Feedback meeting between National Grid and the Planning Inspectorate following the Secretary of State?s decision on the North London Reinforcement Project.
Please see meeting note attached.

National Grid

The Planning Inspectorate was asked whether the National Grid (North London Reinforcement Project) Order 2014, laid before Parliament, has to undergo any formal parliamentary scrutiny?

The Planning Inspectorate's response was by email.
Thank you for your email enquiry received today in regard to the recent North London Reinforcement Project decision.

This National Grid (North London Reinforcement Project) Order 2014 does not require Parliamentary scrutiny before it comes into force. Orders of this type must be deposited in the office of the Clerk of the Parliaments under Section 117(6) of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended).

Randall's Parliamentary Service - Bradley Rogers

Southern Gas Networks contacted the Planning Inspectorate requesting the following:

I have been forwarded the attached from Southern Gas Networks (SGN) legal department.

I note the works area is North London, SGN own and operate a small area in Richmond it is Transco own and operate the gas infrastructure in North London.

If you could forward more details including any plans this will help decipher who you would need to contact.

I look forward to your response

In response to the Planning Inspectorate's reply, Southern Gas Networks emailed:

Thank you for your email,

I have checked the project Waltham Cross and Tottenham, North London, this area is not covered by Southern Gas Networks it is covered by National Grid.

Thank you for you enquiry
Thank you for your email received on 1 November 2013 about the North London Reinforcement Project application. This application is a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP) under the Planning Act 2008 as amended (PA 2008) and has been examined by an appointed Examining authority at the Planning Inspectorate.

For your information, Southern Gas Networks Plc was identified as a 'statutory party' for this application who the Examining authority had to invite to the Preliminary Meeting under section 88(3)(c) of PA 2008 and, following that meeting, inform of any procedural decisions made subject to section 89(2A)(a). The Examining authority also needs to inform those invited to the Preliminary Meeting of any variations to the examination timetable, which is why the procedural letter dated 18 October 2013 was sent to Southern Gas Networks Plc. Statutory parties are also given the opportunity to notify the Examining authority in writing that the person wishes to become an 'interested party' for the purposes of being kept informed of the application and participate in the examination (section 89(2A)(b)). We did not receive any such notification from Southern Gas Networks Plc.

Procedural letters were therefore sent to Southern Gas Networks Plc at the following addresses:

c/o Scotia Gas Networks, Inveralmond House, 200 Dunkeld Road, Perth, PH1 3AQ, and;

St. Lawrence House, Station Road, Horley, Surrey, RH6 9HJ.

Please be informed that the examination has now closed for this application. There is a period of 3 months for the Examining authority to submit a recommendation to the relevant Secretary of State. Further information can be found on our website:

[attachment 1]

Regarding your request for any plans which may help you identify the works area, I refer you to the applicant's 'Works Plans' and 'Land Plans' submitted as part of their application, which are published on our website:

[attachment 2]

Southern Gas Networks - Dee Mann

Travis Perkins PLC telephoned the Planning Inspectorate regarding the North London Reinforcement Project to ask why they had received the recent procedural letter.

Our response was by telephone.
Thank you for your telephone enquiry to the Planning Inspectorate regarding the North London Reinforcement Project application and the latest procedural letter.

You received the procedural letter dated 18 October 2013 because Travis Perkins PLC had been invited by the Examining authority to the Preliminary Meeting in April this year; and consequently, under statutory legislation, the Examining authority has a duty to notify any such Persons invited to the Preliminary Meeting of the procedural decisions made at that meeting together with any variations made to the examination timetable.

Travis Perkins PLC at the address provided, was identified by the applicant in Part 3 of their Book of Reference, which forms part of the application. The applicant had therefore listed Travis Perkins PLC as being one of those Persons entitled to enjoy easements or private rights over land which it is proposed shall or may be interfered with, suspended or extinguished as a result of the provisions in the Development Consent Order for which an application is being made.

