Thames Tideway Tunnel

The list below includes a record of advice we have provided for this project. For a list of 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
Advice sought on draft application documents for an application to make a non material change to the DCO
Please see attached letter

15 November 2016
Thames Water Utilities Lyd - Steve Wilkinson
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Advice sought about making an application to make changes to the DCO
see attached meeting note

10 August 2016
Thames Water Utilities Ltd - Claire Beedle
Enquiry received via email
Objecting to the use of King Edward Memorial Park during the construction of the Thames Tideway Tunnel
Thank you for your email of 22 July regarding the use of King Edward Memorial Park during the construction of the Thames Tideway Tunnel project by Thames Water.

The decision to grant Thames Water development consent for the Thames Tideway Tunnel project was made by the Secretaries of State on 12 September 2014. In making the decision the Secretaries of State recognised that the temporary use of the Park during construction would be a serious loss to the surrounding communities and that there was a shortage of open space in this part of London. To reduce the impact of that loss the Secretaries of State decided to place a restriction on construction activity in the Park so that no work can take place on Saturday mornings, when the Park is used most by local people.

While this period of respite will no doubt be welcomed by the community, we acknowledge that the overall construction period will result in a temporary period of disruption for regular users of the Park. However, the Secretary of State also recognised that after construction the additional public open space created as a result will be a positive benefit for the local community.

If you would like to know more about the detailed construction timetable please contact the developer, Thames Water; their Tunnel project team will be able to provide you with further information.

25 July 2016
Herra Mindful Smile
Enquiry received via email
Clarification on which matters in relation to sections 131 and 132 the Examining Authority are anticipating examining at the hearing on 17 January 2014
The PA 2008 is the starting point and the context for considering the compulsory acquisition and temporary use of open space; the need for such land; minimisation of use and impacts; any alternative provision, compensation measures and mitigation. Compulsory acquisition issues in relation to the statutory tests have been considered generally in the earlier CA hearings. However on Friday (17 January) they will be considered specifically in the context of section 4.8 of the NPS and particularly paragraphs 4.8.12 to 4.8.24.

SPP will not be considered as this is the subject of a separate process and determination. Further, whilst any Interested Parties may make submissions in relation to section 4.8, it will be made clear by the Examining authority that submissions relating to issues within sections 131 and 132 will not be accepted as these are being dealt with by DCLG. The session on Friday 17 January will therefore focus on the issues which arise under paragraph 4.8 of the NPS and so far as the applicant is concerned will follow Q4.33 and the applicant's response thereto.

09 January 2014
Thames Water Utilities Ltd - Ian Fletcher
Enquiry received via email
Advice sought regarding the publicity requirements associated with the need to advertsie an additional open floor hearing session in Deptford Lounge on 5th February 2014.
Examination Procedure Rule 13 (7) defines local advertisement as a newspaper circulating in the locality of the land to which the application relates. I think on that basis your proposal to advertise the change only in the Evening Standard would be proportionate and satisfy the legislative requirements. I also consider that it is not necessary for you to advertise this change on more than 1 occasion.

02 January 2014
Thames Water Utilities Ltd - Ian Fletcher
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Thames Water Utilities Limited sent a lettter by email to the Planning Inspectorate on 24 December 2013, asking about their interpretation of the Examining authority?s second written questions issued on 19 December 2013
The Planning Inspectorate issued advice in response to that letter on 31 December 2013. Both letters are attached.

31 December 2013
Thames Water Utilities Limited - Phil Stride
Enquiry received via email
As the ExA is aware, the PLA has specific concerns about a number of sites along the river. This means that its interests in compulsory acquisition in relation to these sites will form elements of many ? potentially most ? of the compulsory acquisition hearings in weeks 3 and 4.

Having made its representations in respect of these sites, the PLA is conscious of the fact that its contribution to the hearings would be likely to be limited to interventions arising from points made by others. However, even this limited input would call for a continuous presence throughout the hearings. Given the anticipated degree of participation the PLA does not believe this would be efficient or effective and considers that its presence would be unlikely specially to assist the ExA, either. The PLA therefore proposes to listen to the Audio Recordings as they become available and make any necessary observations in writing.

The timetable does not contemplate this course of action so that there is no timetabled date that specifically covers submissions of this sort. The most obvious date is 23 December, as if such submissions were written summaries of oral submissions at the hearings. Are you able to confirm that it will be acceptable to the ExA if the PLA proceeds in this way and submits any observations by 23 December?
Thank you for you email concerning the Port of London Authority's intentions in respect of the week 3 and week 4 compulsory acquisition hearings. It will be acceptable to make your comments on other parties oral submissions in writing for the 23 December deadline.

