Sizewell C New Nuclear Power Station

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
The following persons sent responses to the Applicant’s 2019 statutory consultation, including comments on the standard of consultation, to the Planning Inspectorate between January and April 2019: Paul Collins, Mrs CA and Mr GR Morling, Roy Dowding on behalf of Middleton Parish Council, Philippe Taylor, Kate Thompson, Mary Anne Woolf, Helen Isaac, Ian and Carol Rose, Anne Macdowell, Simon Ilet, Peter Macintosh, John Parsons and Audrey West.
The application has not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, the proposal is currently at the pre-application stage of the planning process, the developer is expecting to submit the applications in Q1 2020. Until the applications are submitted, your first point of contact should be the developer. I would therefore encourage you to contact EDF Energy directly ([email protected]). It is important that the developer is made aware of your comments at the pre-application stage of the process, to enable them to consider these points before finalising their proposals and submitting the applications to the Planning Inspectorate. If you have concerns about the way in which the developer is carrying out the pre-application consultation, you should let them know as soon as possible and allow them the opportunity to respond to any issues you raise. You can also make your local authority aware of your concerns. The Inspectorate will request the relevant local authorities’ view on the adequacy of the consultation at the point the application is submitted. If you would like more information about the Planning Act 2008 process, please see “Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others” which can be found along with other advice notes, here: [attachment 1]

30 April 2019
Various Enquiries - Anon - Catherine Aldridge
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The following persons sent responses to the Applicant’s 2019 statutory consultation to the Planning Inspectorate between January and April 2019: Clive Tickner, Barry N and Monica J Osborn, Dave Robb, Sue Manning, Peter and June Smith, Sharon Quilter, Virginia Stanley, Sue Tugwell, Stuart Brown, P.V.J Sanders and C.D. Sanders, Charles Macdowell, Chris Fox, Bryn Raven, Mrs Crouch, D.A. Surfling, Brian Lowry, Dawn Lacey, Harry Smith, Chris Macdowell, Joyce and Alana Griffiths, Laurence and Maggie Frith
The application has not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, the proposal is currently at the pre-application stage of the planning process, the developer is expecting to submit the applications in Q1 2020. Until the applications are submitted, your first point of contact should be the developer. I would therefore encourage you to contact EDF Energy directly ([email protected]), as you may have done. It is important that the developer is made aware of your comments at the pre-application stage of the process, to enable them to consider these points before finalising their proposals and submitting the applications to the Planning Inspectorate. If you would like more information about the Planning Act 2008 process, please see “Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others” which can be found along with other advice notes, here: [attachment 1]

30 April 2019
Various enquiries - anon - anon.
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please see my personal response to the Sizewell C third stage consultation. I am particularly concerned that we are still waiting for the revised EN6 Nuclear Policy and understand that the Government intends to bring out an energy white paper and yet I note that the developer intends to apply for a DCO Q1 next year.
We have recently responded to a query in relation to the continuing application of EN-6, which can be found here: [attachment 1];ipcadvice=66ee8866cc

17 April 2019
Mike Taylor
Enquiry received via email
I am unclear as to how the published documents display the new scoping request information and previous scoping opinion and in particular “ the interaction between the previous opinion and the new scoping exercise. “ Can you also confirm the following has taken place? The Developer confirmed it will provide narrative and justification in the scoping request “ This is after all a response to the PI’s own requirement and so an answer to both these questions must surely be to hand?
I am unclear as to how the published documents display the new scoping request information and previous scoping opinion and in particular “ the interaction between the previous opinion and the new scoping exercise. “ Can you also confirm the following has taken place? The Developer confirmed it will provide narrative and justification in the scoping request “ This is after all a response to the PI’s own requirement and so an answer to both these questions must surely be to hand?

12 April 2019
Chris Edwards
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
See Attached
See Attached

10 April 2019
Emma Bateman
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
To whom it may concern, I am writing to you on behalf of my constituent Miss Emma Bateman, who has raised concerns regarding the planning of Sizewell C. Miss Bateman is concerned that the National Policy Statements for Energy, namely EN1 and EN6, that are the basis for the planning of Sizewell C conflict with the National Infrastructure Commission’s recommendation that only one nuclear station after Hinkley should be commissioned before 2025. The reason that the planning of Sizewell C and the National Infrastructure Commission’s recommendation may conflict is due to the fact that EDF and China General Nuclear Power Corporation are planning Sizewell C alongside a site at Bradwell. The National Infrastructure Commission had also recommended that any further sites commissioned should be done on a one by one basis rather than planning for a set. Hence, Miss Bateman is concerned about the impact this may have on the proposed Sizewell C site. I would be grateful if you could outline what steps are being taken by the Sizewell Planning Inspectorate to resolve this seeming dilemma, of having plans for two nuclear sites but only the ability to build one.
Thank you for your email. Ms Bateman also wrote directly to us on this matter and we responded today with the information below, including an apology for the delay in our response: We note that the Government has committed to making a response in 2019 to the recommendations outlined in the National Infrastructure Assessment (NIA) dated July 2018, this will be ahead of an application being made by EDF Energy for the Sizewell C New Nuclear Power Station, which is due to be submitted in Q1 2020. In the meantime, ahead of the Government’s response to the NIA, it is for the Environment Agency and other statutory consultees to decide how they wish to consider the NIA recommendations within their responses. As you may be aware, the Government is working to produce a new National Policy Statement for Nuclear Power, and in December 2017 it published a ‘consultation on the siting criteria and process for a new national policy statement for nuclear power with single reactor capacity over 1 gigawat beyond 2025’ which can be found on this link: [attachment 1] In July 2018, the Government published its response to this consultation, which can be found on this link: [attachment 2] on page 40 of this document it states: ‘3.9 Government continues to believe nuclear has an important role to play in the UK’s energy future as we transition to the low-carbon economy. The public will have an opportunity to comment on the ongoing need for nuclear as part of the consultation on the draft new nuclear NPS. Continuing application of EN-6 3.10 EN-6 remains in force in its entirety for use in development consent applications for new nuclear power stations on sites listed in EN-6 that are capable of deployment before the end of 2025. Sites listed in EN-6 on which a new nuclear power station is anticipated to deploy after 2025 will continue to be considered appropriate sites and retain strong Government support during the designation of the new NPS. 3.11 The owners of such sites are able to make development consent applications, and a decision on whether to grant consent will be made under section 105 of the Planning Act 2008. Government is confident that both EN-1 and EN-6 incorporate information, assessments and statements which will continue to be important and relevant to the Secretary of State’s development consent decision for projects which will deploy after 2025. This includes statements of the need for nuclear power, as well as environmental and other assessments that continue to be relevant for projects which will deploy after 2025. As such, in deciding whether or not to grant consent to such a development the Secretary of State would, under section 105(2)(c) of the Planning Act 2008 , have regard to the content of EN1 and EN-6. Where there is no relevant change in circumstances it is likely that significant weight would be given to the policy in EN-1 and EN-6. 3.12 When designated, the new NPS will have effect for the purposes of section 104 of the Planning Act 2008 for listed sites capable of deploying between 2026-2035. Furthermore, a published new NPS in draft form would be an important and relevant consideration under section 105(2)(c) of the Planning Act 2008 in relation to any a decision is taken on an application for Development Consent before the new NPS is designated.’ I hope you find this information to be helpful.

10 April 2019
Peter Aldous
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please can you guide me to the new scoping information request and explanation of difference, and also the Planning Inspectorate’s response to this? I understand this is a requirement for the pre consultation process.
The S46 Notification and the Acknowledgment of this, both published on the website: [attachment 1] should provide the necessary information.

