Palm Paper 3 CCGT Power station Kings Lynn

The list below includes a record of advice we have provided for this project. For a list of all advice issued by the Planning Inspectorate, including non-project related advice, please go to the Register of advice page.

There is a statutory duty, under section 51 of the Planning Act 2008, to record the advice that is given in relation to an application or a potential application, including the name of the person who requested the advice, and to make this publicly available.

Preview
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
We recently took over a copy that receives letters from yourselves, however we would like to unsubscribe from this.

Company Name ?

LNG Portable Pipeline Services Ltd
Cadarache
Bere Court
Pangbourne
Reading
RG8 8HT

Please let me know if you require any more information.
Thank you for your email in relation to the above project.

LNG Portable Pipeline Services Ltd is listed as a prescribed consultee for this project. This means that we have a statutory duty to consult you in accordance with Section 42 of the Planning Act 2008 (the 2008 Act) and Schedule 1 of The Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009 (as amended) (the APFP Regulations).

Now you have received the Rule 8 letter (detailing how the application is to be examined), you should only receive one further letter from us, the Section 99 letter which confirms the closing of the examination period. If there is a change to the timetable as set out in the Rule 8 letter, you will also receive this letter.

Further information on the applicable planning legislation can be found on our website, please see the attached link: [attachment 1]

Please note this reply will be published as section 51 advice under the Planning Act 2008 on the project page of the Planning Portal.
I hope this response has been helpful.

Kind Regards

15 April 2015
LNG Portable Pipeline Services - Tessa Bates
Enquiry received via phone
The applicant enquired how the Willows Power and Recycling Centre should be addressed in any HRA Screening Assessment or cumulative aerial emissions assessment requested by the Examining authority (Rule 17 letter dated 2 April 2015), as the project has been withdrawn by the promoter.
Pins advised that if the Willows Power and Recycling Centre has been withdrawn it does not need to be included in any cumulative/in combination assessments. However, the applicant would need to provide evidence that the project had been withdrawn, and submit this with the requested assessments by Deadline 4 (20 April 2015).

02 April 2015
David Harvey
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please note that this application does not affect one of our inland waterways. We would therefore be grateful if you could remove us from the distribution list.
The Canal and River Trust is listed as a prescribed consultee for this project. This means that we have a statutory duty to consult you in accordance with Section 42 of the Planning Act 2008 (the 2008 Act) and Schedule 1 of The Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009 (as amended) (the APFP Regulations).

Now you have received the Rule 8 letter (detailing how the application is to be examined), you should only receive one further letter from us, the Section 99 letter which confirms the closing of the examination period. If there is a change to the timetable as set out in the Rule 8 letter, you will also receive this letter.

Further information on the applicable planning legislation can be found on our website, please see the attached link: [attachment 1]

Please note this reply will be published as section 51 advice under the Planning Act 2008 on the project page of the Planning Portal.
I hope this response has been helpful.

03 March 2015
Canal and River Trust - Ian Runeckles
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Dear Sir/Madam

I think that you may have sent this email to the wrong Council as you are not in our

Technical Support Team for Development Services
Fenland District Council
Fenland District Council is listed as a prescribed consultee for this project. This means that we have a statutory duty to consult you in accordance with Section 42 of the Planning Act 2008 (the 2008 Act) and Schedule 1 of The Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009 (as amended) (the APFP Regulations).

Now you have received the Rule 8 letter (detailing how the application is to be examined), you should only receive one further letter from us, the Section 99 letter which confirms the closing of the examination period. If there is a change to the timetable as set out in the Rule 8 letter, you will also receive this letter.

Further information on the applicable planning legislation can be found on our website, please see the attached link: [attachment 1]

Please note this reply will be published as section 51 advice under the Planning Act 2008 on the project page of the Planning Portal.
I hope this response has been helpful.

03 March 2015
Fenland District Council
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
We?ve received correspondence through the post (to The Rural Communities Policy Unit, RDPE Network). Please could you clarify why you have sent it to us?
If the reason is that we are being consulted in lieu of the Commission for Rural Communities, I think you can remove us from your contact list, CRC no longer exists and RCPU is part of Defra.
I will forward to correspondence to Heeran Buhecha in Defra?s Major Infrastructure and Environment Unit for information (Heeran ? not sure whether you need to see it or not, but let us know!).
The Rural Communities Policy Unit at DEFRA is listed as a prescribed consultee for this project. This means that we have a statutory duty to consult you in accordance with Section 42 of the Planning Act 2008 (the 2008 Act) and Schedule 1 of The Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009 (as amended) (the APFP Regulations).

