorate applied the associated legal tests (under s55 PA2008) to the application documentation, including the consultation evidence provided by the applicant. The Inspectorate decided that the applicant?s pre-application consultation had been of a satisfactory standard, and its commentary and conclusions are available to be read in the ?Acceptance of Applications Checklist?: [attachment 2] Importantly, the Inspectorate?s decision to accept the application to be examined did not comprise any consideration of the merits of the application. These issues will be tested in detail by an appointed Examining Authority at the appropriate time. The examination of the application cannot commence until a ?relevant representations? period has elapsed; a minimum period of 28 days within which anybody can register to become and ?interested party?, enabling them to make written and oral representations about the application throughout the six month examination period. The applicant advertised the acceptance of the application today (26 September 2014), and the relevant representations period for the application period opened concurrently. In order for the comments comprised within your email to be considered by an Examining Authority, once appointed, I must request that you register as an interested party as described above. The comments comprised within your email concerning the merits of the application should be repeated on the appropriate prescribed form. The form is available by clicking the following link: [attachment 3] Please be aware that the deadline for making a relevant representation is 3 November 2014. For more information on how to register as an interested party please read the Inspectorate?s associated advice note (Advice note 8.3: How to register and become an interested part in an examination), available here: [attachment 4] The Inspectorate has also produced a short film explaining the process from end-to-end, available here: [attachment 5] 26 September 2014 Trevor Beale
I write to you to formally object to the proposed East Midlands Gateway, planning application made 28th of August 2014. I am objecting based on 6 counts. These objections are based on my own detailed examination of the public plans and data published as well as my own investigation and I expect you to review these in detail and represent them correctly during the planning process of which you are part. Currently all local and county council representatives are in favour of this development as are many local MP?s and there is inadequate representation of an opposing and therefore democratic view. This affects the local community and NOT the councillors, MP?s or developers that are so in favour of EMG and may I remind you that you are employed to consider and to represent the people and not simply your own views and those close to the application. We are asked to support, suggest adjustments or reject the development but our views are not taken into account, this development is clearly about investment and profit for a few and not for the people of the region. I outline my 6 objections below and as I have taken the time to research them and provide detailed arguments in favour of the objections on subsequent pages, I expect (and am entitled to) a similarly detailed response. Outline: 1. Lack of proper prediction modelling of the impact of the EMG on air pollution in Hemington, Lockington, Castle Donington and Kegworth 2. Lack of proper prediction modelling of the impact of the EMG on sonic pollution in Hemington, Lockington, Castle Donington and Kegworth 3. Poor prediction modelling of the impact of the EMG on light pollution in Hemington, Lockington, Castle Donington and Kegworth 4. Violation of regional conservation area outline due to large scale heavy industry within <500m of the conservation areas of Lockington, Hemington and Castle Donington. 5. Violation of regional green infrastructure via urbanisation of Castle Donington and surrounding area. 6. Lack of proper public consultation on the EMG in Hemington, Lockington and surrounding areas and lack of time to prepare a detailed opposing view. 1: Lack of proper prediction modelling of the impact of the EMG on air pollution in Hemington, Lockington, Castle Donington and Kegworth Violation of national Air Quality standards, Traffic Congestion high levels of CO2, NO2 particulates and other pollutants in Hemington, Lockington, Castle Donington, Kegworth and Mole Hill Farm AQMA. Mole Hill Farm (M1 Corridor) monitoring station currently exceeds acceptable NO2 levels which are still climbing (71.2 μgm-3, 2009, limit set at 60 μgm-3). There is currently no monitoring of air quality in Hemington and Lockington but aviation fumes and traffic fumes are often detectable by strong smell at these locations. Require monitoring of air quality in Lockington and Hemington and detailed modelling of the effects of EMG development on these levels. Current documents and public plans are woefully inadequate in these areas. In absence of evidence to the contrary it can only be assumed that many pollutant levels will exceed accepted guide lines once EMG is operational due very close proximity to settlements. Hemington and Lockington are already surrounded by A50 to the North, M1 to the East and Industrial zone with existing distribution centre to the West all of which contribute to existing and rising air pollution levels. Construction of EMG will infill only pollution buffer zone to the south adding to the already serious issue. 2: Lack of proper prediction modelling of the impact of the EMG on sonic pollution in Hemington, Lockington, Castle Donington and Kegworth Lack of data in current documents and public plans to address concerns over increased noise pollution due to EMG. Undefined but definite increase in already high noise pollution levels in Lockington, Hemington, Castle Donington and Kegworth. Further public data collection, modelling and disclosure required, current work is inadequate. Existing high level of noise pollution from Airport, M1 and A50 ? particularly during the night due to lack night flight embargo on East Midlands Airport which is not operating in line with national guidelines. Noise levels often already exceed 55db. EMG will remove green space reducing its noise suppressing effect as well as adding to the aggregate ambient noise level due to increased road and rail traffic. Large roof surfaces of EMG likely to increase noise reflection and sonic lensing from air traffic noise into Lockington, Hemington, Castle Donington and Kegworth. Much more detailed monitoring and modelling of true impact required as existing work carried out by the developer is woefully inadequate. In absence of evidence to the contrary it will be assumed that noise levels will exceed accepted guide lines once EMG is operational due very close proximity to settlements and acoustic properties of proposed site. Hemington and Lockington are already surrounded by A50 to the North, M1 to the East and Industrial zone with existing distribution centre to the West all of which contribute to rising noise pollution. Construction of EMG will infill only buffer zone to the south adding to this already serious issue. 3: Poor prediction modelling of the impact of the EMG on light pollution in Hemington, Lockington, Castle Donington and Kegworth Lack of data in current documents and public plans relating to increased light pollution due to EMG. Poorly defined impact of site lighting and the associated increase in light pollution levels in Lockington, Hemington, Castle Donington and Kegworth. Bund and tree screening is clearly inadequate and only single bounce indirect illumination modelling has been done by the developer. Full indirect illumination and cloud backscatter modelling needed to properly show lighting impact in local settlements. Further public data collection, modelling and disclosure required. High level of light pollution from Airport, existing industrial zones in Kegworth, Castle Donington and M&S distribution centre. EMG will add significantly to this and proposed screening will be ineffective as the greater part of light pollution is caused by atmospheric scattering and not direct line of sight. Monitoring of existing levels and modelling of EMG impact required. In absence of evidence to the contrary it will be assumed that light levels will exceed accepted guide lines once EMG is operational due very close proximity to settlements. Hemington and Lockington are already surrounded by A50 to the North, M1 to the East and Industrial zone with existing distribution centre to the West all of which contribute to rising ambient light levels during the night. Construction of EMG will infill only buffer zone to the south greatly adding to this existing issue. 