27 March 2019
Chris Edwards
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
You wrote the following in your email below. “Please note, the Planning Inspectorate had a meeting last week with EDF, a copy of the note for this meeting will be shortly be published on the Sizewell C project webpage. “ However I cannot find this. I am writing directly because on previous occasions I did not receive a response when addressing the mailbox and had to press for one. Please can you provide this not of the meeting above? Many thanks
I can confirm that the meeting note you refer to has now been published. It can be found here: [attachment 1];ipcadvice=29da8ba7a2

27 February 2019
Chris Edwards
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
EN010012 - EDF Sizewell C/D EN010077 & EN010078 - Scottish Power EA1N & EA2 I am writing to request extensions to consultations for the above Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects in East Suffolk All projects are in final stage consultation and all consulting February & March 2019. I am a tourism business manager (Beach View Holiday Park) and local resident at Friston. It is physically impossible to have fair consultation and fair feedback for these NSIPs as there is simply too much going on, too much to digest and too much to consider. Please advise how this request can/will be considered? These proposals and the stress of these consultations are making people ill. All this while the local authority is also consulting on a final draft Local Plan, which, by the way I have not had a chance to fully digest or comment on either. Please take this as a formal complaint on final stage NSIP consultations listed above.
Dear Mr Thorp Request to Extend NSIP Pre-Application Consultations Thank you for your email dated 23 February 2019 addressed to Sarah Richards, the Planning Inspectorate’s Chief Executive. Your email has been passed to myself for response, as I am part of the Planning Inspectorate’s case team. I apologise for the delay in our response. The Planning Inspectorate is aware that several Developers are currently undertaking pre-application consultation in the area. In respect of the duration of the consultation period, section 45 of the Planning Act 2008 prescribes that a Developer’s statutory pre-application consultation must run for a minimum of 28 days. We are aware of the following consultation periods: - Sizewell C: 4th January 2019 – 29th March 2019 - East Anglia One North: 11th February 2019 – 26th March 2019 - East Anglia Two: 11th February 2019 – 26th March 2019. In this instance we therefore advise you to contact the Developers directly with your request for an extension. Once an application for a Development Consent Order is submitted (following the pre- application stage), the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State), has a statutory duty to invite comments from all relevant Local Authorities about whether a Developer has complied with its statutory pre-application consultation duties (see sections 42, 47 and 48 of the Planning Act 2008). Responses received are referred to as ‘Adequacy of Consultation Representations’. All applications for a Development Consent Order must be accompanied by a ‘Consultation Report’. The Consultation Report is prepared under section 37 of the Planning Act 2008 and must give details of: a) what has been done in compliance with sections 42, 47 and 48 of the Planning Act 2008 in relation to a proposed application that has become the application; b) any relevant responses; and c) the account taken of any relevant responses. In the Acceptance period (ie the 28 days following the formal submission of an application) the Planning Inspectorate will scrutinise all the application documents, including the evidence provided in the Consultation Report, applying the statutory tests set out in the Planning Act 2008. By the end of the Acceptance period the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) must decide, in accordance with the tests in section 55 of the Planning Act 2008, whether or not to accept an application for examination. In reaching this decision, section 55(4) makes explicit that the Planning Inspectorate must have regard to the Consultation Report and any Adequacy of Consultation Representations made by Local Authority consultees. In this instance it is normal practise for the Planning Inspectorate to advise you to also provide your comments on the consultation undertaken to the Local Authority, to make them aware of your points, ahead of providing their Adequacy of Consultation Representation; however we note that you have already copied the Local Authorities into your email. I hope you find the above information to be helpful. Yours sincerely Kathryn Dunne Infrastructure Planning Lead

23 February 2019
Nicholas Thorp
Enquiry received via email
I am writing to ask about the stage 3 consultation for sizewell C which is due to begin on January 4th 2019. EDF have a statutory obligation to adhere to the Statement of Community Consultation (SoCC) during the Sizewell C preparations. "Section 47 of the PA2008 requires applicants to conduct its consultation in line with the SoCC. " In the SOCC, it says " It is intended that all stakeholders (i.e. local community, statutory stakeholders and other interested parties) will be consulted at each of the three formal stages of consultation." It goes on to say that "Public and stakeholder engagement will also be undertaken in the Outer Area " . The outer area plan for the Sizewell C development has a 20 mile radius around the site and includes lowestoft, felixtowe and ipswich . These towns were consulted with during the first 2 stages of the consultation, but there are no plans to hold any public exhibitions in any of these 3 towns during the 3rd stage of the consultation. I think that this is remiss of EDF as they have not answered many of the questions that have been asked by residents during the first 2 stages of the consultation. Please can I ask what the statutory requirement is in accordance with the SoCC. Are EDF obliged to consult in all the areas they suggested in the SoCC.
As you note the statutory requirement for an Applicant in regards to its Statement of Community Consultation (SoCC) is set out in section(s) 47 of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008). Specifically s47(7) states the applicant must carry out consultation in accordance with the proposals set out in the statement. Further to this, in the Acceptance period (i.e. the 28 days following the formal submission of an application) the Planning Inspectorate will scrutinise all of the application documents, including the evidence provided in the Consultation Report, applying the statutory tests set out in s55 of the PA2008. By the end of the Acceptance period the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) must decide, in accordance with the tests in s55 of the PA2008, whether or not an application should be accepted for Examination. In reaching the above decision, s55(4) of the PA2008 makes explicit that the Planning Inspectorate must have regard to the Consultation Report and any Adequacy of Consultation Representations made by local authority consultees. Adequacy of Consultation Representations are defined by s55(5) of the PA2008 as representations about whether the Applicant complied with its duties under sections 42, 47 and 48. They are requested from all relevant local authorities on receipt of an application for development consent

21 December 2018
Emma Bateman
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please see attached
Dear Mr Edwards

Thank you for your emails dated 23 November, 29 November and 3 December regarding EDF Energy’s proposal for Sizewell C, and Suffolk Coastal District Council’s (SCDC) Local Plan consultation.

In your emails you refer to Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) screening. The purpose of the screening process is to establish whether a proposal is considered to be EIA development or not. Under the 2009 and 2017 EIA regulations, nuclear power stations are ‘Schedule 1’ developments and are therefore automatically considered to be EIA development, therefore these types of development do not require to be ‘screened’ at the pre-application stage.

The EIA Regulations require a developer, prior to undertaking their statutory (section 42 of the Planning Act 2008) consultation, to either request a screening opinion, or to notify the Secretary of State that their proposal is EIA development. The Planning Inspectorate acknowledged (in paragraph 1.2 of the EIA Scoping Opinion dated June 2014), that EDF Energy made this notification.

EIA is a process which developers undertake at the pre-application stage, the result of which is an Environmental Statement (ES) which is submitted with their application. Therefore the environmental work/assessments are an ongoing process at this stage, however the developer is required to consult on their Preliminary Environmental Information which will be included in their consultation documents at the start of 2019.

The Planning Inspectorate does not host developer’s pre-application consultation material on our website, we publish EIA screening and scoping documents in addition to requests for advice and our responses, however you are advised to use the developer’s website and to liaise directly with the developer at the pre-application stage to inform them of the comments you have on their proposal, this will enable them to consider your comments prior to finalising their proposal and submitting their application.

In regard to the land which you refer to in your email which is included in both EDF Energy’s and SCDC’s consultations, both parties will have the opportunity to provide comments to each other on their proposals.

Please note, the Planning Inspectorate had a meeting last week with Edf, a copy of the note for this meeting will be shortly be published on the Sizewell C project webpage.

As per your previous emails, I would be grateful if you could please ensure that all future correspondence continues to be sent to the Sizewell C mailbox rather than individual mailboxes.

I hope you find this information to be helpful.

07 December 2018
Leave the Layers Alone - Chris Edwards
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
To Planning Inspectorate, Case Officer for Sizewell C.

Dear Officer PINs

We have just learnt that EDFE are running their Sizewell C 3rd Consultation for 12 weeks from 4th Jan 2019. Also that they intend to submit their DCO to PINS end of 2019 beginning of 2020. and hope to start building operations in 2021.

During this time BEIS are undertaking a Consultation on NPS for Energy EN6 and we are told that the second round will be in 2019 possibly summer/ autumn.

