Galloper Offshore Wind Farm

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
Will the Examining Authority for Galloper Wind Farm accept and take into consideration our letter of 30 November 2012, submitted to PINS after the close of examination?
Thank you for your letter dated 30 November 2012.

As noted in your letter, the examination of Galloper Wind Farm closed at midnight on 29 November 2012. 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.

06 December 2012
RSPB - Amy Crossley
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Discussion on procedures under the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) following acceptance of an application for examination.
See attachment

16 January 2012
Galloper Wind Farm Ltd (GWFL) - Kate Harvey
Enquiry received via post
response has attachments
IPC advice to Galloper Wind Farm Ltd (?GWFL?) in respect of the application for development consent for the proposed project.
See attached.

19 December 2011
Galloper Wind Farm Limited - IPC advice of the application for a DCO
Enquiry received via phone
response has attachments
During a final engineering review of the proposed development, it has become clear that in order to construct the onshore works, there is a requirement (which was not previously identified) for a crane to oversail a length of approximately 75 metres of land which is subject to an easement granted to Essex and Suffolk Water for a buried water pipe. Galloper Wind Farm Limited (GWFL) is not proposing to do any works to dig up the land or affect Essex and Suffolk Water's access rights. This, together with proposed hedgerow planting included as mitigation for visual impact, has meant that GWFL has had to revise its application boundary since the consultation undertaken in June/July 2011.

GWFL wishes to advise the IPC that it is reconsulting Essex and Suffolk Water as a precaution to ensure its pre-application consultation obligations have been met. The change to the application boundary has two implications. Firstly, Essex and Suffolk Water is now classed as a person falling within the categories set out in Section 44 of the 2008 Act, rather than a prescribed consultee simply as a result of being a statutory undertaker. In summary, Section 44 includes landowners and persons having an interest in the land to which the proposed application relates. Secondly, the right to oversail ESW's interest will be included within GWFL's application for a DCO as part of the compulsory purchase powers it is requesting.
This advice is without prejudice to any decision made by the Commission under s.55 of the Planning Act 2008 (the 2008 Act).

In making the decision under s.55 of the 2008 Act, the Commissioner appointed needs to be satisfied that, amongst other matters, the applicant has complied with Chapter 2 of Part 5 of the 2008 Act (pre-application procedure) (see s.55(3)(e) and s.55(4)(a)).

The consultation report, which as you know is an application document required under s.37(3) of the 2008 Act, should demonstrate (under s.37(7)):
'(a) what has been done in compliance with sections 42, 47 and 48 in
relation to a proposed application that has become the application,
(b) any relevant responses, and
(c) the account taken of any relevant responses.'

The consultation report should therefore give details of what has been done in compliance with s.42 prior to submitting the application, including explaining how persons within one or more of the s.44 categories have been consulted under s.42(d). The consultation report also has to include details of any responses received by the deadline, and the account taken of any such relevant responses. Although in this advice we have mainly dealt with your consultation of Essex and Suffolk Water, you will also need to ensure that these details are included in the consultation report in relation to your consultation of British Energy Generation Limited.

In the particular circumstances discussed, you will need to be satisfied that your pre-application consultation duties have been met before submitting an application to the IPC. Your s.42 consultation letter to Essex and Suffolk Water of 16 November 2011should therefore be appropriately recorded in the consultation report. If you receive a response from Essex and Suffolk Water at any time within the 28 day deadline that you have set, the details required by s.37(7)(b) and (c) should be also recorded in the consultation report which can then be submitted with the application.

It would potentially be open to you to include in the consultation report details of any substantive verbal response received from Essex and Suffolk Water prior to the application being submitted. For example, where a written response from Essex and Suffolk Water was still pending at the time the application was submitted, but they had confirmed that this would be consistent with their verbal response. If details of a verbal response are provided in the consultation report then you would need to ensure that the consultee confirms the verbal response in a letter to you which can be made available to the Commission, within the 28 day period for acceptance, if it so requests.

In the circumstances here, submitting an application prior to the receipt of any response from the consultee would be at your own risk. The consultation report should be complete at the point of submission - there is no provision in the 2008 Act which would allow an addendum to a consultation report to be submitted after the application has been received by the IPC.

This advice is consistent with advice we have previously given (see link below) in respect of the Ipswich Rail Chord application currently at examination stage and to which we would draw your attention.

