Why have we received a notification regarding the Keuper Gas Storage Project?
Further to our telephone conversation this afternoon please note that you have received this notification regarding the Keuper Gas Storage Project because your organisation is a so called Category 3 person under the 2008 Planning Act (as amended) (PA2008).

This means that Legal and General Property have a land interest that is impacted by the project and you might therefore be entitled to make a claim under s57(4) of the PA2008 if the Secretary of State grants the developer a Development Consent Order.

As a Category 3 person the Planning Inspectorate has a legal obligation to notify Legal and General about any procedural decision relating to the examination of the project, such as notifying you about hearings, changes to the time table, and requests for information. However, it does not mean that Legal and General, as a category 3 person, have to respond to any correspondence from the Examining Inspector unless they think it is in their interest.

The plot of land that relates to Legal and general is Plot no. 52 which can be viewed here:

[attachment 1]

More details about the plot can be found in the Book of Reference on pages 168 and 179:

[attachment 2]

Further information on how the Development Consent Order process works can be found in our Advice Note 8.5 Participating in the Examination:

[attachment 3]

I have looked at our past correspondence with you and I understand that your Asset Manager at Legal and General Asset Manager for this plot of land is Alex Waterworth.

I hope you find this helpful. If you have any further queries or wish to make a submission with regard to the proposal please submit via the project mailbox at [email protected]

Legal and General Assurance

We have received a notification of the above application by Keuper Gas Storage Ltd.

I have looked at the web site via the suggested links, but I have been unable to find the location this refers to.

Could you please advise this information and I will then be able to contact the relevant person within GlaxoSmithKline.

I think we may be getting these notifications as we had property in Middlewich, Cheshire. If my assumption is correct – we no longer have these premises.
You have received this notification regarding the Keuper Gas Storage Project because your organisation is a so called Category 3 person under the 2008 Planning Act (as amended) (PA2008). This means that Glaxo Operations UK Ltd (Glaxo) have a land interest that is impacted by the project and you might therefore be entitled to make a claim under s57(4) of the PA2008 if the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change grants the developer a Development Consent Order.

As a Category 3 person the Planning Inspectorate has a legal obligation to notify Glaxo about any procedural decision relating to the examination of the project, such as notifying you about hearings, changes to the time table, and requests for information. However, it does not mean that Glaxo, as a category 3 person, have to respond to any correspondence from the Examining Inspector unless Glaxo think it is in their interest.

The plot of land that relates to Glaxo is Plot no. 52 which can be viewed here:

[attachment 1]

More details about the plot can be found in the Book of Reference on pages 168 and 179:

[attachment 2] 3 KGSP Book of Reference Rev 2.pdf

Further information on how the Development Consent Order process works can be found in our Advice Note 8.5 Participating in the Examination:
[attachment 3]

Glaxo Operations UK Ltd

why have you contacted us regarding the Keuper Gas Storage project examination?
You have received this letter regarding the Keuper Gas Storage Project because your organisation is a so called Category 3 person under the 2008 Planning Act (as amended) (PA2008). This means that DHL have a land interest that is impacted by the project and you might therefore be entitled to make a claim under s57(4) of PA2008 if the Secretary of State grants the developer a Development Consent Order.

As a Category 3 person the Planning Inspectorate has a legal obligation to notify DHL about any procedural decision relating to the examination of the project, such as notifying you about hearings, changes to the time table, and requests for information. However it does not mean that DHL as a category 3 person have to respond to any correspondence from the Examining Inspector unless DHL think it is in your interest.

The plot of land that relates to DHL is Plot no. 52 which can be viewed here:

[attachment 1]. Post-Submission/Application Documents/Plans/2.2.2 KGSP Plan_611 B1.pdf

More details about the plot can be found in the Book of Reference on pages 192 and 201:

[attachment 1]. Post-Submission/Application Documents/Compulsory Purchase Information/4.3 KGSP Book of Reference.pdf

Further information on how the Development Consent Order process works can be found in our Advice Note 8.5 Participating in the Examination:

[attachment 3]

If you have any queries do not hesitate to contact us via the Keuper Gas Storage mailbox: [email protected]

DHL Freight and Contract Logistics (UK) Limited

We are a neighbouring authority to this scheme. We have not yet registered as an interested party. I note from the letter that in the first round of written questions there are three questions identified for our authority.

