Ipswich Rail Chord

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 post
response has attachments
Query regarding timetable of decision by the Secretary of State - Please see attachment
Please see attachment

17 July 2012
D Poulter
Enquiry received via post
response has attachments
Query with regard to the calculation of the final fee payable in respect of the Ipswich Chord application.

Please see attachment
Please see attachment

12 July 2012
Winckworth Sherwood - Alison Gorlov
Enquiry received via post
response has attachments
Query with regard to Ms Peck and payment of compensation - Please see attachment
Please see attachment

16 May 2012
Daniel Poulter
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please see email correspondence attached.

14 March 2012
WS Law - Alison Gorlov
Enquiry received via phone
Request for developer to be notified of the matters to be discussed at the specific issue hearing.
Explained that the ExA is not currently able to provide a list of the matters to be discussed at this stage as he is currently looking through the representations and recent responses received. It is his intention to issue an agenda setting out what these will be and it is envisaged to be issued a week in advance of the hearing(s).

17 February 2012
Winckworth Sherwood - Alison Gorlov
Enquiry received via email
Phone call asking for clarification on the items listed in the hearing agendas, in particular as the applicant was concerned they had not given an adequate response to the ExA further questions under R17.
Following our telephone conversation regarding the revised agendas, the Examining authority has asked me to make it clear that the presence of a potential change to the draft DCO on the agenda for a Hearing does not indicate necessarily that there is particular objection to the amendment being proposed or the issue being resolved. It is however considered by him to be good practice for all proposed changes to the draft DCO to be aired at the Hearings particularly so that recently submitted proposed changes may be the subject of representations from other Interested Parties in the Hearings who have not yet had an opportunity to comment upon them.

It may be that a number of agenda items may be despatched relatively succinctly whilst others may require more testing. In general terms the Examining authority is under a clear duty in conducting the Hearings "to probe, test and assess the evidence through direct questioning" as set out in paragraph 105 of the Secretary of State's "Guidance for the examination of applications for development consent for nationally significant infrastructure projects.

09 February 2012
Colin Murphy
Enquiry received via email
When we spoke on 17th January I pressed for Network Rail to be notified of the subject matter of the specific issue hearing more than the week you said we might expect. You assured me that we would hear a good week or so beforehand.

We are now starting to prepare for the hearings but, self-evidently, are hampered by ignorance of the subjects to be discussed. If this were a planning inquiry we would know that we had to cover the entire case plus arguments on all objections. The DCO procedure is, as we all know, designed to streamline that so that the ExA hears what he needs to for the purposes of his investigation, and no more, and applicants do not have to prepare a case that is not to be heard at the hearing. That simply does not work If an applicant is not given sufficient notice of the subject matter of hearings. Apart from anything else, one cannot plan for which members of a sizeable project team should be present so as to contribute their specialist expertise as required.

We are seeing Counsel on Wednesday to discuss, among other things, the extent to which his presence will be necessary. Most importantly, we will also be assessing Network Rail?s position on matters of detail to be canvassed at the hearings. We have to suppose that the hearings will be addressing things over and above the responses already given, or they would not be raised at the hearing.

All this explains why I am chasing you today for notification of the issues to be discussed at the specific issue and compulsory purchase hearings. Can you confirm that we may expect to receive this before close tomorrow?
As discussed during our telephone conversation on 17 January, we are not at this stage, in a position to inform you or any other party of the specific matters which are to be discussed at the hearings.

Whilst I appreciate the concerns you raise regarding Network Rail's preparation for the hearings, there is no requirement for us to provide this to you in advance of any hearing. Rule 14(2) of the Examination Procedure Rules 2010 states that "at the start of the hearing the Examining authority (ExA) shall identify the matters to be considered at the hearing...." please also note that as all interested parties are entitled to attend, it is always possible they will raise a wide range of issues on the day.

Contrary to the above and as explained during our telephone conversation, in order to assist parties as much as possible, the ExA has decided to issue an agenda approximately one week prior to the start of the hearings however we will endeavour to get this to you as soon as possible (with an aim of tomorrow).

