Kentish Flats Extension

The list below includes a record of advice we have provided for this project. For a list of all advice issued by the Planning Inspectorate, including non-project related advice, please go to the Register of advice page.

There is a statutory duty, under section 51 of the Planning Act 2008, to record the advice that is given in relation to an application or a potential application, including the name of the person who requested the advice, and to make this publicly available.

Preview
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please see attached letters from Burges Salmon
Thank you for your letter of 6 July containing two requests for s51 advice as follows:

1) ?Please provide specific details of where substantial information regarding the effects of the proposed Kentish Flats Extension upon the Outer Thames Estuary SPA, not included within the application documents, has been provided in Vattenfall?s responses to ExA questions and comments on other parties? responses?, and

2) ?In light of the explanation provided above and if the ExA still considers an update to the ES is necessary, please provide further clarification and a full list of instances where the recently submitted HRA addendum alters the assessment submitted within the Kentish Flats Extension ES?

Whilst not wishing to be unhelpful, these requests go beyond what the Planning Inspectorate is able to provide by way of s51 advice. Those are matters on which the applicant should rely on its own legal advice.

The ExA?s question R17[3]-9 was an invitation to consider the need for and/or desirability of updating the ES and additional publicity/consultation.

It appears from the final paragraph on page 4 of your letter that the applicant does not believe that to be necessary, and the ExA will no doubt note that position for the purposes of his report to the Secretary of State.

*Please also see attached letter

17 July 2012
Burges Salmon - Lena Wright
Enquiry received via email
We have not yet been able to finalise our response to the Examining Authority?s further questions of 6th June 2012.
Please be aware that should you miss the deadline as set out in the examination timetable, it will be at the Examining Authority's discretion whether or not to accept any late representations.

21 June 2012
Dave Burges
Enquiry received via email
R17[2] ? 9 . ?Best Case? flight activity?

During previous stages of the examination I understand that there was some concern as to whether the ?best case? flight activity has been applied in the calculation of disturbance and displacement instead of the worst case as required. The Statement of Common Ground appears to indicate agreement that the calculation is robust.

Could the Inspector please clarify what is meant by ?Best case? flight activity as we haven?t been able to find any reference to this in the statement of common ground or HRA. We want to be sure we are responding correctly to the question
This question originated prior to the finalisation of the SoCG between NE and Vattenfall. From the SoCG it is noted that the density model (referred to as the 3rd model in the SoCG) has been agreed and the outputs (when applied to the JNCC baseline giving a different result to the 1.4%) accepted as the most robust prediction of displacement.

Just to explain the background though: the phrase 'best case' in the context of this question is referring to the difference between the values calculated under the different models used, with a 0.5% displacement output from the proportionate model (a 'best case' scenario) and 1.4% from the density model (the worst case scenario). From the submitted HRA report it was not clear which model was accepted as the most suitable and which figure for displacement was being taken forward as the most robust prediction.

13 June 2012
Natural England - Tim Hall
Enquiry received via phone
Will there be cross examination at the hearing
It is for the Examining Authority to decide whether or not to allow cross examination to take place. The standard method of examination is inquisitorial in nature which means that the Examining Authority asks the questions he/she considers relevant. However, the Examinig Authority can allow cross examination to take place if he/she considers that it
a) is necessary for the adequate testing of any representation; or
b) to ensure that an interested party has a fair chance to put across his/her case.

24 May 2012
Natural England - Tim Hall
Enquiry received via email
Kent Wildlife Trust has been reviewing our position in relation to attendance at the examination in public for the Kentish Flats Wind farm extension. We feel that we have presented our case within the two sets of written representations with scientific evidence to support our view. We have also signed a SOCG with Vattenfall regarding issues of agreement and disagreement in relation to impacts on the Red Throated Diver population.

We do not feel that we have any further information to contribute and wish to rely on our written representations to support our case. We are a small organisation and have to use the limited resources we possess in the most efficient way possible. For these reason we would ask the inspector?s permission to withdraw from appearing at the examination.

We would request that we kept informed of any further submissions in respect of ecological issues and consulted, if felt to be appropriate, on the HRA to be produced. We would also request that we are informed of the final decision.

We look forward to hearing from you regarding this issue
Thank you for letting us know that you won't be attending at the hearings for the Kentish Flats Extension.

As Kent Wildlife Trust is an interested party in the Kentish Flats Extension Wind Farm DCO application not attending at the hearings will in no way affect your rights as an Interested Party. As such you will also continue to receive any correspondence being sent to all Interested Parties including the notification of the final decision.

24 May 2012
Kent Wildlife Trust - Debbie Salmon
Enquiry received via email
I have a niggling concern that the application correspondence appears to be restricted to 'interested parties' only, and in this case there is a clear element of navigational safety to be scoped within the site inspection, with potentially only the PLA invited that can provide comment in this area.