[attachment 1];ipcadvice=fec4205e8d

17 November 2011
SSE Renewables - Kate Harvey
Enquiry received via email
Request for IPC advice regarding the draft Habitats Regulations Assessment Report for Galloper Wind Farm.
In the time available, the IPC cannot undertake a detailed review of the draft HRA report on the Galloper Windfarm project. However, we have set out some comments below which we hope will assist. Please understand that these comments are provided on a without prejudice basis. As these comments constitute s.51 advice under the Planning Act 2008, they will be placed on the IPC's register of advice on the website.

On a general point some clearer 'sign-posting' through the documents would be very helpful, including the identification and exclusion of designated sites. Other points are set out below.

Relationship with other documents

It is unclear how the draft HRA report relates to the HRA Screening Report (the draft of which we previously reviewed) it would be helpful if you could clarify whether or not both reports are intended to be read together. On the basis of a quick look, the completed checklists appear to refer to only the draft HRA Report, but you may care to consider whether relevant information is set out in the HRA Screening Report.

Chapter 5 of the draft HRA Report sets out the evidence in Table 5.2 of no LSE on eight of the European sites identified (the ninth site is Alde-Ore Estuary SPA which is dealt with under Chapter 6 as a LSE has been identified). Table 5.2 provides a brief summary based on various reports which are referenced, please advise if these form part of the assessment.

The draft HRA Report (paragraph 3.4.3) identifies that the other key documents that will be relied on are:
- Chapter 11 of the ES (Ornithology)
- the associated Technical Appendix 11.A in the ES
- the technical reports provided within the draft HRA report in Appendix B (Margate and Long Sands cSAC assessment); and
- Appendix C (Alde-Ore Estuary SPA Technical Note on Disturbance-Displacement Effects).

However, the provided completed checklists refer to other chapters in the ES which have not been identified or cross-referenced to in the draft HRA report, for example, Chapters 9, 12, 13 and 23 of the ES. We also noted that there is currently no reference to Appendix D in the draft HRA Report, although, we have been provided with a copy of this appendix. Where the draft HRA Report cross-refers to one of these documents, it refers to a general chapter (i.e. Chapter 11 of the ES) rather than specific sections or paragraphs. Without sight of these documents it is unclear as to how helpful this will be to the reader, for example, if the chapter is long, it may be difficult to identify the relevant text. As a general rule, more specific cross-reference to the relevant paragraphs / sub-sections would be helpful to point to the specific text and to assist the reader.

In-combination effects (paragraph 5.4 of the draft HRA Report)

The criteria for identifying 'other plans or projects' is set out in Paragraph 5.4.2 and has now included a new category (in response to the IPC?s earlier comments provided on the draft HRA Screening Report) which includes plans or projects which are planned, but for which an application has not yet been submitted to the Competent Authority. A list of renewable projects has been identified in paragraph 5.4.3, which includes wind farm development projects from Rounds 1, 2, 2.5 and 3. However, the stated conclusion is that ?all, or some, of the following Round 1, 2 and 2.5 proposed consented or operational offshore wind farms within the Thames Strategic Area may have the potential for in-combination effects with the GWF Project? (paragraph 5.4.3). It is unclear whether the Round 3 Wind Farm proposed projects have the potential for in-combination effects or have simply been overlooked.

We also note that the recommendation from JNCC and Natural England that the inclusion of 'other' should be based on the ornithological species foraging range, has been incorporated into the in-combination assessment. The projects identified through this criterion are set out in paragraph 5.4.4. Whilst Scroby Sands (Round 1 Wind Farm operated by Eon) has been identified - as it partly overlaps with the Outer Thames SPA boundary and is within the foraging range of more wide-ranging species - it has not been included within the in-combination assessment. It is stated that this is on the basis that it is ?a small site some 50km+ north of the GWF, its impacts are expected to be negligible and therefore does not require inclusion [in] this assessment? (paragraph 5.4.4). The basis for making this assumption is unclear.

We are pleased to note that in response to the comments provided by the IPC on the draft HRA Screening Report, other marine activities have been identified such as dredging and aggregate extraction areas (paragraph 5.4.5) as well as onshore projects in the form of Sizewell B Dry Fuel Store (paragraph 5.4.6) and Sizewell C (paragraph 5.4.7).

