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
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The offshore element of this application has already been consented.

There is a suggestion in the real world that the developers wish to
make significant changes to the scheme - including a substantial
reduction in the overall capacity.

Please advise the formal status under the 2008 Act of proposals for
deviation from the implementation permitted by the Consent Order.

If developers are allowed unilaterally to implement in a way different to

the Consent Order, it does reduce confidence in the whole process and
could impact upon fulfilment of the 2020 targets for renewable energy.

Consent was granted for 1.2Gw. We need 1.2Gw. How can we ensure
that this is what will be delivered (subject to consent for the Electricity
connection deemed to be an NSIP in November 2013)?

Advice under s51 is requested.
Could this project be re-opened - possibly in connection with the
Electrical connection application? Clearly, examination could be
condensed as much of the material would remain relevant and
presumably would be in evidence - including the previous ExA
report and the decision letter etc.
Thank you for your email.

We note your concerns about the developer proposing to construct a scheme which would be reduced from the maxima consented by the Secretary of State in the made development consent order (DCO) for this project. As you may know, the authorised scheme is set out in the made DCO at Schedule 1 Part 1, which has been published to the project page of the Planning Portal (link below):

[attachment 1]

You will note that Work no.1 (the generating assets) is described as:

"Work No. 1 ? an offshore wind turbine generating station with a gross electrical output capacity of up to 1200 MW comprising up to 288 wind turbine generators each fixed to the seabed by one of five foundation types (namely, monopile, jacket, tripod, suction bucket monopod or gravity
base foundation), fitted with rotating blades and situated within the coordinates for the Order limits shown on the Works plan and specified below, and including the further works comprising.."

By the use of the term 'up to' the developer gains the flexibility to construct a wind farm with a generating capacity of less than 1200MW. Hence, less than this maximum capacity may be constructed as long as what is constructed is in accordance with the terms of the Order. You will note that this practice of setting a maximum, or otherwise allowing for a degree of flexibility in what may be constructed, is also used for other aspects of the development, including the number of wind turbine generators and the foundation type(s).

This approach is commonly referred to as using the 'Rochdale Envelope' and was established in case law under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (the 1990 Act) by R. v Rochdale MBC ex parte Milne (No. 1), R. v Rochdale MBC ex parte Tew [1999], and R. v Rochdale MBC ex parte Milne (No. 2) [2000]. You may wish to read our advice note on this topic (link below):

[attachment 2]

It is also established practice, in relation to planning permissions granted under the 1990 Act, that developers are not required to construct the full quantum of development for which they permission, and may choose to build out less.

For a development such as this, which is Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) development, the developer must provide an Environmental Statement (ES) with their application which will set out the worst-case scenario assessed as part of their EIA. The constructed development must remain within the parameters of what was assessed in the EIA.

With regard to the ability of the developer to deviate from the consented scheme set out in the DCO, there is provision for this in section 153 and Schedule 6 of the Planning Act 2008 (the 2008 Act) which sets out the two prescribed ways in which an Order can be changed post-consent. The procedures to be followed following an application under these provisions are set out in The Infrastructure Planning (Changes to, and Revocation of, Development Consent Orders) Regulations 2011, which can be found at the link below:

[attachment 3]

With regard to whether the examination could be reopened, there is no provision under the 2008 Act for the reopening of an examination once it has been closed. The proposed application for the electrical connection infrastructure will, if submitted, only relate to that infrastructure not the already consented off-shore wind-farm.

You will note however that if an application were made to change the Order under the above regulations, the process set out in Part 2 of those regulations sets out a pre-application, application and examination process that is largely similar to the process that was carried out for the original application. This could result in a further consideration of the project or aspects of it.

The applicant may be able to rely on the original application documents in relation to their application to change the Order, either as originally submitted or as updated. Under Reg 16(i) the applicant is under a duty to provide a statement which:

"(i) identifies the extent to which the information submitted with the initial application for an order granting development consent in accordance with regulations 5 and 6 of the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009 is correct and relevant to the application; and (ii) where necessary updates the parts of this information that relate to the application;"

In determining the application the Secretary of State is under a duty to have regard to the following under Reg. 47:

"(a) any national policy statement which has effect in relation to development of the description authorised by the development consent order the subject of the application, (a ?relevant national policy statement?);
(b) the appropriate marine policy documents (if any), determined in accordance with section 59 of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009;
(c) any matters prescribed in relation to development of the description authorised by the development consent order the subject of the application; and
(d) any other matters which the Secretary of State thinks are both important and relevant to its decision."

You will note that these obligations are similar to those on the Secretary of State in relation to the original application under section 104 of the 2008 Act.