30 January 2012
Winckworth Sherwood - Alison Gorlov
Enquiry received via email
The enquirer sought clarification on of the following points regarding the ExA?s requests for further information (Annex A to his letter dated 13th January 2012).

Land Plans
The question regarding ?plot 1 (PCCL)? appears to refer to plot no. 1 on the Land Plans (in which PCCL does not have any interest) rather than PCCL?s development plot 1. Can you confirm that the reference is to plot no. 1 on the Land Plans?

The question regarding plot 51 (PCCL) refers to plot 7. We read this as a reference to PCCL building plot 3, which includes the site of the former cold store (see the plan at the end of the Network Rail/PCCL SoCG). Are you able to confirm that this is correct?

Article 30: Protection of interests - Impact on rail services
Are these two requests concerned purely with construction (in which case the response can explain how network change and its financial impacts are regulated)?

The second request refers to passenger services to and from the Port of Felixstowe. Passenger trains do not currently run on the line to the Port. There is also mention of ?any other relevant rail operator?. Please will the ExA clarify (in generic terms, of course) the train services he has in mind?
In view of the reference in this request to train services other than Network Rail?s, does the ExA need an explanation of the Railways Act regime, under which Network Rail is established solely as the infrastructure operator, with trains being operated by completely separate train operating and freight operating companies with their own licensing scheme?
The Examining authority is grateful for your query of 25th January by email which highlights some inaccurate wording in the Rule 17 Requests. These matters can be clarified as follows:

Land Plans:
- The Request relating to Plot 1 should read "Plot 1 (Ipswich Borough Council)..." and refers to Plot 1 on the Land Plan.
- The Request relating to Plot 51 relates only to this plot, the text "/plot 7" should be deleted.

Article 30:
- The Requests both relate solely to impacts arising from construction activity
- It will be sufficient for the applicant, in its responses to the points on passenger and other rail operators in these Requests, to confirm that no rail freight operations other than those of Network Rail, Freightliner and the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company are to be affected as a result of construction activity, if that will be the case. If on the other hand there are to be impacts on other freight operations not yet before the Examination or impacts on any passenger operations arising from the construction period, information is requested to be provided.
- If it will assist the applicant to refer to aspects off the Railways Act regime in providing information on any impacts on rail services arising from construction activity then this will be welcomed, a full explanation of the regime however is not expected.

27 January 2012
Winckworth Sherwood - Alison Gorlov
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please see attached email thread
Please see attached email thread (as above)

13 January 2012
Robert Fox
Enquiry received via post
response has attachments
Please see attached letter from the Treasury Solicitor?s Office dated 30 November 2011
Please see attached response dated 9 December 2011

09 December 2011
Treasury Solicitor?s Office (BV) - Stephen Swan
Enquiry received via post
response has attachments
Please see attached letter from HSBC plc dated 30 November 2011
Please see attached response dated 07 December 2011

07 December 2011
HSBC Bank plc - Jackie English
Enquiry received via post
response has attachments
Please see attached letter from NatWest dated 29 November 2011
Please see attached response dated 7 December 2011

07 December 2011
NatWest Bank PLC
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Examining authority?s Site Inspection in the company of interested parties.
Please see attachment.

06 December 2011
Interested Parties and Developer
Enquiry received via post
Wales & West Utilities implied that they should not have been consulted with regard to the proposed Ipswich Rail Chord as they have no interest in areas outside the Wales & West area of the United Kingdom.
Section 42(a) of the Planning Act 2008 (PA 2008) makes provision for the developer?s duty to consult ?such persons as may be prescribed?. Column 1 of Schedule 1 of the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedures) Regulations 2009 (APFP Regs) sets out the persons prescribed for the purposes of section 42(a) of PA 2008.

The IPC has no discretion as to which consultees prescribed in column 1 of Schedule 1 of the APFP Regs should be consulted. As such, a request from a prescribed consultee asking not to receive correspondence relating to an application on which they have been consulted cannot be honoured as the IPC is under a statutory obligation to consult them. The consultee however is under no obligation to respond.