Clarification in the draft HRA Report is sought on:

- the search radius used to identify the 'other projects', both onshore and offshore,
- what specific 'other plans' have been identified for both onshore and offshore as the focus has been on 'other projects',
- what consultation had been undertaken to identify the 'other plans or projects' and whether (especially in relation to onshore development) have any plans or projects been discounted.

Consultation

General comments

The draft HRA report places heavy reliance on the comments provided by the IPC / JNCC and NE during the scoping exercise as providing the initial identification of designated sites which should be considered in the HRA process (paragraphs 3.3.3 -3.3.4). Whilst the IPC drew attention to the comments of the NCB in the scoping opinion, it was to assist the applicant and to direct their attention to these matters in preparing the EIA and not to provide a formal response on the scope of the HRA. This seems to have been misunderstood.

Table 3.1 setting out comments received from JNCC / NE and the IPC in response to the GWF HRA Screening Report is helpful as it includes GWFL response to these comments. However, several of the GWFL responses are unclear as to how the NCB responses has been addressed in the HRA, for example, vague GWFL responses such as ?these comments have been considered in the ornithological work which has been undertaken to inform the HRA?. Whether the identified responses have been implemented should be clearly stated in the Table with appropriate cross-reference to the specific paragraph (not just the section) in the HRA Report.

Appendix A of the draft HRA report includes the Ornithological Consultation Meeting Minutes with the NCB, but copies of correspondence between GWFL and the NCB do not appear to be included within the draft HRA report. It would be helpful for copies of any correspondence concerning the HRA (which has a wider remit than ornithological issues given the nature of the designated sites identified at the screening stage i.e. SACs) to be made available.

Additional (non-s.42 consultation) with the NCB

GGWFL appears to have undertaken consultation on the draft HRA Screening Report (Table 3.1 - which includes some responses from the IPC, NE and JNCC on the HRA Screening Report). It is unclear whether consultation has been undertaken on the draft HRA report. The response from JNCC (dated 14 October 2011), copied to the IPC, is stated to be in response to the ?additional information that was omitted from Galloper's Preliminary Environmental Report? and does not refer to the draft HRA report.

It is also unclear how any comments provided on the draft HRA will be incorporated into the HRA Report, as reference to, and details of, this further consultation exercise, have not been included in the draft HRA Report. It would also be helpful if a list of all the consultees consulted (both the NCB and any non-statutory consultees) regarding the HRA could be included in the HRA report.

We also note that the response from JNCC (dated 14 October 2011) identifies that the main concerns relate to the population modelling undertaken by GWF and that ?insufficient evidence has been presented to support a conclusion of no adverse impact on site integrity? together with the lack of information relating to the cumulative impact assessment. JNCC also flagged that information presented by them to GWFL on 12 July 2011 and 31 August 2011 has not yet been addressed by GWF. We would expect a response to these matters raised by JNCC to be addressed in the final HRA Report.

Outstanding Information

We also noted that information (for example, paragraph 6.3.16) and plans (for example, the onshore scheme plans in Figures 1.2 and 4.2) appear to be outstanding. These should be included in the final HRA report.

This is not an exhaustive review, but we trust you find this helpful.

20 October 2011
Royal Haskoning - Adam Pharaoh
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update and discussion regarding the draft Development Consent Order (DCO)
See attachment meeting note.

02 September 2011
Kate Tibble
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Galloper Wind Farm Ltd requested comments on draft DCO.
See attached.

01 September 2011
Galloper Wind Farm Ltd
Enquiry received via phone
When submitting the application, who should the accompanying cheque be made out to?
The Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC)

08 July 2011
Kate Tibble
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Submission of a draft Habitats Regulations Assessment screening report for the Galloper Wind Farm project - for IPC general comment.
The IPC provided the attached preliminary comments.

24 June 2011
Galloper Wind Farm - Adam Pharaoh
Enquiry received via email
Request for advice in respect of the draft section 48 notice for the proposed Galloper Wind Farm project.
Galloper Wind Farm Limited are advised to ensure that you are aware of the applicant's duty under Regulation 11 of the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2009. In the case of EIA development, Reg 11 requires applicants to send a copy of their 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 their notice under section 48(1). The consultation bodies are those set out in Schedule 1 of the APFP Regs and would normally be the same as your Regulation 9 list received from the IPC around the time of EIA Scoping. This is a mandatory step.

