Request for more detail about Compulsory Aquisition hearings on 8 and 9 October, whether the Council needs to attend, and if it wished to make an objection how it should do so.
The 2008 Planning Act as amended by the 2011 Localism Act sets out the types of development for which development consent is required. For clarification, an order granting development consent can also authorise the compulsory acquisition of land under s122 of the 2008 Act. This means that if the Secretary of State decides to grant development consent and authorise compulsory acquisition there will be no further opportunity to make representations or attend hearings in relation to compulsory acquisition of local authority land (subject to any Special Parliamentary Procedure). This is unlike the procedure under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 in which compulsory acquisition of land is applied for separately not as part of the planning application process and if necessary a separate CPO inquiry is held at which the principle of compulsory acquisition is tested before a CPO is made.

Further to your question about what the authority would need to do if it wished to raise an objection to the compulsory acquisition of its land and/or rights, section 128 of the 2008 Act provides that a local authority can make a representation containing an objection before the completion of the examination of the application. As you are aware, the Panel examining the application is due to hold a hearing into Compulsory Acquisition matters on 8 and 9 October 2012. If the Council wishes to raise an objection to the compulsory acquisition of land, this is its opportunity to present its case orally, and an opportunity for the Panel to ask any questions it may have.

The Panel is currently preparing questions and an agenda based on the information it has received from the applicant and from other interested parties in their representations and in response to formal questions issued during the course of the examination so far. If the Council wishes to appear at the hearing the Panel would very much appreciate notice, including details of any objection(s) raised. The applicant will also need to have sufficient notice should they wish to respond at the hearing to any points raised in an objection by the Council, or to questions raised by the Panel on the basis of an objection.

As noted above, there is no subsequent opportunity to make an objection as part of a separate process and if you wish to submit an objection you should ensure that this is made in writing before close of the examination. Under section 128 of the 2008 Act, if an objection is made before the close of examination, and is not withdrawn at the point that an order is made, the order would then be subject to Special Parliamentary Procedure.

Wyre Borough Council - Rowena Gornall

For Halite Energy, Mr Humphreys asked about powers under s120 of the Planning Act 2008 to apply legislation in a Development Consent Order
It is arguable that it is not the intention of s120 to allow a DCO to undermine the statutory scheme provided by the Planning Act and when considering whether an article might lawfully be included applying a statutory provision such as Part VII of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 the extent of the power under s120 should be carefully considered in particular:

1) Does the statutory provision "relate to any matter for which provision may be made in the order" (s120)(5)(a)? Note that a DCO "may make provision relating to, or to matters ancillary to, the development for which consent is granted" (s120)(3) and provision may in particular be made for matters relating to any of the matters listed in Part 1 of Schedule 5.

2) If not falling within s120 (a), (b) or (d) would the article be considered by the Secretary of State to be "necessary or expedient for giving full effect to any other provision of the order"?

Halite Energy - Michael Humphreys QC

At the first Development Consent Order hearing, held on Tuesday 24 July at the North Euston Hotel, the Panel advised that the Planning Inspectorate would issue advice under section 51 of the 2008 Planning Act in relation to the discharge and enforcement of requirements.
Section 120 of the Act provides that a DCO may impose requirements and the requirements may in particular include "requirements to obtain the approval of the Secretary of State or any other person, ?"

So long as the person has the requisite powers under its own constitution to give the relevant approval the Act does not prescribe or limit the persons whose approval may be required under the DCO. It is for the applicant (in consultation as required with the local authorities and any other persons) to draft the DCO and agree the mechanism for approval which is appropriate in the circumstances of the development.

In addition, we note s173 of the Act, which prescribes the district council (except in relation to the construction of a hazardous waste facility) as the relevant local planning authority for the purposes of enforcement of any breach of the terms of a DCO. This section doesn't prevent the county council having responsibility for discharge of requirements.

Halite Energy - Paul Grace

Ms McMillian called to explain that she had not registered as an interested party, but would like to participate in the examination.
We advised that the opportunity to register had passed, but that Ms McMillian was very welcome to follow the progress of the examination on our website, and observe any meetings.

We also advised that although only interested parties have the right to participate, the Panel has the power to accept submissions from people who are not interested parties. Ms McMillian can write to the Panel and ask that her submissions be considered. Whether or not to consider the submissions is a matter for the Panel.

Janet McMillian

Mr Renwick called to confirm the process for making requests to attend and speak at an open-floor hearing and how a petition of 600 persons in respect of the proposed Preesall Underground Gas Storage Facility can be considered by the Examining Authority.
Reference was given to the Rule 8 letter of The Infrastructure Planning (Examination Procedure) Rules 2010 as amended by the Consequential Amendments Regulations 2012 which details the relevant dates for both the receipt by The Inspectorate for requests to be heard at open-floor hearings and the dates they will be taking place.

It was advised that written representations must be received by The Inspectorate by Wednesday 6 June and if the aforementioned petition is to be submitted during the examination of the Preesall Underground Gas Storage Facility, it should be submitted as part of an Interested Party's written representation. If it is not, it is at the discretion of the Examining Authority as to whether such evidence is taken into consideration.

Office of Paul Maynard MP - Simon Renwick

If the Secretary of State gives a direction deeming that hazardous substances consent (HSC) may be granted, who then formally issues the HSC and who acts as the hazardous substances authority (HSA) for the lifetime of the consent? I was informed that under the previous process, the HSC would be issued by the HSA for the land on which the development is proposed, usually the local planning authority (LPA). Would this still be the case?
The hazardous substances authority (HSA) remains the authority as defined in sections 1 to 3 of the Planning (Hazardous Substances) Act 1990 (the PHSA 1990) notwithstanding the ability of the Secretary of State to issue a direction.

The PHSA 1990 as amended gives power to the Secretary of State to direct that hazardous substances consent (HSC) is granted, subject to any conditions. That direction constitutes the consent - the HSA will not need to issue a further consent (and will not have power to as the application was not made to them). I understand that the Secretary of State may send a copy of the direction to the HSA for inclusion on the planning register. The HSA will be responsible for monitoring and enforcing any HSC.

Health and Safety Executive - Laura Evans

The role of the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) in relation to applications for deemed hazardous substances consent and the relevant provisions of the Planning Act 2008.
See attached letter.

Health and Safety Executive - Laura Evans

Halite requested further details of their duty to carry out notifications of hearings during examination.
Outlined below is the procedure relating to the applicant's duty to notify hearings in accordance with Rule 13 of the Infrastructure Planning (Examination Procedure) Rules 2010. 'Hearing' is defined in the legislation as "an open-floor hearing, issue-specific hearing or compulsory acquisition hearing".

Unless the Examining authority otherwise directs, the applicant must not later than 21 days before the date fixed for the commencement of a hearing:
- post and maintain a notice of the hearing in a conspicuous place or (in the case of an application for linear works more than 5 kilometres in length) at intervals of not more than 5 kilometres on, or as close as is reasonably practicable to, the land to which the application relates;
- post and maintain a notice of the hearing in one or more places where public notices are usually posted in the area; and
- publish a notice of the hearing by local advertisement in the area.

"Local advertisement" means:
- by publication of the notice in a newspaper circulating in the locality; and
- where the Examining authority maintains a website for the purpose of advertisement, by publication of the notice on the website (Halite will need to provide the IPC/PINS with an electronic copy of the notice).

Notices must be readily visible to and legible by members of the public; must contain a statement of the date, time and place of the hearing; the section of the Planning Act 2008 under which the application has been made; a description of the proposals contained in the application sufficient to identify the location of the proposed development with or without reference to a map; and details of a place where a copy of the application can be inspected.

The Infrastructure Planning (Examination Procedure) Rules 2010 are available in full at: [attachment 1] and other legislation relating to the IPC process is available on our website at: [attachment 2].