The intention is for each week's recordings to be available early on the following week. If this will present a problem in terms of any comments you wish to make on week 4 oral representations, a submission for the 13 January will also be acceptable. However, you may want to submit any comments you have on week 3 oral representations, for the 23 December, as originally requested.

09 December 2013
Port of London Authority - Alison Gorlov
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please see attached links for enquiry and response between David Gawthorpe and The Planning Inspectorate.

21 November 2013
David Gawthorpe
Enquiry received via post
response has attachments
Please see attached correspondence between Southwark London Borough Council and The Planning Inspectorate regarding the responses to the Examining Authority's first written questions.

12 November 2013
Rachel Mckoy
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Concern about the short preparation time between publication of written representations and hearings.

See attached letter
See attached letter

11 November 2013
Hammersmith & Fulham Council - David Gawthorpe
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
To view the enquiry in its entirety please see attachment-
131108_WW010001_Holbeche SYR concerns about timing of hearings in relation to hearings.pdf
To view the advice given please see attachment-
131111_WW010001_reply_Holbeche_SYR_re_publication_of_WRs_and_timing_of_hearings.doc.pdf

11 November 2013
Barney Holbeche
Enquiry received via email
I am writing on behalf of the Battersea Land owning companies (BPS). We on behalf of BPS are in discussions with the Thames Water team in connection with the proposed temporary use of land owned by BPS by Thames Water for the purpose of the TTT in the vicinity of Kirtling Street.

The discussions are currently progressing positively and accordingly we believe that it would be most efficient for BPS to attend the hearings at the latter stage (end January 2014?) to give us and Thames the maximum time to establish whether we are able to reach agreement prior to that date and if appropriate withdraw from the proceedings.
The Panel understand that negotiations are ongoing. However, the process of scheduling the different Compulsory Acquisition (CA) hearings is complex and has to be in some sort of logical order to assist with the reporting to the SoS.

The agenda for all the CA hearings is in the process of being finalised and should be issued in the next few weeks. If your session is earlier than you would like, then I would advise that if you attend a hearing, that you provide your views to the Panel as if the objection you have is still outstanding. You can explain to the Panel that negotiations are ongoing.

The Panel will be asking the applicant to provide an update later in the examination of the current state of play at that time in respect of all the land interests, identifying any ongoing negotiations and where an agreement has been concluded or where it cannot be reached.

07 November 2013
Battersea Power Station Developm - Simon Murphy
Enquiry received via email
Panel Questions 4.19 to 4.23 deal with the Replacement Land Report which was submitted with the application as a piece of preliminary work, pending the passing and coming into force of the Growth and Infrastructure Act. A new report is being prepared on the basis of advice given by DCLG and this will form part of the submission to DCLG which we will share with the Examining Authority. It is intended that the issues raised in these questions will be dealt with in that report. However, we would appreciate clarity on one issue. Question 4.21 asks whether the option of obtaining ?alternative use certificates? was considered. Certificates of appropriate alternative development are only available for land subject to compulsory purchase powers where a notice to treat has been deemed to be served. We assume that this question relates to the general point that there may be an opportunity to change the use of potential replacement land already in beneficial use, or with planning permission for a different use, and we will be exploring that issue further in the new report. Does that meet the question you raise?

Panel Question 6.48 relates to the draft DCO article 47 (rights under or over streets and city walkways), which deals with the appropriation of subsoil under streets/city walkways, and air-space over streets/city walkways, but only within the Order limits. The Examining Authority has asked ?how do these subsoil and air rights relate to identified interests in the Book of Reference??. However, it is not possible to list out specific items in the Book of Reference, as this power is not a compulsory acquisition power (and indeed the article is drafted to expressly differentiate itself from acquisition (please see article 47(2))). It is a general power (comparable to article 10 (street works)) exercisable in relation to any and all streets/city walkways within the Order limits, which is intended to allow for temporary appropriation for construction or maintenance purposes only. Any permanent interest is to be secured through the compulsory acquisition powers and not through this article. The power contained in the article means that for example a crane could oversail a street, without any need for other powers to be exercised. For these reasons, we therefore intend to answer the Examining Authority?s question without cross-reference to specific interests in the Book of Reference, and would welcome the confirmation of the Examining Authority that this approach would address its line of enquiry.

Panel Question 8.9 ? The question requests that ?the applicant provide a photomontage or additional 3D representation to assist understanding of the relationship between the proposed CSO interception structure and the arch of Vauxhall Bridge, as seen in close views from the river walk on either side of the bridge (low tide)?? These views (particularly on the downstream side) may make it difficult to show the full relationship with the river wall, interception structure and bridge as the guarding can obscure the view. We feel that the relationship would be better demonstrated if the view were taken from the foreshore.