My question to you is as follows.
1) As SZC cannot be deployed to create electricity by 2025 as required in EN6 am I correct in thinking it will be decided by criteria in the revised EN6 ?


Yours Sincerely

Joan Girling
[Redacted]
The following text has been taken from the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy’s July 2018 document titled: ‘ Government Response: Consultation on the siting criteria and process for a new national policy statement for nuclear power with single reactor capacity over 1 gigawat beyond 2025’, which is available on this link:
[attachment 1]

‘Continuing application of EN-6

3.10 EN-6 remains in force in its entirety for use in development consent applications for new nuclear power stations on sites listed in EN-6 that are capable of deployment before the end of 2025. Sites listed in EN-6 on which a new nuclear power station is anticipated to deploy after 2025 will continue to be considered appropriate sites and retain strong Government support during the designation of the new NPS.
3.11 The owners of such sites are able to make development consent applications, and a decision on whether to grant consent will be made under section 105 of the Planning Act 2008. Government is confident that both EN-1 and EN-6 incorporate information, assessments and statements which will continue to be important and relevant to the Secretary of State’s development consent decision for projects which will deploy after 2025. This includes statements of the need for nuclear power, as well as environmental and other assessments that continue to be relevant for projects which will deploy after 2025. As such, in deciding whether or not to grant consent to such a development the Secretary of State would, under section 105(2)(c) of the Planning Act 2008 , have regard to the content of EN-1 and EN-6. Where there is no relevant change in circumstances it is likely that significant weight would be given to the policy in EN-1 and EN-6.
3.12 When designated, the new NPS will have effect for the purposes of section 104 of the Planning Act 2008 for listed sites capable of deploying between 2026-2035. Furthermore, a published new NPS in draft form would be an important and relevant consideration under section 105(2)(c) of the Planning Act 2008 in relation to any a decision is taken on an application for Development Consent before the new NPS is designated.’

Page 4 of the document states that the Government is proposing to carry over the list of suitable sites from EN-6 to the new NPS, this list includes the Sizewell proposal.

03 December 2018
Joan Girling
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project meeting update
Please see attached

27 November 2018
EDF Energy - anon.
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Good afternoon.


I feel it is appropriate to bring to your attention the attached letter
that has been sent to our County and District Council leaders and senior
officers, as well as relevant departments in central Government.


Not only has EDFE failed dismally to provide cogent information for us
to meaningfully respond to their consultations at Stage 1 and 2, but the
Councils' Task Group have clearly been discussing some of the most
important issues that will affect the local population in camera. They
are unwilling to share any of the topics discussed or possible outcomes.


Allied to what is now recognised will be a head-on clash between the
building of Sizewell C and the onshore infrastructure for the Scottish
Power Renewables (SPR) windfarms East Anglia ONE north and TWO, we are
very concerned.


SPR are being equally secretive concerning the release of any useful
information, to permit potentially affected residents to effectively
respond to their latest Consultation Stage 3.5. See the Parish Council
notice that Middleton has circulated, also attached.


East Suffolk is already on the verge of being overburdened with the
support of existing major infrastructure that currently overloads our
local roads (particularly the B1122) on a regular basis to the detriment
of everyday life and livelihood. Yet the two power companies are
attempting to simply ride roughshod over us in their quest to build even
more using existing roads - in order to save them expense? In the long
run, they will each get in each others' way and cause both projects to
lose time - and that would be more expensive!


Kind regards,


Cllr Roy Dowding

Middleton Parish Council

On behalf of the B1122 Action Group
Dear Sir,


Thank you for your email and apologies for the delayed reply.


As the project has not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate
(the Inspectorate), the Inspectorate has no formal powers to intervene
on consultees’ behalf and therefore I would encourage you to contact the
developer directly to make your concerns heard as they have a statutory
duty to take your views into account.


Your comments sent to local authorities (LA) should be considered when
the LA’s provide Adequacy of Consultation responses to the Inspectorate
on whether the Applicant has fulfilled its consultation duties.


The Inspectorate can also consider your comments in addition to the
statutorily required Acceptance tests when making the decision about
whether or not to accept the application under section 55 of the
Planning Act 2008. It will be for the decision maker (the Inspectorate
on behalf of the Secretary of State) to decide the weight to give to the
views expressed in your comments based on the individual facts of the
case.


If the application is accepted for examination you will have the
opportunity to make representations about the merits of the application
to an appointed Examining Authority at the appropriate time.


For information, please see link below to Advice Note 8 which sets out
an overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning
process for members of the public and others.

[attachment 1]


A copy of your email and attachments and this response will be published
to the project webpages.


Yours faithfully

26 November 2018
Middleton Parish Council - anon.
Enquiry received via post
response has attachments
Please see attached letter from Paul Collins (dated 07 September 2018)
Please see attached response letter from The Planning Inspectorate (dated 27 September 2018)

27 September 2018
Minsmere Levels Stakeholder Group - Paul Collins
Enquiry received via email
As the Parish Councillor who has the Sizewell Portfolio I would be grateful if you would clarify whether Kelsale Cum Carlton is a Statutory Consultee or not bearing in mind the A12 runs through the Parish.
If the Applicant’s proposed improvements to the A12 are within your parish boundary then I confirm that Kelsale Cum Carlton will be a statutory consultee.

10 May 2018
Kelsale cum Carlton Parish Council - Edwina Galloway
Enquiry received via email
The current proposal does stray into our parish with a proposed “borrow pit” although the majority of the development is within the neighbouring town council boundary. I presume that counts as development within our area? Also, several of our parishes, including my parish, have the proposed road access route travelling through our communities and there are proposed changes to those roads to improve junctions, remove bends, widen certain areas and in some cases create “park and ride” facilities. Do these changes also mean that they are regarded as statutory consultees?
We would expect the development you refer to below to be included in the application as associated development. Any parish council with associated development within its boundary will be a statutory consultee.

20 April 2018
Theberton and Eastbridge Parish Council - Paul Collins
Enquiry received via email
Can you please clarify for me whether local Parish Councils directly affected or in Parishes adjacent to the proposed Sizewell C development are considered by PINS as statutory consultees?

In the Infrastructure Planning Regulations 2009 in Schedule there is a note to the table which states:

relevant”, in relation to a body, shall mean the body which has responsibility for the location where the proposals may or will be sited or has responsibility for an area which neighbours that location.

Also in the PINS document “Sizewell C proposed nuclear development scoping opinion” published in June 2014, PINS consulted the following organisations under the collective group:

The Relevant Parish Council(s) or Relevant Community Council

ORGANISATION
Aldringham cum Thorpe Parish Council
Benhall and Sternfield Parish Council
Blaxhall Parish Council
Blythburgh Parish Council
Bramfield and Thorington Parish Council
Campsea Ashe Parish Council
Darsham Parish Council
Dunwich Parish Meeting
Easton Parish Council
Farnham with Stratford St Andrew Parish Council
Great Glemham Parish Council
Hacheston Parish Council
Kelsale cum Carlton Parish Council
Knodishall Parish Council
Leiston cum Sizewell Town Council
Letheringham Parish Council
Little Glemham Parish Council
Marlesford Parish Council
Middleton Parish Council
Parham Parish Council
Rendham Parish Council
Saxmundham Town Council
Snape Parish Council
Sweffling Parish Council
Theberton and Eastbridge Parish Council
Westleton Parish Council
Wickham Market Parish Council
Yoxford Parish Council

During a meeting with and EDF representative yesterday with councillors present from Suffolk County Council and Suffolk Coastal District Council it was stated that the Parish Council is not a statutory consultee, although we have had a number of discussions and briefings by EDF and others over the past few years.

So please can you confirm whether the 2009 planning act list including Parish Councils, as shown above, is correct or if there has been some amendment to this legislation changing the status of affected Parish Councils either in general or for this particular NSIP.
At the time of the scoping request the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009 included neighbouring parishes within the relevance test for prescribed consultees with respect to the scoping for the Environmental Statement. However these Regulations have been amended (since April 2013) and now, in England the parish council is only deemed relevant for the purposes of scoping if the project or associated development is within their area.