Halite Energy Group - Nick Taylor

The IPC undertook outreach meetings with members of the public and others, and attended a meeting of the Community Liaison Panel.
Notes of these meetings are below

Members of the Public

Ms Purl asked whether or not Fleetwood Town Council were required to register as an intrested party in order to particpate in the examination into the Preesall Underground Gas Storage application.
Fleetwood Town Council is a host parish or community council to part of the Preesall proposal.

Prescribed consultees, including host and neighbouring parish and community councils, are automatically afforded the status of an ?interested party? for the purposes of applications submitted to the IPC. These organisations do not need to register formally by submitting a relevant representation in order to make their views known during the examination.

The IPC does, however, invite prescribed consultees to send us a relevant representation in order to inform the examining authority?s initial assessment of issues ahead of the Preliminary Meeting, in accordance with s.88 of the Planning Act 2008.

Fleetwood Town Council - Janet Purl

Following the decision to accept the Preesall Gas Storage application for examination the IPC wrote to each of the local Members of Parliament, to let them know of the decision and how they and/or their constituents can participate in the examination process.
Copies of those letters are attached.

Elected representatives

City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council asked about how statutory local authority consultees are identified.
The IPC advised that the Planning Act 2008 provides that host local authorities, and local authorities which share a border with host local authorities, are statutory consultees on the adequacy of the applicant's pre-application consultation (and more widely on the project at other stages). The definition of "local authority" in S43(3) of the Act includes both county and district councils, and so a district council which borders the host county council is a statutory consultee despite potentially being at some distance from the site of the proposed development.

The IPC explained that it has no discretion as which local authorities fall within the definition in S43. As a result, even if host or neighbouring authority requests not to receive correspondence, the IPC is under a statutory obligation to consult them. (Though they are under no obligation to respond.) Similarly, the IPC cannot entertain requests to become a statutory local authority consultee from bodies that do not meet the definition in S43, particularly local authorities that do not share a border with a host authority, though of course they are happy to explain how such bodies can participate in the process.

City of Bradford Council - Michael Eaglestone

Burnley Borough Council asked about how statuory local authority consultees are indentified.
The IPC advised that the Planning Act 2008 provides that host local authorities, and local authorities which share a border with host local authorities, are statutory consultees on the adequacy of the applicant's pre-application consultation (and more widely on the project at other stages). The definition of "local authority" in S43(3) of the Act includes both county and district councils, and so a district council which borders the host county council is a statutory consultee despite potentially being at some distance from the site of the proposed development.

The IPC explained that it has no discretion as which local authorities fall within the definition in S43. As a result, even if host or neighbouring authority requests not to receive correspondence, the IPC is under a statutory obligation to consult them. (Though they are under no obligation to respond.) Similarly, the IPC cannot entertain requests to become a statutory local authority consultee from bodies that do not meet the definition in S43, particularly local authorities that do not share a border with a host authority, though of course they are happy to explain how such bodies can participate in the process.

Burnley Borough Council - Susan Belton

I have considered with Leading Counsel your comments in respect of the parties listed in Part 2 of the Book of Reference (category 3 persons with a right to claim) and whether they should also appear in Part 1 of the Book of Reference (as either category 1 or category 2 persons). I set out below our thoughts on this.

Sections 44(1) and section 57(1) of the Planning Act 2008 (PA) define category 1 persons being ?an owner, lessee, tenant (whatever the tenancy period) or occupier of the land?.

Sections 44(2)/57(2) PA define a category 2 person as someone who is ?(a) ? interested in the land; or (b) has power: (i) to sell and convey the land;or (ii) to release the land."

Sections 44(3)/57(3) PA state that an expression (other than ?the land?) that appears in Section 44(2)/57(2) has the same meaning as the meaning it has in Section 5(1) of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 (CPA). Pursuant to section 5(1) CPA the term ?interested in land? is essentially the parties that would need to be served with a notice to treat. A right of access is not ?interested in the land? for the purposes of Section 44(2)/57(2) PA (based on the usual meaning of ?interested? applied by Section 5(1) CPA). On that basis, it seems to us that anyone with rights of access over the development consent order (DCO) Land that may be extinguished or interfered is a potential Category 3 person (if they might have a relevant claim), but, on the basis of s5(1) CPA, they cannot be a category 1 or category 2 person (and therefore should not be in Part 1 of the Book of Reference, but in Part 2 and potentially Part 3).

It seems that none of the four projects accepted to date have included Category 3 Persons in Part 1 of the Book of Reference.

As indicated, I have consulted with Leading Counsel on the this issue, who agrees with the above analysis. We would also refer you to paragraphs 306 - 307 of Guy Roots/Michael Humphries on Compulsory Purchase Law.

I therefore propose to proceed on the basis outlined above. I would be grateful if you could confirm whether you have any further views on this issue as it would be helpful to remove any uncertainty. I will briefly cover this off in the Explanatory Memorandum.
It is noted that persons with a right of access appear in Part 2 because you have identified them as potentially having a relevant claim but not in Part 1 because it is considered that the right of access (in accordance with the meaning in section 5(1) of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965) is not an interest in land. We have no further comments to make in relation to this approach. If it is not known at the time of making the application whether it is proposed to extinguish, suspend or interfere with any rights of access (or other easements and rights) belonging to those persons you may of course choose not to include them in Part 3 and need not include them in Part 1 if you are satisfied that the persons concerned are not interested in the land (which is subject to acquisition, rights to use the land or rights to carry out protective works) for the purposes of section 56(2)(d) of the Planning Act 2008.

BLP Law on behalf of Halite - Paul Grace

Has the IPC issued any advice or guidance on the matter of compulsory purchase compensation that those with an interest in land could read to better understand the situation and their rights?
See attached email response

Protect Wyre Group - Ian Mulroy

Berwin Leighton Paisner (on behalf of Halite) requested comments from the IPC on their draft Habitats Regulations Assessment Report and Statement
See attached letter for IPC response

Berwin Leighton Paisner - Paul Grace

Request for IPC advice regarding the draft book of reference for the proposed Preesall project.
Thank you for inviting the IPC's comments in respect of the draft book of reference and associated land plans for the proposed Preesall project. Please find our observations below.

It is of course for you to be satisfied that you have carried out the appropriate due diligence and have identified all interests as necessary and we have therefore limited our comments on the book of reference to general drafting points.

It is noted (taking plot 15 as an example) that those who have a right of access it is intended to extinguish, suspend or interfere with are listed in part 2 (category 3 persons with a right to claim) and do not appear in part 1 as either category 1 or category 2 persons. Draft article 20 (compulsory acquisition of rights) is intended to discharge land over which new rights will be acquired from all rights etc so far as inconsistent with the exercise of that new right. It would be helpful if the explanatory memorandum could explain the approach taken.

The introductory part of the draft book of reference is not quite clear (this may be a typographical error to be corrected in the final version), for example "where land is subject to be acquired, new rights and protective works the category of persons to be identified are". "Procedure" is missing after "special parliamentary". "Special category land" is the generic expression including local authority land etc. This could be clarified. It may be better also to use the term "special land" as in CLG guidance on compulsory acquisition procedures.

BLP LLP - Paul Grace

Developer requested comments on their draft Consultation Report.
See attached email for IPC response to draft Consultation Report.

Berwin Leighton Paisner LLP - Paul Grace

What matters are relevant to the acceptance decision?
The matters to be considered are those set out in s.55 of the Planning Act 2008 (available on our website). These include whether the scheme applied for is indeed a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project, whether the pre-application consultation had met the statutory requirements and whether the application is in the prescribed form.