Panel Question 12.2 - The preamble to this question indicates that ?since the submission of the application, there may have been changes to relevant strategies and plans that have been used in the application documentation and evidence?. However, the question asks ?can the applicant advise of any changes or updates to the evidence used in the application, referencing if and how this has affected information provided in the application?. Please could you clarify what is required in the context of question 13.1 and fact that we have already provided updated copies of various of the project strategies, for example the Excavated Materials Options Assessment (EMOA) the updated version of which was submitted on 23 September.

Panel Question 12.4 - We agreed that this related to the provision of hyperlinking back to documents on your web site. We could also provide a document at the end of the process, ie in March 2014, that provides links back to all documents if that would help.

Finally, It is clear to us that the examination of issues raised by Sections 127 and 138 of the Planning Act (statutory undertakers? land and rights/apparatus) will be a matter for the Examining Authority. Can you please confirm that these powers have been fully delegated for this project and whether, therefore, there is any need to make a formal Section 127 application to the statutory undertakers? own Secretaries of State.
Panel Question 4.21

This question in respect of Alternative Use Certificates relates, not to the potential replacement land, but to the open space land subject to Compulsory Acquisition (CA) powers included in the application.

Panel Question 6.48

Your approach is not agreed. The question is asked because the appropriation of subsoil and air rights is an exercise of CA powers in relation to land. On what basis is it considered that the inclusion of such powers in an article of the DCO removes the requirement for the usual procedures involving CA powers to be followed?

Panel Question 8.9

The approach you have outlined is helpful and we are happy for you to proceed on that basis.

Panel Question 12.2

If the answers to to the other Panel questions result in you providing updates in relation to e.g. new or revised local/Mayoral planning documents then that is fine. However, the Panel is seeking you to adopt a proactive approach towards monitoring and updating the evidence relied upon to support and justify the application documents e.g. if TfL had revised its plans or policies. The intention would then be for you to provide the Panel with a submission that would indicate what the implications were for the application evidence base and the application documents themselves.

Panel Question 12.4

As discussed, the Panel would appreciate all future submitted documents to contain hyperlinks to the referenced documents in order to aid navigation for them and interested parties. A document at the end of the process which provided links back to all documents would be extremely helpful.

S.127 and 138 applications

While the examination of the evidence and matters relating to these provisions of the Act can be undertaken as part of the examination, TWUL will still have to make an application to the relevant Secretary of State. I refer you to the Rule 6 letter, Annex E, point 7.

11 October 2013
Thames Water Utilities Ltd - Ian Fletcher
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Further to the discussion at the Preliminary Meeting, Thames Water submitted sample noise contour plans (attached) for advice as to whether, in this form, the material was likely to be useful to the ExA in consideration of this topic.
The Planning Inspectorate advised that the T period should be shown on the drawings, consistent with BS5228, and with reference to the night noise contours it should be confirmed by the applicant that the night contour levels shown are for the nights when there is working at a site and not an average including nights where there is no working. The Planning Inspectorate also asked for consistency between the night and daytime noise contour levels so they could be directly compared.

The applicant was also advised that the Panel may seek further clarification about the noise contour plans during the course of the examination, which may require further iterations of the noise contour plans to be submitted.

16 September 2013
Thames Water Utilities Limited - Ian Fletcher
Enquiry received via email
Will representatives from London Boroughs be able to accompany the Panel of Examining Inspectors on accompanied site visits and is there any guidance about this?
There is no specific guidance about the arrangements for and conduct of accompanied site visits.

There will be an opportunity for Interested Parties (including the Councils) to indicate their interest in attending an accompanied site visit in the examination timetable; including any suggestions for specific sites and views they want the Panel to look at. A deadline will be set in the examination timetable for repsonses in this regard. Details of how the site visit will be conducted, and any arrangements with specific Interested Parties, will be made availble closer to the event.

Interested Parties will be notified about the date, time and place the site visit(s) will start.

03 June 2013
Thames Water Utilities Ltd - Ian Fletcher
Enquiry received via email
Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (RBKC) enquired whether they were required to make a relevant representation; what the role of Local Impact Reports (LIR), Written Representations (WR) and Statements of Common Ground (SoCG) is; and when the LIR and other documents may be due during the examination.
RBKC were advised that as a host Local Authority they will be considered an interested party and do not need to make a relevant representation in order to register to take part in the examination. However, RBKC were advised to make a relevant representation in order for their views to be taken account of in the initial assessment of issues.

RBKC were advised that the LIR should be an objective assessment of the impact of the scheme, both positive and negative. WRs can be used to put forward the councils opinion of the scheme and it would be possible to use evidence from the LIR to support the councils views. SoCGs can be used to set out areas of agreement and disagreement with the applicant.