4: Violation of regional conservation area outline due to large scale heavy industry within <500m of the conservation areas of Lockington, Hemington and Castle Donington. EMG plans currently violate CS34 of the RDP directive ?North West Leicestershire District Council will consider favourably those schemes that make a positive contribution and enhance existing heritage assets?, EMG in its proposed location at J24 must therefore be considered unfavourable in any planning application due to its proximity to heritage assets. Regional conservation outline sets out to, and I quote ?to protect not individual buildings but the general character of the area?. EMG will adversely affect the general character of the Lockington, Hemington, Castle Donington and Kegworth area due to industrialisation and urbanisation of the area as well as its environmental impact. This will be particularly evident around the proposed rail spur along the eastern edge of Lockington which will result in large freight trains passing within 200m of Lockington and its historic parish Church of St Nicholas as well as many other historic buildings covered by conservation orders and listings. Vibration from passing trains likely to damage noted buildings and there is a lack of evidence or modeeling to suggest otherwise in the current EMG appliation. EMG will also affect views integral to the general character of the villages of Lockington, Hemington and Castle Donington due to an insufficient bund and tree screening and will effectively wipe out green buffer zone between these settlements and East Midlands Airport. 5: Violation of regional green infrastructure via urbanisation of Castle Donington and surrounding area. Currently Coalville, Swadlincote, Loughborough and Nottingham fringes are protected from green space development and infill. Castle Donington, Kegworth, Hemington and Lockington remain unprotected despite being conservation areas. EMG and proposed associated road and rail development will lead to urbanisation of Castle Donington and surrounding areas, particularly Lockington and Hemington due to very close proximity (<500m) of the proposed development site to these villages. This is particularly problematic in Hemington and Donington where Bund and Tree Screening in plans are inadequate to even partially conceal the EMG rooflines. Violation of ?Planning for Prosperity? as set out in paragraph 1.7 of the RDP onwards, with commitment to make available of the right type of land in the right place ? EMG fulfils neither of these when viewed holistically and not the narrow view based on income into the region from business rates. 6: Lack of proper public consultation on the EMG in Hemington, Lockington and surrounding areas. Lack of detailed information on the development to date in relation to EMG, detail only supplied very late on in consultation process and consultation inadequately carried out. If the community are to support or oppose the development, information in great detail is required to be made public. There are NO detailed breakdowns of potential job creation (just unfounded claims), insufficient traffic flow projections, insufficient pollution modelling (air, noise, light), and while civil engineering and construction plans have been published, Roxhill and NWLDC have not provided adequate opportunities for the community to consult on these and this appears to be by design. The initial consultation was no properly publicised and a second round needed and when inadequacies in the second round where called out to the developer by myself they responded only on the first occasion rather than the 3 communications I instigated with them. The developer has also not responded to requests to model the pollution impact of EMG properly. Many people in the local community are still unaware of what is going on and it is left to people like myself to tell them. This is NOT adequate. Pre-application consultation is a statutory duty for applicants, and the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) requires for it to be carried out in a certain manner and to a certain standard. Where any person feels that an applicant?s pre-application consultation was inadequately carried out, they should seek resolution by approaching the applicant in the first instance. Where dissatisfaction remains, the appropriate mechanism is to make a complaint to the relevant local authority (who can consider this complaint as part of their representation to the Secretary of State on the adequacy of consultation), or to the Secretary of State (via the Inspectorate). Any complaint should be made promptly following the close of pre-application consultation to ensure that it was received no later than the point at which an application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate. In all cases, the final decision as to whether pre-application consultation was adequately carried out rests with the Secretary of State. As you are likely aware, on 19 September 2014 the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) made its decision that the application by Roxhill (Kegworth) Ltd was of a satisfactory standard to proceed to be examined. The period within which complaints about pre-application consultation could be made and considered by the Inspectorate as part of its acceptance decision has therefore elapsed. Local authorities were invited to make representations to the Inspectorate concerning the adequacy of the applicant?s pre-application consultation, and any complaints made to them should have been taken into account. Those representations are available to view by clicking the following link: [attachment 1];stage=2&filter=Adequacy+of+Consultation On submission of the application the Inspectorate applied the associated legal tests (under s55 PA2008) to the application documentation, including the consultation evidence provided by the applicant. The Inspectorate decided that the applicant?s pre-application consultation had been of a satisfactory standard, and its commentary and conclusions are available to be read in the ?Acceptance of Applications Checklist?: [attachment 2] Importantly, the Inspectorate?s decision to accept the application to be examined did not comprise any consideration of the merits of the application. These issues will be tested in detail by an appointed Examining Authority at the appropriate time. The examination of the application cannot commence until a ?relevant representations? period has elapsed; a minimum period of 28 days within which anybody can register to become and ?interested party?, enabling them to make written and oral representations about the application throughout the six month examination period. The applicant advertised the acceptance of the application today (26 September 2014), and the relevant representations period for the application period opened concurrently. In order for the comments comprised within your email to be considered by an Examining Authority, once appointed, I must request that you register as an interested party as described above. The comments comprised within your email concerning the merits of the application should be repeated on the appropriate prescribed form. The form is available by clicking the following link: [attachment 3] Please be aware that the deadline for making a relevant representation is 3 November 2014. For more information on how to register as an interested party please read the Inspectorate?s associated advice note (Advice note 8.3: How to register and become an interested part in an examination), available here: [attachment 4] The Inspectorate has also produced a short film explaining the process from end-to-end, available here: [attachment 5] 26 September 2014 Nick Burton
Marrons Shakespeares queried whether the requirements under Reg 13(2)(b)(i) and (ii) of The Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2009 could be satisfied by way of provision of a link to the documentation hosted on a website. The Planning Inspectorate advised that it does not have a firm view about how Reg 2(b)(i) and (ii) could most appropriately be satisfied. However, taking into consideration obvious time and cost implications it would seem practical that the provision of a link to the application documents and environmental would suffice. The Inspectorate strongly advised however that in the event that a consultation body expresses a preference to receive copies of the documentation in CD/DVD format, such a request should be upheld promptly. 22 September 2014 Marrons Shakespeares
Following issue of Acceptance decision, the Planning Inspectorate issued section 51 advice to the applicant with regard to observations the Inspectorate made on the submitted application. The advice given by the Planning Inspectorate can be viewed from here: [attachment 1] 19 September 2014 Morag Thomson