Protect Wyre Group - Ian Mulroy

With reference to the IPC?s Advice Note 6: Preparation and submission of application documents.
We are currently preparing the Environmental Statement for a NSIP and endeavouring to comply with the presentational requirements contained within Advice Note 6. We are mindful of the following extract from the advice ?Whilst applicants are strongly recommended to follow the advice contained within this advice note, it does not represent formal guidance under s37 or s50 of the Act? and would like to agree the following with the IPC in advance of preparing the Environmental Statement.
Font Size for Environmental Statement Tables

Although the guidance in the advice note requires that ?the main body of text in reports should have a minimum font size of 12 pt ? we will have to reduce the font size for certain larger tables in order to assist the reader. We would like confirmation from the IPC that this would be acceptable.
Environmental Statement Drawing Scales

With reference to ES drawing scales the following extracts from the Advice Note are relevant
?Any plans, drawings or sections should be no larger than A0 size (with the exception of some marine charts which may be larger) and should be drawn to an identified scale (not smaller than 1:2500).?
and ?It is recognised that the most appropriate scale will depend on the particular form of the proposed scheme and applicants are therefore encouraged to discuss this with the IPC in advance of the submission of the final application documents?.

We note the Brig y Cwm Environmental Statement accompanying the Development Consent Order accepted by the IPC for determination uses a range of drawing scales some of which are at a smaller scale than 1:2500. These include drawings referenced in Reg 5(2) of the Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure Regulations for nature conservation and the historic environment. In certain circumstances the drawings use very small scales in order to demonstrate the effects from distance / in context e.g. for the Zone of Theoretical Visibility for the Regulation 5(2) Historic Environment Plans. We also note the developer sought agreement from yourselves prior to submitting the document that the Reg 5(2) documents would form part of the Environmental Statement rather than being standalone documents.

We would therefore seek agreement from the IPC that a similar range of scales can be used for the drawings contained within the ES including Regulation 5(2) drawings and that they can be contained within the Environmental Statement rather than as standalone documents. These drawings are likely to range from 1:2500 to 1:10,000 scale but may also be of a smaller scale if distant effects or remote receptors are identified.
Thank you for your email.

I regret that we cannot agree that a range of scales including scales less than 1:2500 can be used for Regulation 5(2) drawings. The requirement in Regulation 5(3), that plans submitted be at a scale no smaller than 1:2500, is a statutory requirement which applies to plans required to be provided by regulation 5(2), irrespective of whether or not they are included in an Environmental Statement.

The issue of whether or not such a deviation from the regulations would be sufficient to prevent an application from proceeding to examination would be a discretionary matter for the Commissioner appointed to make the acceptance decision, and would obviously depend upon the effect of that deviation.

There is no reason why Regulation 5(2) plans should not be submitted as part of an Environmental Statement rather than as stand alone documents, so long as this is made clear. Alternatively, plans that are not provided under Regulation 5(2) are not bound by the requirement, whether part of an ES or otherwise, and you may use such a range of scales as you feel appropriate.

The advice given in Advice Note 6 is not formal guidance under section 37 or section 50 of the PA 2008. It is accepted that in some circumstances it may be appropriate to deviate from it, and minor deviations (such as the use of a different font size to assist the reader) are unlikely to draw comment unless they inhibit the legibility of the document. Where it is proposed to deviate in a significant way, the applicant is advised to explain that deviation.

BLP for Halite Energy - Paul Grace

I am writing with a query in relation to the need for a separate ?rights plan? or whether this information can be included on the works plan.

As you know, under Regulation 5(2)(k) of the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009, there is a requirement, where applicable, for ?a plan? identifying (amongst other things) any new or altered means of access and the stopping up of streets or roads.
At our meeting on 19 September, you and your colleagues kindly reviewed our works plan drawings. As you may recollect, our works plan drawings contain the information relevant to our scheme required under Regulation 5(2)(k), namely the means of access and limit of streets to be temporarily stopped up (see the ?key to symbols? on the top right of each works plan drawing).

I further note that:
Article 11(3) of the Model Provisions refers to the letters and numbers showing roads to be temporarily stopped up being on ?the works plan?: and page 4 of the recently revised Advice Note 6 states that ?duplication and superfluous content should be avoided?. I am not sure what point there is in showing the means of access and limit of streets being temporarily stopped up on an independent set of drawings when these are shown sensibly and in the context of the works on the works plan drawings.

Accordingly, I propose leaving the works plan drawings as drafted, showing the information required by regulation 5(2)(k), without producing a separate set of drawings to fulfil this requirement. Is the IPC satisfied with this approach or should a separate plan be produced?
Regulation 5(2)(j) of the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009 (APFP) prescribes the information which should be provided on a works plan namely, in relation to existing features- (i) the proposed location or (for a linear scheme) the proposed route and alignment of the development and works;and (ii) the limits within which the development and works may be carried out and any limits of deviation provided for in the draft order;'.

We agree that the Model Provisions anticipate that the works plan may be used to show roads which are to be stopped up temporarily. However, the Model Provisions are a starting point and not determinative of the procedural requirements under the Act and APFP. Regulation 5(2)(k) of the APFP requires an application to be accompanied by 'where applicable, a plan identifying any new or altered means of access, stopping up of streets or roads or any diversions, extinguishments or creation of rights of way or public rights of navigation.' This indicates that a separate plan is required to comply with Regulation 5 (2) (k) even though the information (in this case) may already have been included on the works plan. The Regulation 5(2)(k) plan could be described as a "rights plan" (this is not a defined term in the APFP and there is no procedural requirement as to its content) or the information could be included on another plan which is separate to the works plan. The plan should nonetheless be clearly identified as a plan submitted in compliance with Regulation 5 (2) (k).

For purposes of clarification when cross referencing plans with supporting documentation a consistent approach is necessary and any divergences from model provisions for example, should be explained. It may be necessary to update draft documents accordingly.

Berwin Leighton Paisner LLP - Paul Grace

Could I please check a point with you on application documents.

Regulation 6 of the infrastructure planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009 relates to "matters prescribed in relation to applications for specific types of projects". Reg 6(4) states that "if the application is for the construction of a pipeline, it must be accompanied by details of:- [details of pipeline?]". Essentially, this is a requirement for the submission of what is known as a "pipeline statement". Each sub-paragraph in Regulation 6 is then specific to a particular class of (NSIP) (e.g. 6(1) relates to a generating station; 6(2) relates to highway development or construction or alteration of the railway). These sub-paragraphs essentially follow the categories of NSIP contained at Section 14(1) Planning Act 2008.

There are two categories of NSIP pipeline at section 14 - section 14(1)(f) "construction of a pipeline by a gas transporter" and section 14(1)(g) "construction of a pipeline other than by a gas transporter" (which concerns "cross country pipelines"). I confirm that the pipelines proposed for construction by Halite do not constitute NSIP within either of these categories - the Halite project is NSIP as a result of it being an underground gas storage project. The proposed pipelines forming part of the Halite project are therefore Associated Development. On that basis, it seems to us that regulation 6(4) only applies to pipelines which in themselves are classified as NSIP and therefore a statement under Reg 6(4) is not required.

Could you please confirm you agree with this.
Thank you for your email dated the 11 October 2011.

I refer to the Introductory Project Meeting held on the 25 August 2010, in which you as promoter provided an overview of the site and proposed project; including a proposed 7km (approx) pipeline to the west of the UGS for pumping brine to the sea and a proposed 12km (approx) pipeline for gas transportation to an inter-connector to the east of the UGS.

I also refer to Schedule 1 of the Draft Development Consent Order; ?The Brine Discharge Pipeline?, works 16A to 16L and ?The NTS Interconnector Pipeline?, works 20A to 20H.

It is apparent from the above documents that the construction of pipelines forms part of the proposed application, albeit the pipelines are associated development.

We have given careful consideration to Regulation 6 of the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) (APFP) Regulations 2009 as it is not the IPC's intention to place onerous burdens on applicants. We acknowledge the reasoning you have used in pointing out that each sub-paragraph of Regulation 6 would appear to relate to a particular class of NSIP as contained in S.14(1), and your assertion that the pipelines would not meet the criteria for an NSIP in their own right. However, in view of the wording of Regulation 6(4) (which states that ?if the application is for the construction of a pipeline, it must be accompanied by details of: [details of the pipeline]?) it is arguable that the application is (in part) for the construction of a pipeline(s). This being the case, it would appear that Regulation 6(4) does apply. It is considered that in order to comply with Regulation 6 (4) a pipeline statement should provide the information required where applicable but does not however need to contain significant detail.