You may also be aware that there are provisions, under section 72 of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009, for variations to be made to the deemed marine licence granted in relation to this DCO. You may wish to contact the Marine Management Organisation in relation to this.

17 January 2014
Alan Rayner
Enquiry received via email
Please find attached letter from Steve Willis, Assistant Director (Environment, Planning and Customer Services) at Lincolnshire County Council in response to the Triton Knoll OWF Onshore Electrical Infrastructure Consultation.
Submissions received after an examination has closed (during the recommendation stage) are not made available to the Examining authority and will not be taken into account within an Examining authority's report to the Secretary of State. The Planning Inspectorate will, however, hold your letter until the end of the recommendation stage and then send it separately to the relevant Secretary of State, immediately following the submission of the Examining authority's recommendation report. It is then for the Secretary of State to decide whether or not to take your letter into consideration.

04 April 2013
Lincolnshire County Council - Sarah Holland
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Discussion on revised draft application documentation including the draft DCO, Explanatory Memorandum and Consultation Report.
Please see Meeting notes attached.

28 November 2011
RWE npower Renewables (RWE)
Enquiry received via email
Enquiry regarding the timescales for statutory consultees to make representations on a proposed application following acceptance.
If the IPC decides to accept an application to progress to examination, the developer must publicise that fact. It is for the developer to decide precisely when to publicise a project acceptance. This publicity will set a deadline of not less than 28 days for members of the public and others to register as 'interested parties' (local authorities are automatically interested parties) and for 'relevant representations' to be made to the IPC about the project.

Relevant representations should provide a summary of your views about the proposed application. They should focus on the impacts of the proposal and any key issues which you wish to bring to the Examining Authority's attention. You can also at this stage request to speak at the Preliminary Meeting. The representations are used to help inform the Examining Authority's initial list of principal issues for the examination. At examination stage, you will be invited to submit more detailed written statements on the issues raised.

Local authorities are advised to ensure any necessary internal authorisation processes are in place to meet the timetable. It is entirely a matter for local authorities to determine whether or not its representations require approval by elected members and in what form.

15 July 2011
Norfolk County Council - Stephen Faulkner
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Preliminary draft Development Consent Order and legal submissions for the proposed Triton Knoll offshore wind farm project.
The IPC responded with the attached letter.

11 July 2011
RWE NPower Renewables - Jacob Hain
Enquiry received via email
Request for advice on draft Section 48 Notice for Triton Knoll project.
Section 48 of the Planning Act 2008 ('the Act') requires applicants to publicise a proposed application at the pre-application stage. The Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009, Regulation 4, prescribes the manner in which an applicant must undertaken the publicity. As discussed, in order to comply with s48 of the Act, you must be satisfied that your notice includes the matters set out in Regulation 4(3) and that the notice is publicised in accordance with Regulation 4(2).

I also draw your attention to Regulation 11 of the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2009. This requires you to send a copy of your s48 notice to the consultation bodies and to any person notified to you in accordance with Regulation 9(1)(c) at the same time as publishing your notice under section 48(1).

IPC Guidance Note 1 (para 12) suggests that it would be helpful for consultees if the published deadlines for receipt of views on the application under s48 are as close as possible to deadlines given to consultees under s42. You advised that you intend to coordinate the deadlines for comments under section 48, 42 and 47 and this is considered good practice.

01 April 2011
RWE NPower Renewables Ltd - Andrew Lovell
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Meeting to discuss draft documentation sent to the IPC for advice, the applicant?s proposed Rochdale envelope approach and significant proposed changes to the application order limits.

23 February 2011
RWE npower Renewables - Jacob Hain
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
IPC to explain the process and requirements in relation to the new consent regime including any Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). This meeting took place on 27 July 2010 between East Lindsey Council and the IPC relating to Triton Knoll.
[attachment 1]

26 November 2010
East Lindsey Council
Enquiry received via phone
Raised concerns about how the application for Triton Knoll will be assessed taking into consideration the IPC is to be abolished.
Asked how to raise the communities concerns with regards to the merits of the scheme and adequacy of community consultation undertaken by the applicant.
The Government are currently drafting the Localism Bill which, if it receives Royal Ascent, is likely to come into force April 2012.

At this stage the IPC will be abolished and in its place a department of the Planning Inspectorate, known as the Major Infrastructure Planning Unit, will take forward the work of the IPC.

For the projects which the IPC has already been notified of, transitional arrangements are likely to be put in place to ensure the examination process will remain efficient and effective.

Notified the enquirer that the new planning process places emphasis on a front loaded approach. It is therefore important that the local community fully participate in the consultation undertaken by the applicant and to raise any concerns directly to the applicant. The applicant is obliged to take into account the responses it receives.