In addition, you may wish to be mindful of the fact that many of the s42 consultees will be the same as those that you will be notifying regarding your s48 pre-application publicity under EIA Reg 11. 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. Some applicants have found it beneficial to coordinate the deadlines for comments under section 48, 42 and 47 although this is for the individual applicant to decide.

25 May 2011
RWE Npower Renewables Ltd - Robert Gully
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Does the IPC see any difficulty with a single application for development consent including two Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects?
Whilst it will clearly be for the applicant to decide how to proceed in the context of each specific project, there would appear to be nothing in the Act to prevent this in principle. I would refer you to para 12 of the CLG Guidance on Associated Development ([attachment 1]) which states the following: "a single application can cover more than one NSIP. As far as possible we would wish to encourage applicants to make a single application where NSIPs are clearly linked". I'd also point you to para.4.9 of draft revised EN1 which portrays a similar sentiment.

20 May 2011
RWE Npower Renewables Ltd - Robert Gully
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Please refer to meeting note, attached

12 May 2011
GWF - Kate Tibble
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
A meeting was held to update the IPC on the project and explain GWFs proposed approach to the Rochdale Envelope and assessing cumulative impacts as part of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA).
Meeting Note:
[attachment 1]

07 March 2011
Galloper Wind Farm (GWF) - Kate Tibble
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Update meeting with the applicant to discuss Galloper Wind Farm (GWF) project. Discussion regarding the applicant?s initial draft development consent order, consent flexibility and the Rochdale Envelope approach.
A note of the meeting can be found at: [attachment 1]

28 January 2011
Galloper Wind Farm
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Meeting held on 23 November 2010 between the IPC and promoter for an update on the project.
[attachment 1]

23 November 2010
RWE - Daniel Bates
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Meeting with Galloper Windfarm for update on the project and discussion of future progression.
Meeting note

[attachment 1]

23 November 2010
RWEnpower - Daniel Bates
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Meeting with RWE and SSE Renewables to discuss offshore wind farm matters the Rochdale Envelope.
Please see meeting note:
[attachment 1]

12 October 2010
SSE Renewables - Peter Raftery
Enquiry received via email
What information is required to make a s.53 PA 2008 request for authorisation to the Commission?

Are there any other statutory timeframes apart from the 14 days notice required where the land is occupied?

What is the process where the s.53 authorisation request relates to statutory underaker's land?
The Commission?s Advice Notes 4 & 5 relate to s.52 and s.53 of the Planning Act 2008 and are available on our website. However the Commission is currently in the process of revising these to reflect experience of best practice to date. The information set out below takes account of the proposed revisions.

You should be clear that authorisation by the Commission for access under s.53 is only to be granted as a last resort, in other words, after all other reasonable efforts have failed. The Commission will expect an applicant seeking authorisation under s.53 to demonstrate that reasonable effort has been made to obtain rights of entry to the land prior to making a s.53 authorisation request. You should take your own legal advice to ensure compliance with the Act.

Application

There is no prescribed application form to request authorisation from the Commission to enter land. In order to enable the Commission to consider the request and to decide whether to authorise entry, the information that should be provided is explained below.

The request for authorisation should enclose a Table which details the known information about the owners or occupier(s) of the land to which the proposed request relates.

Two plans (marked Plan A and Plan B) should be provided to accompany the Table.

Plan A, should clearly show:
Outlined in red - Land to which an accepted Development Consent Order (DCO) application, or roposed application, or authorised DCO relates.
Outlined in blue - Any land owned or under the control of the applicant (alternatively confirm that there is no land owned or under the control of the applicant within the red line boundary).
Outlined in green - Land parcel(s) for which rights of entry are sought, if authorised by the Commission.

Authorisation can be sought in relation to ?any land? and the request may relate to more than one land parcel (although you should note that the Commission will decide in each case whether one or several requests is being made when determining the appropriate fee). The Commission will authorise rights of entry only in relation to the land identified in green on Plan A.

Plan A should be no larger than AO size, drawn to an identified scale (not smaller than 1:2500) and show the direction of north.