Paul Grace

Berwin Leighton Paisner (BLP) (on behalf of Halite) requested the IPC's comments on their draft Development Consent Order (DCO) and Explanatory Memorandum (EM)
See attached lettter for IPC comments

Berwin Leighton Paisner (BLP) - Paul Grace

IPC meeting with representatives of Halite, Berwin Leighton Paisner and Mott MacDonald to discuss the developer's draft Development Consent Order (DCO) and Explanatory Memorandum (EM)
See attached meeting note

Halite, Berwin Leighton Paisner and Mott MacDonald

See letter attached
See response attached

Halite - Keith Budinger

Query regarding the IPC's powers in respect of granting rights of access to private land to conduct surveys (s.53 of the Planning Act 2008), with reference to the proposed Preesall project
This letter explains the IPC?s powers in determining requests from developers to access private land to conduct surveys. We have also written directly to landowners who have been in touch with us to ask about this matter.

Rights of entry procedure: s.53 of the Act

The Planning Act 2008 (?the Act?) makes provision for a developer to apply to the IPC for authorisation for a right of entry to gain access onto land in order to carry out surveys and take levels. This is covered in Section 53 (s.53) of the Act. The IPC can only authorise entry onto land if we are satisfied that certain conditions are met. The IPC's Advice Note 5 explains this in more detail.

The IPC needs to be satisfied that a s.53 authorisation request is a last resort and expects a developer to demonstrate that all reasonable efforts have been made to obtain rights of entry to the land prior to making the request to the IPC. This includes the negotiation of the proposed conditions for access (such as times and dates) with the relevant landowners.

s.53 in relation to the proposed Preesall project

In June, the IPC received six requests from Halite for authorisation under s.53 of the Act. These requests related to access to land for the purpose of surveys described by Halite as non-intrusive ecological / archaeological surveys.

However on 3 August, Halite informed us that all six requests seeking authorisation for entry to land under s.53 have been withdrawn. Halite has advised us that it has written to each of the landowners involved confirming this withdrawal. Following this confirmation, we will no longer be determining these requests for authorisation.

Any advice we have provided to Halite or the landowners about our process for dealing with the s.53 requests will be made available on the register of advice on our website.

Eric Ollerenshaw MP

Query regarding the proposed Preesall project and the process under section 52 (obtaining information about interests in land) and section 53 (Rights of entry) of the Planning Act 2008.
Your letter covers two separate procedures set out in the Planning Act 2008 (the Act) under section 52 (s.52) - Obtaining information about interests in land, and section 53 (s.53) ? Rights of entry. I refer to the IPC's advice notes on these procedures. We have also written directly to landowners who have been in touch with us to ask about the s.53 procedure for access to land.

Clarification on s.52 of the Act - Obtaining information about interests in land

The Act provides a power for the IPC to authorise a developer to serve a written notice on specified persons to obtain information about land interests. The purpose of this power is to enable a developer to comply with other parts of the Act. A developer can request an authorisation before or after an application for development consent is made to us. Only an Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC) Commissioner can grant authorisation to serve notice.

The information a written notice can require is the name and address of persons with a specified interest in the land. I set these out, and details of who notice can be served on, in Attachment 1 for your convenience.

Communities and Local Government guidance states ?applicants are expected to act reasonably, first seeking to obtain relevant information directly before seeking [IPC] authorisation. Specifically, applicants should only submit requests for those aspects of information?where they consider they have been reasonably refused that information.?

Where we have authorised a developer to serve a written notice, and where a person fails without reasonable excuse to comply with the notice, that person would commit an offence liable to a fine. The definition and circumstances of an ?offence? are set out in s.52 (6)-(9) of the Act.

s.52 in relation to the proposed Preesall project

The IPC has not to date received any request for authorisation under s.52 in relation to the proposed application. However, Halite could in future seek to submit a request to us for authorisation under s.52 of the Act.

If local residents have queries or concerns about the steps being undertaken by the developer to obtain information about interests in land, they should raise these with the developer directly and may copy them to us.

Rights of entry procedure: s.53 of the Act

Your letter requests clarification about the procedure for an ?IPC authorisation for access?. s.53 of the Act makes provision for a developer to apply to the IPC for authorisation for a right of entry to gain access onto land in order to carry out surveys and take levels. The IPC can only authorise entry onto land if it is satisfied that certain conditions are met. I enclose a copy of our Advice Note 5, section 3 of which explains this in more detail, but have set the conditions out in Attachment 1 for your convenience.

As with s.52, the IPC needs to be satisfied that a s.53 authorisation request is a last resort and expects a developer to demonstrate that all reasonable efforts have been made to obtain rights of entry to the land prior to making the request to the IPC. This includes the negotiation of the proposed conditions for access with the relevant landowners.

s.53 in relation to the proposed Preesall project

The IPC recently received six requests from Halite for authorisation under s.53 of the Act. These requests related to access to land for the purpose of surveys described by Halite as non-intrusive ecological / archaeological surveys.

However on 3 August, Halite informed us that all six requests seeking authorisation for entry to land under s.53 have been withdrawn. Halite has advised us that it has written to each of the landowners confirming this withdrawal. Following this confirmation, we will no longer be determining these requests for authorisation.

Any advice we have provided to Halite or the landowners about our process for dealing with the s.53 requests will be made available on the register of advice on our website.

Ben Wallace MP

Advice sought on how the IPC's determination of Halite's s.53 authorisation requests will be made available.
Following the receipt of the six s.53 authorisation requests from Halite, the IPC has appointed a Commissioner to determine the authorisation requests.

If you have any specific comments that you would like to make on behalf of the College to the IPC regarding responses to Halite's request for access or in relation to the proposed access conditions, please can these be provided to the IPC, along with copies of any correspondence where appropriate.

Following determination by the Commissioner, the decision either to authorise the rights of entry, or refuse the requests with reasons will be published on the IPC's website along with all correspondence received from Halite and from the owners of the land to which the s.53 requests relate.

Blackpool & The Fylde College - Patrick Condon

Advice sought on the s.53 authorisation process following Halite's requests for authorisation under s.53 of the Planning Act 2008 (the Act).
Section 53 (s.53) - Rights of entry procedure

S.53 of the Act makes provision for a developer to apply to the IPC for authorisation to obtain rights of entry to land for the purpose of surveying and taking levels. The IPC can only authorise entry in relation to a proposed application at the pre-application stage, if the IPC is satisfied that the three conditions set out in s.53(2) of the Act are satisfied. These have been set out below:

a) the proposed applicant is considering a distinct project of real substance genuinely requiring entry onto the land,
b) the proposed application is likely to seek authority to compulsorily acquire the land or an interest in it or right over it, and
c) the proposed applicant has complied with section 42 in relation to the proposed application.

Further information on the s.53 process is set out in the IPC Advice Note 5 which explains the s.53 process in more detail. Please note that this Advice Note was published on 14 July 2011 and replaces the previous published version of Advice Note 5. All advice notes are available on the IPC?s website:

[attachment 1]

Halite s.53 authorisation requests

As you may be aware, Halite has made applications for authorisation by the IPC under s.53 of the Act, for access to land for the purpose of surveys described by Halite as non-intrusive ecological and archaeological surveys.

Please note that a request for authorisation under s.53 of the Act and the subsequent decision to be made by the appointed Commissioner regarding whether or not to grant authorisation, is separate from and without prejudice to, any future decision taken by the decision making authority in relation to a request made by Halite for development consent for the Project. If Halite submits an application to the IPC, and if the IPC accepts this application for examination, the appointed Commissioner(s), known as the examining authority, will identify the important and relevant matters which should be examined. This may include for example, safety considerations which you refer to in your letter.

