A meeting was held to discuss a non-material change to the Order
Please see attached note of the meeting

anon.

I understand from a copy of an email sent to Mr Combes by Stephen Heard that certain remarks were made by the Inspectors regarding the quality of the documentation submitted before and during the process by Norfolk County Council.

I raised this matter with the Inspector and the Pre-Inquiry meeting and I am naturally interested.

Will a transcription of the meeting on 28 November be made available on the website?
The Planning Inspectorate does not provide written transcriptions of hearings, but we do publish the full audio recordings. I believe that Austin Smyth remarked on the quality of the documents in the first part of the issue specific hearing:

[attachment 1]

Please remember that the examination is now closed, and there are no further opportunities to write to the Examining Authority.

Cyclists Touring Club - Tony Clake

Balfour Beatty plc contacted PINS and asked for details of the land interests they might have as an affected person relating to the application, following correspondence received from PINS.
Please see attachment for the advice provided to Balfour Beatty plc.

Balfour Beatty plc - Pat Thompson

I am emailing about Deadline 9 and the request for comments on the applicant?s draft DCO please.

When the wording in Deadline 9 refers to the applicant?s draft DCO ? is this referring to a draft DCO which is ?owned? by the NCC or the ExA please? In other words, if this is what the ExA is proposing to recommend to the Secretary of State, are community groups to assume that the ExA is intending to support the NDR?

Parties are invited to comment on the applicant?s draft DCO, but at what level and in what detail please? We fundamentally disagree with the Draft DCO. Do we therefore rehearse our arguments once again on the basis that the ExA is intending to support the NDR?

On specifics, do we address for example, the clause on Complementary Measures and why we believe that it is inadequate?
The ExA are indeed asking for comments on the applicant?s draft DCO. This was the edition submitted by the applicant on 9 October [attachment 1]

I do not know what the ExA are proposing to recommend to the Secretary of State, but they do have a duty to present an implementable DCO with their report. This is without prejudice to their recommendation. Even if they recommend that the scheme is not consented, they must provide the best possible draft DCO so that the SoS could implement it if they chose to do so.

Interested parties are also invited to comment without prejudice. Even if you recommend that the scheme is not consented, you are asked to provide comment as to how the draft DCO could be improved if it were to be implemented. This is analogous to providing planning conditions to mitigate the impacts of a scheme which you oppose.

Constructive comments should be provided in considerable detail, but it is not worth rehearsing arguments which have already been made. On your specific example, arguing that the Complementary Measures clause is inadequate would not be helpful. If the clause were to be removed as a result of your comments, there would be no clause. However, if you were to suggest alternative wording which would better meet your objectives, this may be substituted for the original.

It is very common for statutory parties to engage in this manner; while a regulator such as Natural England may oppose a scheme because of its negative impacts, they are often willing to engage with solutions for how these impacts would be mitigated if the scheme were to be consented. Doing so is not considered to weaken the arguments against the negative impacts.

Providing such constructive engagement could be considered as an insurance against the worst possible scenario, which would be a scheme consented without mitigation of negative impacts. Arguing against a scheme on principal results in two possible outcomes ? refusal or consent of the scheme. Providing possible mitigation measures results in two different outcomes ? refusal or consent of a mitigated scheme.

NNTAG - Denise Carlo

At the hearings last week, the ExA asked the NCC to provide further information on quite a large number of matters. Presumably, the NCC will need to submit the new material by Monday 29 September. However, the timetable doesn?t make any provision for IPs to comment on the NCC documentation. Please could you clarify whether IPs may in fact comment and give the deadline by which we may comment please.

The ExA indicated their intention to hold a further hearing in November to deal with new traffic management measures for the western villages which they have asked the NCC to consider. Will the hearing address any other matters such as the large amount of information requested by the ExA with regard to assessment of sustainable transport measures please?

Deadline 9 on 10 November (for receipt of comments on ExA?s draft DCO) ? is this where IPs can submit their reflections on the NCC?s case and make closing statements please?
I suggest that Deadline 8 of 9 October would be a suitable occasion for comment on material provided at Deadline 7.

The November hearing will be about the draft Development Consent Order, and any matters arising from the proposed provision for additional compulsory acquisition relating to the Drayton roundabout. The ExA have, to my understanding, investigated issues such as sustainable transport to their satisfaction. This would only be discussed in the context of using the DCO to secure such measures, not the measures themselves. If the ExA require more information, they will ask for it in writing.

There is no provision for closing statements in NSIP examination timetables.

NNTAG - Denise Carlo

Can you confirm whether the CA Hearings will allow for a discussion into availability of funding. If so, could you say which day that hearing would take place?

Would it be possible to have a list of the additional information that PINS requested of NCC at the hearings last week?

When is the deadline should we wish to respond to this additional information?

When the Examiners has filed their report, can you confirm which Ministries look at the recommendation and who has the final decision. Is it just DoT or also Department of Communities and Local Government?
The first day of the compulsory acquisition hearings (Tuesday 30 September) will cover general considerations such as the likelihood of funding being available to complete the scheme. We will be publishing more detailed agendas for the hearings by the end of the week.

The Planning Inspectorate do not make notes of the meetings (although our Examining Authority will have their own notes) as a full audio recording is published. Therefore I do not have a definitive list of the material requested available.

Deadline 8 (Thursday 9 October) seems to be a reasonable time to respond to information provided at Deadline 7 (Monday 29 September).

This decision will be made by the Secretary of State for Transport (or another DfT minister on their behalf). DCLG is responsible for process, but only makes decisions on schemes which are relevant to their department.