I am aware that Trinity House have subsequently been invited to attend, and although their interest is specifically aids to navigation , their broader Navigation Safety knowledge will feed the process, and as we work closely together on this front I am sure they will field any concerns or queries arising from the inspection.

The purpose of this email is to address the more fundamental query regarding application correspondence, could you please confirm that although not listed as an interested party MCA as a statutory stakeholder are included in your application consideration and correspondence.
For the Kentish Flats Wind Farm Extension application, section 102 of the Planning Act 2008 (PA 2008) applies and sets out the meaning of the term "interested party". As a statutory party included in Schedule 1 of the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009 the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) are an interested party for the purposes of s.102. The MCA was therefore automatically afforded the opportunity to participate in the examination of the application, and will receive notice of all procedural decisions that are made. For the Kentish Flats Wind Farm Extension application there was no requirement for statutory parties to register with the then Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC) in order to become an interested party.

It is pertinent however to bring to your attention at this stage the implications for statutory parties arising from amendments to s.102 of PA 2008 by the Localism Act 2011. From this point on only certain persons or organisations, such as the applicant and local authority(s) in which the proposed developed is located, automatically become interested parties. Other persons, such as any member of the public, a statutory party as defined in the Schedule to the Infrastructure Planning (Interested Parties) Regulations 2010 (such as the Maritime and Coastguard Agency), or a "neighbouring" local authority, can become an interested party at this stage by making a relevant representation (see s.102 of PA 2008 as amended).

All interested parties, statutory parties and relevant local authorities will continue to be invited by the Examining Authority to attend preliminary meetings (s.88(3A) PA 2008). Following the preliminary meeting however any statutory parties or "neighbouring" local authorities that did not make a relevant representation will be asked whether they wish to become an interested party. Any statutory parties or "neighbouring" local authorities that did not make a relevant representation must respond to the Planning Inspectorate in order to become an interested party. For the avoidance of doubt, statutory parties who did not make a relevant representation in the prescribed form and do not notify the Examining Authority of their wish to be involved in the examination after the Examining Authority's decision on how to examine the application will not be an interested party.

02 May 2012
MCA - Graeme Proctor
Enquiry received via email
1.I?d be grateful to receive any further information on the timetable for the consideration of the project. Has the commissioner detailed one yet. In particular I would like at least a rough estimate for our submission of the Local Impact Report. An initial draft has been completed but it needs updating and I am trying to work out a timetable for internal consultation.

2.what is the latest it can be submitted
1.We're hoping to send out the rule 6 letter next week which will contain inter alia the draft timetable for the examination. The date for the preliminary meeting has been set for the 22 February in Whitstable. We normally try to issue the rule 8 letter within one week of the preliminary meeting taking place. The rule 8 letter will contain amongst other things the deadline for the Local Impact Report which could be at the earliest 21 days from receipt of the rule 8 letter.
We hope this gives you a rough indication of when the LIR may be due at the earliest.

2.Sorry that it wasn't clear enough in our earlier email. The latest that the LIR can be submitted is by the deadline that the Examining Authority (the commissioner appointed to examine this case) sets in the rule 8 letter. The earliest that this deadline can be is 21 days from receipt of the Rule 8 letter. There is nothing in the legislation which sets a latest point by when the deadline for the LIR could be.

20 January 2012
Canterbury Local Authority - Nick Davies
Enquiry received via email
formal response to the Section 56 Consultation for kentish Flats
Thank you for making your representation online before the relevant deadline.
I can confirm that we have duly received your representation.

The Examining Authority (ExA), who will be appointed shortly, will be writing to you within 21 days for the expiry of the relevant representation deadline at the latest.
This letter will include inter alia the ExA's proposed draft timetable for the examination, its initial assessment of issues and the details about the Preliminary Meeting.

06 January 2012
Marine Management Organisation - Alan Gibson
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Reply to Canterbury County Council regarding making application documents available
Please see attached PDF regarding S51 advice

13 December 2011
Nicholas Churchill
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I have just received a letter from Vattenfall informing us that their application has been accepted and informing us of the 28 day period to make representations. As I have only just returned from leave and colleagues will be on leave from next week for Christmas, is it sufficient at this stage just to register our details and provide representations at a later date.

Perhaps you could let me know.
As a statutory party Kent CC does not need to register to become an interested party - as the host authority of the proposed application it is an interested party in this application anyway. As such you will still be invited to make representations to the examination of the application whether or not you submit a representation at this stage or not.

However, if you were able to submit a summary of what you agree or disagree with on the application this would be very helpful to the Examining authority as they can then take this into account as part of its initial assessment of issues which it needs to publish within 21 days of the close of the relevant representation period. If you were able to use our on-line registration form for this purpose that would make it a lot easier for us in processing the information. Here's the link to the registration form: [attachment 1]

I hope this answers your question but please feel free to get back to me if you require any further information or clarification.