Dialogue with Halite and proposed access conditions

In order for the IPC to use its discretionary power under s.53, the IPC needs to be satisfied that the authorisation request is a last resort and expect a developer to demonstrate that all reasonable efforts have been made to obtain rights of entry to the land, prior to making the formal request to us. This includes the negotiation of the proposed conditions for access to the land. The IPC expects there to have been an exchange of correspondence and dialogue, wherever possible, between the developer and the owners and/or occupiers of the land in an attempt to agree the proposed conditions for access, prior to making the s.53 request.

A request for authorisation under s.53 of the Act, if granted, may be subject to conditions imposed by the IPC which Halite would be required to comply with.

Determination of the s.53 authorisation requests

A Commissioner has been appointed by the IPC to determine the authorisation requests made by Halite. A copy of your letter will be provided to the appointed Commissioner for his consideration.

Following determination by the Commissioner, the decision to either authorise the rights of entry, or refuse the requests with reasons will be published on the IPC?s website, along with all correspondence received from Halite and from the owners and/or occupiers of the land to which the s.53 requests relate.

Human Rights Act 1998

The IPC as a public authority will consider in relation to each s.53 authorisation request whether the authorisation of entry onto third party land would be lawful and proportionate, having regard to the Human Rights Act 1998 prior to determining a s.53 authorisation request.

If you would like further details regarding the Human Rights Act 1998, I would suggest that you refer to the Equality and Human Rights Commission at [attachment 2].

Disclosure of Personal Information

The IPC is bound by the Data Protection Act 1998 and has established procedures to ensure that we comply with the Data Protection Act 1998 when handling personal information. Any correspondence received in relation to Halite?s s.53 requests will be published by the IPC in compliance with data protection principles. This means that the IPC will not publish personal data without the consent of the data subject.

It is Halite?s responsibility to ensure that any information they obtain is handled in accordance with the Data Protection Act 1998 which establishes a framework of rights and duties which are designed to safeguard personal data.

If you would like further details regarding the protection of personal information, I would suggest that you refer to the Information Commissioner?s Office (ICO) at [attachment 3].

W R Lawrenson

Sought advice on how the IPC has regard to human rights when determining s.53 authorisation requests.
The IPC as a public authority will consider in relation to each s.53 authorisation request whether the authorisation of entry onto third party land would be lawful and proportionate, having regard to the Human Rights Act 1998 prior to determining a s.53 authorisation request.

If you would like further details regarding the Human Rights Act 1998, I would suggest that you refer to the Equality and Human Rights Commission at [attachment 1].

George Parkinson

Advice sought on the s.53 authorisation process following Halite's request for authorisation to enter land under s.53 of the Planning Act 2008 (the Act), including access conditions and compliance with the Data Protect Act 1998.
Section 53 (s.53) - Rights of entry procedure

Please note that a request for authorisation under s.53 of the Act and the subsequent decision to be made by the appointed Commissioner regarding whether or not to grant authorisation, is separate from and without prejudice to, any future decision taken by the decision making authority in relation to a request made by Halite for development consent for the Project. If Halite submits an application to the IPC, and if the IPC accepts this application for examination, the appointed Commissioner(s), known as the examining authority, will identify the important and relevant matters which should be examined. This may include for example, compulsory acquisition powers, if requested by Halite to be included in the proposed development consent order.

Dialogue with Halite and proposed access conditions

In order for the IPC to use its discretionary power under s.53, the appointed Commissioner would need to be satisfied that the authorisation request is a last resort and would expect a developer to demonstrate that all reasonable efforts have been made to obtain rights of entry to the land, prior to making the formal request to the IPC. This includes the negotiation of the proposed conditions for access to the land. We expect there to have been an exchange of correspondence and dialogue, wherever possible, between the developer and the owners and/or occupiers of the land in an attempt to agree the proposed conditions for access, prior to making the s.53 request.

A request for authorisation under s.53 of the Act, if granted, may be subject to conditions imposed by the IPC which Halite would be required to comply with.

Disclosure of Personal Information

Following determination by the Commissioner, the decision to either authorise the rights of entry, or refuse the requests with reasons will be published on the IPC?s website. This will be published alongside all correspondence received from Halite and from the owners of the land to which the s.53 requests relate. Please note that the IPC will publish any information provided by the landowners in accordance with the Data Protection Act 1998.

George Parkinson

Mr Parkinson requested the IPC's views on alleged actions by the developer in relation to requests for land access and possible compulsory acquisition.
The IPC advised that it is not able to comment on the merits of matters raised by Mr Parkinson. Advice was provided on the process for seeking authorisation from the IPC for access to land under section 53 of the Planning Act and seeking compulsory acquisition of land or rights over land in the draft development consent order:

Section 53 (s.53) - Rights of entry procedure

S.53 of the Act makes provision for a developer to apply to the IPC for authorisation to obtain rights of entry to land for the purpose of surveying and taking levels. The IPC can only authorise entry in relation to a proposed application at the pre-application stage, if the IPC is satisfied that the three conditions set out in s.53(2) of the Act are satisfied. These have been set out below:

a) the proposed applicant is considering a distinct project of real substance genuinely requiring entry onto the land,
b) the proposed application is likely to seek authority to compulsorily acquire the land or an interest in it or right over it, and
c) the proposed applicant has complied with section 42 in relation to the proposed application.

In order for the IPC to use its discretionary power under s.53, the IPC needs to be satisfied that the authorisation request is a last resort and expects a developer to demonstrate that all reasonable efforts have been made to obtain rights of entry to the land, prior to making the request to the IPC. This includes the negotiation of the proposed conditions for access. The IPC expects there to have been an exchange of correspondence and dialogue, wherever possible, between the developer and the owners and/or occupiers of the land in an attempt to agree the proposed conditions for access, prior to making the s.53 request. A full explanation should be provided by the developer as to why authorisation for rights of entry is sought.

Compulsory acquisition under the Planning Act

A proposed developer can make an application for a development consent order which includes proposals to compulsorily acquire land or rights in land. Compulsory acquisition can only be authorised if it meets the following tests:

? It is required for the development to which the proposed developer is seeking consent, or
? It is required to facilitate or is incidental to that development, or
? It is replacement land to be given in exchange for commons or open space, fuel or field garden allotment land needed for the proposal.

And

? That there is a compelling case in the public interest for the land to be acquired compulsorily.

If you have land that the developer may seek to compulsorily acquire, the proposed developer has a statutory duty to consult you on its proposals and demonstrate that it has done so.

Should an application be made, and accepted for examination by the IPC, and if you have an interest in land that the proposed developer has notified that it proposes to compulsorily acquire, you are automatically an ?interested party? for the purposes of any examination.

This entitles you to make representations to the IPC, attend a pre-examination meeting to consider the timetable for examination and request and attend/participate in a compulsory acquisition hearing.

George Parkinson

Advice sought on the s.53 procedure following Halite requests for authorisation for entry to land under s.53 of the Planning Act 2008 (the Act) , compulsory acquisition authorisation under the Act and compliance with the Data Protection Act.
Section 53 (s.53) - Rights of entry procedure

S.53 of the Act makes provision for a developer to apply to the IPC for authorisation to obtain rights of entry to land for the purpose of surveying and taking levels. The IPC can only authorise entry in relation to a proposed application at the pre-application stage, if the IPC is satisfied that the three conditions set out in s.53(2) of the Act are satisfied. These have been set out below:

a) the proposed applicant is considering a distinct project of real substance genuinely requiring entry onto the land,
b) the proposed application is likely to seek authority to compulsorily acquire the land or an interest in it or right over it, and
c) the proposed applicant has complied with section 42 in relation to the proposed application.

In order for the IPC to use its discretionary power under s.53, the IPC needs to be satisfied that the authorisation request is a last resort and expects a developer to demonstrate that all reasonable efforts have been made to obtain rights of entry to the land, prior to making the request to the IPC. This includes the negotiation of the proposed conditions for access. The IPC expects there to have been an exchange of correspondence and dialogue, wherever possible, between the developer and the owners and/or occupiers of the land in an attempt to agree the proposed conditions for access, prior to making the s.53 request. A full explanation should be provided by the developer as to why authorisation for rights of entry is sought.