RBKC were advised that the Rule 6 letter will set out a draft timetable including the deadlines for the receipt of submissions. This timetable will be discussed and agreed at the Preliminary Meeting.

24 April 2013
Patricia Cuervo
Enquiry received via phone
A representative of the ?Save Your Riverside? organisation telephoned the Inspectorate to ask what the likely timetable for the early stages of the process would be if the application for the Thames Tideway Tunnel scheme were accepted, and also to ask whether the funding statement was a statutory document; and how one would make submissions to examination on the issue of funding and viability.
The Inspectorate confirmed that a funding statement is a required document as part of any application for development consent whre the applicant is seeking powers to compulsorily acquire land. This is so that the Examining Authority can consider whether or not they have the means to compensate those with interests in land they seek to acquire.

We advised that, if the Thames Tideway Tunnel application is accepted, the application documents would be published on our website and paper copies would also be made available at deposit locations at a number of points along the route of the tunnel.

01 March 2013
Save Your Riverside - B Holbeche
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please see correspondence from Councillor Nicholas Botterill attached
Please see letter from The Planning Inspectorate dated 1/3/2013

01 March 2013
London Borough of H&F - Nicholas Botterill
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Dear Sirs,

I wish to formally register my interest in this application and to make submissions to the inspectorate.
I have found the website relatively impenetrable and wish to ask if there is a specific format to formally register my interest and to enable receipt of updates, notices of key dates and in order to attend public meetings.

Kind Regards,

Roland Gilmore
Dear Mr Gilmore

Thank you for your email regarding the Thames Tideway Tunnel project.

It is currently too early for you register to become an Interested Party for this project. The application has only just been submitted to us and we are currently checking it to make sure it is complete and capable of being examined. This check will take no longer tha 28 days from the date of submission.

If the Planning Inspectorate accepts the application for examination Thames Water, as the applicant, will publish a notice inviting members of the public such as yourself to become an Interested Party (See advice note 8.3 below). As an Interested Party, you will be able to present your views to the Examination Authority and attend any meetings or hearings regarding the project. You will also be sent all relevant information about the project for the lifetime of the examination.

The Planning Inspectorate has also published the following leaflets about the process which may be of help to you. They can be accessed from this page:

[attachment 1]

Advice note 8.1: How the process works
Advice note 8.2: Responding to the developer?s pre-application consultation
Advice note 8.3: How to register and become an interested party in an application
Advice note 8.4: Influencing how an application will be examined ? the Preliminary Meeting
Advice note 8.5: Participating in the examination

If you need any further advice please don?t hesitate to contact the Thames Tideway Tunnel project team: thamestunnel@infrastructure.gsi.gov.uk or our helpline 0303 444 5000

Yours Sincerely

Karl-Jonas Johansson

01 March 2013
Roland Gilmore
Enquiry received via email
Dear sir/madam

I would like to send in a comment/make a representation about the Supersewer plans that will be submitted by Thames Water on 28th Feb 2013.
Is this the correct postal address to send letters to?

The Planning Inspectorate
Temple Quay House
Temple Quay
Bristol
BS1 6PN

I would be grateful if you could confirm.

Many thanks

Emma
Dear Ms Pousi

Thank you for your email regarding the Thames Tideway Tunnel project.

It is currently too early for you register to become an Interested Party for this project. The next step in the process is for Thames Water to submit the application to the Planning Inspectorate. Once the application has been submitted, The Planning Inspectorate has 28 days to check that the developer has complied with the 2008 Planning Act (as amended). If the Planning Inspectorate accepts the application for examination, Thames Water will publish a notice inviting members of the public such as yourself to become an Interested Party (See advice note 8.3 below). As an Interested Party, you will be able to present your views to the Examination Authority and attend any meetings or hearings regarding the project. You will also be sent all relevant information about the project for the lifetime of the examination.

The Planning Inspectorate has also published the following leaflets about the process which may be of help to you.

Advice note 8.1: How the process works
Advice note 8.2: Responding to the developer?s pre-application consultation
Advice note 8.3: How to register and become an interested party in an application
Advice note 8.4: Influencing how an application will be examined ? the Preliminary Meeting
Advice note 8.5: Participating in the examination

If you need any further advice please don?t hesitate to contact the Thames Tideway Tunnel project team: thamestunnel@infrastructure.gsi.gov.uk or our helpline 0303 444 5000

Yours Sincerely

Karl-Jonas Johansson

26 February 2013
Emma Pousi
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
To discuss the progress of the Thames Tideway Tunnel Project ahead of anticipated submission of the application.