Details of why Wales & West Utilities (WWU) has been identified as a prescribed consultee can be found on page 8 of ?IPC advice note three: Consultation and notification undertaken by the IPC?, a copy of which can be found on the IPC website.

Should WWU choose to write to the IPC setting out the specific areas within which it has responsibility, it may be possible to consult them in future on that basis.

24 November 2011
Wales & West Utilities - Richard Park
Enquiry received via phone
The caller implied that Waveney, Lower Yare and Lothingland Internal Drainage Board should not have been consulted with regard to the proposed Ipswich Rail Chord as the development would lie outside of their area of interest.
Section 42(a) of the Planning Act 2008 (PA 2008) makes provision for the developer?s duty to consult ?such persons as may be prescribed?. Column 1 of Schedule 1 of the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedures) Regulations 2009 (APFP Regs) sets out the persons prescribed for the purposes of section 42(a) of PA 2008.

The IPC has no discretion as to which consultees prescribed in column 1 of Schedule 1 of the APFP Regs should be consulted. As such, a request from a prescribed consultee asking not to receive correspondence relating to an application on which they have been consulted cannot be honoured as the IPC is under a statutory obligation to consult them. The consultee however is under no obligation to respond.

Details of why Waveney, Lower Yare and Lothingland Internal Drainage Board has been identified as a prescribed consultee can be found in ?IPC advice note three: Consultation and notification undertaken by the IPC?, a copy of which can be found on the IPC website.

24 November 2011
Waveney Internal Drainage Board - Debbie Lovegrove
Enquiry received via phone
Have the any colleagues from the River Action Group registered their interest for this proposal? If not is it too late?
Our records show that the River Action Group did not make a relevant representation at the appropriate time and are therefore not registered as interested parties.

You may follow the progress of the application on the Ipswich Chord project page on our website.
The examination timetable was published on 15 November 2011 which details the dates when hearings will be held and deadlines for written submissions.
Members of the public may make a written representation before 8 December 2011; however it is at the Commissioners discretion whether or not to accept it for consideration.
All timetabled hearings are held in public therefore you may attend, however it is at the Commissioners discretion whether or not to allow an oral representation to be made.

16 November 2011
Ipswich River Action Group - Tom Gondris
Enquiry received via phone
Enquirer received correspondence from the IPC on 12 October confirming their organisation to be an 'interested party'. Enquirer sought clarification why they had been identified as an interested party.
The applicant, Network Rail, must make diligent inquiry to identify persons who have an interest in the land to which compulsory purchase relates.
Your organisation has been identified as an Affected Persons with an interest in the land and falls within Category 1 or 2 described within in s57 of PA2008. Persons within these categories include land owners, occupiers and persons with a legal interest.
Affected persons automatically become 'Interested Parties' meaning you will receive correspondence from the IPC about the examination of the proposal.

24 October 2011
National Asset Management Agency - Chris McGarry
Enquiry received via phone
response has attachments
Enquirer had received a letter from the Commission detailing the time, date and place of the forthcoming preliminary meeting and had the following questions:

- What is the reason of the preliminary meeting?
- What is the timescale for examination?
- What will be discussed at a compulsory acquisition hearing?
- In accordance with Rule 6 of the Examination Procedure Rules 2010, the Commission must give notice of the time, date and place of the Preliminary meeting. The letter you received provides this information in relation to the Ipswich Chord proposal. Its also includes the draft timetable (Annex C) which will be discussed at the Preliminary meeting.
The purpose of the Preliminary Meeting is to enable invitees present at the meeting to make representations to the Examining authority about how the application should be examined. It is not an opportunity to discuss the merits of the scheme.
In light of the discussion at the meeting the timetable may be modified (where the Examining authority thinks appropriate) and finalised before being sent to Interested Parties.

-The draft timetable indicates 6 December 2011 to be the deadline for notification of affected persons who wish to be heard at a Compulsory acquisition (CA) hearing.
If any CA hearings are requested the Examining Authority will chair the event and use their discretion to manage the discussion.