Further information on the s.53 process is set out in the IPC Advice Note 5 which explains the s.53 process in more detail. Please note that this Advice Note was published on 14 July 2011 and replaces the previous published version of Advice Note 5. All advice notes are available on the IPC?s website:

[attachment 1]

S.53 applications by Halite

Halite has made applications for authorisation by the IPC under s.53 of the Act, for access to land for the purpose of surveys described by Halite as non-intrusive ecological / archaeological surveys. A Commissioner has been appointed by the IPC to determine the authorisation requests.

The authorisation requests and all accompanying documents and correspondence from Halite and from the owners and/or occupiers of the land to which the s.53 requests relate, will be provided to the appointed Commissioner.

Following determination by the Commissioner, the decision to either authorise the rights of entry, or refuse the requests with reasons will be published on the IPC?s website, along with all correspondence received from Halite and from the owners and/or occupiers of the land to which the s.53 requests relate.

Compulsory acquisition under the Planning Act

A proposed developer can make an application for a development consent order which includes proposals to compulsorily acquire land or rights in land. Compulsory acquisition can only be authorised if it meets the following tests:

? It is required for the development to which the proposed developer is seeking consent, or
? It is required to facilitate or is incidental to that development, or
? It is replacement land to be given in exchange for commons or open space, fuel or field garden allotment land needed for the proposal.

And

? That there is a compelling case in the public interest for the land to be acquired compulsorily.

If you have land that the developer may seek to compulsorily acquire, the proposed developer has a statutory duty to consult you on its proposals and demonstrate that it has done so.

Should an application be made, and accepted for examination by the IPC, and if you have an interest in land that the proposed developer has notified that it proposes to compulsorily acquire, you are automatically an ?interested party? for the purposes of any examination.

This entitles you to make representations to the IPC, attend a pre-examination meeting to consider the timetable for examination and request and attend/participate in a compulsory acquisition hearing.

Disclosure of Personal Information

It is Halite?s responsibility to ensure that any information they obtain is handled in accordance with the Data Protection Act 1998 which establishes a framework of rights and duties which are designed to safeguard personal data. The IPC is also bound by the Data Protection Act 1998. We have established procedures to ensure that we comply with the Data Protection Act 1998 when handling personal information and any correspondence received in relation to Halite?s s.53 requests will be published by the IPC in compliance with data protection principles. This means that the IPC will not publish personal data without the consent of the data subject.

If you would like further details regarding the protection of personal information, please refer to the Information Commissioner?s Office (ICO) at [attachment 2].

George Parkinson

In the absence of a bespoke form to apply for deemed hazardous substances consent through the Planning Act 2008, does the IPC have a view on whether it is appropriate to use the standard form of the hazardous substances authority as a template for submission of the HSC application to the IPC?
Although there is no prescribed form, we agree that it would be appropriate to provide with your request for deemed hazardous substances consent, the same information (where relevant) that would ordinarily be submitted with an application to the local hazardous substances authority. It would also be helpful and facilitate any examination, should an application be accepted for examination, if you submitted draft conditions with your request which have been discussed (and if possible agreed) with HSE and the local authority that would have been the hazardoubs substances authority if you were not seeking deemed consent.

Berwin Leighton Paisner LLP - Paul Grace

Request for clarification on how to make a deemed hazardous substances consent application through the Planning Act 2008 process.
As you may be aware, Section 43 (2) of Schedule 2 of Planning Act 2008 amends the Planning (Hazardous Substances) Act 1990 to enable the person making a development consent order to, on making that order, direct that hazardous substances consent shall be deemed to be granted (subject to any conditions that may be specified). It is noted that Annex B of CLG guidance to Local Authorities states that "when a DCO is made, a direction can be given deeming the grant of hazardous substances consent. This would be separate from the DCO itself".

Although there is no Government guidance relating to the procedure for deeming hazardous substances consent, I would encourage you to seek the views of the Health and Safety Executive (see draft NPSs EN1 and EN4) who must be consulted by the decision-maker before making the DCO and deeming hazardous substances consent. You may also find it helpful to seek the views of the relevant authority who would normally be the Hazardous Substances Authority (if you were not seeking to deem consent), and any bodies that it would normally consult under the Planning (Hazardous Substance) Regulations. You may also wish to contact any other parties who may have an interest in this particular matter. You may wish to focus discussions on the conditions which ought to be applied to any deemed hazardous substances consent.

It would also be helpful to request from the relevant Hazardous Substances Authority information about the way in which other land in the vicinity of the application site is being used and any relevant planning permissions granted for development in the vicinity because these are matters to which the decision maker must have regard when deciding an application for a DCO involving the presence of a hazardous substance. This information could be provided when submitting the DCO application to the IPC.

BLP Law - Paul Grace

Update meeting held with Halite on 7 June 2011
Please see attached presentation and meeting note

Halite - Keith Budinger

Planning Policy Guidance suggests that it is beneficial to run planning and environmental permitting applications concurrently. Does the IPC have a view in relation to permits outside of a development consent order
There is very limited scope to amend a Development Consent Order once it has been submitted for the examination process. The risk to a promoter is that if the process runs concurrently or post development consent application, a development consent order may not allow for matters that may be required by other consents. It is advisable to work with relevant statutory bodies from an early stage on the wording of requirements within a development consent order to reflect issues that may arise from any permitting applications. It will be for the developer to determine when it makes its respective applications.

Barton Willmore - Adrian James

Hambleton Parish Council copied the IPC in on their comments to Halite on their proposed underground gas storage application.
See attached letter for IPC advice.

Hambleton Parish Council - Lynne Squires

The IPC case team spoke with Mr Mulroy of Protect Wyre Group to discuss

1) How correspondence relating to the consultation being undertaken by Halite Energy on the Preesall Gas Storage proposal will be handled by the IPC,

2) The future of the IPC and its integration with the Planning Inspectorate, and

3) The process by which the adequacy of pre-application consultation undertaken by developers is assessed when an application is made to the IPC.
The IPC advised;

1) That the pre-application consultation that is being conducted is entirely the responsiablity of the developer. We will consider whether or not consultation has been adequate when an application is submitted. Meanwhile, we will respond to any correspondence addressed to us; and read any correspondence that is sent to us in copy. We will make all this correspondence available to the commissioner should an applicaton be submitted. The IPC is happy to be copied into correspondence of this kind.

2) The government has announced that the IPC will be abolished, with its functions and officers interated into the Planning Inspectorate, an Executive Agency of DCLG, with decisions taken by Ministers. This is anticipated to happen in April 2012. Under current arrangements, where the relevant National Policy Statement(NPS) has been adopted, the Commission will make the decision. The energy NPSs have not yet been adopted.

3) The IPC will appoint an acceptance (S55) Commissioner to consider whether or not an application is able to proceed to examination. This will include a decision on whether or not the requirements for pre-application consultation have been met. The views of host and neighbouring Local Authorities will be sought before this decision is made.

Protect Wyre Group - Ian Mulroy

Halite Energy Group submitted annexes marked 'Confidential' to the IPC with their section 46 notification documents.
The IPC has policy commitments and obligations to disclose information on request and returned these to Halite Energy Group. See attached letter for details.

Halite Energy Group - Keith Budinger

Providing clarification on the requirements under s.53(2) that must be satisifed for the Commission to authorise a s.53 request for a proposed application for an order granting development consent.
Confirmed that s.46 notification must have been provided by the applicant to the Commission on or before commencing consultation under section 42 of the Act. Section 53(2)c requires that the applicant has complied with section 42 consultation in relation to the proposed application.

Barton Willmore - Adrian James

Letter from Protect Wyre Group regarding involvement in Halite's Community Liaison Panel.
See attached email for advice given.