I note that your website shows proposals for two Rail Freight Interchanges in The East Midlands which are just 15 miles apart. Please could you clarify whether or not the need for two such developments within such close proximity has been properly evaluated, particularly as there is already an existing rail freight depot at Castle Donington (East Midlands Distribution Centre) which has had unused capacity for some time. The planning application for the East Midlands Gateway development was submitted 29th August, whilst that for the East Midlands Intermodal Park is expected Q1 2015. I note that a decision on the first application must be made within 28 days, however may I respectfully suggest that both applications should be considered together. The application by Roxhill (Kegworth) Ltd for the East Midlands Gateway Rail Freight Interchange was submitted to the Planning Inspectorate on 29 August 2014. A decision must be made by 26 September 2014 about whether or not the application is of a satisfactory standard for the Inspectorate to examine. There will be no decision about whether or not development consent should be granted until the application has been examined by an appointed Examining Authority, and a report and recommendations has been submitted to the Secretary of State for Transport. For more information on the process, please refer to our Advice note 8.1: How the process works. The need for rail freight interchanges is set out in the Department for Transport?s Rail Freight Policy Guidance, which can be found here: [attachment 1]. There is also a draft National Policy Statement for the National Road and Rail Networks in the public domain which, if/when designated, will have primacy in the decision-making process for relevant nationally significant infrastructure projects. It is available here: [attachment 2] There are a multitude of factors which would prevent the Planning Inspectorate from dictating when developers should submit applications to it. Regardless, each application for development consent accepted by the Inspectorate will be examined on its own merits. In consideration of an individual project, this does not however preclude the cumulative effects of development on a national, regional or local scale from being examined by an appointed Examining Authority. If and when one, or both, of the applications referred to are accepted to be examined by the Planning Inspectorate, the respective developers will be required to publicise that decision and to provide notification of a period within which anybody can register to become an ?interested party? for the purposes of the examination. Interested party status affords people the right to make representations on the merits of a project to an appointed Examining Authority. 17 September 2014 M.B Thomas
Advice was requested in response to the following queries: i) Clarification was sought on the area of the proposed scheme, including boundries and proximity to Lockington. ii) Clarificaiton was sought on the time frames associated with the proposal. iii) An opinion was sought on the he likelihood of development consent being granted. This application has not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate and therefore any queries about the scheme should be sent directly to the developer, Roxhill Developments Ltd. You may wish to have a look at their website which holds draft application documents, including detailed draft plans and the draft environmental statement. The content of these documents will no doubt answer some of you questions. The developer?s website can be accessed by following this link: [attachment 1] We cannot answer your query regarding the likelihood of permission being granted. Speculating at this stage of the process would be unlawful and could fetter the judgement of the Examining Authority appointed to examine the application. When the application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate the Secretary of State will have 28 days to decide whether or not to accept the application for examination. If the application is accepted for examination, an Examining Authority will be appointed to examine it. The examination period has a statutory duration of 6 months, upon the elapse of which the Examining Authority will have 3 months to write its report and recommendation to the relevant Secretary of State; in this case the Secretary of State for Transport. The process for making decisions on nationally significant infrastructure projects is underpinned by the opportunity for anybody to make representations about an application, although this must be done at the appropriate time. If the application is accepted to be examined, the developer will be required to advertise that fact and to provide notice of a period (a minimum of 28 days) within which people may register as an ?interested party? and make a ?relevant representation?. The ?relevant representation? should set out a summary of the issue or issues that an interested party wishes to put before an examination, and comprises the first of several opportunities over the course of the 6 month examination when interested parties are afforded the right to make written and oral representaions to the Examining Authority. The Planning Inspectorate has published a suite of plain English advice notes providing information on the process, including how to get involved. You can accessed these by clicking on the following link, and I would draw your particular attention to Advice note 8.3: [attachment 2] 07 August 2014 Gerrard Moss
I have been contacted by the j24 action group trying to stop this development. Like them, I had no prior knowledge of any consultation and was not aware of any public meeting until it was too late to attend. When I attempted to contact Roxhill by telephone to gain more information the telephone was answered by a young lady who did not have a contact address or an email address for Roxhill. When pressed, she gave me her personal e-mail address. There were none of the background sounds usually associated with an office and I suspected she was working from home. I received no reply to my request for further information. Clearly Roxhill are well aware of the strong protest their proposed development is attracting but are still hoped to get planning consent on the sly. I agree with the j24 action group that the consultation process continues to be completely inadequate and that the proposed development is unnecessary and destructive. There is a large acreage with an existing rail link and new road links on the former Castle Donington power station site; many people are wondering why development on open countryside next to the congested junction 24 is even being considered. This is the information I want to see presented to the government planning inspector. Before a decision can be made by the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) on whether to accept an application for Examination, local authorities are invited to make representations to the Inspectorate concerning the adequacy of the applicant?s pre-consultation. The Inspectorate will write to relevant local authorities when an application has been received to ask for their comments in relation to this. The Inspectorate, on behalf of the Secretary of State, must have regard to these representations in making its decision on whether to accept an application to proceed to be examined. Pre-application consultation is a statutory duty for applicants, and the Planning Act 2008 requires for it to be carried out in a certain manner and to a certain standard. Issues about the adequacy of an applicant's pre-application consultation should be shared and considered prior to the Inspectorate making a decision on accepting an application for examination. Where any person feels that an applicant's pre-application consultation was inadequately carried out, they should seek resolution by approaching the applicant in the first instance. You have described an unsuccessful attempt to retrieve information from the applicant, and where persons remain unsatisfied with an applicant?s pre-application consultation they should make a complaint to the relevant local authority (who can consider this complaint as part of their representation to the Secretary of State on the adequacy of consultation), or to the Secretary of State (via the Inspectorate). Any complaint should be made promptly following the close of consultation to ensure that it is received not later than the point at which an application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate. Please note that based on Roxhill Developments Ltd?s most recent communications, its submission of the development consent application is anticipated in late July or early August 2014. In all cases, the final decision as to whether pre-application consultation was adequately carried out rests with the Secretary of State. Separately, where someone believes they have identified an issue which has not been adequately addressed by the applicant, despite raising it with them as part of their pre-application consultation exercises, they may wish to make a written representation about that issue to the Examination of that application. This will ensure that the issue is read by the appointed Examining Authority during the Examination. If an application is accepted for Examination it is important that you register as an Interested Party at the appropriate time and you can do this through our website. You may find the following advice note helpful: Advice note 8.3: How to register and become an interested party in an application: [attachment 1] You may also find the following guidance and advice note helpful: Guidance on the Pre-Application Process (The Planning Act 2008): [attachment 2] Advice note 16: The developer?s pre-application consultation, publicity and notification duties: [attachment 3] 23 July 2014 Greg Hall