You can find out how Travis Perkins PLC has been listed by the applicant by reviewing their Book of Reference published on the National Infrastructure pages of the planning portal (Document 4.3):
[attachment 1]

In addition, you may also wish to view the applicant?s latest draft Development Consent Order (published on 29 July 2013), and the draft Development Consent Order issued by the Examining authority for consultation (published on 9 August 2013), as the Articles and Schedules therein sets-out how the proposed development and works shall be carried-out subject to receiving consent from the Secretary of State:
[attachment 2]

Even though Travis Perkins PLC had not registered as an Interested Party, the Examining authority chose to invite Travis Perkins PLC to the Preliminary Meeting in order to establish its interests in respect of this application. Though the recent procedural letter was a request addressed to the applicant to provide further information about their Book of Reference, it also included a change to the examination timetable which explains why Travis Perkins PLC along with those invited to the Preliminary Meeting also received a copy of this letter.

Please note that the examination is expected to close on Wednesday and any correspondence received outside the procedural deadlines and before the examination closes, will be accepted only at the Examining authority's discretion.

I hope this information has been useful to you.

Travis Perkins PLC - N McCarthy

Sustrans enquired by email whether it is registered as an 'interested party' in relation to the North London (Electricity Line) Reinforcement Project application, further to receiving the procedural (Rule 8) letter from the Examining Authority.

The Planning Inspectorate's response was sent by email.
Thank you for your email enquiry received on 15 May 2013 regarding the North London (Electricity Line) Reinforcement Project application, currently at the 'examination' stage of the Planning Act 2008 process, as amended by the Localism Act 2011 (PA 2008). You have asked whether Sustrans is registered as an 'interested party' for this Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP) application for the purposes of making representations and participating in the examination by making written representations.

The Examining Authority for the above application sent Sustrans a procedural (Rule 6) letter dated 27 March 2013. This letter was sent to Sustrans at the address supplied by the applicant in their Book of Reference (3 Glebeside, Foxearth, Essex, CO10 7JB), inviting Sustrans to the re-convened Preliminary Meeting. Please see the link to the letter:

[attachment 1]

As the letter stated, Sustrans was not registered as an 'interested party' for this application as defined in section 102 of PA 2008, and if Sustrans wished to participate in the examination after the conclusion of the Preliminary Meeting, it would need to write to the Examining Authority requesting to become an 'interested party'. It would be able to make this request once the Examining Authority had made any procedural decision(s) under section 89(1) of the PA 2008, after the conclusion of the Preliminary Meeting. The Rule 8 letter Sustrans received (please see below the link to the letter), gave notice of these procedural decisions made, along with a timetable for the examination and an explanation about receiving further notices (please see page 7, item 15):

[attachment 2]

If Sustrans wishes to be kept informed of the application and participate in the examination, it will need to make a request in writing to the Examining Authority. The request must comply with section 102A of PA 2008. The Examining Authority will then, in accordance with section 102A of PA 2008, decide whether it considers that Sustrans is within one or more of the categories set out in section 102B of PA 2008, in order to permit Sustrans to become an 'interested party'. I draw Sustrans' attention to the examination timetable contained within the Rule 8 letter and recommend that, as the examination is now progressing, if Sustrans wishes to be involved in the process and submit representations, it should notify the Examining Authority of its request to become an 'interested party' as soon as possible.

For further information about the North London (Electricity Line) Reinforcement Project, please visit the planning portal pages:

[attachment 3]

I hope this information has been useful. Please contact the Planning Inspectorate again should you have any further questions.

Sustrans - Bryn Lockwood

Enfield Council enquired whether local authorities would be required to submit both a Local Impact Report and written representations for the North London (Electricity Line) Reinforcement Project application during the 'examination' stage.