Protect Wyre Group - Ian Mulroy

Clarification of land to be included within a s.53 authorisation request.
In response to your query, A Plan (Plan A) should be provided with the s.53 authorisation request showing the land required for or affected by the development (not just the location and extent of the physical works). The ?land plan? required under Regulation 5(2)(i) Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009, could be used as a base for Plan A.

I would also like to draw your attention to the following issues which you may wish to consider prior to submitting a s.53 request to the IPC.

1)

As Halite is currently at the pre-application stage of the DCO process, I would draw your attention to s.53(2) which sets out all the requirements which the IPC must be satisfied have been met before considering an application for access to land (?an authorisation request?):

a)

s.53(2)a - "the proposed applicant is considering a distinct project of real substance genuinely requiring entry onto the land" - Halite will need to demonstrate to the IPC that it has made reasonable efforts to obtain access to the land to which the authorisation request is sought and explain why the proposed surveys and/ or works are connected with the proposed DCO; and

b)

s.53(2)b - "the proposed application is likely to seek authority to compulsorily acquire the land, or an interest in the land, or right over it". This requirement must be satisfied and you may wish to cross refer in the authorisation request to the relevant provision in the draft DCO which seeks compulsory acquisition or has the effect of doing so. However, it is for Halite as the applicant to seek its own legal advice on how best to address this; and

c)

s.53(2)c - "the proposed applicant has complied with s.42 in relation to the proposed application".

2)

Whilst not required under s.53 of the Act, we anticipate it being beneficial for an applicant to notify the relevant landowner(s), which the applicant has previously been in contact with seeking access to the land, that it has made an authorisation request to the IPC. With the notification to the landowner(s), it would be helpful for an applicant to enclose a copy of the letter and any plans and documents submitted to the IPC and inform the landowner(s) to direct any comments they have regarding the s.53 authorisation request to the IPC.

3)

The IPC also considers it best practice for an applicant to include draft conditions with the authorisation request (the IPC may in accordance with s.53(4)c of the Act impose conditions on the authorisation) for the IPC to consider before authorisation is granted. It would also be advisable for an applicant to provide copies of the draft conditions to the landowner(s) when notifying them that the applicant has submitted a request to the IPC, as they may wish to comment to on these to the IPC.

Barton Willmore - Adrian James

(IPC summary) If one was to decline an invitation to take part in the applicant's proposed community liaison panel, would that lead to a disadvantage in making representations at the pre-application stage or as part of any examination?
The Planning Act requires an applicant to undertake consultation with the local community before submitting an application for development consent. With any application it must, among other things, submit a consultation report giving details of what has been done in terms of consultation with the local community, any relevant responses received and account given to relevant responses. A relevant response is defined in section 49 (3) of the Act as a response received by a prescribed consultee (for example local authorities, statutory bodies), a response received from community consultation by the deadline set or a response received to formal publicity about the proposed application by the deadline set in that publicity. This does not preclude discussions between the community and the applicant or other forms of informal consultation by the applicant prior to formal consultation.

Based on information provided by Halite, we expect notification in the first week of April.

It is for the applicant to propose its method of consultation, taking account of IPC guidance and guidance published by Communities and Local Government (CLG). The CLG guidance goes into more depth about approaches to consultation. We have also just published revised Advice Notes on making representations at different stages of the process. IPC and CLG guidance has statutory weight when considering whether to accept an application for examination. Advice notes are more informal and intended to support parties through the application process.

The applicant must produce and publish a Statement of Community Consultation following consultation with the local authorities within which the proposal lies and must carry out consultation in accordance with proposals in the published statement, although this does not preclude additional consultation.

Regarding Halite?s proposed community liaison panel, it is for you to decide whether you wish to participate specifically in that panel. Non-participation would not exclude you from either the pre-application process or the examination process, should any application be accepted for examination. However, we strongly encourage engagement by the community with the pre-application consultation process as a whole to make sure any issues can be considered by the applicant as early as possible and before an application is submitted.

I would encourage you to raise points on the consultation process with Halite directly to allow it the opportunity to take them into account. Should an application be made, the local authorities will be invited to submit comments on the adequacy of consultation so you may wish to copy your relevant local authorities in to any comments you make to Halite.

Protect Wyre Group - Ian Mulroy

Will there be a public inquiry into Halite Energy Group's proposed underground gas storage facility at Preesall Saltfield?
If an application is accepted for examination by the Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC), a Preliminary Meeting will always be held at the pre-examination stage. This will be chaired by the Examining Authority, i.e. Single Commissioner or Panel of three or more Commissioners, appointed to examine the application. The proposed dates for any hearings that are to take place as part of the examination will be discussed at the Preliminary Meeting. As mentioned, the first Preliminary Meeting held by the Commission was recorded and is available to view through our website at [attachment 1]. The timetable for the examination stage is confirmed at or soon after the Preliminary Meeting, including for example timings for the receipt of written representations, the local authority?s local impact report and the timetable for hearings. Interested parties will receive details of the timetable directly from the IPC.

The examination of applications is based mainly upon the application documents and the written representations of interested parties. If the Commissioner(s) decides that additional hearings will be held at any time during the examination, interested parties will be given at least 21 days notice of the date and details.

There are three different types of hearings that may be held:

Issue specific hearings (Section 91 of the Planning Act 2008): these hearings are held if the Commissioner(s) considers they are necessary to ensure adequate examination of an issue or that an interested party has a fair chance to put forward their case.

Compulsory acquisition hearings (Section 92 of the Planning Act 2008): these give people, who are affected by a request from a developer to authorise the compulsory acquisition of land or property interests, the opportunity to put their case. Only affected persons and the applicant may speak at a compulsory acquisition hearing.

Open floor hearings (Section 93 of the Planning Act 2008): these can be requested by anyone who has registered and made a relevant representation or by other interested parties. If requested by at least one interested party before the deadline, the Commissioner(s) must cause an open-floor hearing to be held. At the hearing, anyone who is an interested party can give their views on the application. However, the Commissioner(s) will manage proceedings and may set a time limit for contributions. Where several people or organisations wish to express the same view, they may be encouraged to identify a representative who can speak on their behalf. The Commissioner(s) will not wish to hear the same point repeated by different parties.

Regulation 4 of the Infrastructure Planning (Fees) Regulations 2010 makes provision for the Commission to charge a fee in respect of venue costs where the applicant does not provide a venue for a hearing. This provision applies to the preliminary meeting, issue-specific hearings, compulsory acquisition hearings, open-floor hearings, any other meeting or hearing, and site visits.

Lancashire County Council - Stuart Perigo

With regard to the Underground Gas Storage project in Preesall, what powers can the IPC give to an applicant in regard to access to land for the purpose of conducting surveys. For example, if the developer asked a member of the local community to access their land to conduct a survey and they refused, could the IPC give the applicant permission to access their land?
Re: EN030001 Preesall Saltfield

I write with reference to your phone call on Wednesday 9th February 2011 regarding rights of entry to land for surveys.

As mentioned in our telephone conversation, Section 53 of the Planning Act 2008 makes provision for the applicant to apply to the Infrastructure Planning Commission (the Commission) for authorisation to obtain rights of entry to land for the purpose of surveying and taking levels. For information, Section 52 makes similar provision for requesting authority to obtain information about interests in land. The Commission will only grant authorisation under Sections 52 and 53 as a last resort and after all other reasonable efforts have failed.

Please see the Commission's Advice Notes 4 and 5 which explain the provisions of Sections 52 and 53 and set out advice on how to apply to the Commission for these rights. The Commission is currently in the process of updating these Advice Notes to reflect developing experience and I shall notify you once these are published and available on our website.

June Jackson

Can the Infrastructure Planning Commission (the Commission) give Halite Energy Group permission to survey land when landowners refuse entry? (Ref: EN030001 Preesall Saltfield Underground Gas Storage)
Section 53 of the Planning Act 2008 makes provision for the applicant to apply to the Infrastructure Planning Commission (the Commission) for authorisation to obtain rights of entry to land for the purpose of surveying and taking levels. Section 52 makes similar provision for requesting authority to obtain information about interests in land. The Commission will only grant authorisation under Sections 52 and 53 as a last resort and after all other reasonable efforts have failed.

