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

Andrew Boswell

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

Anglian Water Services Limited - Darl Sweetland

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

Norwich Cycling Campaign - Tony Clarke

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

Norwich Cycling Campaign - Tony Clarke

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

Anglian Water Services Limited - Jacob Wallace

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

Andrew Boswell

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

Norfolk County Council - Stephen Faulkner

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

Anna Grace Randlesome

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

David Pett

Mr Mayhew has been contacted by a constituent, Mr Gates, regarding the proposed dualling of the A47. Mr Gates’ full concerns are outlined below. ‘Our Community Group here at North Burlingham has been lobbying Highways England since the beginning of the A47 Dualling Consultation process for: 1) a crossing at North Burlingham giving N/S access to Lingwood, particularly to and from the Station. 2) provision of a pathway link from South Walsham Road eastwards to Acle - about 250m - to gain access to the existing (but soon to be closed) lay-by. There is an existing path from this lay-by to Acle, where there are buses, a Station and our main selection of shops. We have none at North Burlingham. ‘We now learn that HE have no intention of providing these links, but expect NCC to do this from the Community Infrastructure Fund, after the dualling is complete. ‘Have you any legal advice at your disposal that could tell us if HE is able to ignore local consultation and side-step responsibility in this way?’ Mr Gates has now received information stating that the matter is with the planning inspectorate, and would like to know whether he can make representations directly. Mr Mayhew would be grateful for your comments on the matter, as well as providing a response that addresses these concerns.
The A47 Blofield to North Burlingham application was accepted for Examination on 27 January 2021. The Inspectorate has decided that the Applicant – Highways England – has met its associated Pre-application duties, which include having due regard to the responses to Statutory Consultation (under s49 of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008)) adequately. Now that the application has progressed into ‘Pre-examination’, the considerations of this decision, including how the Applicant conducted its Statutory Consultation, cannot be disputed. The Applicant is now required to serve notice that the application has been formally accepted, under s56 of the PA2008. This notice, amongst other things, must include details of how members of the public can register to become ‘Interested Parties’ (IP) and submit a ‘Relevant Representation’ (RR) setting out the matters the appointed ‘Examining Authority’ (the inspector or panel of inspectors who will examine the application) should consider in its Examination of the application. The Inspectorate will also publicise the notice and associated information on the project page of the National Infrastructure Planning website in due course. I therefore recommend Mr Gates is kept informed of this and other key milestones by registering for the email update feature here: [attachment 1];email= Once the RR period formally opens, Mr Gates can register to become an IP and submit a RR setting out his concerns (which can include the interrelationship with any associated works to carried out by the relevant highways authority if consent is later granted). He can also expand and provide further evidence via ‘Written Representations’ and/ or oral submissions at hearings once the Examination formally commences. He may find the following Inspectorate advice notes helpful: [attachment 2] [attachment 3] [attachment 4] [attachment 5]

Office of Jerome Mayhew MP - Tom Horton

I prepared a submission to Highways England on behalf of Norwich Cycling Campaign on the dualling of the A47 Blofield to North Burlingham. Due to various personal matters I have been unable to follow this up. Since I prepared this submission the Government has published two important policy documents: "Gear Change" "Cycle Infrastructure Design LTN 1/20" "Gear Change" announced a new regulatory body which will have extensive powers with regard to the provision and design of cycling and walking facilities. Reading these documents, and the relevant sections of the latest edition of the Design Manual for Road and Bridges, it appears that the plans or the A47 published by Highways England fall short of the policies set out in the above documents. I am not sure of the exact statues of the Inquiry process at the moment. I am therefore seeking advice as to what Norwich Cycling Campaign should do to make sure we have an opportunity to raise these matters.
The A47 Blofield to North Burlingham application was accepted for Examination on 27 January 2021. The Applicant is now required to serve notice that the application has been formally accepted, under s56 of the Planning Act 2008. This notice, amongst other things, must include details of how members of the public can register to become ‘Interested Parties’ (IP) and submit a ‘Relevant Representation’ (RR) setting out the matters the appointed ‘Examining Authority’ (the inspector or panel of inspectors who will examine the application) should consider in its Examination of the application. The Inspectorate will publicise the notice and associated information on the project page of the National Infrastructure Planning website once the RR period has started. You may wish to register to receive key information: [attachment 1];email= Once the RR period formally opens, you can register to become an IP and submit a RR setting out your concerns, such as whether the Proposed Development should have regard to the recently published non-motorised user policies set out in your email. You can also expand and provide further evidence via ‘Written Representations’ and/ or oral submissions at hearings once the Examination formally commences and a timetable setting out the associated deadlines and hearings is agreed and published. You may find the following Inspectorate advice notes helpful: [attachment 2] [attachment 3] [attachment 4] [attachment 5]

Norwich Cycling Campaign - Tony Clarke

Project update meeting
Please see attached meeting note

Highways England - anon.

Project update meeting
See Meeting Note attached

Highways England - anon.

Project update meeting and review of draft documents
Please see attached.

Highways England - anon.

A47 Projects Programme Update Meeting
Please see attached.

Highways England - anon.

A47 Projects Programme Update Meeting
Please see attached.

Highways England - anon.

A47 Projects Update Meeting
Please see attached meeting note

Highways England