CPRE Norfolk - Katy Jones

Request for advice regarding consideration of alternatives and navigation of the website.
Attached

Hockering Parish Council - Richard Hawker

Request for information about participation in compulsory acquisition hearings.
The Examining Authority (ExA) are required to judge whether there is a compelling case in the public interest for compulsory acquisition (CA) of land. In doing so, they will balance potential public benefits of the project with the losses of affected parties. Government guidance has been produced about CA ([attachment 1], and also about how hearings are handled ([attachment 2]).

The ExA have started to investigate the CA case through written questions, but will probe further at Compulsory Acquisition Hearings planned for 30 September, 1, 2 and 3 October 2014. At the first hearing, the ExA will investigate general considerations, such as the applicant?s reasoning for seeking to acquire land or rights compulsorily, and whether they have the ability to pay for such. The ExA will then investigate the implications for individual plots ? either at their own instigation, or where objections have been received. I note the objection which you provided us in March this year ? xxxx [personal information removed] xxxx

The ExA will have received and considered your original objection. If you wish to make your case in person to the ExA, then please do so at one of the Compulsory Acquisition Hearings. It is not a requirement that you attend, but the opportunity is available for that purpose. You may bring legal representation, but it should not be necessary to do so. The ExA aim to act in a proportionate manner, and will not make unreasonable demands of you. You (or your representative) will be asked to summarise your objection to the acquisition, and the ExA may ask you questions about your position, and factual questions about your land. The applicant will be asked to respond, and you may then reply to this if you feel corrections are needed. The aim of the hearings is not to reach agreement between the parties, although this is desirable. The aim is for the ExA to gather the information which they need in order to make a judgement about the matter. They will continue to question both parties until they are satisfied that they have this information.

Thank you for offering a preferred time slot, which we will endeavour to meet. The agenda will be prepared in the coming weeks and your request will be taken into account. Owing to the nature of the hearing, it is not possible to guarantee a start or finish time for the discussion of your plot, but you are not expected to stay all day.

Kelly Bowhill

E-mail sent by Mr Richard Hawker to the Planning Inspectorate. Content below:

Please can you register my wish to speak at the issue-specific hearings on 16, 17 and 18 September. I may have already requested to do so, but unfortunately have not made a note. If so, I apologise.

I notice that the meeting on 17 September is to cover ?Alternative options ?.

Will this be covering the proposal, put forward by many, of an improved public transport and rail system as an alternative to building the road? Will the inspectors be able to recommend in their final report that such an option be taken forward, or is it part of their brief to recommend at least some sort of road scheme, though it may differ from that proposed by NCC?

If they are free to recommend that the road not be built, on the basis that a public transport system would be a preferable alternative, what level of detail would inspectors need to see from proposers to enable them to consider that option?

I note that the meeting on 18 September is to discuss the A1067-A47 link. Are the inspectors free to recommend that the road scheme be extended by providing a new road to link the A1067 to A47?
Can they reject the existing road proposal, but state that it would be likely to be accepted if resubmitted with such an extension ?
Response from the Planning Inspectorate attached. Letter sent via e-mail.

Richard Hawker

General enquiry about elements of the examination - Examining Authority questions, conduct at hearings, issue of draft Development Consent Order, scope of consent available
Any interested party may answer any of the questions posed by the Examining Authority (ExA).
Interested parties registered in advance will be able to participate at issue specific hearings and will be afforded the ability to contribute throughout the agenda, subject to the control of the ExA.
A draft Development Consent Order may be issued by the ExA in order to provide interested parties the opportunity to comment on material that may be recommended to the Secretary of State (SoS). Multiple variations may be provided for comment, or material may be recommended to the SoS that has been subject to consultation at a different occassion during the examination.
The ExA may not recommend to the SoS a scheme which is larger than that applied for, nor one which is sufficiently dissimilar to be considered a different scheme. These restrictions are caused by the requirement for consultation and the processes for compulsory acquisition. This does allow scope for minor changes or partial consent as well as full consent or recommended refusal .

NNTAG - Denise Carlo

Letter to Planning Inspectorate chief executive on behalf of Mary Dunn attached
Letter attached

Simon Wright MP

Letter received from Cllr Andrew Boswell and accepted at the discretion of the Examining Authority attached.
Response to Cllr Boswell's letter from Simone Wilding, Head of National Infrastructure Case Management, attached.

Cllr Andrew Boswell

I have toiday received your email providing a link to the letter from the Inspectors, re. further hearings and the list of questions PINS is now seeking answers on. I have read through that list, and although there is reference to the Drayton Lane (south) works, there is nothing referring to Bugg's Grave.

Would you please be good enough to tell me whether or not the planned road works will or will not affect the existing Buggs Grave crossroads and, if the proposed works will have a disruptive effect, will you add to your list of questions: "Will NCC consider re-alinging the works proposed for the Bugg's Grave crossroads in order to minimis the impact on this locally important hostoric site?"
Thank you for your e-mail of 15 August 2014 regarding the examination of the Norwich NDR scheme.

Unfortunately, there isn't scope for the Examining Authority (ExA) to amend or add questions to its second round of written question now that they've been formally issued.

The Bugg?s Grave junction (Reepham Road/Drayton Lane) has been subject to much discussion at hearings and through written representations. A response to question 1.4 of the Examining Authority?s second round of written questions may be of interest to you and may show options for re-construction of the junction. You will be able view the response on the Norwich NDR pages of the National Infrastructure Planning Portal website after the Deadline 6 (8 September 2014) when all responses have been received.