Any concerns regarding the adequacy of consultation (e.g. if the community considers that the applicant is not undertaking consultation in line with the Statement of Community Consultation) should be raised with the applicant and relevant local authority. The IPC is happy to be copied into any correspondence of this nature.

03 November 2010
Susan Greensmith
Enquiry received via post
response has attachments
Request for information on:
- S36 of the Electricity Act 1989 and whether the approach adopted under that regime would apply to an application for a DCO under the PA 2008; and
- Use of the 'Rochdale Envelope' within the environmental statement to accompany the DCO.
Please see letter via hyperlink:
[attachment 1]

18 October 2010
Bond Pearce LLP - John Houghton
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Update on the proposed Triton Knoll Offshore Wind Farm (TKOWF) project and discussion on draft documentation including the draft DCO, explanatory memorandum and consultation report
Please see attached for section 51 advice

20 September 2010
Trevor Baker
Enquiry received via email
Queries and comments raised by Cllr Davie including:

- Information on the IPC website showing underground cable routes,

- The entire proposal should be part of application including proper underground cabling routes and full National Grid pylon tranmission network, and

- Comments on the applicants pre-application consultation.
- The information on the Commission's website is a copy of the applicant's (RWE nPower) Scoping Report as part of its request for a Scoping Opinion from the Commission. The Commission has not been made aware of any further updated plans and is under a statutory requirement to provide a Scoping Opinion based upon the information provided. If the proposal changes substantially during the process the applicant will need to consider the need to request a new scoping opinion from the Commission.

- Whilst there can be advantages in linking two NSIP's (Nationally Significant Infrastructure Proposals) in a single application, it is also possible for them to be submitted as two seperate applications, this being a matter for the applicant to determine depending on the particular circumstances of the respective projects. In the event of two potentially linked NSIP's being submitted as seperate applications, the Environmental Statement accompanying each application would need to include an assessment of any cumulative impacts of any other known proposals that do not form part of the repsective application.

- The pre-application consultation requirements of the Planning Act 2008 were set out along with the key roles of a relevant Local Authority in the process.

- In deciding whether to accept an application for examination the Commission must have regard to any adequacy of consultation representation received from a relevant local authority. This provides a formal opportunity for local authorities to set out any comments on how the applicant has complied with its pre-application consultation obligations.

- In some cases the pre-application process will be an interative process where proposals are amended with additional consultation taking places with stakeholders where appropriate.

07 September 2010
Cllr Colin Davie
Enquiry received via email
Enquirer questioned if the applicant for Triton Knoll has given the community sufficient information to be able to comment correctly on various issues such as:

1. Why does the applicant wish to buy a 70 acre plot of land when they only wish to build a 40 acre substation.
2. No information shown regarding site access and possibility of a separate works compound during construction.
3. No detail provided about mitigation measures for the proposed 13m transformers.
4. The applicant has not provided estimates of likely vehicle numbers and size of loads during construction. They ask us in question 6 to
comment on the access routes that leave the A158 these routes are
unclassified bumpy country lanes with no road markings and it is difficult
for 2 cars to pass each other on most parts of them. If there is one 7.5
tonne lorry a day this might not be a problem if there are 20 then it will
be.
5. They say in the questionnaire. Question 3 that they have investigated
main potential environmental and ecological features such as the presence of
bats, badgers etc. How can they have without carrying out an environmental
survey over a reasonable time frame?
Please note the advisory service we provide is primarily concerned with the procedural aspects of the new planning regime . As you may appreciate, in order to maintain the Commission's independence and impartiality, it is outside of our remit to advise upon the merits of a proposed application.

I therefore advise that you fully participate during the pre-application process with both the applicant and your local authority.

Your concerns highlighted in your previous e-mail and your suggestions that further survey work may be required should be raised with the applicant and you may also want to copy any correspondence with your local authority. These concerns and suggestions must be taken into account by the applicant in accordance with s49 of the Planning Act 2008 (Duty to take account of responses to consultation and publicity).

If you remain dissatisfied with the level of consultation by the applicant it is important that you relay this to your local authority.
Your local authority should take your comments into account when they are invited to produce an 'adequacy of consultation' report.
Once the Triton Knoll application has been submitted to the IPC any adequacy report produced by a relevant local authority will be taken into consideration by the Commission when deciding to accept or refuse the application for examination.

Should the application be accepted for examination you will have further opportunity to raise your concerns as an interested party.

02 September 2010
Clare Mowbray
Enquiry received via phone
Dorothy wanted to know if the representation from Candlesby with Gunby Parish Council would still be considered if they missed the 28 day deadline for responses.
Advised that the response would not be included in the IPC's formal scoping opinion if they missed the 28 day deadline, but it would be sent on to the applicant for due consideration.