The Planning Inspectorate's response was by email.
Thank you for your enquiry made on behalf of Enfield Council in regard to submitting a Local Impact Report (LIR) for the North London (Electricity Line) Reinforcement Project application. This Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP) application is currently at the ?examination? stage of the Planning Act 2008 process, as amended by the Localism Act 2011 (PA 2008). You have asked whether a local authority is required to submit both written representations and an LIR.

As discussed, the local authority is under no obligation to submit an LIR as part of an examination of an NSIP. It is for the local authority to decide whether or not to submit an LIR in consideration of the complexity and issues posed by the NSIP proposal. LIRs give details of the likely impact of the proposed development on any part of the authority?s area and their relative importance; and as such, LIRs differ from other representations a local authority is likely to make. I refer you to paragraphs 51 to 56 of the Department for Communities and Local Government?s (DCLG) statutory guidance on ?examination? ([attachment 1]). It states:

?52. The report may differ from other representations made by the local authority, as it is intended to allow local authorities to represent the broader views of their community. Consequently, a local authority which has been invited to submit such a report may decide to cover a broad range of local interests and impacts, including economic and social ones. The impacts should be presented in terms of their positive, neutral and negative effects,? and;

?53. The report is distinct from any representation a local authority may make on the merits of an application or any subsequent approvals that should be delegated to the local authority for determination (for example, on detailed design).?

Local authorities are strongly encouraged to produce LIRs as the Examining Authority and the Secretary of State must have specific regard to LIRs when making their recommendation and decision. Given their importance, the Examining Authority made reference to the timetabling for the submission of LIRs at the Preliminary Meeting for the North London (Electricity Line) Reinforcement Project application, in response to questions from Enfield Council: [attachment 2],%20London/130424_EN020009_Preliminary%20Meeting%20Note.pdf. The Examining Authority stated that local authorities have been given sufficient notice to enable LIRs to be produced.

The local authority may also wish to submit a separate written representation to express a particular view on whether the application should be granted. A written representation should provide the party?s detailed case and identify those parts of the application and specific matters with which they agree or disagree, giving reasons and supported by any data, methodology and assumptions used. Again, I refer you to DCLG?s guidance on 'examination', in particular paragraphs 68 to 74.

Enfield Council - Lauren Laviniere

Following the publication of the initial Rule 6 invitation to the Preliminary Meeting in December 2012, the Health and Safety Executive requested to become an interested party for this proposal (prior to the issue of the Rule 8).
The following advice was provided:
As you will be aware, the Rule 8 letter for this proposal was issued by the Examining authority on 30 April 2013. In accordance with section 89 (2A) of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended), following the issue of the Rule 8 procedural decisions, persons may now notify the Examining authority in writing that they wish to become an interested party.

Please can you therefore confirm in writing to the Examining authority if the Health and Safety Executive still wishes to become an interested party for this application.

Ian Sharrock Health and Safety Executive

Barnet and Chase Farm Hospitals Trust queried how the proposal affects their hospitals, so that it can decide whether to make a statement of representation. The Trust asked for confirmation on whether it is the Barnet or Chase Farm sites (or both) that are currently supplied via this section of the grid.
The following advice was provided:

The Planning Act 2008 and associated regulations lists certain bodies, including 'relevant statutory undertakers', to be notified of an accepted application and invited to the preliminary meeting. The Barnet and Chase Farm Hospitals Trust has been identified as a 'relevant statutory undertaker' associated with the North London Electric Line Reinforcement Proposal, this is the reason for the Trust receiving the recent correspondence dated 24 January 2013.

In answer to your question, we do not hold the information which would confirm whether the Barnet or Chase Farm sites (or both) are supplied via this section of electric line. You may wish to contact the applicant directly with this query on: 0800 319 6186.

I have included a direct link below to two of the application documents which you may find of use for an overview of the proposal:

Planning Statement:
[attachment 1]

Environmental Statement Non Technical Summary Volume 1:
[attachment 2]

Mr Trew Barnet and Chase Farm Hospitals

Having received your letter sent to the Chief Executive of the Barnet and Chase Farm Hospitals Trust on 24th January regarding the above, I have been tasked with ascertaining how this affects our hospitals so that we may decide whether we wish to make a statement of representation.