I also advise you write directly to the applicant with your query for a detailed response should you wish; you can contact the applicant by:

Email: [email protected]
Telephone: 0344 800 8020
Post: Norfolk County Council, Norwich Area Transport Strategy, Department of Planning and Transportation, Norwich, NR1 2BR

I will consider your e-mail a response to the ExA?s second round of written questions and will be publish it along with the other responses we receive to the ExA?s questions after the 8 September 2014 unless you notify me that you do not wish it be considered. The applicant has the opportunity to comment on any of the responses to ExA?s questions at Deadline 7 (29 September 2014) and therefore they may choose to comment on your response.

Alternatively, you can raise this at one of our hearings in person (I suggest the hearing on Thursday 18 September which is on minor changes would be appropriate). If you wish to do this then you will need to register your intention to speak in advance of the hearing by Deadline 6 (8 September 2014); you also have the option of requesting this subject be discussed at the hearing without attending yourself. This request would also need to be made by Deadline 6 (8 September 2014).

I hope this information helps, should you have any further questions please do get in touch.

John Allaway

I have been told that the Norfolk County Council and or Broadland District Council have submitted new information on cycle routes associated with the NNDR.

This includes links with the Norwich Pedal Ways and cycle routes along the radial roads cut by the NNDR.

I have search through the recent documents on the web site with out success ? can you help please.
Thank you for your e-mail of 4 August 2014.

In relation to your query regarding the submission of information on cycle routes, I believe the following may be of interest.

In response to the Examining Authority (ExA) first written questions. Norfolk County Council submitted the following response:

[attachment 1]

I believe the information you are looking for can be found from page 118 onwards which was in response to the ExA's question 6.6. Norfolk County Council has made reference to appendix G in its response, you can view that appendix by accessing this link:

[attachment 2],G,H,I%20&%20J.pdf

I hope you find this information helpful, if you have any further questions please get in touch.

Cyclists' Touring Club - Tony Clarke

Query regarding on how to respond to the applicants Comments on relevant representations (RRs).
Please submit responses to Comments on relevant representations (RRs) by deadline 5 of the examination timetable, which is Monday 4 August. It is accpetable to send teh reponse by email

John Elbro

Enquiry regarding the production of Local Impact Reports
Having checked our records, I can confirm that our letter requesting Local Impact Reports was sent to ?Head of Planning, Breckland District Council ? ? on 6 June 2014. The letter, with the request on the second page, is at: [attachment 1]. Would you like further correspondence directed to you or another named individual?

If your authority is reconsidering its decision regarding the production of a Local Impact Report, you may find the following advice note useful: [attachment 2].

Notably, Local Impact Reports have a special status in our examination because they are produced by local planning authorities. However, the internal processes regarding contributions and approval are entirely at the discretion of the submitting authority. The contributions of Parish Councils are valued by the Examining Authority, and relevant parishes have had, and continue to have, the opportunity to participate in our examination. Several have submitted written representations, which can be viewed at: [attachment 3];stage=4&filter=Written+Representations. You could also review the joint report provided by Norfolk, Norwich, Broadland, South Norfolk and the Broads Authority at: [attachment 4].

Breckland District Council - Iain Withington

Request for information on prevenance of Local Impact Reports
Email correspondence attached

Norwich Green Party - Andrew Boswell

Letter received by the Planning Inspectorate from Simon Wright MP for Norwich South attached.
Response from Mark Southgate, Director of Major Applications & Plans at the Planning Inspectorate attached.

Simon Wright MP

Would you please inform me why the Inspector at the initial meeting in Norwich is not continuing? It is disturbing that such changes are taking place. The new panel will not have gauged the tone and/or the feelings expressed at that first meeting. Could we be informed of the backgrounds of the new panel, please?

This type of examination is quickly becoming very difficult for an individual member of the public of Norwich to follow and to comply with. I note that a harassing tone has now crept in with the threat that a form of financial penalty may be applicable in certain instances. Is this and the hurried changes being made to the procedures indicative that the examination is scrambling to keep up with its time limits at all costs?
In the Examining Authority?s (ExA) Rule 8 Letter of 25 June 2014 it notifies that a panel of inspectors has now been formally appointed by the Secretary of State to examine the application. The Secretary of State had regard to the complexity of the case and the level of public interest in the outcome in making its decision to appoint a panel. The emergence of a draft of the national roads and rail networks National Policy Statement going out to consultation, and which is likely to be designated prior to the close of the examination period, combined with the large number of submitted representations and persons attending the Preliminary Meeting have helped inform the Secretary of State?s decision.

Guidance issued by the Department for Communities and Local Government on the Planning Act 2008; examination of applications for development consent, identifies the criteria for appointing an Examining Authority. You can view the said guidance by accessing the following link:

[attachment 1]

The newly appointed panel has worked closely with the case team at the Planning Inspectorate prior to its formal appointment; the case team was also present at the Preliminary Meeting of 2 June 2014 at Blackfriars Hall. The panel has listened to a recording of the Preliminary Meeting, which was made available on the National Infrastructure pages of the Planning Portal website and is aware of the tones and feelings expressed at the meeting. Therefore the newly appointed panel has familiarised itself with the case and has the necessary knowledge of the proceedings to date.

We advise any person who has any questions regarding the proceedings to contact us at the Planning Inspectorate case team as we can provide advice accordingly. We also have a suite of advice notes; I have include a link to advice note 8.5: participating in the examination, which I hope you find useful:

[attachment 2]

In referring to the possibility of the award of costs against interested parties; the statement included within the Rule 8 Letter was also included in the ExA?s letter of 8 May 2014, known as the Rule 6 letter. This statement is common across all Nationally Significant Infrastructure projects and is included to ensure that all parties involved in an examination behave in an acceptable way and follow good practice.