In terms of statutory consultees, the relevant regulations are The Infrastructure Planning (Interested Parties and Miscellaneous Prescribed Provisions) Regulations 2015. Relevant parish councils are those which have responsibility for the location of the proposed development. However even if the proposed development is not within your parish council you should have the opportunity to participate in any consultation. If the application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate and accepted for Examination you will have an opportunity to register the parish council as an Interested Party which will give you the right to participate in the Examination.

18 April 2018
Theberton and Eastbridge Parish Council - Paul Collins
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I understand that when EDFE submit their DCO for Sizewell C to the Planning Inspectorate for deliberation, the documents that the case will be considered against will be EN1 and EN6.

Are there any other Planning documents that will be pertinent to the Application?

As the Sizewell C site is in the Suffolk Coast and Heaths AONB I understand that IROPI may be used to by pass the AONB designation. Would you please tell me if this is the case.
I can confirm that, on the information currently before us, the relevant National Policy Statements are EN-1 (Energy) and EN-6 (Nuclear Power Generation). It would not be appropriate for us to advise what the relevant planning policy will be before the application has been submitted. This will be set out by the Applicant in their Planning Statement and, if the application is accepted for examination, the local authority(ies) will be invited to set out their local planning policy considerations as they relate to the proposed development in their Local Impact Report.

With regard to IROPI, this acronym is used with reference to impacts on European sites designated for nature conservation (for example Special Areas of Conservation, Special Protection Areas, Ramsar sites) that are protected under the Habitats Directive (The Habitats Regulations in the UK), not AONB. We are aware that there are a number of European nature conservation sites within the vicinity of the existing power station (and therefore, in the absence of a proposed boundary, within the likely vicinity of any proposals). For further information on this you may wish to see our Advice Note 10: Habitats Regulations Assessment relevant to nationally significant infrastructure projects: [attachment 1]

Alternatively, perhaps your reference to IROPI is in relation to EN1, which in paragraph 5.9.10 makes reference to demonstrating ‘public interest’ when considering development in an AONB. It will be for the applicant to present their case with regard to the ‘public interest’ (in whatever context) in their application.

14 November 2017
Joan Girling
Enquiry received via email
Sorry to bother you again, as a resident of Leiston -cum - Sizewell, you will understand I have a great deal of concern about my local patch.
I have therefore taken a great deal of interest in the Statutory Bodies Responses to the SZC 2nd Consultation, I assume these responses are available to members of the public on request as they are a part of the pre-application process. I have been pleased to received several including Suffolk County Council and Suffolk Coastal District Council.

However are there any circumstances in which a Public Body as a Statutory Consultee may with hold their response to EDFE when it is requested by a member of the public ?
Thank you for your email regarding EDFE’s pre-application consultation for the proposed Sizewell C New Nuclear Power Station.

There is no provision in the 2008 Planning Act (as amended) (PA2008) that states that the Applicant must publish any responses from a statutory body it has consulted with before submitting the application to the Planning Inspectorate (the Inspectorate). The responses will however be summarised and included as part of the Applicant’s consultation report when the application is submitted to the Inspectorate to show how the consultation has informed the application.

If you wish to read the statutory bodies’ responses before the application is submitted to the Inspectorate, I would recommend you contact the Applicant directly to request copies of the responses. If the Applicant is unable to supply you with copies of the responses, the relevant statutory bodies might be able to send you copies of their responses.

Please be aware that should there be any sensitive material contained in the correspondence, the Applicant and/or statutory bodies may be unable to release the information to you.

Please also note we have now set up a project mailbox: [email protected] which I have copied into this response. This will be monitored regularly by the project team should you need any further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact us.

08 March 2017
Joan Girling
response has attachments
Email 1: With the Developer’s Stage 2 Pre-Application Consultation drawing to a close I have a general question around the status of the current National Policy Statements for Energy, in particular the Policy Statement for Nuclear Power Generation EN6.

I have been informed that the Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy are or are just about to review these statements. Is this correct?

If so what will the situation be if the Policy Statements are revised post consultation but prior to submission of the DCO application? Will there have to be a further consultation phase to accommodate any change in policy between the two versions?

Email 2: Many thanks for your response and time. I will take up your suggestion of contacting BEIS to see if the NPS are being reviewed and will copy the response on for your information.

Your response was fairly comprehensive but unfortunately doesn’t appear to have covered the main and final aspect I posed, that being if the National Policy Statements were to change in terms of requirements during the consultation stage of a project or more critical between the final public consultation and the submission of an DCO application would the Planning Inspector expect or request the applicant to openly re-consult on the basis of any revised policy?

Email 3: I am very gratefully for both of your informative responses which nicely closes this uncertainty I had.

As you suggested I have also enquired of BEIS and they have confirmed that there are no immediate plans to review the policies. I attach their response for your information.

Just so you are aware my original concern arose from some comments made by two officers from a significant non-departmental public body at a meeting with a statutory consultee for the project that I attend.
Response 1: Thank you for your email in relation to the Nuclear National Policy Statement (NPS).

Whilst NPSs provide the framework within which Inspectors make their recommendations to the Secretary of State, the Planning Inspectorate is impartial and is not able to comment on Government policy. I would therefore advise you to contact the Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy as the government department responsible for that policy area: [attachment 1]

All NPSs, or material amendments to NPSs, are subject to public consultation and Parliamentary scrutiny before being designated (i.e. published) and the Secretary of State must have regard to the outcome of public consultation and Parliamentary scrutiny when deciding whether or not to proceed to designate the NPS.

The Secretary of State must also have regard to any matter that the Secretary of State thinks is important and relevant to the Secretary of State’s decision. This could include a draft NPS if one exists and if the relevant NPS has not yet been formally designated.

Response 2:
Thank you for your email and apologies for not getting back to you sooner.

If the Secretary of State (SoS) decides to review the NPS under s6 of the 2008 Planning Act (as amended) (PA2008), the SoS may suspend an examination under s108 until the review process has been completed. The review process does not impact on applications that have yet to be submitted to the Planning Inspectorate nor does it apply to examinations that have already closed.

When deciding whether to grant an applicant a DCO, the SoS has to have regard to the relevant NPS(s). If a new NPS is published after the applicant’s statutory consultation has ended but before the submission has been submitted, it is for the applicant to seek its own legal advice whether further consultation is needed to comply with the revised NPS.

We have recently set up a mailbox for Sizewell C ([email protected]) which is monitored by the team in my absence and is copied into this response for your information.

Should you have any further queries please do not hesitate to contact us.

Response 3: Many thanks for your email and for attaching the response from BEIS, a copy has been placed on our records for information.

22 February 2017
Phil Butler
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Concerns raised about the impact of the proposed railway line and the impact on property prices
Dear Mrs Lightfoot

Thank you for your email raising concerns regarding the pre-application consultation process for the proposed Sizewell C New Nuclear Power Station, a copy has been placed on our records.

As the application has not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate (the Inspectorate), the Inspectorate has no formal powers to intercede on behalf of interested parties. I would therefore encourage you to contact the Applicant directly to make your concerns heard as the applicant has a statutory duty to take your views into account.

However, if you feel that your comments are not being taken into account by the Applicant, I would advise you to write to your local authority and set out why you think the Applicant is failing to conduct its consultation properly. As part of the process for when the Inspectorate assesses whether an application can be accepted for examination, we seek adequacy of consultation responses from the local authority that in turn sends the Inspectorate its comments on whether the applicant has fulfilled its consultation duties.

If the application for development consent is formally accepted by the Inspectorate, you will be able to submit your views in relation to the project which will be considered by the Examining Authority during the examination.