Pre-submission meeting for applicant to provide project update and Planning Inspectorate to provide feedback on draft documents. See attachment for note of the meeting. 03 July 2014 Marrons Shakespeares (for applicant)
As a resident of Castle Donington, I write to you regarding The East Midlands Gateway, after reading the developers online documents. However in these documents I see no mention of the Loading Gauge for the rail side of the operation. Now as a Government Department, I am sure you are aware what the loading gauge is. However if not here is a brief explanation. The loading gauge denotes the clearances above and to the sides of the railway track and thus determines the size (height and width) of railway vehicle that can safely use the line. It is a key factor in the context of this proposed development. The gauge on the UK rail network ranges from W7 (smallest) to W12 (largest). Main UK freight routes such as the East and West Coast Main Lines are cleared to gauge W10 and cater for larger freight vehicles including the 'High Cube' containers preferred by freight operators. The Midland Main Line (MML) between London and Leicester is only cleared to gauge W7 which restricts the size of vehicle and prevents 'High Cube' containers from being carried on standard freight wagons. 'High Cube' containers can be transported on W7 gauge but on specially adapted freight wagons that are not only in short supply but, more importantly, reduce the number of containers carried per train and are consequently less efficient. Therefore, in order to maintain viable rail operations, it is clear that the gauge of the MML would have to be increased to W10 at least. Subject to proper survey, this would necessitate increasing clearances between the track and some adjacent structures. This could involve major civil engineering work on bridges, tunnels, platforms and line side buildings, a potentially costly exercise and one that could involve lengthy disruption to existing rail services. Therefore I believe the Secretary of State should not accept the application until this issue is resolved FULLY. We are concerned that the lack of commitment to enhance the gauge threatens the future viability of rail operations At this stage of the process the developer should be your first point of contact on the issues that you raise. The developer?s project website page describes how they are carrying out their consultation at [attachment 1] and how to contact them should you wish to make any comments on the proposals. I should add that, before submitting an application to the Planning Inspectorate, the developer is required to carry out extensive consultation on their proposals. This involves providing information about the proposal to various statutory and non-statutory bodies and the wider community, responding to questions, listening to suggestions, and taking these into account to influence and inform the application ultimately submitted to the Inspectorate. This does not mean that the developer has to accept or agree with every comment or suggestion made but they must give them proper consideration. Subsequently, when an application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate following the pre-application stage, there is a 28 day period during which a decision is taken on whether to accept the application for examination. One of the factors to be considered by the Planning Inspectorate at this stage is whether or not the developer?s consultation process has been adequate. We will invite relevant local authorities to provide us with their comments on the adequacy of the applicant?s consultation. In providing their representation on this matter, the local authority may decide to take into account any comments received from the public on this issue. The Inspectorate, on behalf of the Secretary of State, must have regard to the local authority?s response on the adequacy of consultation in making its decision on whether to accept an application to proceed to be examined. If the application is accepted for examination, there will be the opportunity to register your views with the Planning Inspectorate and participate in the examination by completing a relevant representation form. Where a person believes they have identified an issue which has not been adequately addressed by the applicant, despite raising it with them as part of their pre-application consultation, they may wish to include this as part of their representation. Relevant representations are used by the Examining Authority to help identify the initial principal issues for examination. Details about how and when to register will be publicised by the developer in local newspapers and on site notices. Please note that you are unable to register as an interested party during the current (pre-application) stage of the process for this proposal. The Planning Inspectorate has produced several advice notes to help provide an overview of the PA 2008 process and the opportunities to get involved. These are available via the link below. In this instance I recommend reviewing advice note eight series ? ?How to get involved in the planning process?. I have attached above PDF versions for your reference. You may also access these documents on our website at the following link: [attachment 2] You may also find the following guidance and advice note helpful: Guidance on the Pre-Application Process (The Planning Act 2008): [attachment 3] Advice note sixteen: The developer?s pre-application consultation, publicity and notification duties: [attachment 4] 06 June 2014 Steve Haberfield
I am a resident of Lockington and I understand that there is to be a further public exhibition/consultation this month regarding this development. To date I have not received any notification of when or where this is to be held, and I cannot find any reference to it on the various Roxhill websites. So this lack of publicity is inadequate to ensure that local people are aware of this opportunity to attend this exhibition. I look forward to receiving your comments The East Midlands Gateway Rail Freight Interchange scheme is currently at the ?pre-application? stage of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended) (PA 2008) process. At this stage of the process the developer should be your first point of contact as it is their responsibility for advertising and carrying out the consultation. We would therefore recommend that you refer to the developer?s website for information on how to contact them and raise any concerns you may have. The developer?s project website page describes how they are carrying out their consultation at [attachment 1] and also shows where the documents can be seen and how comments can be made. Prior to submitting an application to the Planning Inspectorate, the developer is required to carry out extensive consultation on their proposals. This involves providing information about the proposal to various statutory and non-statutory bodies and the wider community, responding to questions, listening to suggestions, and taking these into account to influence and inform the application ultimately submitted to the Inspectorate. This does not mean that the developer has to accept or agree with every comment or suggestion made but they must give them proper consideration. Before formally consulting people in the vicinity of the project, the developer must prepare a Statement of Community Consultation (SoCC), having first consulted relevant local authorities about what it should contain. The purpose of the SoCC is to provide details on the consultation process, which the developer intends to undertake with the local community about their project. The developer is then required to carry out their consultation with the local community as set out in the SoCC. A link to the SoCC can be found on the application documentation page of the developer?s project website at [attachment 2] Where any person feels that an applicant's pre-application consultation was inadequately carried out, they should seek resolution by approaching the applicant in the first instance. If following this action you remain unsatisfied with the consultation carried out, you may also wish to raise this with the relevant local authority. Subsequently, when an application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate following the pre-application stage, there is a 28 day period during which a decision is taken on whether to accept the application for examination. One of the factors to be considered by the Planning Inspectorate at this stage is whether or not the developer?s consultation process has been adequate, and we will invite relevant local authorities to provide us with their comments on the adequacy of the applicant?s consultation. In providing their representation on this matter, the local authority may decide to take into account any comments received from the public on this issue. The Inspectorate, on behalf of the Secretary of State, must have regard to the local authority?s response on the adequacy of