I hope you find this information useful, If you have any further questions please do get in touch.

Peter Anderson

Request to make paper application documents available and to provide reassurance over level of evidence required in support of written representations.
Dear Cllr Hawker,

It was a pleasure speaking with you yesterday and I am glad that you found it useful.

I?m sure that you will appreciate that it is the nature of these applications that there documentation will be lengthy and sometimes cumbersome. You can write to Norfolk County Council requesting the production of a paper copy of the application, but the cost is significant. As it comprises more than fifty ring binders, you may find this just as inconvenient as the electronic version. Norfolk County Council has moved the full set of documents from Hellesdon Library to the Forum Library in central Norwich following requests from interested parties. The Forum is open until 8pm Monday to Friday and during the day on Saturday; the complete opening hours were including in our letter of 6 June 2014.

DCLG Guidance sets out the manner in which examination are to be run; paragraph 4 establishes the need for fairness and proportionality [attachment 1]

?Key aims are to promote best practice; to ensure consistent application of examination procedures; and to promote fairness, transparency and proportionality.?

Regarding the production of written representations, it is most precise to quote paragraph 70 from the guidance produced by DCLG

?The written representations should include each party?s detailed case and set out the reasons why they support or oppose the application. It should identify those parts of the application and specific matters with which they agree, and those parts or matters where they do not agree. Reasons for any disagreement should be provided.?

Clearly the Examining Authority will want to understand the reasoning behind statements made to the examination, but such requests for evidence must be fair and proportionate.

I trust this is of assistance; thank you for the constructive engagement of Hockering Parish Council in this examination.

Yours sincerely

Nicholas Coombes
Case Manager

Hockering Parish Council - Richard Hawker

Request to explain how the need case for the scheme will be examined in light of the s35 Direction of the scheme as a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project and the draft National Networks National Policy Statement.
Attached.

NNTAG - Denise Carlo

Formal complaint about access to application documents, requesting extension to deadlines. To be dealt with following Planning Inspectorate complaints procedures by Quality Assurance Unit.
Dear Cllr Hawker,

Thank you for including me in your email this morning. As you have identified, formal complaints of this nature are dealt with separately, so you will not be receiving any further response from me or the case team.

The applicant has recently provided a further set of documents to provide navigational guidance to their application, which we have published at [attachment 1];stage=app&filter=Other+Documents; I have found the composite contents table very useful.

As you mention, Local Impact Reports were discussed at the Preliminary Meeting. The Examining Authority explained that these were to be produced by local planning authorities such as Norwich City and Broadlands District Council, though neighbouring authorities such as Breckland are also welcome to do so. As you will have seen in our draft examination timetable, there will be provision for interested parties to comment on these reports.

Please do get in contact directly if we can provide any advice about the process of the examination.

Yours sincerely

Nicholas Coombes
Case Manager

Hockering Parish Council - Richard Hawker

E-mail received from Denise Carlo of NNTAG below:

The Notes of the Preliminary Meeting state that:

?written submissions should not include web links. If a party wished a document to be considered, it should be provided as a copy.?

However, what do Interested Parties do if they wish to submit a large number of documents, several of which may be large?

For example, NNTAG wishes to refer to a ?Trunk Roads and the Generation of Traffic? (1994). This is a substantial technical report. It includes a case study about the Norwich NDR. Do we submit the whole report electronically or just the Norwich case study, even though the whole report is relevant to the conclusions about eh particular Norwich case study?

We also wish to submit a number of Norfolk County Council documents, notably, reports to Committee meetings. Do we submit the whole document or can we just reference them please?
Response from the Planning Inspectorate:

Thank you for your e-mail below of the 13 July 2014.

As you are aware, unlike relevant representations, which need to be submitted on the prescribed form, written representations can be submitted electronically or in paper form and can include additional evidence to strengthen the submission. As the examination is primarily a written process, it is essential that you make any points you wish to make to the Examining Authority (ExA) through the submission of written evidence.

Ultimately, it is your decision what you include within your written representation and how you present that information. I would like to remind you that guidance issued by the Department for Communities and Local Government on the Planning Act 2008: examination of applications for development consent, states ?Participants should also provide with their written representation any data, methodology and assumptions used to support their submissions.?

If you wish a whole document to be considered by the ExA for the purposes of examination, I advise you include any such document/report in its entirety as an appendix to your written representation. We will clearly label any appendix to your written representation as being submitted by yourself when publishing it on the National Infrastructure pages of the Planning Portal website.

Alternatively, if you do wish to include a reference to a document but do not want to include that entire document as an appendix, I advise you make reference to it within the text of your written representation clearly quoting the relevant paragraphs, chapters and/or policies you are making reference to.

I would advise that both approaches are acceptable, however as mentioned earlier, it is ultimately your decision what you present to the ExA. You may also wish to prepare a summary of your written representation should you believe it will assist the ExA better understand your case.

NNTAG - Denise Carlo

Letter received by the Planning Inspectorate from Mr Tony Clarke, Right to Ride representative of the Cyclists Touring Club, the National Cycling Charity, following the Preliminary Meeting of 2 June 2014 attached.
Response the Planning Inspectorate attached.

Cyclists' Touring Club - Tony Clarke

Mr Hawker sought an explanation as to the definition of "relevant" in regarding to Parish Councils. He was not consulted by the Applicant because Hockering parish council was neither a host nor a neighbouring parish council.
Advice was given in the fom of a letter attached. The letter gave the definition of the word "relevant" and links to the legislation.