The Commission's Advice Notes 4 and 5 explain the provisions of Sections 52 and 53 and set out advice on how to apply to the Commission for these rights. The Commission is currently in the process of updating these Advice Notes to reflect developing experience and these will be published and available on our website in due course.

Protect Wyre Group - Ian Mulroy (Protect Wyre Group)

Mr Mulroy of Protect Wyre Group (PWG) sent four letters regard the Preesall Saltfield underground gas storage project, raising issues about the following:

The timetable of constultations for the Scoping Opinion
([attachment 1];

The proposed storage capacity of the scheme
([attachment 2];

Rights of entry to land
([attachment 3];

The layout of IPC's website
([attachment 4]).
The IPC responses to these letters are set out below:

The timetable of consultations for the Scoping Opinion and the proposed capacity of the scheme
([attachment 5];

Rights of entry to land
([attachment 6];

The layout of the website
([attachment 7].

Protect Wyre Group - Ian Mulroy

Please could you advice when the date will be for interested parties to register to comment on the above application
People can only register with us following the acceptance of any application for examination, and an application may only be accepted if certain procedures and requirements in the Planning Act and formal guidance are complied with. This includes requirements around pre-application consultation.

At the moment, all comments should be directed to Halite. I have been advised today by Halite that formal consultation is expected to start in March. We strongly encourage people to make comments at the pre-application stage rather than wait until any examination. The applicant has to have regard to any comments it receives during the pre-application. It will have to submit a consultation report with any application, showing how it has had regard to comments received.

Wyre Strategic Partnership - Sally Richardson

Wyre Borough Council (WBC) have received a Freedom of Information (FOI) request from the developers for the Preesall Saltfield Underground Gas Storage scheme requesting land ownership details along the proposed pipeline route.
It is for WBC to obtain their own legal advice on what land ownership information they are able to provide to the developer. The developers have previously indicated that they may submit a request to the IPC under Section 52 of the Planning Act 2008 (the Act). The developer has to provide an explanation as to what reasonable efforts have already been made to obtain information about interests in land prior to submitting such a request. This may be the reason for the FOI request and WBC may wish to refer to Section 52 of the Act and IPC Advice Note 4 'Obtaining information about interests in land' (due to be updated shortly) for further information.

Wyre Borough Council - Colin Bedford

The IPC held two drop-in events and an outreach event near Preesall and the surrounding area on 9 November 2010, relating to the proposal by Halite Energy for a gas storage facility in the Over Wyre area, near Fleetwood
Notes of these meetings can be found at the links below:

[attachment 1]

[attachment 2]

[attachment 3]

Phil Grant

Ian Mulroy of the Protect Wyre Group wrote to the Chair of the IPC, Sir Michael Pitt, regarding the proposed Gas Storage facility at Preesall near Fleetwood that is being promoted by Halite Energy. His letters can be found below:

[attachment 1]

[attachment 2]
Sir Michael's response to Mr Mulroy can be found below:

[attachment 3]

Protect Wyre Group - Ian Mulroy

Fleetwood Town Council want to be kept informed of the underground gas storage facility proposal at Preesall Saltfield
At the pre-application stage, it is the responsibility of the applicant to consult widely on their proposals; this includes a legal requirement to directly consult prescribed consultees. Please be advised that, for the above scheme, Fleetwood Town Council is a prescribed consultee. At the pre-application stage, the Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC) only consults directly with prescribed consultees as part of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) scoping. Letters relating to EIA scoping were sent by the IPC to prescribed consultees on 19 November 2010.

If an application is accepted by the IPC to progress to examination, then the applicant is required to notify all prescribed consultees of this. It is at this point that the IPC will engage directly with prescribed consultees and other interested parties. The IPC will invite all prescribed consultees to a preliminary meeting to discuss the procedure by which an application will be examined and provide them with a timetable for the examination. If the examination of the application requires open-floor, specific-issue or compulsory acquisition hearings to be held, then the IPC will invite prescribed consultees to attend (and possibly take part) in these.

The IPC is available at all stages to advise all stakeholders on the application process under the Planning Act 2008 and related legislation. Should you have any queries on process issues, please do not hesitate to contact the IPC by email, phone or in writing. Please note that we also take a note of all the advice that we give and publish this on our website at: [attachment 1].

Please note that the IPC is not able to discuss the merits of any project and such matters should be directed to the applicant.

Fleetwood Town Council - Janet Purle

Mr Fairhurst Requested a copy of a document that was displayed at the IPC's drop-in outreach event held at Wyre Villa Sports and Social Club on 9 November 2010 in Stalmine, Poulton-Le-Fylde. The document was an outline of the stages that comprise the 2008 Act application process.
The document requested was made available, and can be viewed at [attachment 1]

Paul Fairhurst

How on earth can you have surgeries which tell you nothing about the application?
You go to a surgery to be given information about the application . None of that was available and will not be available until Mar 1st when the application goes in.
It can therefore not be called consultation but possibly information. This is just another tick box exercise and of no value whatsoever to the people of the area....the Fylde Coast who have been dealing with this application since its inception for years.
Consultation is a process where both parties are in possession of all the facts and then useful discussion and airing of the facts is allowed to happen.
So can we have this please?
Can Phil Grant, the developer, shed more light on this application than the Commission?
I'm sorry to hear that the content of the drop-in sessions did not meet your expectations.

The purpose of the sessions was to provide an opportunity to meet IPC representatives and find out:
- How the new process for decision making works.
- How members of the local community can get involved and have their say.

We set this out in posters, leaflets and communications with the media to avoid any perception that this was part of any consultation on the application. As set out on the posters, the IPC is at this stage unable to discuss the merits or details of the proposal but can explain all the opportunities people will have to give their views to the developer and later to the IPC.

Under the new process, the applicant is required by law to undertake a comprehensive programme of community consultation prior to submitting any application to the IPC for acceptance. Indeed, the adequacy of the applicant's community consultation is a key part of the IPC Commissioner's assessment of whether an application can be accepted for examination. In short, if an applicant does not demonstrate that it has undertaken adequate pre-application consultation, or does not provide evidence of how it has had regard to the issues raised through the consultation, then the IPC has the power not to accept the application for examination under the 2008 Planning Act.

Contact Halite Energy Group about its programme of community consultation activities to ensure you can have your say as early in the process as possible. Halite's public consultation is scheduled to begin in December and run until at least February, and should be widely advertised in the local press. My understanding is that Halite will also shortly make available its draft Statement of Community Consultation, setting out in detail all of the opportunities to have your say about the project before it is submitted to the IPC. Debbie Morris is Halite's community liaison coordinator and can be reached on 01772 672 244 / [email protected]

Flyde Coast IPFC - Gemma Jackson

Simon Prideaux asked for advice on making representations for Preesall Saltfield Underground Gas Storage.
Gave contact details of the applicant and advised that during the pre-application stage all representations must be made to the applicant. Also explained that representations can only be made to the IPC during the examination stage, after an application has been submitted and accepted. SP was also made aware that all advice given concerning the application process will be made public under s.51 of the Planning Act 2008.

Hyndburn Borough Council - Simon Prideaux

Meeting to discuss technical issues for Preesall UGS
[attachment 1]

William Reynolds

Meeting to discuss progress of the project and outline the IPC process.
[attachment 1]

Adrian James

Inception meeting to discuss the Infrastructure Planning Commission process
See attached note from meeting held 5 October 2010

Stakeholders and Promoter

Inception Meeting to discuss the Infrastructure Planning Commission (?IPC?) process
View the meeting note and presentation at the following links:

[attachment 1]
[attachment 2]

Local Authorities Statutory Consultees

Pre-application meeting to discuss details of scheme and IPC process
View the meeting note at [attachment 1]

Halite Energy Group Ltd - Bruce Gibson