consultation in making its decision on whether to accept an application to proceed to be examined. If the application is accepted for examination, there will be the opportunity to register your views with the Planning Inspectorate and participate in the examination by completing a relevant representation form. Where a person believes they have identified an issue which has not been adequately addressed by the applicant, despite raising it with them as part of their pre-application consultation, they may wish to include this as part of their representation. Relevant representations are used by the Examining Authority to help identify the initial principal issues for examination. Details about how and when to register will be publicised by the developer in local newspapers and on site notices. Please note that you are unable to register as an interested party during the current (pre-application) stage of the process for this proposal. The Planning Inspectorate has produced several advice notes to help provide an overview of the PA 2008 process and the opportunities to get involved. These are available via the link below. In this instance I recommend reviewing advice note eight series ? ?How to get involved in the planning process?. I have attached above PDF versions for your reference. You may also access these documents on our website at the following link: [attachment 3] You may also find the following guidance and advice note helpful: Guidance on the Pre-Application Process (The Planning Act 2008): [attachment 4] Advice note sixteen: The developer?s pre-application consultation, publicity and notification duties: [attachment 5] 06 June 2014 Mike Thomas
The first round of consultations were held in Lockington, Castle Donington and Kegworth back in February 2014, however due to poor advertising, these exhibitions were deemed "inadequate", and therefore the developer, confirmed that a second set of exhibitions would be held in March / April 2014 with the correct and necessary advertising to take place, so that as many people were aware of the planned exhibitions as possible. I consulted the planning inspectorate (Feb 2014) with regards to the previously poorly advertised exhibitions, and course of action, I should take, based on the "requirements of the developer". On the basis of the previous email (from the inspectorate), I contacted the developer, with no response. My concerns still continue, as I am yet to receive any leaflets in relation to the next set of exhibitions (which I have found out today have already started to take place) - can you please advise me, of how I should voice my concerns, as I feel very strongly that the devloper is not consulting with the local communities, in what is considered as a "nationally significant development" You ask how you can voice your concerns over the East Midlands Gateway Rail Freight Interchange scheme. Further to the advice we provided in March, in response to your earlier email regarding the consultation carried out by the developer with respect to these proposals, you may wish to look at the developer?s project website page which describes how they are carrying out their consultation at [attachment 1] which also lists where the documents can be seen and how comments can be made. The page also has links to the consultation leaflet and exhibition boards. The proposals are currently still at a pre-application stage. As described in our previous email, before submitting an application to the Planning Inspectorate, the developer is required to carry out extensive consultation on their proposals. If you feel that the applicant's pre-application consultation has been inadequately carried out, you may firstly seek resolution by approaching them. If, having done this, you remain unsatisfied with the consultation that has been carried out, you may wish to raise this matter with the relevant local authority. Following on from this stage, when an application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, there will be a 28 day period during which a decision is taken by us on whether to accept the application for examination. One of the factors to be considered by the Planning Inspectorate is whether or not the developer?s consultation process has been adequate. We will invite the relevant local authorities to provide us with their comments on the adequacy of the applicant?s consultation. A local authority may decide to take into account any comments received from the public on this issue when they respond. The Planning Inspectorate, on behalf of the Secretary of State, must have regard to the local authority?s response on the adequacy of consultation in making its decision on whether to accept an application to proceed to be examined. If the application is accepted for examination, there will be an opportunity for you then to register as an interested party to give your views to the Planning Inspectorate and participate in the examination by completing a relevant representation form. Details about how and when to register will be publicised by the developer in local newspapers and on site notices once an application is accepted. 06 June 2014 Emma Clowes
I wish to complain about the completely inadequate publication of dates and venues for public consultation on the Roxhill East Midlands Gateway Project. First of all I missed the first round of consultation completely as I only found out about it via a FaceBook contact a week after the consultation had closed and then I find out about the second consultation only a day before the final Exhibition which I believe is at Lockington Hall tomorrow evening. Again I found out about this via a friend at the weekend and I am probably not going to be able to attend due to meetings I have with work several hundred miles away from home. Why am I only finding out about this now? Apparently I should have had several leaflets through my door but have received none, nor have most of my friends and neighbours in Hemington and Lockington! This is COMPLETELY unacceptable. You are able to design and propose a multi-million pound development covering a very large part of the rural area I live in and yet it seems your team finds it difficult to properly consult with the local communities it is going to effect, why is this? This is not good enough. I wish to look at your plans in detail and yet for some reason this also seems difficult. Can you please send me all of your detailed plans (I don?t mean the low quality sanitised schematics on the Roxhill website) ? I assume they are publicly available for all who wish to see them, regardless of the difficulty there seems in obtaining them without attending the exhibitions that only a few people get to find out about. The East Midlands Gateway Rail Freight Interchange scheme is currently at the ?pre-application? stage of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended) (PA 2008) process. At this stage of the process the developer should be your first point of contact and it is recommended that you refer to the developer?s website for information on how to contact them. The developer?s project website page describes how they are carrying out their consultation at [attachment 1] and also lists where the documents can be seen and how comments can be made. The page also has links to the consultation leaflet and exhibition boards. Prior to submitting an application to the Planning Inspectorate, the developer is required to carry out extensive consultation on their proposals. This involves providing information about the proposal to various statutory and non-statutory bodies and the wider community, responding to questions, listening to suggestions, and taking these into account to influence and inform the application ultimately submitted to the Inspectorate. This does not mean that the developer has to accept or agree with every comment or suggestion made but they must give them proper consideration. Before formally consulting people in the vicinity of the project, the developer must prepare a Statement of Community Consultation (SoCC), having first consulted relevant local authorities about what it should contain. The purpose of the SoCC is to provide details on the consultation process, which the developer intends to undertake with the local community about their project. The developer is then required to carry out their consultation with the local community as set out in the SoCC. A link to the SoCC can be found on the application documentation page of the developer?s project website at [attachment 2] Where any person feels that an applicant's pre-application consultation was inadequately carried out, they should seek resolution by approaching the applicant in the first instance. If following this action you remain unsatisfied with the consultation carried out, you may also wish to raise this with the relevant local authority. Subsequently, when an application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate following the pre-application stage, there is a 28 day period during which a decision is taken on whether to accept the application for examination. One of the factors to be considered