The Inspectorate has published a series of advice notes which explain the examination process, including information on how to get involved; of particular interest are advice notes 8.1 to 8.5. These are available at:

[attachment 1]

We have recently set up a mailbox for Sizewell C ([email protected]) which is monitored by the team in my absence and is copied into this response for your information.

Should you have any further queries please do not hesitate to contact us.

21 February 2017
Pam Lightfoot
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Comments regarding the proposed Sizewell C Nuclear Power Station
Thank you for your letter in relation to the proposed Sizewell C New Nuclear Power Station.

A copy of your correspondence has been placed on our records, however I would encourage you to contact the developer directly to make your concerns known as this project is at the pre-application stage and no application has yet been received by the Planning Inspectorate, therefore we can only accept your letter for information purposes.

If an application for development consent is formally accepted by the Secretary of State, you will be able to submit your views in relation to the project which will be considered by the Examining Authority during their examination.

The Planning Inspectorate has published a series of advice notes which explain the examination process, including information on how to get involved, of particular interest are advice notes 8.1 to 8.5, these are available at:

[attachment 1]

10 February 2017
Theberton and Eastbridge Action group on Sizewell (TEAGS)
I represent the Suffolk Local Resilience Forum, as established by Section 4 of the Civil Contingencies Act 2004(Contingency Planning) Regulations 2005, and wish to seek clarification as to the role of this statutory process with regard to duties under Section 88 of the Planning Act 2008 and Section 3 of The Infrastructure Planning (Interested Parties and Miscellaneous Prescribed Provisions) Regulations 2015.

Specifically I wish to understand within the context of Local Resilience Forum’s not being a statutory party for projects within England, Section 3(2) of the Infrastructure Planning (Interested Parties and Miscellaneous Prescribed Provisions) Regulations 2015 refers, which body will discharge the enduring statutory civil contingency assessments around risk assessment and emergency planning? The Suffolk Local Resilience Forum is monitoring the ongoing activity around the Sizewell C New Nuclear Power Station and wishes to understand its liabilities under the Planning Act and associated regulations and any consultation obligations that fall to EDF Energy as the developer.
Thank you for your email of 23rd November regarding the status of a Local Resilience Forum (LRF) in the Development Consent process. I’ve set out below the legal status of LRFs at the Pre application stage and Post submission of an application.

Pre Application

The Infrastructure Planning (Prescribed Forms and procedures) Regulations do not identify a LRF in England as a prescribed (statutory) consultee during the pre-application stage. However, this does not prevent a developer from exercising their discretion to consult a LRF in the same way as a prescribed consultee under s42 of the Planning Act 2008. We can’t compel them to do this though. The pre application consultation stage should include an opportunity for organisations and individuals to engage with the applicant under s47 of the Planning Act 2008, as part of the wider community consultation.

Post Submission

After the application is submitted, there will be an opportunity for any organisation or individual to register a relevant representation in order to become an “Interested Party” – everyone who registers will get an invitation to the Preliminary Meeting and will have the same status, going forward, as the prescribed consultees. There will be publicity about the registration process at the time and you can also get automatic updates about the Sizewell project by entering your email into “Email Updates” field on the Sizewell project page of National infrastructure Planning website. This facility will only provide updates in relation to the DCO process and not about the EDF’s pre-application consultation activities.

Organisations under Reg 3(1) of The Infrastructure Planning (Interested Parties and Miscellaneous Prescribed Provisions) Regulations 2015 are automatically Interested Parties and so do not need to register. They will also automatically be invited to the Preliminary Meeting. Even so, we advise prescribed consultees to register a relevant representation because this allows their early views about the application to inform the Examining Authority’s initial assessment of issues, which is carried out in advance of the Preliminary Meeting.

The schedule of prescribed organisations includes the relevant County, District or Unitary authorities, HSE, relevant Police and Fire Authorities, the Environment Agency and various NHS bodies. I understand that these organisations form the basis of LRF partnership and as such they will individually and collectively be able to promote the issues of interest to the Suffolk LRF in the absence of any Interested Party registration by you. Suffolk LRF could usefully discuss the areas of concern and interest about the Sizewell project and seek a common position with the members about the best way to promote the LRF’s views in the process. I’m afraid I’m not aware of the reasons why LRFs were removed from the list of prescribed consultees by the 2015 Regulations, which were drafted by DCLG. However, I would assume that inclusion or otherwise on the list does not have any bearing on your duties under the Civil Contingencies Act (2004) but you will need to take your own legal advice about that if indeed this is something you are unsure about.

The examination of an application is an inquisitorial process led by a Panel of Examining Inspectors. The onus is on the applicant to prepare a robust application and to make sure they comply with all the necessary legal requirements as they relate to construction and operation of the particular infrastructure. This may involve including specific licences and permits within the Development Consent Order or seeking them separately from the appropriate bodies. In relation to the Sizewell C project, EDF will also need to obtain a Nuclear Site Licence from the Office of Nuclear Regulation. That Licencing process is separate and will deal with matters of Nuclear safety, the transport of nuclear waste and materials and the safety of people. I’m not familiar with the detail of that process or the role of LRFs in it.

24 November 2016
Suffolk Local Resilience Forum - Andy Osman
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update with EDF Energy, Suffolk County Council and Suffolk Coastal District Council
please see attached meeting note

13 November 2015
EDF Energy - Tim Norwood
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
To PINs
Please would you tell me if there are any changes to the Planning Regime that was set up to consider Sizewell C Nuclear Power station.
I also request an update on the Planning Act 2008 as altered and amended following the consultation in 2013 as I cannot find the current document on your website.

As I understand it the Statement of Community Consultation (SoCC) has been agreed using the new 3 stage Consultation. Is this correct?
Stage 1has been completed, we now await Stage 2. when that has been undertaken and completed there will be a lapse of time before EDF submit their Stage 3 Consultation which we are now lead to believe will also be the DCO application. Does this mean that PINS will start to access the DCO before the Stage 3 is considered by Statutory Bodies and other interested parties?

I would also like to know how the Infrastructure Commission headed up by Lord Adonis fits into the Planning Regime if at all.
Further to your email below I am responding as follows;

Previously Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIPs) were dealt with by the Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC). Under the Localism Act 2011, the IPC was abolished on 1 April 2012. Its functions transferred to the Planning Inspectorate on that date and are now delivered by its Major Applications and Plans Directorate.

As you are aware, the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) has been amended namely by the Localism Act 2011 and the Growth and Infrastructure Act 2013. The version on our website is the original document (as enacted) and does not take account of these amendments. If you wish to view a more up to date version, please view the PA2008 which can be accessed at: [attachment 1] however please be aware that there may still be amendments outstanding.

It is for the developer to decide how many rounds of consultation they wish to carry out. However, the consultation must be carried out in accordance with the relevant sections of PA2008. It may be of use to you to view the advice provided to the developer and others via the S51 advice tab found on the project page of our website. A record of all the meetings that the Planning Inspectorate has had with the developer are recorded and available to view below:

[attachment 2]

You may wish to visit the developer's website for further information regarding their consultation or contact them direct on the details below:

Freephone Community Helpline: 0800 197 6102
Email: [email protected]

For information regarding the Infrastructure Commission please visit the website below:

[attachment 3]

I hope the above is helpful however please do not hesitate to contact me further.

06 November 2015
Joan Girling
Enquiry received via post
response has attachments
Please see attached.
Please see attached.

18 May 2015
Lynda Stanley
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Joint Local Authority Sizewell C town and parish engagement event
Please see attached meeting note regarding Sizewell C Outreach event

11 March 2015
Joint Local Authorities Town and Parish Event
Enquiry received via email
Should a Statement of Community Consultation (SoCC) be reviewed and approved by the Council if alterations are proposed?
With regard to the Sizewell C SoCC, it may not be necessary for EDFE to review it if it is still relevant. We would advise any developer to seek advice from the relevant local authorities about the need to review the SoCC if changes were proposed to the consultation methodology.

For large projects like SZC, where consultation takes place over an extended period of time in multiple stages, the SoCC will usually be drafted with some flexibility built into it, to allow for the need to respond to feedback and events on the ground. We would encourage this ?iterative? approach.