16 January 2013
Thames Water Utilities Ltd
Enquiry received via email
Advice sought on draft Funding Statement
The Planning Inspectorate advised Thames Water Utilities Limited on various aspects of its draft Funding Statement.

14 January 2013
TWUL - Ian Fletcher
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
A meeting to discuss project progress in anticipation of submission.
Please see attached meeting note:

12 December 2012
TWUL TWUL
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Planning Inspectorate meeting
with the Thames Tideway Tunnel
Forum
Please see attached Powerpoint presentation by The Planning Inspectorate

12 December 2012
Thames Tideway Tunnel Forum
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
A meeting to discuss project progress to date
Please see attached meeting note.

28 November 2012
TWUL TWUL
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
A meeting to discuss project progress to date
Please see attached meeting note

07 November 2012
TWUL TWUL
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
TWUL requested confirmation of The Planning Inspectorate being able to advise on the content of its Funding Statement in respect of the Thames Tideway Tunnel application.
Ian,

My colleague Michael Baker will send the invites over for 28 November and 9 January 2013.

With regard to the Funding Statement, yes you are correct, we did invite a draft of this for comment. I trust your team has had regard to, amongst other things, paragraphs 33 and 34 of DCLG Guidance related to procedures for compulsory acquisition.

[attachment 1]

25 October 2012
TWUL - Ian Fletcher
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
A meeting was held with TWUL to discuss the Environmental Statement and associated matters.
Please see attached meeting note

10 October 2012
Thames Water
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Meeting to discuss the draft Development Consent Order (DCO).

03 October 2012
Thames Water
Enquiry received via post
Advice on Consultation report draft.
Dealing with Late Responses

With regard to late respondents and their respective responses, if TWUL intend to include all late respondents in their Consultation report then this should be explicitly stated. However, if the lateness of the response has affected the ability of TWUL to respond to the matters raised then it is in TWUL?s interest to flag the reasons why. Here I am referring to your ability to amend the proposals, rather than just respond to the points raised in the CR.

Data Protection Act Issues

As you will be aware, the primary purpose of the Consultation Report (CR) is 'to capture and reflect upon all of the responses received from these three distinct pre-application consultee groups and explain how the developer has met its duty in the preparation of the application to have regard to the views expressed'. Other than the statutory requirements of s59 (2) of the 2008 Act and regulation 7 of the APFP Regulations 2009, there is no statutory requirement for the names and addresses of s44 persons to be supplied within the CR.

I can see how the wording of the Advice Note has raised this issue in your minds and I?ll certainly reflect on that as part of any future review of AN14. However, I think as part of the narrative in the explanatory text at the front of the CR it would be useful if you explained that you have sought to protect the personal details of private individuals and in particular affected persons (AP) in reporting on the pre app consultation. Perhaps you could confirm how you have exercised your due diligence in identifying the APs during the course of the pre app consultation phase, until the point of submission. This is perhaps something you intend to do anyway, but I?ll state it here for reasons of clarity.

During and after acceptance, we may have to respond to Interested Parties, including affected persons, who may question how you (TWUL) had regard to their response in your Consultation Report, and how we (PINS) were able to verify this.

EDF (Hinkley) gave each respondent a tracking reference which they used in their schedule of responses in the CR. It would be useful from our perspective if, in addition to identifying the type of respondent, you did the same - this would be anonymous. If we needed to verify that a landowner, or anyone else for that matter, had been consulted then we could ask you for your tracking schedule which would include respondents? personal details in order to find where that individual is referred to in the CR. This schedule would not be submitted along with the application documents to avoid any ambiguity about what is and is not an application document. Only PINS would be entitled to request it and see it because of our statutory role in the process. No other Interested Party (including LAs) would be entitled to see that document. The Data Protection Act allows only bodies with a statutory role in a process to have access to personal details. You would need to verify my interpretation with your own legal team but that is my understanding.

A balance needs to be struck between dealing with 23,000 + affected persons and reporting on the consultation in a manageable way. I think you have broadly achieved this based on the draft CR chapter you sent through, with the addition of individual tracking refs. In any tracking schedule (as described above) the Examining Authority would definitely find it useful later on in the examination if they were able to cross refer between this and plot references on the Land Plans and / or refs in the BoR.

In practice, I think that with the site based approach to reporting you have adopted, and assuming your description of the views expressed is accurate, an AP or any other respondent should be able to find and recognise the points they have raised and this should reduce the likelihood of us needing to request additional information from you at acceptance, although access to any tracking schedule of the type suggested would probably be requested at some point due to it potential usefulness.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

Further to your call the other day, I have spoken to my colleagues in Environmental Services about your wish to report on Cumulative Impacts on a site by site basis in the ES. They have indicated that they would benefit from further explanation as to your reasoning for this approach in an email. In general we (PINS) are reluctant to provide advice to applicants about what should be in an ES, so I'm not going to promise you anything definitive at this stage.