Now you have received the Rule 8 letter (detailing how the application is to be examined), you should only receive one further letter from us, the Section 99 letter which confirms the closing of the examination period. If there is a change to the timetable as set out in the Rule 8 letter, you will also receive this letter.

Further information on the applicable planning legislation can be found on our website, please see the attached link: [attachment 1]

Please note this reply will be published as section 51 advice under the Planning Act 2008 on the project page of the Planning Portal.
I hope this response has been helpful.

03 March 2015
Edward Dyson
Enquiry received via email
Further to last week?s preliminary meeting please could you clarify whether the County Council will be expected to attend the Examination Inquiry on the dates set out in the Rule 6 letter (29/4 ? 30/4), given that the only outstanding issue the County Council has in respect of highway matters has been agreed with the applicant (i.e. the County Council has recommended a series of highway conditions/requirements to be attached to the final Development Control Order and the applicant has agreed to these).
I will be submitting a LIR shortly and the applicant is leading on a Statement of Common Ground.

I would welcome your advice regarding whether attendance (a) is necessary and (b) if considered necessary when this would be.
Thank you for your email enquiring whether Norfolk County Council will be expected to attend the Examination Hearings on the dates set out in the Rule 6 letter.

Although it can be helpful to the running of the examination for parties to attend relevant hearings, there is no requirement to do so. The Planning Act 2008 regime is primarily a written process and, therefore, it is open to you to provide your views and evidence in the form of a Local Impact Report (either individually of jointly with the Borough Council), Written Representation, Statement of Common Ground, or in your response to the Examining Authority?s questions.

In this case the examination includes two Issue Specific Hearings (ISHs); one on the Draft Development Consent order, and one focusing on Habitat Regulations Assessment (HRA) issues, but which may include other matters. A hearing agenda will normally be published on the project page of the planning portal website approximately a week before the hearings, providing more detail as to the issues to be discussed.

It is ultimately a matter for you to decide whether or not it is necessary to attend the hearings to give evidence/ clarification orally, in addition to what you will have provided in writing, and given the relevance of the issues that are to be discussed.

I hope the above is of assistance.

25 February 2015
Norfolk County Council - Stephen Faulkner
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Thank you for your emailed letter of 15 January 2015 concerning the Palm Paper 3 CCGT Power station Kings Lynn, for which I am writing to acknowledge receipt.

The Commission receives many requests for our views on, and notices about, planning issues. We do not have the resources to respond to all, and it is not our practice to respond to consultations on major infrastructure projects. Therefore, we would request you do not send us further information on this project, unless there is a clear and specific equality and human rights concern you wish to raise (for example, impact on minority communities such as BME groups, or on accessibility for disabled people), to which we can add value.
Thank you for your email in relation to the above project.

Please be aware that the Equality and Human Rights Commission is listed as a prescribed consultee under the relevant planning legislation. This means that we at the Planning Inspectorate have a statutory duty to consult EHRC regarding all National Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP) applications likely to affect land in England and Wales during their pre-application and initial stages. Section 42 of the Planning Act 2008 (the 2008 Act) and Schedule 1 of The Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009 (as amended) (the APFP Regulations) are the relevant statutory provisions in determining prescribed consultees. Once you have received our Rule 4/6 letter (detailing the appointment of the Examining authority and how to become involved in the process) and Rule 8 letter (detailing how the application is to be examined), you will only receive further correspondence if you notify us of your wish to become an Interested Party. Otherwise the only other correspondence will relate to any changes to the timetable and the section 99 letter which confirms closing of the examination period.

Further information on the applicable planning legislation can be found on our website, please see the attached link: [attachment 1]

Please note this reply will be published as section 51 advice under the Planning Act 2008 on the project page of the Planning Portal.