Hocking Parish Council - Richard Hawker

I was at the meeting at St. Andrews hall and came away confused and unconvinced that the mislaid documents issue has been openly and convincingly dealt with.
I feel unhappy that such a major development should start with such shaky foundations. It's a matter of confidence and trust.
Of course this is in addition to any original objection that I simply do not think the huge cost of such a road is acceptable, when the county cannot afford to keep present roads free of potholes. Apparently our weather events are becoming more severe, so road maintenance costs will increase.
My other concern is the attraction and charm of Norfolk has always been it's rural and - dare I say - sleepy reputation. This does not mean backward, we have a vibrant and flourishing county, without any more major roads. Surely we should be encouraging fewer, not more, cars.
A city encircled by a ring of speeding traffic - please no.
I am sorry to hear that you were confused and unconvinced following the Preliminary Meeting. The issue has been discussed at some length within the Planning Inspectorate and with other parties. The Planning Inspectorate?s assessment of the episode is contained within our section 55 acceptance checklist at [attachment 1]. We have also explained our process in correspondence with CPRE, at [attachment 2];ipcadvice=3cedad9354.

Your own representation has been published at [attachment 3];relrep=998, and you may use our website to view any other submission. We publish material after the deadline for which it was submitted, so any party can check whether their material has been included.

The latter part of your email deals with the merits of the scheme, and I would consider this to the a written representation, in accordance with the Examining Authority's request of Friday 6 June 2014. Therefore, unless I hear otherwise, this will also be published and considered in the examination.

Melody Wright

Letter received by The Planning Inspectorate from Simon Wright MP for Norwich South attached.
Response from Mark Southgate, Director of Major Applications & Plans attached.

Simon Wright MP

Letter received by the Planning Inspectorate from Mr Tony Clarke, Right to Ride representative of the Cyclists Touring Club, the national Cycling Charity attached.
Response from the Planning Inspectorate attached.

Cyclists Touring Club - Tony Clarke

Follow up email to Sir Mike Pitt, Chief Executive of the Planning Inspectorate, regarding the relevance of omitted statutory consultation responses to the acceptance of the Norwich NDR application.
Letter attached

CPRE Norfolk - Katy Jones

A member of the public enquired as to why their representation submitted to Norfolk County Council at pre-application by her parents was not published on the planning portal website.

The Planning Inspectorate's response was by email.
Thank you for your correspondence with attachments received on 28 April 2014, on behalf of your parents, in relation to the Norwich NDR application.

Having looked at the reasons why the material sent by your parents has not been published on the National Infrastructure pages of the Planning Portal website, this is because the attached comments dated 27 August 2013 were addressed to the applicant Norfolk County Council in what appears to be a response to their pre-application consultation. As such, it would not be published on our website. The Planning Inspectorate has, however, published ?relevant representations? made by persons wishing to become Interested Parties, and these can be found on the project page at the National Infrastructure pages of the Planning Portal website:

[attachment 1]

The 2008 Act, and Regulations made under it, set out a number of straightforward matters that a representation must contain before it can be treated as a ?relevant representation? giving you an entitlement to become an interested party: it also includes a summary of whether the person agrees or disagrees with the proposal, the main issues and their impact. A relevant representation is defined in section 102(4) of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended) and is ?relevant? if it is in accordance with regulation 4 of the Infrastructure Planning (Interested Parties) Regulations 2010. These valid representations were submitted on a fully completed Planning Inspectorate Registration and Relevant Representation form, and received by the Planning Inspectorate within the registration period that ran from 14 February 2014 to 23 March 2014 for this application. In these circumstances, your attached comments are not considered to be a relevant representation.

Following the close of the registration period, we are no longer able to register persons as ?interested parties? for the purposes of this application. The fact that you have been unable to register your interest in time is not in any way meant to suggest that you are not interested in this application. We are not able to extend the deadline and have no statutory powers that would enable us to do so. However, we will keep your request on file and make your parents names available to the Examining Authority who is able to exercise discretion to consider views and evidence from those who did not register a relevant representation on time. However, this does not mean that you would be regarded as an ?interested party? for the purposes of the examination.

Please do not hesitate to contact this office should you have any further questions.

Helen Adcock

Hockering Parish Council was not officially notified of the acceptance of the Norwich NDR scheme and consequently requests an extension to the period in which relevant representations can be made.
Letter attached

Hockering Parish Council - Richard Hawker

Mr Eady requested to be allowed to register an an interested party. As the deadline for submitting relevant representations had expired, he was informed that this was not possible. He asked for elaboration on why he could not be registered.
Thank you for your email received Wednesday 9 April 2014 in respect of your wish to register to become an ?interested party? in regards to the Norwich Northern Distributor Road (?NDR?) application.

Registering persons who wish to become ?interested parties? in relation to the examination of nationally significant infrastructure projects (NSIPs) is set out by legislation, namely the Planning Act 2008 (as amended) (PA 2008) and associated regulations. As such, the regulations for registration have to be followed as required by law and it is not a matter that can just be processed by the Planning Inspectorate through the receipt of an email or telephone request to that effect.

In compliance with the PA 2008, a registration period for becoming an ?interested party? for this application ran from 14 February 2014 until the 23 March 2014 (a period of at least 28 days as set by the applicant). The registration period would have been advertised by the applicant at the proposed site for the project and through a range of media. The Planning Inspectorate also provided notification of the registration deadline of 23 March 2014 on the relevant project page of the National Infrastructure portal. To have become an ?interested party?, a representation should have been submitted on a fully completed Planning Inspectorate Registration and Relevant Representation form and received by the Planning Inspectorate within the registration period. This form was available at the Norwich NDR project page of the National Infrastructure portal during the registration period and a postal version of the form was also obtainable on request. The form included sections for your personal information, your representation about the application and several questions relating to how you would have intended to participate in the examination.