Can you advise if are we required to register as an interested party in order to respond to the questions raised in the Examining Inspector?s rule 8 letter?

If we do register as an interested party do we have to produce a local impact assessment as well as answering the questions raised?

Also can you please clarify whether, as a neighbouring authority, we are required to speak at the hearings, given that we will, I assume, be required to respond in writing to the questions raised?
The questions directed to you in the Examining Inspector?s rule 8 letter is a request for further information regarding the project. You are not obliged to respond to the questions, however it will aid the Examining Inspector in making his recommendation to the secretary of state for Energy and Climate change if you would be able to respond to his queries.

You can respond to the Examining Inspector?s questions without registering as an interested party. However if you respond without being an interested party, the Examining Inspector does not have to have regards to your submissions when writing his report to the secretary of state.

As a registered interested party, the Examining Inspector will have regards to your submissions and it will also allow you to comment on other interested parties submissions, request open floor hearings and partake any open floor or issue specific hearing during the examination if you so wish.

By registering as an interested, it will be easier for you to influence the parts of the project that are relevant to your constituents.

To become an interested party, we only require you to write to us either by post or email to confirm that Cheshire East wishes to become an interested party by Deadline 1 (13 April 2016).
In regards of the local impact report, your council is a so called ?A? authority under s56A of the 2008 Planning Act and is therefore invited to submit a local impact report under s60(2)(a) of the 2008 Planning Act. This means that your council borders either Cheshire West and Chester Council or Halton Borough Council. Under the 2008 Planning Act you are not obliged to submit a local impact report. However if you do submit one, the secretary of state must have regards to it under s104(2)(b) of the 2008 Planning act when she makes her decision. More information about local impact reports can be found in Advice note one: Local impact reports

As for having to speak at any of the hearings listed in the timetable included in the rule 8 letter, it is again for the council to make this decision whether to attend or not. The Examining Inspector will, prior to any hearing, issue an agenda which will aid your council when deciding whether to attend the hearing or not.

Cheshire East Council - Emma Williams

Email received from Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council in response to the ?Rule 8? letter, giving details of procedural decisions following the Preliminary Meeting and the timetable for examination of the application:

?This is not our area?
The reason we have sent this letter to you is because under the 2008 planning act your council is a statutory consultee for this project. The Planning inspectorate is therefore obliged to issue this letter to you.

If the council does not wish to engage with the process, you do not have to do anything further and your council will lose its status as an statutory party after deadline 1 (13 April 2016).

I would also like to add that the Inspectorate are obliged to notify your council if there is any changes to the timetable, when the examination closes and when the Secretary of State for Energy and climate Change has issued her decision regarding the application.

Please see advice note two: The role of local authorities in the development consent process which explains your role in the process.

Wirral MBC - Sara Millington

Pre-Examination correspondence received from Keuper Gas Storage Limited
Thank you for your emails dated 23rd of February and 2nd of March 2016 where you have copied us into your correspondence with Holford Gas Storage Limited and Network Rail which contains your comments on their relevant representations. As these submissions were submitted before the examination started and are not addressed to the Examining Inspector, they will not be accepted into the examination and will therefore be returned to you.

Any submission you intend to submit to the Examining Inspector should either be sent by post FAO Tracey Williams or via email to the Keuper Gas Storage Project mail box. Any submission that is sent before the Preliminary Meeting or not relating to an examination timetable deadline will have to be formally accepted by the Examining Inspector, who has the right to refuse to accept the submission. This also includes any late submissions.

In regards with your comments on Holford?s and Network Rail?s relevant representations, these and other comments on relevant representations that you may wish to submit should be sent to the Planning Inspectorate by Deadline 2 (29 April 2016) of the examination timetable, as stated in Annex C of the Rule 6 letter. Further information on how to respond to requests from the Examining Inspector and how to comment on other Interested Parties submissions will be given at the Preliminary meeting.

I would also request, you avoid copying in other parties to emails addressed to the Planning Inspectorate in the event a discussion between parties being likely to take place as the examination under the Planning Act 2008 as this is an open and transparent process meaning any material submitted for the examination would need to be forwarded to the ExA and accepted to be part of the examination.