For example, some SoCCs state that, if the need arises, the developer may hold targeted consultation with specific consultees and / or affected communities. In that instance, the detail about the timing / locations and nature of that consultation would not necessarily be set out in the SoCC but a local authority may use the commitment set out in the SoCC as the basis to request a targeted consultation in a specific area if they think it is needed.

09 September 2014
TASC - Joan Girling
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
General request for more detailed information about the EIA Scoping Process and the identification of non prescribed consultees following a meeting between Mark Southgate (Director of Major Applications and Plans - PINS) and Philip North (Parliamentary Assistant to Dr Therese Coffey MP) and Dr Therese Coffey MP
We promised to provide some further information and clarification after the meeting. I hope the attached information is helpful.

1) the prescribed and non-prescribed consultation bodies for a Secretary of State?s scoping opinion

The scoping process is about identifying what needs to be included in an Environmental Statement (ES) and which bodies can assist a developer due to the information they may hold.

As discussed at our meeting, the process for consultation to inform a scoping opinion issued by the Secretary of State is set out under statute. The Planning Inspectorate, on behalf of the Secretary of State, is required to consult prescribed consultation bodies. These bodies are defined under Regulation 2 of the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2009 (as amended) as bodies:

? prescribed under section 42(a) of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended) (?the PA 2008?) and listed in column 1 of the table in Schedule 1 of the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009 (as amended) (the ?APFP Regulations?) ? subject to certain tests, referred to as the ?relevance test? and ?circumstances test?, which are explained below;
? local authorities under section 43 of the PA 2008; and
? where the land to which the application relates is in Greater London, the Greater London Authority.

For certain consultation bodies, the Secretary of State has no discretion and must consult in all cases. In other cases, discretion must be exercised. This is undertaken by adopting a ?relevance test? and/or by deciding whether certain circumstances apply (the ?circumstances test?). In addition, in a limited number of circumstances, the Planning Inspectorate has also identified some non-prescribed consultation bodies. These bodies are not prescribed under s.42(a) of the PA 2008. Therefore, the developer has no requirement to consult with them in order to meet their statutory pre-application consultation obligations (see Advice Note 16 described below). Such bodies have been identified by the Planning Inspectorate as having relevant functions and responsibilities, relevant to the preparation of the ES. These non-prescribed consultation bodies are explained in Advice Note 3 (see link below).

2) Scoping consultation undertaken in relation to Sizewell C Proposed Nuclear Development

Table 1 of the appendix to Advice Note 3 sets out the consultation bodies (as identified on Schedule 1 of the APFP Regulations) that are to be consulted by the Secretary of State following a valid scoping request at all times, together with the circumstances tests that apply to each consultation body. In relation to Sizewell C, the Planning Inspectorate received notification on 21 November 2012. Where a notification is provided prior to 6 April 2013 (as in the case of the Sizewell C project), the ?relevance test? which must be applied where the prescribed consultee is described, for example, as ?the relevant parish council?, is defined as:

?relevant?, in relation to a body, shall mean the body which has responsibility for the location where the proposals may or will be sited or has responsibility for an area which neighbours that location?.

In our meeting, Dr Coffey raised specific queries regarding the identification and consultation with parish councils and the Royal National Lifeboat Institute (RNLI). The ?B? parish council is the relevant parish council in which the proposed development and associated development is located. The ?A? parish council is the neighbouring council, which share a boundary with the ?B? parish council. Therefore, in relation to the Sizewell C project, based on the proposed location of the main development site and the associated development as shown on Figure 1.1.1 in the developer?s scoping report, the following ?A? and ?B? parish councils were identified:

?B? parish councils (where the main development site and associated development would be located)
? Benhall and Sternfield
? Darsham
? Farnham with Stratford St Andrew
? Hacheston
? Leiston cum Sizewell
? Theberton and Eastbridge

?A? parish councils (share a boundary with the ?B? parish councils identified above)
? Aldringham-cum-Thorpe
? Blaxhall
? Blythburgh
? Bramfield and Thorington
? Campsea Ashe
? Dunwich
? Easton
? Great Glemham
? Kelsale cum Carlton
? Knodishall
? Letheringham
? Little Glemham
? Marlesford
? Middleton
? Parham
? Rendham
? Saxmundham
? Snape
? Sweffling
? Westleton
? Wickham Market
? Yoxford

RNLI

In respect of your query regarding consultation with the RNLI, this body has been identified by the Planning Inspectorate as a non-prescribed consultation body, as explained above. The RNLI fall to a limited category of bodies, with both statutory and non-statutory responsibilities, in relation to the marine environment under a legal obligation that the UK Government has for maritime search and rescue within the UK. This is derived from the UK Government?s adherence to international conventions including: The Convention on the Law of the Sea; the Convention on Safety of Life at Sea; the Maritime Search and Rescue Convention; and the Convention on International Civil Aviation. As explained in Section 3 of Advice Note 3, the RNLI are consulted by the Secretary of State where the following circumstances test is met: ?all proposed applications where there is any offshore element?.

Therefore, in relation to Sizewell C, as the description of the proposed development in the developer?s scoping report includes offshore elements such as a temporary jetty and cooling water intake and outfall tunnels, it was considered that the circumstances test had been met and it was appropriate to consult the RNLI.

3) Advice Notes

The following Planning Inspectorate Advice Notes may be of assitance to you.

Advice Note 3: EIA Consultation and Notification

Advice Note 3 explains the approach taken by the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) to identifying the relevant prescribed bodies and other bodies (referred to as ?non-prescribed consultation bodies?), to be notified by the Secretary of State that an Environmental Statement (ES) will be provided with an application for a proposed Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP).

Advice Note 3: [attachment 1]
Supporting appendix: [attachment 2]

Advice Note 7: Screening, Scoping and Preliminary Environmental Information

Advice Note 7 explains the information to be included in the developer?s screening and scoping requests made to the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State); notification and consultation with the prescribed and non-prescribed consultation bodies (which should be read in conjunction with Advice Note 3 above); the publication of screening and scoping opinions by the Planning Inspectorate; and understanding the role of preliminary environmental information.

Advice Note 7: [attachment 3]

Advice Note 8: How to Get Involved in the Planning Process

This is a suite of five Advice Notes that provide a step-by-step guide to getting involved in the national infrastructure planning process: [attachment 4]

4) Opportunities to participate in the pre-application stage

We understand from our discussions that you may wish to provide a response to the developer?s scoping report for the Sizewell C project. If so, we would advise that you address any such comments to the developer directly. We encourage developers to consult with as wide a range of bodies as they deem appropriate during the pre-application stage, including whilst preparing the ES. You are welcome to copy such comments to the Planning Inspectorate for information. However, this would not form part of the Secretary of State?s scoping opinion.

You should also note that if we provide any advice on making representations about Sizewell C, in response to your comments, this would be classed as section 51 advice under the Planning Act 2008 (as amended). We are required to publish this advice, along with a copy of your comments, on our website. This advice would also be made available on the Sizewell C project webpage of the Planning Portal.

Although this response is more lengthy than that which I would normally provide, given Dr Coffey?s detailed concerns about the process and her continuing wish to be involved in the project I hope this information is helpful.

Regards,

Mark Southgate
Director of Major Applications and Plans

21 July 2014
Philip North
Enquiry received via email
Could you please tell me who supervises the project during the construction phase to ensure the project adheres to the scheme as approved by the Secretary of State, and any planning conditions. And how are Building Regulations administered?
A DCO will usually be drafted in the form of a Statutory Instrument (an Order) and as such it is in effect a piece of legislation in its own right. In general terms this means that failure to comply with the provisions of the Order is illegal. Any breach of the terms of the DCO could be reported directly to the Secretary of State who would then need to consider whether to take enforcement action and what that would entail. In the case of a Nuclear project, if the alleged illegality involved the main power station site then the matter would need to be referred to the Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) as a potential breach of the Nuclear Site Licence, which is separate to the DCO. In reality the ONR would be regularly monitoring the construction of the main nuclear site and so it would be very unlikely that they would be unaware of any deviation from the consented scheme.