The term ?interested party? in relation to this process has a legally defined status. As the Department for Communities and Local Government?s (DCLG) document ?Planning Act 2008: Guidance for the examination of applications for development consent?, explains, the statutory definition of an ?interested party? is significant because:

?[?] interested parties are given important entitlements before, during and after the examination process. These include the right to be invited to a preliminary meeting; the right to require, and be heard at, an open-floor hearing; the right to be heard at an issue-specific hearing, if one is held; the right to be notified of when the Examining Authority has completed its examination; and the right to be notified of the reasons for the decision. [Paragraph 16]?

DCLG guidance further adds:

?A ?relevant representation? is defined in section 102(4) of the Planning Act. A representation will only be ?relevant? if it is in accordance with regulation 4 of the Infrastructure Planning (Interested Parties) Regulations 2010, and is received by the Secretary of State by the deadline specified in the application acceptance notice given by the applicant. A representation is not relevant to the extent (but only to the extent) that it contains material about compensation for compulsory acquisition of land or an interest in or right over land; material about the merits of policy set out in a national policy statement; or material that is vexatious or frivolous. [Paragraph 21]?

Following the close of the registration period, we are no longer able to register persons as ?interested parties? for the purposes of this application. The fact that you have been unable to register your interest in time is not in any way meant to suggest that you are not interested in this application. We are not able to extend the deadline and have no statutory powers that would enable us to do so.
However, we will keep your request on file and make your name available to the Examining Authority who is able to exercise discretion to consider views and evidence from those who did not register a relevant representation on time. However, this does not mean that you would be regarded as an ?interested party? for the purposes of the examination.

The Planning Inspectorate has published a series of advice notes that are intended to inform developers, consultees, the public and others about a range of process matters in relation to the PA 2008 process. In relation to your enquiry, you may find Advice Note 8.3 ?How to register and become an interested party for an application?, of interest:
[attachment 1]

Moreover, DCLG?s guidance is also available on the National Infrastructure pages of the planning portal website:
[attachment 2]

If you have any further queries, please do not hesitate to contact me.

John Eady

Drayton Parish Council submitted a section 102A request to become an interested party.
Letter attached

Drayton Parish Council - John Gotts

Email to Sir Michael Pitt, Chief Executive of the Planning Inspectorate, asking for his opinion on the continuing discussions between CPRE Norfolk and Norfolk County Council regarding the 'investigation into failings by Norfolk County Council during NDR Consultation'.
Letter attached

CPRE Norfolk - Katy Jones

Correspondence relating to acceptance.
Letter attached
Letter attached

MP for Norwich South - Simon Wright

Follow-up advice to the applicant Norfolk County Council regarding a revised Book of Reference.
Since our letter dated 26 February 2014 to Mr Skinner, we note Norfolk County Council has not corresponded further about extending the relevant representation deadline for newly identified persons pursuant to Section 56 of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended) (PA 2008).

If amendments have been made to the Book of Reference since the application was compiled, the most suitable time to send the Planning Inspectorate a revised version would be along with the applicant?s certificate of compliance under Section 58(2) of PA 2008 and the Section 59 notice in relation to the application. Any such amendments in the Book of Reference would be expected to reflect the applicant?s compliance with Section 56.

This advice of course is without prejudice to Section 87 and any decisions made about how the examination is to be controlled by the appointed Examining Authority. The Examining Authority may request information about the Book of Reference as part of the examination, subject to the Procedure Rules.

Norfolk County Council - Jon Barnard

Mr Heard attended a drop-in session organised by the Planning Inspectorate in Norwich on 24 February 2014. He asked a number of questions after the presentation, not all of which could be answered in full.
Letter attached

Stop Norwich Urbanisation - Stephen Heard

The applicant contacted the Planning Inspectorate for advice about whether they could extend the relevant representation deadline for certain persons set-out under section 56 of the Planning Act 2008.

The Planning Inspectorate's response was by email and is attached.
Please see attachment.

Norfolk County Council - Chris Skinner

Correspondence relating to acceptance.
Letter attached

Graham Martin

Correspondence relating to acceptance.
Letter attached

MP for Norwich South - Simon Wright

Correspondence received during the acceptance period.
Letter attached

Gail Mayhew

Correspondence received during the acceptance period.
Letter attached

Graham Martin

Correspondence received during the acceptance period.
Letter attached

Norwich Green Party - Andrew Boswell

Correspondence received during the acceptance period.
Letter attached

CPRE Norfolk - Ian Shepherd

Correspondence received during the acceptance period.
Letter attached

NNTAG - Denise Carlo

Correspondence received during the acceptance period.
Letter attached

Stop Norwich Urbanisation - Stephen Heard

See attached
131219_TR010015 letter from LA Gray about NCC consultation
131231_TR010015 letter from LA Gray about NCC consultation
See attached
140204_TR010015_Response to LA Gray

Les Gray

Norwich Northern Distributor Road documents submitted for acceptance.
Advice offered on acceptance.

Norfolk County Council - Jon Barnard

Correspondence received during the acceptance period.
Letter attached

Les Gray

Email correspondence 19 December 2013 to 6 January 2014
See attached

Les Gray

Many thanks once again for your helpful suggestion. I have canvassed opinion from CPRE, SNUB etc and the view is that we all welcome the PINS proposal for an outreach event.