May I also draw your attention to our letter dated 11 February 2016 (Regulation 6 Fees Single Examining Inspector). According to the Infrastructure Planning (Fees Regulations) 2010 (as amended) ? Regulation 6, the Pre-Examination Fee must be paid to the Planning Inspectorate before the date of the Preliminary Meeting. If no such payment has been received before the Preliminary Meeting, The Planning Inspectorate will not proceed with the application and the Preliminary Meeting will be postponed until the regulation 6 fee has been received.

Keuper Gas Storage Limited

Would you please confirm whether we need to attend the preliminary meeting. Is our client?s objection a specific one that requires attention at the preliminary meeting?
Dear Mr Rimmer,
The Preliminary Meeting focuses solely on the procedure for examining the application. Matters to be discussed will cover topics such as:

? The key issues to be examined
An initial list of the principal issues for the examination, which have been identified at this stage by the Examining Authority based on the information provided in the application and the relevant representations submitted to the Planning Inspectorate about the application.

? Whether any hearings are required and if so, what types
Issues that may be discussed are if it will be necessary to hold any issue specific hearings as part of the examination. The Examining Authority will only hold an issue specific hearing if they consider that it is necessary to ensure adequate testing of a particular issue or that an interested party has a fair chance to put forward its case.

There will also be an opportunity for anyone who is an interested party to request an open floor hearing. An open floor hearing must be held if one is requested by an interested party.

It will provide interested parties with an opportunity to make oral representations, based on their initial relevant representation or subsequent more detailed written representation about the application, subject to the Examining Authority?s running of the hearing.

Anyone affected by a compulsory acquisition proposal (to compulsorily purchase land or interests in land) has the right to request that a hearing is held on that matter.

? The draft timetable for the examination.
The proposed agenda for the preliminary meeting is set out in the ?rule 6? letter dated 22 February 2016. This letter also includes a draft timetable for the examination.

The Preliminary Meeting is not the place to discuss the details or merits of the proposal or provide evidence on the application. There will be opportunities to make representations on these matters during the examination itself.

The relevant representation you made on behalf of your client when you registered her as an interested party is already part of the evidence the Examining Authority will consider in their examination. The examination will rely heavily on the written evidence that the applicant and other interested parties have submitted.

There is no need to attend the Preliminary Meeting in order to have the opportunity to make further representations during the examination. Whether or not you attend this meeting, you will later have the same rights to provide further written representations and evidence regarding the application and to attend any hearings. However if you on behalf of you client wish to propose changes to the timetable it is advisable that you attend the Preliminary Meeting on your clients behalf.

There will be both a meeting note and an audio recording of the Preliminary Meeting that will be made available on the Planning Inspectorate?s website following the meeting.

Please see our advice notes for further information:
Advice note 8.4: Influencing how an application will be examined ? the Preliminary Meeting
Advice note 8.5: Participating in the examination

There is a statutory duty, under section 51 of the Planning Act 2008 as amended by the Localism Act 2011, to record the advice that is given in relation to an application or a potential application and to make this publicly available. Therefore, I will publish this advice on the planning Inspectorate?s website.

Rostons Ltd - Tony Rimmer

Project update meeting in relation to the third round of draft application documents
Please see the attached meeting note

Keuper Gas Storage Limited - Paul Zyda

Comments on the third set of draft application documents
Please see the attached letter

Keuper Gas Storage Limited - Paul Zyda

Update project meeting in relation to the second round of draft application documents.
Please see the attached meeting note.

Keuper Gas Storage Project - Paul Zyda

Comments on the second set of draft application documents.
Please see the attached letter

Keuper Gas Storage Limited - Paul Zyda

On submission of your draft documents you asked for advice on the revisions you have made to your ?red line? boundary
You notified the Planning Inspectorate that you have revised the red line boundary for the proposal from a single continuous boundary that might be described as ?the application site? to a ?red line? boundary of discrete parcels of development that are not joined.

May I advise that there appear to be no reasons contained in the Planning Act 2008 (as amended) (PA2008) and associated procedural requirements to prevent you taking this approach. For example, the PA 2008, as amended, does not explicitly refer to a concept of an ?application site boundary?.