A DCO typically contains protective provisions and requirements (akin to planning conditions). Some of these will relate to on-going monitoring, some will need to be discharged or signed off upon completion in a similar way to a planning permission being implemented. As to the authority responsible, it really depends on the nature of the provision or requirement. Usually a local authority would fulfil this role; however, there may be other instances where the Environment Agency or another statutory body will assume responsibility for monitoring compliance. It will be up to the developer to agree the detailed wording of the DCO and any associated monitoring / discharging responsibilities with the organisations concerned at the pre application stage and at the examination.

The Hinkley Point C DCO would be a useful comparator in this instance. In that case the local authorities negotiated the detailed wording of the majority of the requirements and also a charging schedule for undertaking these responsibilities, with the ability of the applicant to appeal to the Secretary of State if the discharging authority was acting unreasonably. See Schedules 2 and 14 of the DCO

In the case of HPC the monitoring regime associated with the construction of the Power Station and the associated development was included in documents which are referred to in the requirements. For example, the Code of Construction Practice or the Environmental Management Plan. These documents contain the detailed mechanisms and controls needed to mitigate the construction phase of the development, but which would be too detailed and lengthy to be contained in the DCO itself.

I hope this makes sense. I would recommend you have a go at reading the Hinkley Point C DCO. On first sight it?s a bit impenetrable to the untrained legal eye but in terms of its structure and how its powers are exercised you should be able to gain an understanding of how a Sizewell C DCO could be structured. In basic terms a DCO is typically structured in the following way; firstly, the DCO defines what the ?development? is (schedule of works); secondly it defines what powers are enshrined in the DCO (articles and provisions) and thirdly how the powers sought will be controlled / mitigated (usually a schedule of requirements).

17 June 2014
Sizewell Parishes Liaison Group - Jon Swallow
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Meeting between The Planning Inspectorate, Suffolk Coastal District Council, Suffolk County Council and EDF Energy
Please see attached meeting note

16 May 2014
EDF Energy - Tim Norwood
Enquiry received via email
What is an EIA Scoping Request?
A Scoping Request is a document and process whereby the applicant asks us (acting on behalf of the Secretary of State (SoS)) for our view on the matters and topics which they intend to include in their Environmental Statement. For example, they may wish to ?scope out? certain topics which they consider are not relevant to the context and location of the project. Perhaps there are topics which are more suited to an urban environment or features which aren?t present in the area such as disused mines and such like. In any event, we provide them with an opinion on their suggested range of topics after consulting with other statutory bodies. If we get a scoping request we?ll publish it along with our Scoping Opinion and any responses we receive from the statutory bodies.

04 April 2014
Joan Girling
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Please see link below for the details of a meeting between The Planning Inspectorate, EDF Energy, Suffolk Coastal DC and Suffolk CC to discuss progress of Sizewell C Project.

31 October 2013
EDF Energy
Enquiry received via post
response has attachments
Minsmere Levels Stakeholders Group enquired about the Scoping Opinion the Planning Inspectorate may issue for the Sizewell C scheme. The initial letter is attachment 1; the response to this letter is attachment 2; the response we recieved to this is attachment 3 and our response to this is attachment 4.
The initial enquiry is attachment 1; the Planning Inspectorate response to this enquiry is attachment 2; the response to our advice and further enquiry is attachment 3 and our further advice is attachment 4.

16 July 2013
Minsmere Levels Stakeholders - John Rea Price
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
The Planning Inspecorate and Friends of the Earth Suffolk Coastal met to discuss effective participation in the pre-application and examination stages of the Sizewell C proposal.
See the attached meeting note

25 June 2013
Friends of the Earth Suffolk - Rachel Fulcher
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
A meeting between the developer - EDF Energy- and local authorities, Suffolk Coastal Council and Suffolk County Council to discuss progress to date of the proposed Sizewell C New Nuclear Power Station.
Please see the attached meeting note below:

15 May 2013
EDF Energy EDF Energy
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Cllr Swallow supplied comments on behalf of the Sizewell Parishes Liaison Group in regard to the the developer's pre-application consultation for the proposed Sizewell C New Nuclear Power Station.
Thank you for your email and attached submission on behalf of the Sizewell Parishes Liaison Group. Your correspondence will be kept on the case file.

As the application for Sizewell New Nuclear Power Station has yet to be submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, we would encourage you to continue your dialogue with EDF Energy. You may, for example, wish to forward them your current submission if they are not already aware of it. This will allow them the opportunity to respond and (if necessary) remedy to any concerns you have regarding the pre-application consultation.

You may also wish to inform your local authority about your views on the developer?s consultation. The host local authority and the neighbouring authorities will have the chance to submit a representation on the adequacy of consultation once an application has been submitted.

On a related matter, you may be interested in the recent discussion between EDF Energy, the Suffolk Councils and the Planning Inspectorate on the proposed next steps for the project during pre-application. Please see below link for a copy of this meeting note as published on our website.

[attachment 1];ipcadvice=38dc06ee7d

I hope this response has been helpful. If you have any further queries or want any of the above points clarified, our enquiries line is available to help on 0303 444 5000 or you can send queries to [email protected]

19 February 2013
Sizewell Parishes Liaison Group - Cllr Jon Swallow
Enquiry received via phone
response has attachments
Cllr Swallow had a number of queries regarding the developer's pre-application consultation and how to register views after an application has been submitted.
Pre-Application Consultation

The proposed Sizewell C Nuclear Power Station is currently at the pre-application stage and has yet to be submitted to the Planning Inspectorate?s National Infrastructure Directorate. At pre-application developers have a statutory duty to consult the public and prescribed consultees under sections 42, 47 and 48 of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended).

The developer?s pre-application consultation offers an important opportunity to provide early feedback and potentially influence a proposal before its submission to the Planning Inspectorate. After an application is submitted there is only limited scope for the developer to change their scheme.

You may already be aware of the below links that contain further details on the Sizewell project pre-application consultation.

EDF Statement of Community Consultation
[attachment 1]

EDF Sizewell Consultation Website
[attachment 2]

The aggregated feedback from all phases of the pre-application consultation form part of the developer?s Consultation Report. This document is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate as part of the prescribed application documentation. The Planning Inspectorate can also request copies of the individual responses to the pre-application consultation as part of our acceptance check.

The Consultation Report for Hinkley Point C provides an example of the type of information provided by a Consultation Report. Please follow this link.

Registering Views Post Application Submission

If the application is accepted by the Planning Inspectorate, there will then be an opportunity to register your views within the examination process by completing a relevant representation form during the specified period. We encourage this to be done via our online submission facility, but there is the option to request a paper copy of the form.

People may register as individuals and on behalf of one or more separate organisations that they represent. Once registered, they are then able to submit further written representations during the examination process and otherwise participate fully.

Full details about how and when to register for the Sizewell C application would be publicised by the developer in local media. The Planning Inspectorate would also provide details about how to register, including our online facility, and other project information on our website?s project page.

Planning Inspectorate?s Sizewell Project Page
[attachment 3]

General information on how to participate in the application process can be found in our advice notes. The 8.x advice series offers introductory information for the general public on how the infrastructure planning process works. Advice Note 8.1: How the Process Works and Advice Note 8.2: How to have your Say on a Major Infrastructure Proposal may be of particular interest.

Planning Inspectorate Advice Notes
[attachment 4]

I hope this response has been helpful. If you any further questions or want any of the above points clarified, our enquiries line is available to help on 0303 444 5000 or you can send queries to [email protected]

01 February 2013
Sizewell Parishes Liaison Group - Cllr Jon Swallow
Enquiry received via post
Mrs Roberts copied the Planning Inspectorate into comments to the developer.
If the application is accepted by the Planning Inspectorate for Examination, the developer will publicise the acceptance and you will be able to register as an Interested Party with the Planning Inspectorate. Once you have registered as an Interested Party, the Planning Inspectorate will inform you of the progress of the project and invite you to make written representations and attend any hearings which may be held.