I have checked out the website referred to in the letter and it doesn't actually identify what network each hospital is on. I am assuming that as the intention is to upgrade one of two supplies, that the other supply remains operational and so the effect will be via reduced resilience, but as I say, I need to identify to which site.

Can you confirm whether it is the Barnet or Chase Farm sites or both that are currently supplied via this section of the grid or will I need to go to one of the relevant town offices to find this information.
The Planning Act 2008 and associated regulations lists certain bodies, including 'relevant statutory undertakers', to be notified of an accepted application and invited to the preliminary meeting. The Barnet and Chase Farm Hospitals Trust has been identified as a 'relevant statutory undertaker' associated with the North London Electric Line Reinforcement Proposal, this is the reason for the Trust receiving the recent correspondence dated 24 January 2013.

In answer to your question, we do not hold the information which would confirm whether the Barnet or Chase Farm sites (or both) are supplied via this section of electric line. You may wish to contact the applicant directly with this query on: 0800 319 6186.

I have included a direct link below to two of the application documents which you may find of use for an overview of the proposal:

Planning Statement:
[attachment 1]

Environmental Statement Non Technical Summary Volume 1:
[attachment 2]

Nigel Trew Barnet and Chase Farm Hospitals

Email from Hertsmere Borough Council asking who decided that Hertsmere was one of the ?A? authorities and where this decision can be amended to reduce this status?
The following advice was provided:

The applicant provides with their Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project application, a GIS Shape File which denotes the redline boundary for the proposed scheme. This is then interpreted by the Planning Inspectorate, who lists all the prescribed persons the Examining authority would need to communicate with in regard to the application and timetable for examination.

Hertsmere Borough Council was identified as a local authority under section 88A of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended by the localism Act 2011) for this application because it shares a border with a local authority (Enfield Council) in which the development is proposed. As Hertsmere Borough Council has been identified in accordance with section 88A, the Planning Act 2008 states that the Examining authority must invite your authority to the Preliminary Meeting (section 88(3)(d)) and must inform your authority of the examination timetable after the meeting.

It is for all invitees to choose whether to attend the Preliminary Meeting or not, or request to become an ?interested party? following the Rule 8 letter that will include the examination timetable. This letter is sent to all prescribed persons following the Preliminary Meeting.

If you prefer not to be involved in this application, you do not need to take any further action. You should only receive 2 further letters (which the Planning Act 2008 states that the Examining authority must send to you) ? an invite to a rescheduled Preliminary Meeting (Rule 6), and a letter containing procedural decisions made at the Preliminary Meeting by the Examining authority as well as the examination timetable (Rule 8). If you do not then request to become an ?interested party?, you will not receive any further communications.

Mr Smith Hertsmere Borough Council

An email was received from Epping Forest District Council requesting to revise their comments made in their relevant representation, following receipt of further information supplied to the Council by National Grid.
The following advice was provided:
Unfortunately we are unable to amend the content of your Relevant Representation once it has been submitted and the deadline for Relevant Representations has passed.

As you are aware the preliminary meeting has been postponed due to the reasons stated in the letter sent on the 4 January 2013 by the Examining authority. It is anticipated that the Examining authority will contact all relevant persons approximately towards the end of March 2013 with a revised draft timetable for the examination and a date for the preliminary meeting.

A Rule 8 letter will be sent after the preliminary meeting is held which will lay out the timetable for the examination of the project; this timetable will inform you of when you can submit a Written Representation, in which you may choose to formally submit your comments included in your email dated 15 January 2013.

Nigel Richardson Epping Forest District Council

North London (electric line) Reinforcement Project update meeting.
See attached meeting note

National Grid

National Grid to brief the IPC on its proposed scheme and to discuss the application process.
View meeting note via following link:
[attachment 1]

National Grid - National Grid