04 September 2012
Thames Water Utilities Ltd - Ian Fletcher
Enquiry received via meeting
A query following on from the meeting of 8 June 2012 with regard to transboundary effects.
If the view were taken that the Thames Tunnel constitutes "offshore development" for the purposes of Regulation 4 (2) (d) this does not mean that the development would necessarily therefore have transboundary effects. The proposed development will in due course (following commencement of the s14 Order) be screened when appropriate for transboundary effects.

12 June 2012
Berwin Leighton Paisner LLP - James Good
Enquiry received via post
response has attachments
Please see letter from James Good of Berwin Leighton Paisner attached
Please see reply from The Planning Inspectorate attached1

12 June 2012
Berwin Leighton Paisner - James Good
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
A meeting to discuss the preparatory measures for the Thames Tunnel Waste Water project with regard to the examination timetable and general programming logic.
Please see attached meeting note below:

12 June 2012
TWUL - Thames Water Utilities Limited
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
A meeting to discuss the draft Development Consent Order (DCO) for the proposed Thames Tideway Tunnel
Please see attached meeting note below:

08 June 2012
Thames Water Utilities Limited Thames Water Utilities Limited
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Could you provide us with some advice on the issue of selecting alternative sites once the Thames Tunnel application is accepted.

LB Lewisham object to both of the Thames Tunnel preferred sites within the borough and consider that, based on evidence, there are alternative sites that are better suited (Borthwick Wharf Foreshore or Paynes Wharf).

Are you able to advise if it is within the scope of the Examining Authority to consider alternatives and whether there is the possibility that alternative sites could be selected through the Examination process?

We are concerned that it will be time consuming and expensive for us to undertake further technical assessment, particularly in relation to engineering aspects and it is likely we will only do further work if the Examining Authority are able to consider alternatives to those that Thames Tunnel put forward.
The fundamental principle of this process is that it is frontloaded, having already assessed alternatives during the pre application phase. In general terms, if the applicant chooses not to accept the Council's suggestions of alternative sites at the pre application stage, then it is their risk to take in terms of this potentially leading to objections from an important interested party to the chosen sites at the examination, when it is highly unlikely to be possible to make changes of the type you have described.

The examining authority can only consider the application as submitted and as assessed in the Environmental Statement. In this context you should carefully consider your own resources and the fact that you are not expected to assess alternative sites or put forward alternatives at the examination.

Post submission changes to the application can be considered by the Examining authority, but the ability of the Panel to accept them is limited. The consideration of the extent to which the examining authority can consider post submission changes is a matter of legal interpretation as to their materiality, whether they have been environmentally assessed and considerations of natural justice in terms of those who may be affected by the consideration of alternatives.

Clearly this is a new regime which is currently being tried and tested in this regard. Bob Neil issued a ministerial statement in the wake of a decision by the Panel examining the Brig y Cwm Energy from Waste proposal near Merthyr Tydfil, not to accept post submission changes. The link below will take you to this statement:
[attachment 1]

My advice to you would be to make sure that you have clearly and unambiguously expressed your views to the applicant about the alternative sites and your reasons for your preference of them over the applicant's preferred sites, at the pre application stage. You may also draw their attention to their duty under s.49 of the PA2008 (as amended) to take account of responses to pre application consultation and publicity and to have had regard to them. The applicant is duty bound to record yours and others views in their Consultation Report and explain why they did or did not agree with them. The Consultation Report will be an application document that will be considered by any Examining Authority that is appointed. You may also wish to highlight whether or not you will continue to object to their chosen sites at the examination and the limitations of the process in considering changes to the application post submission, and consequently the risks to them of having to deal with your objections to their preferred sites at the examination.

30 May 2012
Lewisham Borough Council - Claire Gray
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
The advice given seeks to follow up 2 items that were discussed at the meeting on 17 April and which were not covered in detail in the Meeting Note that has recently been published on our website. Those matters relate to questions about temporary structures and also the definition of transboundary effects.
Please see attached letter:

18 May 2012
Berwin Leighton Paisner LLP - James Good
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
A meeting to discuss the proposed Thames Tunnel by Thames Water Utilities Limited (TWUL); Statements of Common Ground (SOCG); the production of Local Impact Reports (LIR); and methods of joint working.
Please see meeting note below:

11 May 2012
Thames Water Utilities Limited
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
A meeting between the Planning Inspectorate - National Infrastructure Directorate and Thames Water Utilities Limited to discuss project progress to date; Schedule 1 of the Draft Development Consent Order; and the format of project drawings and plans.
Please see attached meeting note.