It may be of use to listen to the audio recordings in relation to the Rookery South energy from Waste proposal. These hearing were held from 27 June - 1 July and can be accessed from our website using the link below:
[attachment 1]

13 October 2011
Jones Lang LaSalle - Emmanuel Pitman
Enquiry received via phone
What happens following on from the developer's submission of the s56 and s59 certificates. What pre-examination fee should the developer budget for.
Section 61 of the Planning Act 2008 (PA 2008) provides that it is for the chair of the IPC to decide whether an application should be handled by a single Commissioner or a Panel. Before coming to a decision, the chair is required to take into account any guidance issued by the Secretary of State, and to consult the Council of the IPC, the chief executive of the IPC, and any other Commissioners the chair thinks appropriate. Paragraphs 18ff of CLG guidance "Planning Act 2008: guidance for the examination of applications for development consent for nationally significant infrastructure projects" set out the criteria that the chair of the commission has to have regard to in making the decision whether to appoint a single commissioner or a panel.

The amount of the pre-examination fee depends on whether a single commissioner or a panel of commissioners is appointed. Regulation 6 of the Infrastructure Planning (Fees) Regulations 2010 provide that the Commission must notify the applicant in writing, as soon as reasonably practicable after the appointment of the Examining Authority under s61 PA 2008, of the preexamination
fee. Where a single Commissioner is appointed the pre-examination fee is £13,000; where a Panel of three Commissioners is appointed the fee is £30,000 etc. The pre-examination fee must be received by the Commission within the period of 28 days beginning with the date of the notice requesting the payment of the pre-examination fee.

16 September 2011
Winckwhorth Sherwood - Alison Gorlov
Enquiry received via phone
response has attachments
Making representations on compulsory acquisition matters
I write with further to your telephone conversation on 31 August 2011 with my colleague relating to making representations on compulsory acquisition matters.

Relevant representations should set out a brief summary of the principal submissions to be made at the examination stage. Relevant representations allow the Examining authority (i.e. the single Commissioner or panel of Commissioners appointed to examine the application) to determine the most appropriate method of examining the application. Provided you are satisfied that your client is an interested party for the purposes of s.102 (1) (b) of the 2008 Act, it is for your client to decide whether or not to submit a relevant representation at this stage. If s.102 (1) (b) does not apply then in order for your client to become an interested party it would be necessary to make a relevant representation (s.102 (1) (e)).


Under Section 88 of the 2008 Act, the Examining authority is required to make an initial assessment of issues and hold a preliminary meeting. Interested parties must be invited to this preliminary meeting and are able to make representations about how the application should be examined. Matters discussed at the preliminary meeting will be solely procedural and not about the merits of the application.

Interested parties will have an opportunity to submit more detailed written representations at the appropriate time as set out in the timetable which is set at, or as soon as possible after the end, of the preliminary meeting. The timetable for the examination must be sent to all interested parties and will specify (amongst other matters) the date by which written representations must be received; and the date by which an interested party must notify a wish to be heard at a compulsory acquisition hearing.

If the Commission receives notification from at least on affected person before the deadline, the Examining authority must cause a compulsory acquisition hearing to be held. The Examining authority must also notify all interested parties of any hearings and any site inspections. At the hearing, any oral representation must be based on either the relevant or written representation made by the person by whom or on whose behalf the oral representations are made.

The legislation referred to above together with all other legislation, guidance and advice relating to our process is available on our website at [attachment 1].

I trust the above clarifies the matter however please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any further queries.

31 August 2011
Emmanuel Pitman
Enquiry received via phone
Enquirer wished to complete a relevant representation form on client?s behalf however was concerned that an alternative representative may be used in the future.
Thank you for your telephone enquiry RE the completion of a relevant representation form on behalf of persons categorised under s57 of Planning Act 2008.

I refer to paragraph 43 of the CLG Guidance for the examination of applications for development consent which states:
'It is for the Examining authority to decide whether to allow persons other than those categorised as interested parties to participate in the examination of the application, including expert witnesses. But where a request is received from an interested party to allow an expert witness to take part in the examination of an application, the Secretary of State considers that this should be given serious consideration, in the interests of informed decision making.'