The applicant should allocate a number to each land parcel identified in green on Plan A. For ease of reference each parcel number should relate to either the registered title or the boundaries of the unregistered title. The parcel number should be clearly shown on Plan A and the same parcel numbering should be used. The registered title number where relevant should be clearly identified on the Table and the up to date official copies of the register entries and title plans should also be provided to the Commission.

The Commission may only authorise entry in relation to a proposed application if the applicant has, amongst other things, complied with Section 42. Applicants should seek their own legal advice about how to comply with the requirements of Section 42 and what diligent inquiry should be made to ascertain interests in the land. To support the s.53 request, applicants should confirm compliance with Section 42 and also demonstrate that reasonable efforts have been made to obtain rights of entry to the land parcel(s). Depending on the circumstances of the case appropriate measures could include writing non-statutory requisition notices, where known, to persons whom the applicant believes may have a relevant interest in the land seeking permission to gain rights of entry to the land. Where persons with relevant interests in the land are unknown measures might include displaying site notices and/or publishing notices in newspapers circulating in the area which includes the proposed land to which the s.53 request relates.

Where an applicant has written to known persons who have an interest in the land to which the proposed s.53 request relates, this should be indicated in the Table and copies of such letter(s) should be appended to the Table along with any plans or documents referred to in the letter(s). Copies of any responses received from the recipients should also be provided. To ensure consistency and clarity all appended and additional information should be clearly cross referenced to the Table and it should be clear to which allocated parcel number on Plan A the information relates. Where an applicant has previously posted site notices and/or published notices in newspaper(s) seeking to obtain permission to gain rights of entry to land, copies of these site notices and/or newspaper notices should be provided to the Commission along with details of when and where these notices were displayed and/or when these notices were published in the newspaper(s) and confirmation that the newspapers' circulation covers an area which includes the land for which rights of entry are sought. This information should be summarised in the Table.

If applicable a plan, Plan B, should be provided showing the land in relation to which non-statutory requisition notices have been served and the location of any site notices. This land shown in Plan B should be identified by reference to the same parcel numbers allocated in Plan A. Plan B should be the same size and scale as Plan A and show the same physical features.

Authorisation

The Commission may authorise entry to any land for the purpose of ?surveying and taking levels?, although these terms are not defined in the Planning Act 2008. The Commission takes the view, having regard to the legislative intention of s. 53 as clarified by Hansard, that ?surveying? can also include surveys for the purposes of investigating and assessing environmental impacts. The applicant should clearly specify what surveys the applicant intends to carry out, the duration, time and frequency of proposed access to carry out such surveys and an explanation as to why the surveys are connected with the DCO. If it is intended to carry out any works to investigate the nature of the subsoil or to identify the presence of minerals, the applicant should also provide details of the proposed works and indicate where and when these works will take place.

You should note the wording in s.53(2) and you should take your own legal advice as to how best address these points.

Timeframe

There is no prescribed timeframe for the Commission to respond to the request for authorisation, however the Commission will aim to respond to a request within 28 days from date of receipt. The actual timeframe will depend upon whether there is a need for further information and upon the complexity of the request. The only stated statutory timeframe is the 14 days notice required prior to entrance onto the land where the land is occupied. The Commission will respond to the request for authorisation by providing a letter either authorising the rights of entry notice, or refusing the request and providing the reasons for the refusal.

Land held by Statutory Undertakers

Where the land is held by a statutory undertaker and they object to the proposed works authorised by the Commission under s.53(3) on the ground that execution of the works would be seriously detrimental to the carrying-on of their undertaking, the authority of the appropriate Minister is required. The Commission is currently seeking to clarify the timeframe for the authorisation process by the appropriate Minister (the Minister concerned will of course depend on the type of statutory undertaker (as defined under Part 11 of Town and Country Planning Act 1990) affected). You may also wish to approach the appropriate Minister's department regarding the process for your own reference.

17 September 2010
RWE - Daniel Bates
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Discussions on the progress of the project and further detail on the new Planning Process (e.g Fee Structure)
See Meeting Note

10 July 2010
SSE Renewables - Kate Tibble
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Discussions on the progress of the project and further detail on the new Planning Process (e.g Fee Structure)
Please see meeting note

[attachment 1]

09 July 2010
SSE Renewables and RWE Npower - Kate Tibble
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
A general introduction to the project and its team members.
[attachment 1]

27 May 2010
SSE Renewables & RWE Npower Rene - Kate Tibble