17 April 2012
Thames Water Utilities Limited
Enquiry received via phone
Mr Baggs requested the telephone conversation and discussed a request from the GLA and some London Boroughs for an extension to their second phase of pre application consultation. He was concerned about the resource implications and the effect on the project timetable.
Provided s51 advice on the matters a Commissioner/Inspector dealing with acceptance would take into account, including the degree to which the SOCC was agreed and delivered; whether the consultation exercise itself was ?satisfactory?, as required by the Planning Act 2008, and whether, in all circumstances, the request for an extension was reasonable. Details of consultation and the merits of the application were not discussed.

25 January 2012
Thames Water - Martin Baggs
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Meeting to discuss the progress of the project.
Meeting note attached.

22 December 2011
Thames Water - Ian Fletcher
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
A project update and discussion about procedural requirements for application documents.
Please see attachment

11 December 2011
Thames Water
Enquiry received via post
response has attachments
Letter notifying the IPC that Thames Water's phase two public consultation in respect of the Thames Tunnel project commences on 4 November 2011.
See attached letter.

02 December 2011
Thames Water - Ian Fletcher
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
To discuss the proposed Thames Tunnel project
See attached meeting note between Sir Michael Pitt & Martin Baggs CEO Thames water

21 September 2011
Thames Water - Martin Baggs
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Meeting to discuss the proposed Thames Tunnel project
Please see attached meeting note

08 September 2011
Ian Fletcher
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Correspondent emailed to make representation on the proposed Thames Tunnel project
The IPC is unable to comment on the merits of any proposal, nor can we influence the design or evolution of a project which is in the pre-application stage, however we can advise on the application process and opportunities for public involvement.

Under the Planning Act 2008 (PA 2008), applicants are required to consult members of the public in the vicinity of the proposal and have regard to the views expressed. Thames Tunnel intend to undertake a further round of consultation in the future (please check their website [attachment 1] for details), so you may wish make your views known directly to them. Once the application is submitted, the IPC will have 28 days to decide whether or not to accept the application, having regard, inter alia, to whether the consultation undertaken had met the requirements of PA 2008 and associated legislation and guidance.

If the application is accepted, members of the public will be able to formally register an interest with the IPC, and will thereby become entitled to participate in the examination of the application. Further information can be found in our advice note eight which is available here: [attachment 2]

03 August 2011
Paul Gardner
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Correspondent emailed to make representation on the proposed Thames Tunnel project
The IPC is unable to comment on the merits of any proposal, nor can we influence the design or evolution of a project which is in the pre-application stage, however we can advise on the application process and opportunities for public involvement.

Under the Planning Act 2008 (PA 2008), applicants are required to consult members of the public in the vicinity of the proposal and have regard to the views expressed. Thames Tunnel intend to undertake a further round of consultation in the future (please check their website [attachment 1] for details), so you may wish make your views known directly to them. Once the application is submitted, the IPC will have 28 days to decide whether or not to accept the application, having regard, inter alia, to whether the consultation undertaken had met the requirements of PA 2008 and associated legislation and guidance.

If the application is accepted, members of the public will be able to formally register an interest with the IPC, and will thereby become entitled to participate in the examination of the application. Further information can be found in our advice note eight which is available here: [attachment 2]

03 August 2011
Jeremy Wood
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Correspondent emailed to make representation on the proposed Thames Tunnel project
The IPC is unable to comment on the merits of any proposal, nor can we influence the design or evolution of a project which is in the pre-application stage, however we can advise on the application process and opportunities for public involvement.

Under the Planning Act 2008 (PA 2008), applicants are required to consult members of the public in the vicinity of the proposal and have regard to the views expressed. Thames Tunnel intend to undertake a further round of consultation in the future (please check their website [attachment 1] for details), so you may wish make your views known directly to them. Once the application is submitted, the IPC will have 28 days to decide whether or not to accept the application, having regard, inter alia, to whether the consultation undertaken had met the requirements of PA 2008 and associated legislation and guidance.

If the application is accepted, members of the public will be able to formally register an interest with the IPC, and will thereby become entitled to participate in the examination of the application. Further information can be found in our advice note eight which is available here: [attachment 2]

03 August 2011
Liberty Mosse
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Concerns about Thames Water's pre-application consultation in respect of the duties set out in the Planning Act 2008.
Thames Tunnel and the IPC

The Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC) is the independent body responsible for handling applications for new infrastructure development that is deemed to be of national significance. The Thames Tunnel project is not currently classified as a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP), because the legislation which governs our work (the Planning Act 2008, 'the Act') does not currently include a category of project which consists of a waste water storage and transfer tunnel. However, Ministerial statements from both the previous and present Government have indicated the intention to amend the Act in order that the proposed Thames Tunnel will be considered by the IPC. It is understood that this will be achieved by an Order made by the Secretary of State (SoS) under Section 14(3) of the Act which will add ?waste water storage and transfer tunnel? to the list of projects which are NSIPs.