A representative may wish to complete a relevant representation form on their clients behalf, however in the event that the representative changes during the examination process I advise you notify the IPC of these changes as soon as possible.

25 August 2011
Fenn Wright - Richard Bertram
Enquiry received via email
Thank you for telephoning earlier today. I think the answers below reflect what you told me, but shroud be grateful if you would confirm.



On the question of redacted particulars, the absence of contact details for individuals means that unless Network Rail has already come across these people the project will not be able to contact them to see whether there is scope for accommodating the issues they have raised ? as there frequently is. You said that once the application has been made the IPC expects to have to deal with all contact with those making representations. Does this mean that the IPC will if necessary act as a post box between the developer (in this case Network Rail) and those individuals who the developer has not been able to identify?
I refer to our telephone conversation and your subsequent telephone conversation with my colleague Nicola Mathiason at the beginning of this week.

As advised, we will not be able to send you the representations as and when they are received during the relevant representation stage of the application process. An early sight of the representations would provide an unfair advantage over other parties, and would also create a considerable administrative demand on our resources, particularly on cases where there is a significant amount of relevant representations (in the past this total has exceeded ten thousand).

In accordance with Rule 21(1) 'Availability and Inspection of Representations and Documents' of The Infrastructure Planning (Examination Procedure) Rules 2010, copies will be made available for inspection and will be published on our website, after the period for the submission of such representations has passed, as digital text (transcribed where submitted in hardcopy). It will be possible to provide you with an electronic database following the close of the period for submissions however this document would be restricted to the name of the person/organisation and the representation made.

This approach has full regard to our obligations under the Data Protection Act 1998 however as agreed in your telephone conversation with Nicola, I can confirm your concerns about the restriction on us not releasing the contact details for those who have submitted representations has been raised with the IPC's Head of Case Management.

I trust the above is helpful, please do not hesitate to contact me should you require any further information.

04 August 2011
Winckworth Sherwood - Alison Gorlov
Enquiry received via post
response has attachments
Network Rail submitted draft documents, including the draft DCO and explanatory memorandum, to the IPC for comment
Please see attached letter

04 August 2011
Network Rail
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I note from your website that the Ipswich Chord Application is now open for registration as of 21 July 2011, Suffolk County Council to date have not received notification of this or any documentation.

We note that the closing date for representations is 1st September, as this is over the summer period we intend to provide a provisional headline summary of our concerns by the closing date as our next available Cabinet Committee date is October.

Could you please confirm if you have / intend to send a hard copy of the documentation
Thank you for your email.

I can confirm that a decision to accept the proposed application for examination was made on 21 July 2011 and was subsequently published on our website. The registration period for interested parties register their interest did not however open on this day as once a decision on acceptance has been made, the developer is then obligated to fulfil the requirements set out in s.56 of the Planning Act 2008. This includes advertising the acceptance and setting out the dates for when interested parties can register their interest.

The developer has since commenced its requirements and the first publication was on 27 July which is when the registration period opened. I can confirm the developer has set a deadline for representations to be received by the IPC by 1 September 2011. Please note, representations must be made on the registration form, we do not issue hard copies unless a specific request is made as these forms are available online and can be accessed at the following link:

[attachment 1]

Please refer to the guidance and advice in support of completing the form as this will ensure all relevant fields are completed. When registering you must include a summary of the key issues you want the IPC to focus on but there will be an opportunity to provide a more detailed statement at the examination stage.

02 August 2011
Suffolk County Council - Anita Seymour
Enquiry received via email
Kay thank you for your letter regarding the adequacy of pre application consultation on the Ipswich Chord proposals, I wonder if you would be kind enough to give me a draft outline of the timescales for the subsequent stages should you deem to accept the applications I am keen to get approval for our response to Cabinet
Once an application is submitted, the IPC has 28 days to decide whether or not to accept it for Examination; this is the Acceptance stage of the process. At the Acceptance stage the Local Authority is invited to submit an ?adequacy of consultation? response. This will be taken into account when deciding whether or not an applicant has complied with the pre-application consultation requirements.