by the Planning Inspectorate at this stage is whether or not the developer?s consultation process has been adequate, and we will invite relevant local authorities to provide us with their comments on the adequacy of the applicant?s consultation. In providing their representation on this matter, the local authority may decide to take into account any comments received from the public on this issue. The Inspectorate, on behalf of the Secretary of State, must have regard to the local authority?s response on the adequacy of consultation in making its decision on whether to accept an application to proceed to be examined. If the application is accepted for examination, there will be the opportunity to register your views with the Planning Inspectorate and participate in the examination by completing a relevant representation form. Where a person believes they have identified an issue which has not been adequately addressed by the applicant, despite raising it with them as part of their pre-application consultation, they may wish to include this as part of their representation. Relevant representations are used by the Examining Authority to help identify the initial principal issues for examination. Details about how and when to register will be publicised by the developer in local newspapers and on site notices. Please note that you are unable to register as an interested party during the current (pre-application) stage of the process for this proposal. Please note that you are unable to register as an interested party during the current (pre-application) stage of the process for this proposal. The Planning Inspectorate has produced several advice notes to help provide an overview of the PA 2008 process and the opportunities to get involved. These are available via the link below. In this instance I recommend reviewing advice note eight series ? ?How to get involved in the planning process?. I have attached above PDF versions for your reference. You may also access these documents on our website at the following link: [attachment 3] You may also find the following guidance and advice note helpful: Guidance on the Pre-Application Process (The Planning Act 2008): [attachment 4] Advice note sixteen: The developer?s pre-application consultation, publicity and notification duties: [attachment 5] 06 June 2014 Nick Burton
I live in Castle Donington and I am very concerned about the proposed development of the SRFI at Junction 24 of the M1. This is the biggest threat to my village & the other local communities that we have ever faced or are likely to face during our lives. There are many unhappy people in this area re: the lack of publicity for the exhibitions in the Public Consultation for this development. I therefore believe that there has been inadequate notification of this fact and wish to make a formal complaint. The first attempt at consultation by Roxhill earlier in the year was abysmal, with virtually no leaflets reaching the public in time. I found out about the consultation totally by a fluke viewing of an Internet posting. I therefore attended, but was concerned that there were not many people attending this exhibition, considering the size of the village and the effect it will have on everyone who lives in this community. That was probably due to the lack of publication of the exhibition. Roxhill did say that they would be repeating the consultation due to their lack of effective leaflet distribution. About a week after the said Consultation meeting I received the leaflet that should have arrived well before it. After attending, I did mention it in conversation to a few local people & they had absolutely no idea that this was happening. Again due to the lack of publicity. I waited for the repeat session & was finally informed by a contact that this would take place on Monday 19th May 2014. I waited for my information leaflet on the Consultation to arrive. I heard there were a few leaflets delivered in a few locations from 5th May, but to date - 22 May 2014 - I have still not received any leaflet promoting the Public Consultation and with the date of the Public Consultation now long gone. The timing of the exhibition did not allow the whole village community to attend. The hours of 2.30 - 7.30pm did not allow parents to attend without children hanging on, or allow anyone returning from a late working shift or those who travel a distance from work to attend. There are several notice boards around the village, including one within sight of my house. It would have made sense to at least put a leaflet on all of these boards as a minimum due to the lack of a local newspaper. There was nothing to this effect on the board near to my house. I understand that there were a lot of very unhappy local people completing the feedback forms at the exhibition in Kegworth, prior to the one in Castle Donington. It might be safe to assume that these forms will go unnoticed. How many Castle Donington people would have liked the opportunity to complete one too? I think, as well as other factors in this case, we are all concerned that the assessment for the prediction of the impacts on Castle Donington will have incorrectly estimated the amount of traffic using the main roads through the village. As such the pollutant concentrations and the associated impacts of the development scheme are likely to have been over-estimated. Yet again Roxhill have failed to consult with the local communities through the proper procedure and there has again been inadequate notification of this fact Please consider these comments in the formal complaint of inadequate notice for the Public Consultation on this matter. At this stage of the process the developer should be your first point of contact and it is recommended that you refer to the developer?s website for information on how to contact them. The developer?s project website page describes how they are carrying out their consultation at [attachment 1] and also lists where the documents can be seen and how comments can be made. The page also has links to the consultation leaflet and exhibition boards. Prior to submitting an application to the Planning Inspectorate, the developer is required to carry out extensive consultation on their proposals. This involves providing information about the proposal to various statutory and non-statutory bodies and the wider community, responding to questions, listening to suggestions, and taking these into account to influence and inform the application ultimately submitted to the Inspectorate. This does not mean that the developer has to accept or agree with every comment or suggestion made but they must give them proper consideration. Before formally consulting people in the vicinity of the project, the developer must prepare a Statement of Community Consultation (SoCC), having first consulted relevant local authorities about what it should contain. The purpose of the SoCC is to provide details on the consultation process, which the developer intends to undertake with the local community about their project. The developer is then required to carry out their consultation with the local community as set out in the SoCC. A link to the SoCC can be found on the application documentation page of the developer?s project website at [attachment 2] Where any person feels that an applicant's pre-application consultation was inadequately carried out, they should seek resolution by approaching the applicant in the first instance. If following this action you remain unsatisfied with the consultation carried out, you may also wish to raise this with the relevant local authority. Subsequently, when an application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate following the pre-application stage, there is a 28 day period during which a decision is taken on whether to accept the application for examination. One of the factors to be considered by the Planning Inspectorate at this stage is whether or not the developer?s consultation process has been adequate, and we will invite relevant local authorities to provide us with their comments on the adequacy of the applicant?s consultation. In providing their representation on this matter, the local authority may decide to take into account any comments received from the public on this issue. The Inspectorate, on behalf of the Secretary of State, must have regard to the local authority?s response on the adequacy of consultation in making its decision on whether to accept an application to proceed to be examined. If the application is accepted for examination, there will be the opportunity to register your views with the Planning Inspectorate and participate in the examination by completing a relevant representation form. Where a person believes they have identified an issue which has not been adequately addressed by the applicant, despite raising it with them as part of their pre-application consultation, they may wish to include this as part of their representation. Relevant representations are used by the Examining Authority to help identify the initial principal issues for examination. Details about how and when to register will be publicised by the developer in local newspapers and on site notices. Please note that you are unable to register as an interested party during the current (pre-application) stage of the process for this proposal. The Planning Inspectorate has produced several advice notes to help provide an overview of the PA 2008 process and the opportunities to get involved. These are available via the link below. In this instance I recommend reviewing advice note eight series ? ?How to get involved in the planning process?. I have attached above PDF versions for your reference. You may also access these documents on our website at the following link: [attachment 3] You may also find the following guidance and advice note helpful: Guidance on the Pre-Application Process (The Planning Act 2008): [attachment 4] Advice note sixteen: The developer?s pre-application consultation, publicity and notification duties: [attachment 5] 06 June 2014 Steve Kirk