Whilst the Thames Tunnel is not currently an NSIP, Thames Water intends to ?shadow? so far as it can the pre-application procedures which must be carried out in accordance with the Act. The IPC has provided advice to Thames Water about applying for an order granting development consent under s.51 of the Act.


Community Consultation

We note your concerns about the community consultation being carried out by Thames Water and will hold them on file. Thames Water are currently shadowing the 'pre-application' stage of our process. During the pre-application stage, there is a duty on the developer to publicise the proposed application and consult with people living in the vicinity of the proposed project, and with other statutory consultees, and have regard to any relevant responses to that publicity and consultation. In order for comments to be taken into account at this stage, responses should be raised directly with Thames Water as the developer of the proposed project.

The IPC is able to provide advice about applying for an order granting development consent, or making a representations about a proposed application (under s.51 of the Act). Whilst we are happy to be copied in on any comments you might wish to make to the developer, we are unable at this stage to provide advice on the merits of a proposed application. This ensures the impartiality of the IPC and protects the interests of all parties involved in the application process. All advice that we give is recorded via an advice log, in line with s.51 of the Act. This log is published on our website: [attachment 1].

Your local council also plays a role in the process at the pre-application stage and we would encourage you to copy to the council any comments you send to the developer about its pre-application consultation. The IPC will be seeking the relevant Council's views on the adequacy of the developers consultation at the time the application is submitted. Further information on this and how you can be involved in the developers? consultation is detailed in IPC Advice Note 8.2, which is available at: [attachment 2].

Once a developer is satisfied that its pre-application consultation, publicity and other relevant duties are complete, they may submit an application to the IPC. The IPC then has 28 days in which to decide whether or not to accept the application. If accepted, the application would then proceed to the examination stage. The IPC's acceptance decision is based on whether, amongst other matters, the developer's pre-application consultation and publicity has been adequate and has complied with the consultation methodology they set out in their Statement of Community Consultation. When making a decision on whether the pre-application consultation has been adequate, the IPC will have regard to:

- Thames Water's Consultation Report;
- Any comments on the adequacy of Thames Water's consultation submitted by relevant local authorities; and
- The extent to which Thames Water have had regard to the guidance about making an application published by the IPC and the Secretary of State under s.50 of the PA2008.

If an application is accepted for examination by the IPC, you are able to become involved in the examination of an application. A suite of advice notes has been published by the IPC providing information on how and when members of the public can become involved in the infrastructure planning process and have their say. In particular, advice note 8.3 provides information on, amongst other matters, how to register as an 'interested party' and make relevant and written representations. This can be found at: [attachment 3].

28 June 2011
S Parvez
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Meeting with DEFRA to disucss the proposed Thames Tunnel project
Please see attached meeting note

20 June 2011
John Manning
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Meeting with Mott MacDonald (on behalf of DEFRA) to discuss the IPC's engagement with Thames Water in connection with the proposed Thames Tunnel project
Please see attached meeting note

05 May 2011
Eileen Thomas
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
To give s.51 advice on the content of Thames Water?s scoping report for the proposed Thames Tunnel project.
See copy meeting notes between IPC & Thames Water attached

13 April 2011
Thames Water
Enquiry received via post
response has attachments
Letter to Thames Tunnel regarding consultees

29 January 2011
Clare Gibbons
Enquiry received via post
response has attachments
Thames Tunnel enquired to the IPC about the process required for a Development Consent Order
Please see attachedreply from the IPC

28 January 2011
Thames Water Utilities Ltd - Clare Gibbons
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Meeting with DEFRA, CLG, various London Boroughs and pan-London Stakeholders to discuss the Thames Tunnel project
Meeting note available here: [attachment 1]

03 December 2010
DEFRA - Edmund Beard
Enquiry received via post
response has attachments
IPC's formal response to Thames Water's purported s46 notification
See attached letter

29 November 2010
Susan Aistrup
Enquiry received via post
response has attachments
Thames Tunnel enquired to the IPC about the process required for a Development Consent Order
Pleas010e see attached reply dated 29/11/2010 from the IPC

29 November 2010
Thames Water Utilities Ltd - Susan Aistrup
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Meeting with DEFRA and Thames Water to discuss the Thames Tunnel project
Meeting notes available here: [attachment 1]

04 November 2010
John Bourne
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Meeting held on 12th October to discuss the Thames Tunnel project.
Meeting note available here: [attachment 1]

12 October 2010
Thames Water - Ian Fletcher