During Pre-examination the public has an opportunity to register to have their say to the IPC about the accepted application. T he time for registration is limited, a minimum of 28 days will always be provided. The Pre-examination stage of the process takes approximately three months starting from the developer?s formal notification and publicity of the accepted application.



The IPC has six months to carry out the Examination stage of the process which begins the day after the Preliminary Meeting. The Local Authority at this point is invited to submit a Local Impact Report (LIR). This sets out what the local authority believes will be the likely impacts of the proposed development on its area; the deadline for submission of the LIR will be set following the Preliminary Meeting. The deadline given for the submission of the LIR following the Preliminary Meeting is likely to be short so it is therefore advised that the Local Authority starts composing its LIR before the deadline is set.



After the examination has been completed and if the relevant National Policy Statement (NPS) has been designated the IPC has three months within which to make a decision. If the relevant NPS has not been designated then the IPC will make a recommendation to the Secretary of State (SoS) who will be the decision maker. It can take up to three months to make a recommendation to the SoS and a further three months for the SoS to make a decision.



Finally, once a decision has been issued, any legal challenge must be made within six weeks. These are the current arrangements under the Planning Act 2008.

11 July 2011
Anita Seymour
Enquiry received via post
response has attachments
Response to letter dated 8/6/11 regarding provisions in the DCO
Please see letter attached

20 June 2011
Network Rail - Paul Irving
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Meeting to discuss the draft Development Consent Orders (DCOs) for the North Doncaster Chord and Ipswich Chord Proposals.
Please see attached meeting note

19 June 2011
Network Rail
Enquiry received via email
Following our telephone conversation;

Whilst carrying out a final check of our application documents (including the consultation report) we have identified an issue. A small plot of land (Plot 2 forming part of the hard-standing area at the end of Europa Way) that we are seeking rights over, was owned by a company that has now been dissolved. The land is now therefore vested with the Treasury Solicitor. Our oversight is that we have sent the consultation information to the dissolved company?s head office and not the Treasury Solicitor who is listed in our BoR as a Part 1 Freehold Owner.

We are aiming to submit the application on the 1st June. The consultation pack of information will be sent to the Treasury Solicitor today along with a notification that the response deadline is 28 days from today?s date. The 28 day deadline for a response from the Treasury Solicitor will terminate before the IPC?s 28 day period for vetting/acceptance of the application.

I have 2 questions;

Can we submit our application to the IPC as intended on the 1st of June and subsequently provide an addendum to the consultation report once either a response has been received from the Treasury Office, or the deadline for response has been passed?
If the Treasury Office were to respond within, say 14 days stating they have no comment/objection are we required to wait for the full 28 day consultation period to elapse before we can submit the addendum?

The second question is also relevant if your answer to one is ?no?.
Thank you for your email in relation to the proposed Ipswich Chord application.

The first point I would mention relates to the identity of the landowner and their description in the Book of Reference. If the land is bona vacantia and is therefore vested in the Crown in accordance with ss. 1012 and 1013 of the Companies Act 2006 (which deal with the property of dissolved companies) you will need to ensure that it is made clear in the application and accompanying documentation, including the Book of Reference, that the land is owned by the Crown and the Treasury Solicitor is acting as the Crown's representative.

Turning to the question of consultation, an application for a DCO must be accompanied by a consultation report which gives details of what has been done in compliance with s. 42 - the duty to consult certain specified bodies/persons prior to submitting the application. A consultation report must set out whether or not all the landowners have been consulted. Consultation must take place before the application is submitted and the consultee must be given a deadline of at least 28 days, starting after the day on which it receives the consultation documents, within which to respond.
We therefore suggest that this step is carried out as soon as possible in respect of this plot of land.

The consultation report should also give details of any response to the consultation received by the deadline. If you receive a verbal response from the Treasury Solicitor, acting as the Crown's representative, at any time within the 28 day deadline, the details required by s.37(7) should be recorded in the report. The application can then be submitted accompanied by the report. There is no provision in the Planning Act 2008 which would allow an addendum to a consultation report to be submitted after the application has been received by the Commission.