However, to ensure that an application is properly made, specific procedural requirements must nonetheless be met. For example the land plan must identify the land required for, or affected by the proposed development; and where applicable, any land over which it is proposed to exercise powers of compulsory acquisition or any right to use land; any land in relation to which it is proposed to extinguish easements, servitudes and other private rights; and where the land includes special category land and replacement land, that special category and replacement land.

The works plan must show the proposed location of the development and works; the proposed location or (for a linear scheme) the proposed route and alignment of the development and works; and the limits within which the development and works may be carried out and any limits of deviation provided for in the draft order.

The DCO should accurately identify the extent of the land over which powers can be exercised and development carried out. The ?Order limits? and ?Order land? must therefore cross refer to plans which correctly identify the appropriate land.

To ensure that all those with an interest in the land to which the application relates are consulted and are fully aware of the development Pre application consultation procedures and post acceptance notification requirements use the concept of ?application land?. However, there is again no necessity to ?identify? or ?show? this land in order to meet procedural requirements when putting together a valid application.

We are continuing to review your draft documents and may provide further advice on the above in due course.

For reference, relevant sections from the Planning Act 2008, as amended are S37, s41, s57 and the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Amendment Regulations 2014

Hope you find this advice helpful, however may I remind you that this email should not be constituted as legal advice which you should rely on.

Keuper Gas Storage Limited - Paul Zyda

Teleconference giving an update on progress of project
Please see attached meeting note

Keuper Gas Storage Ltd

Comments on the draft application documents.
Please see the attached letter

Keuper Gas Storage Limited - Paul Zyda

Update project meeting in relation to the draft application documents.
Please see the attached meeting note.

Keuper Gas Storage Project - Paul Zyda

Geology teleconference with the applicant.
Please see the attached note.

Keuper Gas Storage Limited - Paul Zyda

The applicant sought PINS advice on its approach to its Preliminary Environmental Information Report and consultation under section 42 of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended)
Under the Planning Act 2008 and regulation 10 of the associated Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2009, the applicant has a duty to ensure that it consults on its PEIR under section 47 ? duty to consult local community. However, as you?ve identified in your SoCC that you would also provide the PEIR as part of your consultation material to consultees identified in section 42 then it?s worth ensuring, and confirming with the relevant local authorities, that you have done so.

In terms of your duties, the approach to providing PEIRs to some section 42 consultees directly and others on request appears to me to be relevant only in relation to the SoCC and section 47 (7) of the Act (carrying out consultation in accordance with the SoCC). To demonstrate that you have met those duties, you may wish to provide evidence that you have completed the approach set out in the SoCC, and evidence of how you have had regard to any responses received that may relate to people requesting further information or dissatisfaction with your approach, should enable you to demonstrate that you have met those duties.

From my reading, the SoCC itself sets out how the PEIR will be publicised and consulted on in the context of the wider consultation with s47 consultees, which is in line with regulation 10 of the EIA regulations mentioned above.

Overall, you may wish to evidence the following in your consultation report:

- How you have met each duty set out in legislation in relation to consultation requirements, including those relating to PEIR
- A dated copy of letters in relation consulting on the PEIR.
- Requests under any of the sections of the Act on consultation where people have requested further information on the PEIR, and how you have had regard to those requests.

These comments are without prejudice to any decision the Secretary of State may make at Acceptance and do not constitute legal advice

Zyda Law - Victoria Longmore

Teleconference between the applicant and the Planning Inspectorate.
Please see the attached meeting note.

Keuper Gas Storage Project - Paul Zyda

Request for advice on proposed amendments to the red-line boundary prior to statutory consultation
In principle, the purpose of the pre-application stage is to allow applicants to refine proposals in response to consultation and technical work, and this is reflected in the government?s pre-application guidance from the Department Communities and Local Government. In my view, your approach is consistent with the spirit of the guidance on the basis that you intend to communicate the changes through the statutory consultation process.

Scoping

There is no statutory requirement to request a further scoping opinion and any decision on that lies with the applicant. On the basis that the changes will be reflected in your statutory consultation, rather than re-scope you have the opportunity to seek the views of all relevant statutory bodies directly. You may wish to alert them to / seek any comments they may have specifically in relation whether the changes affect their previous comments in relation to the scoping opinion.

I would advise that you reflect the changes and any correspondence through both the Environmental Statement and Consultation Report, with clear cross-referencing for ease / where applicable. Where you have not followed the advice in the scoping opinion due to the changes, I would advise that you clearly explain your reasoning in the Environmental Statement, with any supporting evidence from statutory bodies where applicable.