29 January 2015
EHRC - Philippa Bullen
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Section 51 advice following the issue ofthe acceptance decision
See attachment

21 October 2014
David Harvey
Enquiry received via post
The applicant (Palm Paper Ltd) requested a review of its draft development consent order (DCO) and land plans.
We have reviewed your draft DCO and land plans and have the following comments:

It is noted that you have re-named your plans to the ?Land Plan and Site Location Plan? and ?Site Layout and Works Plan?. However, in DCO Article 2(1) and Article 14 the plans are referred to as ?the land plans?, ?the works plans? and ?the location plans?. References to the plans in the Order must correspond exactly with the headings on the plans. It is advised that you ensure that references in the DCO to named plans accurately reflect the name given to the plans so that, on acceptance, the SoS can be satisfied that the development for which consent is sought is adequately described and clearly identifiable from the DCO and plans.

In addition we have identified a few drafting matters which will need to be amended at some stage and, while they are not necessarily acceptance issues, you may wish to alter them before submission. These are set out below:

In recent DCO?s granted by DECC (East Anglia ONE and Rampion Offshore Wind Farms) the Secretary of State has removed all references to ?decision maker? in the Order and replaced them with ?Secretary of State?. You may also wish to do this to accord with current DCO drafting.

Article 2(1)

?Scheduled works? is defined as the numbered works specified in Schedule 1 to this Order or any part of them as the same may be varied pursuant to article 3, however article 3 does not contain any power to vary the scheduled works.

?Order limits? is defined by reference to the ?land and works plans?, the draft plans you have provided are called the ?Land Plan and Site Location Plan? and the ?Site Layout and Works Plan?. As already stated above, the actual names of the plans must be accurately reflected in the DCO. This is particularly important in the definition of order limits which defines the project for which development consent is sought. All references to the plans must be consistent throughout the DCO and must reflect the actual names of the plans submitted with the application.

Article 14

The plans to be certified must accurately reflect the names of the actual plans, i.e. the ?Land Plan and Site Location Plan? and ?Site Layout and Works Plan? and not refer to ?the land plans? ?the works plans? and the ?location plans? if there are no plans with these names.

All the plans listed in Requirement 5 should also be included within Article 14 as plans to be certified.

Reference in this article is made to an Outline CEMP. Previously requirement 10 referred to a CEMP to be approved in accordance with an outline CEMP, this requirement has been modified and now refers to the CEMP being approved in accordance with the principles in the ES. If no outline CEMP is intended to be submitted with the application reference to this should be removed from this article.

Requirement 1

There is no need to repeat here definitions that are already set out in Article 2(1) such as the ?relevant planning authority?, ?order limits? and the ?environmental statement?. It would be preferable for all definitions to be in Article 2(1) instead of having separate definitions for the requirement section.

Requirement 19

This requirement refers to the ?Commission?. This reference should be removed as the Commission no longer exists. It is not clear whether this is intended to refer to the ?Secretary of State? or the ?relevant planning authority?. Save for requirement 20 (see below) all other approvals are required from the relevant planning authority and not the Secretary of State. If amended to the relevant planning authority this requirement would give the planning authority the power to amend any of the approved details without limitation. This is a tailpiece and should be limited to non-material changes which are unlikely to give rise to any materially new or materially different effects from those assessed in the environmental statement.

Requirement 20

This requirement requires approval of the Secretary of State for a scheme for management and mitigation of artificial light. This is contrary to all other requirements which require approval of the relevant planning authority. If this is intentional reasons for this discrepancy should be given in the Explanatory Memorandum.

I would also like to take this opportunity to request a copy of your electronic index. This is the documents which we use to correctly name all published application documents on our website. Please note that we may now publish application documents as soon as practicable once they have been submitted (with your permission), and therefore it is particularly important that we have time to check the electronic index before submission. Further guidance on the electronic index can be found in the annex to Advice Note 6.

16 September 2014
David Harvey
Enquiry received via phone
response has attachments
Request for Planning Inspectorate advice on draft Development Consent Order and Explanatory Memorandum.
Please see two documents attached.

01 August 2014
Palm Paper Ltd - David Harvey
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Request for the Planning Inspectorate to provide comments on draft No Significant Effect Report
Please see document attached.

22 July 2014
David Harvey
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Meeting with the applicant to provide update on the project.
Please see meeting note attached.

23 May 2014
David Harvey
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Update and overview of the proposed project, proposed consultation strategy, The Planning Act 2008 and changes to the regime and anticipated timescales

15 November 2012
Palm Paper Ltd David Harvey
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Inception meeting to discuss the proposed Palm Paper 3 CCGT
Meeting note available here: [attachment 1]

26 January 2011
Palm Paper - Anton Dollinger