Below is a record of advice issued by the Planning Inspectorate in response to questions outstanding from its meeting with local authorities on 30 April 2014. ?Q[1]: How does the NSIP process deal with powers to work on the existing public highway and the adoption (become maintainable at public expense) of new roads built by third parties? In the ?normal? planning application/permission process, these issues are normally dealt with in Leicestershire as follows: ? Agreement under Section 278 of the Highways Act: In Leicestershire, we use a S278 Agreement to enable a developer?s contractor to work on a County Road as if it were acting as the Highway Authority. The Agreement provides for the contractor to work on the public highway and indemnifies the Highway Authority against any actions and costs arising from the works being undertaken. Our Agreement also provides for a range of other matters, including design approval; payment of fees; dedication of land into the highway; and indemnities against any claims arising from the completion and opening of the works, e.g. Part 1 claims. In this case, the A6 is a County Road, as is the Ashby Road and the road leading into Lockington. Often Agreements are also required under Section 4 of the Highways Act, which gives powers for the Highways Agency to work on County Roads, and Section 6 of the Act, which gives powers for a County Highway Authority to work on a Trunk Road. In this case, the A453 is an existing Trunk Road (which is the responsibility of the Highways Agency) and the Kegworth Bypass will become (see below) a County Road. ? Agreement under Section 38 of the Highways Act: In addition to providing for the County Authority to take on the maintenance of a new road at public expense (adoption), in Leicestershire we use a S38 agreement to provide us with a range of safeguards to ensure that the road is built to an appropriate standard and that we are able to maintain it in the future, including to provide for the payment of commuted sums. Commuted sums are payments (by the developer) to enable the Highway Authority to maintain assets that are non-usual, complex or which would otherwise impose burdens for which no other sources of funding are provided. Examples might include, structures; landscaping where it is in the Highway; non-standard items of street furniture, such as heritage lighting or bollards; and areas dedicated into the public highway that are not otherwise required for the safe and satisfactory functioning of the highway.? (Leicestershire County Council, April 2014) Advice from the Planning Inspectorate: The PA2008 does not amend the HA1980 so as to allow s278 or s38 provisions to be included within a Development Consent Order (DCO) and there are no direct references in the PA2008 to entering into an agreement under s278 or s38 of the HA1980. Any related s278 or s38 Agreement could however be entered into separately with the relevant highway authority in the same way as under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (TCPA) regime. Any such agreements should be submitted by an applicant as part of its application for development consent; or at a stage in the examination of that application agreed by the Examining Authority. If there were genuine reasons why it would not possible to provide such agreement by the end of an examination it may be possible to have an appropriately worded Grampian-type Requirement included in a DCO. For example, a requirement that the s278 or s38 agreement between the applicant and the relevant highway authority must be entered into before development could commence. I would emphasise however that Grampian-type Requirements are not generally considered desirable by Secretaries of State and every effort should be made to avoid the need for them. Alternatively, s120 of the PA2008 allows a DCO to apply and modify legislation and allows a wide range of ancillary matters to be included in a DCO. It could therefore be possible for matters relating to such highway works normally dealt with in s278 or s38 agreements to be dealt with as a provision or as a Requirement. However, as detailed specifications and drawings may not be available at the point of application, there could be difficulties associated with this approach. There are already several model provisions which are frequently adopted in DCO?s that grant developers certain powers to undertake works to highways. For example, granting the undertaker a power to: carry out street works (although the model provisions specifically state that this should not be used to authorise street works to a trunk road); stop up streets; construct and maintain new or altered streets; and enter into agreements with street authorities. These provisions can grant powers to work on existing highways and to ensure that it is clear who will be responsible for maintaining new or altered streets (normally the undertaker for 12 months following completion, then the relevant highway authority). These provisions do not necessarily contain the same amount of detail as agreements under the HA1980 would do and the highways authority for the road may require an undertaker to enter into separate agreements in addition to provisions in the DCO; particularly where the works relate to a trunk road. Given the anticipated submission of the application in Q3 2014, it is recommended that the affected highways authorities prioritise reaching agreement with the applicant on the preferred method of securing provisions equivalent to ss278 and 38 of the HA1980. It would be useful if the Planning Inspectorate could be kept up to date with these discussions. ?Q[2]: How does the [nationally significant infrastructure project] NSIP process deal with the detrunking of a route? The A50 southbound carriageway (past the hotel) is currently a Trunk Road but will become a County Road (serving the hotel and Lockington) once the works are completed.? (Leicestershire County Council, April 2014) Advice from the Planning Inspectorate: Section 120(3) of the PA2008 provides that an order granting development consent may make provision relating to, or to matters ancillary to, the development for which consent is granted. S120(4) provides that the provision that may be made under subsection (3) including in particular provision for or relating to any of the matters listed in Part 1 of Schedule 5 of the PA2008; but this is not an exhaustive list. While it is not specifically listed in Schedule 5 (unlike the designation of a highway as a trunk road or special road); de-trunking is considered to be an ancillary matter within s120 for which provision can be made in a DCO. This could be done in a number of ways. For example, examination iterations of the A556 Knutsford to Bowden Improvement DCO secured this provision by way of including a Schedule titled ?Classification of roads etc.?; within which are specified the roads to be classified as trunk roads and special roads as well as the roads which are to be de-trunked. Note that the Knutsford to Bowden Scheme is still in the period within which the Examining Authority is writing its report and recommendation to the Secretary of State for Transport, and the Order has not been made. Q3: Can CIL be applied to development under the PA2008 regime? Advice from the Planning Inspectorate: CIL can be applied to development authorised under the PA2008, where the charging authority has issued a Schedule, subject to the tests in the CIL Regulations. As you will be aware however, where the charging authority has issued a Schedule it retains a discretion whether or not to apply CIL to development under its jurisdiction. S206 of the PA2008 authorises the charging authority to charge CIL in respect of development in its area. This is not limited to development under the TCPA, and Reg 5(1)(f) of the CIL Regs specifically provides that ?planning permission? for the purpose of Part 11 of the PA2008 (CIL) includes ?development consent granted by an order made under section 114(1)(a) of PA2008?. Reg 6(2) of the CIL Regs is likely to be of particular significance in relation to NSIPs given the built elements of many such schemes might not ordinarily be frequented by people. Reg 6(2) provides that the following are not to be treated as development for the purposes of the Regulations: ?