02 September 2010
Candlesby with Gunby Parish Coun - Dorothy Dobson
Enquiry received via phone
Mr Ryan called and requested details on the Triton Knoll project; in particular, what elements of the project have formed part of the scoping request from the promoter and details of involvement with the IPC process. Mr Ryan also requested information on the "Six steps" of the IPC process and requested a copy of these to be sent to him.
Dear Colm,

as requested I have attached some information in regard to our conversation earlier this week on Triton Knoll. Attached is the "six steps" you requested and also some more information below which may be of use to you:

At present this proposal is at the pre-application stage and in order to maintain the Commissions independence and impartiality you will appreciate that we are unable to comment on the merits of an application, or the applicant?s consultation procedures, during the pre-application stages. However, in accordance with the Planning Act 2008, applicants have a statutory requirement to publicise their proposals and carry out extensive consultation prior to the submission of a formal application for development consent.



The applicant, RWE Npower renewables, is currently in the process of its formal pre-application consultation and as they have a statutory duty to take into account comments received prior to the submission of their application, I encourage you to participate in that process by presenting your concerns to them. The applicant?s contact details are as follows;



RWE N power renewables

Auckland House

Lydiard Fields

Business Park

Great Western Way

Swindon

Wiltshire

SN5 8ZT

01793 474013

www.rwenpower.com



Upon receipt of an application, the first stage of the process is that the IPC has 28 days from the day after the date of submission to decide whether we can accept the application for examination. The criteria that the Commission must use in deciding whether an application can be accepted are set out in s55 of the Planning Act 2008 and include whether or not the application contains the correct documentation, complies with the relevant legal requirements and that the applicant has complied with its obligations at the pre-application stage.



Should, the Commission decide to accept the application, the applicant is required to publish and carry out notification of the accepted application inviting representations from the general public, statutory consultees and relevant stakeholders. This is the point at which you

should write to us giving notice of your interest in or, objection to, the application. A form will be available on-line for you to complete for this purpose, details of which will be provided in the applicant?s publicity and notification. This will ensure that you will become an 'interested party' and so will be notified of all future stages in the Commissions examination of the application.



Following on from this, there will be a preliminary meeting to discuss the time table for the examination itself. The examination will be carried out largely through detailed written representations but there may also be hearings on specific issues and an 'open floor' hearing where interested parties will have the opportunity to make oral representations.


I hope this has been of use towards your query Colm . If you have any further queries, please contact myself.

01 September 2010
Planning Aid - Colm Ryan
Enquiry received via phone
Wished to discuss how to ensure the opinions of the public were heard.
Asked when the likely submission date for Triton Knoll would be.
Raised concerns about the consultation measures used by the applicant.
Advised to fully participate in pre-application consultation undertaken by the applicant and contact the relevant local authority.
Reassured Mr Rogers that the applicant has a statutory duty to take into account the responses received from consultation when developing their proposal.
At current the anticipated submission date is Dec 2010.
Should there be concerns about the adequacy of consultation it is advised to contact the applicant and relevant local authority in writing and cc the IPC into any correspondence.

17 August 2010
Rogers
Enquiry received via email
As a member of the general public how do I comment on Npower's planning
application for Triton Knoll Off shore windfarm (your map on the website is
out of date) and onshore electricity sub station? I'm not sure who to
address my concerns to? Npower or the local authority, if I send them to
Npower how can I know that they will address them or acknowledge them.
This development proposal is currently at the pre-application stage of the new planning regime meaning that the applicant, RWE npower Renewables, has a number of statutory duties regarding public consultation which must be fulfilled before submitting the application to the IPC.

These statutory duties include:

In accordance with s47 of the Planning Act 2008, RWE npower must prepare and publicise a Statement of Community Consultation (SoCC) outlining how they intend to consult the community on the Triton Knoll proposals. This has been recently published and the relevant local authorities have had an opportunity to comment upon the document before it is published.

I understand that Phase 1 of the applicants community consultation commenced from 26th July however further information about how to get involved during consultation and express your views or concerns can be found on the applicants website: www.npower-renewables.com/tritonknoll.

At this stage it is important to express your comments on the merits of the scheme directly to the applicant. Be reassured that, in accordance with s49 of the Planning Act 2008, the applicant has a legal duty to take into account the responses to its consultation and publicity.

Once the application has been submitted and accepted by the IPC you will have further opportunity to comment upon the scheme.

28 July 2010
Clare Mowbray
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
General Update on the applicants progress at pre-application stage
Please see meeting note

[attachment 1]

08 July 2010
RWE npower Renewables - Jacob Hain
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Triton Knoll Offshore Wind Farm inception meeting
See attached meeting note

11 February 2010
RWE Npower Renewables Ltd - Jacob Hain