Pipeline changes

In terms of the pipeline area reduction, clarity in your statutory consultation that there has been a change from the non-statutory consultation may assist those who then refer to or come across earlier material such as the scoping request. In practical terms, the key on the plans should clearly explain what the purpose of the green and red lines are. At present this is not the case and the plans appear confusing to the lay reader.

Gas storage location changes

At our last teleconference, you explained that the purpose of removing properties within the wider red line area for the caverns was to focus on where the caverns would be located and to avoid any undue concern on the part of residents within the red line boundary.

There are two matters to consider:

1) Clarity of the plans

As with the pipeline, the plan key will be central to providing clarity.

On the basis of the plans provided it is not clear how the proposed caverns relate to the land that is excluded.

In addition it is not clear that the properties are outside of the red line boundary rather than within it. Given the scale of the plans, this is currently hard to establish and I?d encourage you to consider how an explanation can be clearly provided / demonstrated.

Your statutory consultation period will provide you the opportunity to test the clarity of your material and you may wish to seek views on this matter.

2) Certainty that no works will affect land being taken out

To continue with the proposed approach, you would need to be certain that the land would not in any way be affected by the proposed works. In particular a question in my mind is how will you ensure that the solution mining will avoid the land underneath the properties? As currently presented, without prejudice to any future examination, I consider that this could be an issue for examination.

Addition of Pearns Pumphouse

This appears to be a logical inclusion within the redline boundary for the reasons you set out.

Zyda Law - Victoria Longmore

The applicant requested comments on the draft interim consultation report. PINS provided the following advice:
The report is clear and structured in a way that makes it easy to understand how consultation has been approached, what issues have been raised and in what forum, and how KGSL has had regard to responses received. Chapter 3 is particularly helpful in placing the consultation in the context of the legislation. The summaries of the responses are concise without losing a sense of the issues raised under each theme.

In that context I hope you find the following suggestions helpful:

? It could be helpful to have an executive summary, and within that capture the key responses that have led to changes to your scheme / further considerations. I was able to get a sense that your on-going work has been directly and indirectly influenced by responses sought / received built up from reading each response. However, I think there is value in covering this at the start to reinforce the importance given to section 49 in the wider application process.

? Where you have had regard to comments and made commitments or changes, I recommend identifying how / where these have been secured. For example, in Health and Safety paragraph 5.4.4 ? you identify measures that would address the issues raised; will these form part of the COMAH licence or will they be secured through the DCO? I would encourage you to review Chapter 5 so that in addition to advising what you have done in response, you advise how any assurances will be carried forward. Where further work has been undertaken through the EIA / measures have been secured in the DCO, it would be useful to cross reference specifically. Where you rely on other licences / legislation, it would also be helpful to specify this / indicate whether this would happen in parallel to / post DCO consent.

? A separate section on the draft SoCC consultation with local authorities, and demonstrating how you have had regard to their comments would be helpful.

? The cross-referencing to evidence in appendices already in the document is particularly helpful and will be important for the Acceptance period. It may already be your intention to cover in the contents but you could usefully add a summary table of appendices so that we can see ?at a glance? where to find specific evidence such as s48 notice.

Please note that the above comments are without prejudice to any future decision the Secretary of State may make on the application but I hope you find them helpful.

Zyda Law - Victoria Longmore

The applicant requested comments on its draft SoCC. PINS provided the following advice:
In respect of your extended consultation zones, I advise you to continue to work with the local authorities and community representatives to ensure those zones are appropriate and reflect this in your consultation report. From experience on other applications, where a community feels they have been missed out from consultation it can lead to additional work and delay and you may wish to ensure that you have contingency in place should any parties make a request for additional areas to be included.

Zyda Law - Victoria Longmore

Teleconference between the applicant and the Planning Inspectorate
Please see the attached meeting note

Keuper Gas Storage Ltd

Round table meeting between the applicant, the Planning Inspectorate and the Local Authorities.
Please see the attached meeting note.

Keuper Gas Storage Project - Paul Zyda

Initial Meeting with Keuper Gas Storage Ltd
Please see attached meeting note

Keuper Gas Storage Ltd