We would like to see a full day or two even days if possible because there would be too much to cover in one evening, the NDR impacts on a substantial geographical area and the evening bus services are not good in Norwich and poor in the County.

Concerns were also expressed that an outreach event would only gather views once PINS has accepted the DCO ? ie too late in the day to influence anything and by that time, people would be locked into a lengthy enquiry process.

Would it be possible therefore for a few of us to meet you next week to hear from you as to how local people can have an input before PINS makes it decision whether to accept the DCO please?
Please see the attached letter.

NNTAG - Denise Carlo

See attached
131114_TR010015 letter from LA Gray about NCC consultation
See attached
131219_TR010015_Response to LA Gray

Les Gray

Request reassurance regarding scale of plans to be submitted
With regard to the scale of plans to be submitted, here is my advice offered under s51 of the Planning Act 2008.

The Planning Inspectorate expect all plans submitted to be drawn to an identified scale not smaller than 1:2500, in accordance with APFP Regulation 5(3).

We will occasionally accept plans drawn to a smaller scale, when to do otherwise would be inappropriate; this is generally with regard to offshore schemes involving large areas of sea. We would be very unlikely to accept plans drawn smaller than the required scale involving onshore land acquisition, such as those required by APFP 5(2)(i)(j)(k)(n).

If you wish to submit any plans to a scale smaller than 1:2500 you will have to justify why the required scale was inappropriate on that occasion, and why no greater level of detail would be required.

Norfolk County Council - Jon Barnard

Request reassurance that three copies of plans will not be required for acceptance giving large number of drawings produced.
I am putting in writing our reassurance over the submission of plans for the NNDR.

The relevant requirement is set out in the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009 5(2)r:
"If requested by the Secretary of State, three paper copies of the application form and other supporting documents and plans."

On behalf of the Planning Inspectorate for the Secretary of State, we request three paper copies of the application form and other supporting documents, not including plans. We only request one copy of the plans for acceptance purposes, but will request further copies if the application proceeds to examination.

This departure from our normal requirements described in Advice Note Six is because of the anticipated high volume of plans to be provided by the applicant.

This advice given under section 51 will be published on the Planning Portal website.

Norfolk County Council - Jon Barnard

Phone conference requesting advice on the draft Consultation report documents.
PINS Comments on the draft consultation report. Advice given on - as above.

Promoter for NNDR. For NorCC - Jon Barnard

Section 51 advice. Comments on the draft consultation report
I write with reference to your letter received on 26 November 2013 and the draft copy of the consultation report enclosed therein in respect of the proposed Norwich Northern Distributor Road (NDR) project. You have requested our comments on the draft document.
We have now considered the document provided and set out our initial comments on the draft report below. However, in the absence of Counsel?s opinion, to be appended at Appendix D, we are not able to comment on Section 2.6 Compliance with Legislative Requirements. No reassurance is given, therefore, regarding the implications of the s35 direction at this time.

Draft Consultation Report

Section 37(3)(c) of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended by the Localism Act 2011) (PA 2008) requires an application for development consent to be accompanied by a consultation report which, under section 37(7) of PA 2008 means a report giving details of: what has been done in compliance with sections 42 (duty to consult), 47 (duty to consult local community) and 48 (duty to publicise) of PA 2008; details of relevant responses; and the account taken of any relevant responses. Relevant responses are defined in s49(3) of the PA 2008.
Firstly, we note that the draft consultation report is incomplete, with sections and appendices yet to be finalised including that of the explanatory text providing an overview of the whole pre-application stage. We recommend that this explanatory text sets the scene, from beginning to end, and provides an overview and narrative of the ?whole? pre-application stage as it relates to the particular project. It would therefore be of great assistance if a quick reference guide in bullet point form, summarising all the consultation activity in chronological order be included in brief and as a prelude to the chronological order set out in the executive summary.

However, the overall structure of the draft report appears to be clear and logical, with the relevant chapters giving: an account of the statutory consultation with prescribed consultees, publicity, deadlines set, and community consultation activities undertaken at the pre-application stage under primary legislation; a summary of the relevant responses to the separate strands of consultation; and an account taken of responses in developing the application from proposed to final form, as required by s49(2).

Similarly, the ?executive summary? would seem to provide a suitable overview of the consultation process carried out, giving a brief chronology of events and its historical context. In addition, your report describes previous consultations on the scheme prior to the enactment of the PA 2008 regime and the Secretary of State?s determination under s35 that the project is of national significance. This is contained in chapter 3 and it is helpful that you have delineated between the statutory and non-statutory phases.

The document states at Paragraph 2.6.13 that the applicant has undertaken consultation in compliance with the PA 2008, as well as the requirements of the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2009 and the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedures) Regulations 2009 (APFP); this is described within the report and Appendix F-2.

At Paragraph 2.6.15, the report sets out a table summarising the key advice given in the Planning Inspectorate Advice Note 14 (AN14) and the location of the related information within the report, which provides a useful guide. Under s50(3) of the PA 2008, however, applicants are reminded that they must have regard to DCLG?s ?Planning Act 2008: Guidance on the pre-application process? and any other guidance published which covers the pre-application procedure for national infrastructure applications. You may therefore wish to consider including references to the relevant paragraphs within the DCLG guidance as part of the table. You must clearly state any departures from any DCLG guidance and the justifications for doing so.