(a) a building into which people do not normally go; (b) a building into which people go only intermittently for the purpose of inspecting or maintaining fixed plant or machinery.? In consideration of the built elements of the scheme proposed by Roxhill Ltd, it will be for the charging authority to apply the tests provided in the CIL Regs. The charging authority should also be reminded that the use of CIL will restrict the ability to enter into s106 Agreements and equally the power to rely on any Grampian-type Requirement to enter into a highway agreement (Reg 123). You will be familiar with the rationale where this ensures that where a charging authority intends to fully or partially fund infrastructure via CIL then it cannot seek a planning obligation contribution towards the same item of infrastructure. Q4: In the context of the forthcoming general election and the anticipated timescales associated with the emerging application; what, if any, would be the implications of a change in Secretary of State in the decision period? Advice from the Planning Inspectorate: A change of Secretary of State in the decision period should make no difference to applications progressing under the PA2008, which will continue to be determined in accordance with the National Policy Statements and other relevant guidance; unless and until any changes are made to the statute or guidance. 30 May 2014 Affected local authorities Andrew Yeomanson
See attached meeting note and presentation. 30 April 2014 Affected local authorities David Hughes
As per your website, [attachment 1];ipcadvice=3b390885c4 the developer for the proposed development is currently in consultation with the local community, however after poor publicity of these events, further exhibitions 'are planned' and will be advertised in due course, these are yet to be announced. In the meantime we are able to view their (developers) plans/proposals via the following website, with the ability to email the developers in relation queries / questions, however as a local resident with questions and concerns relating to their proposal, I have sent 5 emails over as many weeks, I have only received 1 response, despite chasing them on numerous occasions. [attachment 2] Can you advise me whom i should forward my concerns too, if the developer continues to not respond ? I look forward to hearing from you Before submitting an application, the developer is required to carry out extensive consultation on their proposals. This involves providing information about the proposal to various statutory and non-statutory bodies and the wider community, responding to questions, listening to suggestions, and taking these into account to influence and inform the application ultimately submitted to the Inspectorate. This does not mean that the developer has to accept or agree with every comment or suggestion made but they must give them proper consideration. Before formally consulting people in the vicinity of the project, the developer must prepare a Statement of Community Consultation (SoCC), having first consulted relevant local authorities about what it should contain. The purpose of the SoCC is to provide details on the consultation process, which the developer intends to undertake with the local community about their project. The developer is then required to carry out their consultation with the local community as set out in the SoCC. Where any person feels that an applicant's pre-application consultation was inadequately carried out, they should seek resolution by approaching the applicant in the first instance. If following this action you remain unsatisfied with the consultation carried out, you may also wish to raise this with the relevant local authority. Subsequently, when an application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate following the pre-application stage, there is a 28 day period during which a decision is taken on whether to accept the application for examination. One of the factors to be considered by the Planning Inspectorate at this stage is whether or not the developer?s consultation process has been adequate, and we will invite relevant local authorities to provide us with their comments on the adequacy of the applicant?s consultation. In providing their representation on this matter, the local authority may decide to take into account any comments received from the public on this issue. The Inspectorate, on behalf of the Secretary of State, must have regard to the local authority?s response on the adequacy of consultation in making its decision on whether to accept an application to proceed to be examined. If the application is accepted for examination, there will be the opportunity to register your views with the Planning Inspectorate and participate in the examination by completing a relevant representation form. Where a person believes they have identified an issue which has not been adequately addressed by the applicant, despite raising it with them as part of their pre-application consultation, they may wish to include this as part of their representation. Relevant representations are used by the Examining Authority to help identify the initial principal issues for examination. Details about how and when to register will be publicised by the developer in local newspapers and on site notices. Please note that you are unable to register as an interested party during the current (pre-application) stage of the process for this proposal. You may also find the following guidance and advice note helpful: Guidance on the Pre-Application Process (The Planning Act 2008): [attachment 3] Advice note sixteen: The developer?s pre-application consultation, publicity and notification duties: [attachment 4] Please contact me on the details below if you have any further queries. 31 March 2014 Emma Clowes
Mrs Harrington rang the Planning Inspectorate with concerns that the methods used by the developer to advertise the consultation for the proposed application are not reaching the local community and sought advice regarding who she should contact concerning this. As you may be aware, the East Midlands Gateway Rail Freight Interchange scheme is currently at the ?pre-application? stage of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended) (PA 2008) process. The application is expected to be submitted to the Planning Inspectorate in Q1/2 of 2014. At this stage of the process the developer should be your first point of contact and it is recommended that you refer to the developer?s website for information on how to contact them I have included a link to the applicant?s website below: [attachment 1] Before formally consulting people in the vicinity of the project, the developer must prepare a Statement of Community Consultation (SoCC), having first consulted relevant local authorities about what it should contain. The purpose of the SoCC is to provide details on the consultation process, which the developer intends to undertake with the local community about their project. The developer is then required to carry out their consultation with the local community as set out in the SoCC. If you are not satisfied with the developer?s consultation process you should inform the developer about your concerns as soon as possible and give them an opportunity to respond. However, as you raised concerns regarding consultation during our telephone conversation, you may also wish to send a copy of your correspondence to the relevant local authority. When an application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate following the pre-application stage, we have a 28 day period during which under delegated powers from the Secretary of State the Planning Inspectorate will decide whether to accept the application to progress to the examination stage. During this time we will invite relevant local authorities to provide us with their comments on the adequacy of the applicant?s consultation. If the application is accepted for examination, there will be the opportunity to register your views with the Planning Inspectorate and participate in the examination by completing a relevant representation form. Details about how and when to register will be publicised by the developer in local newspapers and on site notices. Please note that you are unable to register as an interested party during the current (pre-application) stage of the process for this proposal. The Planning Inspectorate has produced several advice notes to help provide an overview of the PA 2008 process and the opportunities to get involved. These are available via the link below. In this instance I recommend reviewing advice note eight series ? ?How to get involved in the planning process?. You may access these documents on our website at the following link: [attachment 2] 27 January 2014 Toni Harrington
To Introduce a new project to the IPC and gain knowledge of the 2008 planning act. Please see attached meeting note for full details of advice 21 February 2012 Roxhill Developments Limited - Kate Benson