23 January 2013
Wendy Roberts
Enquiry received via post
response has attachments
Mr Roberts provided the Planning Inspectorate with his comments on the sizewell scheme.
As this scheme is currently at the pre-application stage, you should ensure that the comments you have sent to the Planning Inspectorate are also directed to the developer, EDF Energy.

The developer is undertaking their first phase of statutory pre-application consultation until 6 February, and will have to show how they have taken any comments they have received into account when they submit their application to the Planning Inspectorate. Please see [attachment 1] for details of how to contact EDF and their consultation program.

If the application is accepted by the Planning Inspectorate for Examination, the developer will publicise the acceptance and you will be able to register as an Interested Party with the Planning Inspectorate. Once you have registered as an Interested Party, the Planning Inspectorate will inform you of the progress of the project and invite you to make written representations and attend any hearings which may be held.

23 January 2013
Richard Roberts
Enquiry received via post
response has attachments
Mr Howard provided the Planning Inspectorate with his comments on the sizewell scheme.
As this scheme is currently at the pre-application stage, you should ensure that the comments you have sent to the Planning Inspectorate are also directed to the developer, EDF Energy. The developer is currently undertaking their statutory pre-application consultation, and will have to show how they have taken any comments they have received into account when they submit their application to the Planning Inspectorate. Please see [attachment 1] for details of how to contact EDF and their consultation program.

If the application is accepted by the Planning Inspectorate for Examination, the developer will publicise the acceptance and you will be able to register as an Interested Party with the Planning Inspectorate. Once you have registered as an Interested Party, the Planning Inspectorate will inform you of the progress of the project and invite you to make written representations and attend any hearings which may be held. The Examining Authority will have regard to representations made when forming their recommendation to the Secretary of State.

Advice Note 8.2 provides information about how to engage with the developer at the pre-application stage of the process: [attachment 2].

Also see our legislation and advice page ([attachment 3]) for further information about our process and how you can have your say.

18 January 2013
Bill Howard
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Note of meeting held between the Planning Inspectorate, the Suffolk Councils and EDF Energy to provide an update on the Sizewell C project and discuss next steps.
Please see attached meeting note.

13 January 2013
EDF Energy - Tim Norwood et al
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
On the 28th of May 2012 a meeting was held by the " Sizewell C Joint Local Authority Group (JLAG) " to discuss "about a possible third power station at Sizewell, and what the potential benefits and disadvantages of such a development would be". However, any group that was known to be anti nuclear was excluded from the meeting. This included

Communities Against Nuclear Expansion [attachment 1]
Shut Down Sizewell [attachment 2]
Sizewell Camp [attachment 3]

We feel that we should be able to present our concerns to such meetings and not have to stand outside leafletting or be restricted to asking a few questions. Adequate time should be alloted to such groups to raise their concerns which are relevant to that part of the consultation.
Thank you for your email of 29th May. I think it would be helpful if I explain a little about the remit of the application process that we administer, which may explain why the Councils took the action they did.

The Panel of Inspectors that will be appointed to examine the application, if we accept it as being valid, are specifically instructed by national policy set out in the National Policy Statements (NPS) on Energy, and in particular, Nuclear Power, not to duplicate the licensing and permitting regimes of other regulators responsible for nuclear safety and the transport of nuclear waste. These agencies are the Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR), the Environment Agency and the County Council as the highways authority in terms of the transport of nuclear waste. For example the ONR are currently undertaking a "Generic Design Assessment" on the reactors that are being proposed in the new generation of nuclear power stations which are being proposed (AP1000 and EPR).

The NPSs also set out the Government's positive case for the need for new power generation and nuclear energy as part of the mix. Therefore, the process which we administer will not consider the need for nuclear energy. As such, if you disagree with this Government policy you should take this up with your local MP.

The examination of any future Sizewell C application that we may undertake will therefore focus on local impacts related to the construction and operation of a new nuclear power station. For example, landscape and visual impacts, transport impacts, design and access and the accommodation of construction and operation workers. This list is not exhaustive, but does not include any matters, for example, related to the reactor design or impacts on health from the operation of the power station, apart from traffic.

Please follow the link below which will take you to the Nuclear NPS which was designated as government policy last year:

[attachment 4]

EDF Energy will be holding a series of consultation events as part of their statutory pre application duties required by the process. This will be your opportunity to influence the project, however, I recognise that you are likely to have an objection to the principle of the project. If this is the case, I would still advise that you take an interest in their consultation so that you can find out as much as you can about the proposals.

If we accept the application for examination you and anyone with an interest in the proposal will have the opportunity to register to take part in the examination. To be clear though, the Panel of Inspectors which make up the examining authority, can disregard any representations made about the merits of national policy in NPS which would include the areas I have set out above. You therefore need to think carefully about how you can put forward your views, at the appropriate time, which will be relevant to this process. You also need to consider where to direct your concerns about the matters related to the need for nuclear power and the safety / health matters explained above.

For further advice about the application process, please refer to our Advice Note 8.1 via this link: [attachment 5]

Our project page for Sizewell C can be found via this link:
[attachment 6]

30 May 2012
Peter Lux
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
A tripartite meeting between EDF, local authorities and National Infrastructure Directorate - The Planning Inspectorate.
Please see attached meeting note:

24 April 2012
EDF Energy
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Meeting between IPC and EDF Energy to discuss progress towards the submission of an application.
Meeting note attached

28 February 2012
EDF Energy - Angela Piearce
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
1)Does the submission of this application constitute a planning application?
2)Has a Statement of Community Consultation been prepared for this application?
If so where is it available to view?
3)What are the avenues of community participation available for having an input at the design stage rather than after the application has been submitted?
1) At present this proposal is at the early pre-application stage. Formal consultation has not begun, however, in accordance with our policy of openness we publish a list of anticipated projects and any advice we have given on them on our website. In accordance with the Planning Act 2008 ("the Act"), applicants have a statutory requirement to publicise their proposals and carry out extensive formal consultation prior to the submission of a formal application for development consent. As part of this application, they can seek for more than just planning permission. The Act has made provisions for a more unified consent regime by reducing the need for other consents as far as possible. For example within a development consent order (DCO) an applicant can include provisions for development associated with the proposed NSIP such as the compulsory acquisition of land. Schedule 5 of the Act lists 38 matters which may be included within a DCO.

2) A Statement of Community Consultation (SoCC) has not been published.

The promoter is required to consult with relevant local authorities on the contents of the SoCC, enabling it to make any necessary amendments before it is publicised. Once the SoCC has been finalised the applicant must publish it in a newspaper circulating in the vicinity of the proposals land and carry out consultation in line with the contents of the SoCC.

In light of this, we advise that you contact the promoter to ascertain when the SoCC is likely to be produced. The applicants contact details are as follows:

Angela Piearce (Consultation Programme Leader)
Sizewell Nuclear New Build,
FREEPOST LON20574,
London,
W1E 3EZ

Tel: 08001976102
E-mail: [email protected] or [email protected]
Website: [attachment 1]

3) The process under the the Act emphasises the importance of the pre-application stage. In principle, comprehensive consultation at this stage should aid a projects progression, enabling the application to be as developed as possible when submitted to the IPC, minimising the likelihood of new issues being raised during examination. The opportunities to input into the design process will be determined by the promoter, having regard to any formal government/IPC guidance and comments by the local authorities. These opportunities will be set out in the SoCC. The promoter is required to have regard to comments it receives during formal pre-application consultation and to show this in its consultation report submitted as part of an application. Therefore we encourage anyone with an interest in a proposed application to make their views known to the developer as part of the developer's pre-application consultation.

04 February 2011
Turley Associates - D Armstrong