It is also noted that Appendix C contains a summary of pre-application activity as suggested by AN14. Though the Appendix seeks to describe the statutory consultation phase, it would be useful to also summarise any non-statutory consultation undertaken leading up to the statutory stage.
We acknowledge at Paragraph 2.4.4 that the report refers to the division between Norfolk County Council?s role as both applicant and prescribed consultee and the internal structure in this regard. It is also noted that a legal opinion is to be included on the validity of the pre-application consultation preceding the direction by the Secretary of State.

Under Regulation 5(5) of the APFP regulations, the Planning Inspectorate can request copies of all responses to consultation, and the applicant should be ready to provide these at short notice, preferably in both hard and electronic copy, in the event of such a request.
We note that the list of persons consulted under s42(d) has been redacted. This
personal information will need to be published in full in the Book of Reference, so its redaction here is not necessary. Please at least show the complete list of addresses to which consultation documents were sent so that this can be corroborated with the Book of Reference. The Planning Inspectorate will subsequently publish documents in line with our own redactions policy.

Section 46 of PA2008 ?Duty to notify? requires the applicant to notify the Secretary of State with such information in relation to the proposed applications compliance with s42 consultation. This, you appear to have done in your letter dated 26 July 2013, however it is noted that the submitted document has been filed within the s48 contents ? Appendix N ? of your report. This would be more helpfully described as s46 notification and must include confirmation that the information provided to the Secretary of State was the same as was provided to consultees under s42.

The Planning Inspectorate has reviewed the evidence of publicity under s48 and note that the advertisement in a national newspaper does not indicate the date or source of publication. Any further reassurance on this matter would be helpful.

A full check of typographical errors has not been carried out. Therefore we advise that this be carried out by the applicant before submission, as at a glance a few have been detected.
In preparing the submission documents the applicant might find it helpful to work through the s55 Checklist which is appended to Planning Inspectorate Advice Note 6, available on the national infrastructure pages of the planning portal website.

You should note that our comments are entirely without prejudice to any future decisions of the Secretary of State, including the decision under s55 of the Planning Act 2008 to accept any application. Whilst a broad assessment has been made on the draft consultation report, it is for the applicant to be satisfied that the document complies with the requirements of primary and secondary legislation and relevant guidance and advice; and it willbe the duty of the Secretary of State to review compliance at ?acceptance?.

Jon Barnard

Please see attached correspondence from Jon Barnard - Norwich CC
Advice given in response to above inquiry:

We have now considered the documents provided and set out our initial comments in the attached documents. I hope you find these comments useful at this stage of the process and that they will assist in preparation of the submitted draft DCO. Our comments are entirely without prejudice to any further decisions of the Secretary of State, including the decision under Section 55 of the Planning Act to accept any application.

In addition to the comments as attached, I would like to emphasise the importance of explaining Norfolk County Council's view regarding the sufficiency of the Secretary of State's Section 35 Direction to legitimising the statutory consultation undertaken prior to the Direction.

Jon Barnard

See attached
130926_TR010015_Letter from CPRE NTAG SNUB about NCC consultation
See attached
131003_TR010015_Response to CPRE NNTAG SNUB consultation letter

NNTAG, CPRE, SNUB - Denise Carlo

Requested clarification on the Scoping Opinion
Thank you for your letter dated 4 June 2013 requesting clarification on the Secretary of State?s (SoS) Scoping Opinion for the proposed Norwich Northern Distributor Road issued on 2 April 2013. Your letter asked whether the proposed changes to the A47(T) Postwick Junction were considered within Scoping Opinion as there was concern that the proposed slip road arrangements were not clearly described within the Scoping Report entitled ?Northern Distributor Road ? Scoping Report? (Revision A) dated February 2013.

A telephone conversation was held on 13 June 2013 with Ian Morris, Project Lead of the Major Project (NDR) Team at Norwich County Council to clarify the points raised in the letter. During this conversation Mr Morris stated that in the absence of a detailed description, the applicant is concerned that the description of the proposed development was not sufficiently clear particularly in relation to the proposed changes to the A47(T) Postwick Junction.

The SoS can confirm that the Scoping Opinion was provided on the basis of the information included within the applicants Scoping Report, the appended red line boundary plan (Drawing No. R1C093-R1-4232) and the Engineering Layout and Profile ? Mainline Sheets 1 to 12 (Drawing No. R1C093-R1-4014A). These plans include proposed changes to the A47(T) junction and have been taken into account. The SoS can only provide a scoping opinion when requested and the Scoping Opinion is informed by the information provided by the applicant and the consultation bodies.

If the applicant is of the opinion that material information was excluded from the Scoping Report, then they may wish to consider requesting a new Scoping Opinion. It is at the applicants? discretion whether they choose to do this. Applicants? should be aware that the description of the development in the ES must be sufficiently certain to meet the requirements of paragraph 17 of Schedule 4 Part 1 of the EIA Regulations and the Applicant should ensure that the submitted ES adequately supports the details set out in the Development Consent Order (DCO).

Jon Barnard

A meeting with Norfolk County Council as an update to the application.
Please see attachment.

Norfolk County Council

Norfolk County Council called regarding pre-application consultation implications of including various permanent highway stopping up and speed limits reduction provisions within the DCO rather than through other consenting regimes.

These would be intended to remodel the local transport network once the NDR has been built rather than relating directly to its construction. The enquiry was particularly interested in whether people living alongside the highway subject to these changes (both immediately adjacent to the works or further along such a road up to a limit of a few miles) are likely to be classed as category 3 people in regard to s42/s44.
Please see attachment

Norfolk County Council - Chris Skinner

To introduce the Northern Distributor Road scheme to The Planning Inspectorate, and for The Planning Inspectorate to outline the application process.
Please see attachment.

Norfolk County Council