The Commission has 28 days starting with the day after the day it receives the application to decide whether or not to accept the application. During this period, applicants are required to make available responses to the consultation if the Commission requests this. If details of a verbal response are provided in the 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 period for acceptance, if it so requests.

26 May 2011
Network Rail - Colin Murphy
Enquiry received via post
response has attachments
Winkworth sherwood Solicitors submitted comments on the IPC response dated 25 May 2011 regarding the draft documents.
Please see attached document.

25 May 2011
Paul Irving
Enquiry received via email
Following our telephone conversation;

Whilst carrying out a final check of our application documents (including the consultation report) we have identified an issue. A small plot of land (Plot 2 forming part of the hard-standing area at the end of Europa Way) that we are seeking rights over, was owned by a company that has now been dissolved. The land is now therefore vested with the Treasury Solicitor. Our oversight is that we have sent the consultation information to the dissolved company?s head office and not the Treasury Solicitor who is listed in our BoR as a Part 1 Freehold Owner.

We are aiming to submit the application on the 1st June. The consultation pack of information will be sent to the Treasury Solicitor today along with a notification that the response deadline is 28 days from today?s date. The 28 day deadline for a response from the Treasury Solicitor will terminate before the IPC?s 28 day period for vetting/acceptance of the application.

I have 2 questions;

1. Can we submit our application to the IPC as intended on the 1st of June and subsequently provide an addendum to the consultation report once either a response has been received from the Treasury Office, or the deadline for response has been passed?

2. If the Treasury Office were to respond within, say 14 days stating they have no comment/objection are we required to wait for the full 28 day consultation period to elapse before we can submit the addendum?

The second question is also relevant if your answer to one is ?no?.
Thank you for your email in relation to the proposed Ipswich Chord application.

The first point I would mention relates to the identity of the landowner and their description in the Book of Reference. If the land is bona vacantia and is therefore vested in the Crown in accordance with ss. 1012 and 1013 of the Companies Act 2006 (which deal with the property of dissolved companies) you will need to ensure that it is made clear in the application and accompanying documentation, including the Book of Reference, that the land is owned by the Crown and the Treasury Solicitor is acting as the Crown's representative.

Turning to the question of consultation, an application for a DCO must be accompanied by a consultation report which gives details of what has been done in compliance with s. 42 - the duty to consult certain specified bodies/persons prior to submitting the application. A consultation report must set out whether or not all the landowners have been consulted. Consultation must take place before the application is submitted and the consultee must be given a deadline of at least 28 days, starting after the day on which it receives the consultation documents, within which to respond.
We therefore suggest that this step is carried out as soon as possible in respect of this plot of land.

The consultation report should also give details of any response to the consultation received by the deadline. If you receive a verbal response from the Treasury Solicitor, acting as the Crown's representative, at any time within the 28 day deadline, the details required by s.37(7) should be recorded in the report. The application can then be submitted accompanied by the report. There is no provision in the Planning Act 2008 which would allow an addendum to a consultation report to be submitted after the application has been received by the Commission.

The Commission has 28 days starting with the day after the day it receives the application to decide whether or not to accept the application. During this period, applicants are required to make available responses to the consultation if the Commission requests this. If details of a verbal response are provided in the 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 period for acceptance, if it so requests.

25 May 2011
Colin Murphy
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Network Rail submitted draft documents, including the draft DCO and explanatory memorandum, to the IPC for comment.
Please see attached document

04 May 2011
Network Rail - Colin Murphy
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
IPC meeting to brief Local Authorities (LAs) on the new consenting regime in accordance with the Planning Act 2008 (the Act)
View the meeting note and presentations at the following links:
[attachment 1]
[attachment 2]
[attachment 3]

01 September 2010
Ipswich Borough Council Suffolk County Council
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Network Rail to brief IPC on detail of the proposed Ipswich and Doncaster Chord schemes and discussion of the pre-application process
Please see link to meeting notes below

[attachment 1]

07 July 2010
Network Rail - Colin Murphy etc.