13 December 2011
Kent County Council - Liz Shier
Enquiry received via phone
Is the MCA required to submit a relevant representation form to become an interested party?
In the case where the application is likely to affect the maritime or coastal environment, The MCA are identified as statutory party. S102 of the Planning Act 2008 interprets the term 'interested party' to include statutory parties therefore you are not required to submit a relevant representation to become an interested party. As an interested party, the MCA will receive correspondence from the IPC about the forthcoming Preliminary meeting and appointment of the Examining Authority. Shortly after the Preliminary meeting is held, an examination timetable will be published and you will be invited to make a written representation at the appropriate time.

The IPC encourages interested parties to raise anything that they may agree or disagree with on an application during the relevant representation period so that the Examining Authority can take this into account in its initial assessment of principal issues.

07 December 2011
Marine & Coastguard Agency - Graham Procter
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The IPC provided advice to Roger Gale MP about the process for registering to be involved in the process of examination.

Please see attached documents.

02 December 2011
Roger Gale
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The IPC provided advice to Julian Brazier MP about registering to take part in the process.

Please see attached doucuments.

02 December 2011
Julian Brazier
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I am very interested in attending the preliminary meeting for this project. Please could you advise the date, location and the maximum number of people the MMO would be permitted to bring. Ideally we would like to bring 4 or 5, however, we understand that this may not be possible.
As a statutory consultee to the process established by the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) the MMO are automatically an Interested Party to the examination of this application. As such, you will be invited to attend the preliminary meeting which will be arranged to consider, amongst other matters, how the application should be examined (see section 88 PA2008). This status means that you are not required to complete a relevant representation form in order to register to take part in the examination. However, if you have particular points you'd like to make we would encourage you to submit a relevant representation as it will allow the Examining authority to take these into account in its initial assessment of principal issues.

With regard to the above, I can confirm that Vattenfall have determined that the period for submitting a relevant representation will be 28 November 2011 to 6 January 2012. Once this registration period is open you will be able to complete the form via the project page of our website - [attachment 1]

Please note that the regulations require statutory parties to submit their comments at the pre-examination stage by using the prescribed form during the relevant representation period.

Once the registration period has closed Vattenfall are required to certify compliance with section 56 (i.e. that they have notified people that the application has been accepted and allowed a minimum of 28 days to register as an Interested Party, as per section 58 PA2008). Once this certificate is received the Chair of the IPC will be able to appoint the Examining authority who will then make detailed arrangements for the examination, and of course prior to this, the Preliminary Meeting. Until these steps have been carried out we are unable to provide you with further details of the date and location of the meeting. We will of course write to you in due course inviting you to attend. With regard to the number of places at the meeting, we will try to accommodate your request. As a minimum I would not envisage there being any problem with a number of people attending on behalf of the MMO although you may only receive one seat at the table.

22 November 2011
Marine Management Organisation - Alan Gibson
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Meeting to discuss the post-acceptance stages of the KFE application with the IPC
A note of this meeting is attached.

16 November 2011
Burges Salmon - Elizabeth Dunn
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Meeting to discuss the post-acceptance stages of the KFE application
Please see attached meeting note

16 November 2011
Burgess Salmon - Sophie Summers
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
IPC provided advice in accordance with regulatory requirements
Dear Elizabeth,

SIGNIFICANT TRANSBOUNDARY EFFECTS
REGULATION 24 OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING (ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ASSESSMENT) REGULATIONS 2009 (?the EIA Regulations?)

Kentish Flats Extension (?the proposed Development?)
Vattenfall (?the Developer?)

The Infrastructure Planning Commission (?the IPC?) is aware that the proposed Development is supported by an environmental impact assessment (EIA) and has taken account of Regulation 24 of the EIA Regulations: Development with significant transboundary effects. More information on our transboundary process may be found in the IPC?s Advice Note 12: Transboundary impacts consultation, available on our website.

This is the formal notification under Regulation 24 of the EIA Regulations that, on the basis of the information currently provided by the Developer, the IPC is of the view that the proposed Development is not likely to have significant effects on the environment in another EEA State. For your information, we enclose a copy of the screening matrix informing this approach. Please be aware that the IPC?s duty under Regulation 24 continues throughout the process.

If you have any queries regarding any of the above, please do not hesitate to contact us.

With regards

David


David Price
Senior EIA and Land Rights Adviser
Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC)
Temple Quay House
Temple Quay
Bristol
BS1 6PN

Direct Line: 0303 444 5055
Helpline: 0303 444 5000
Email: [email protected]
Website: www.independent.gov.uk/infrastructure

The IPC gives advice about applying for an order granting development consent or making representations about an application (or a proposed application). The IPC takes care to ensure that the advice we provide is accurate. This communication does not however constitute legal advice upon which you can rely and you should note that IPC lawyers are not covered by the compulsory professional indemnity insurance scheme. You should obtain your own legal advice and professional advice as required.

We are required by law to publish on our website a record of the advice we provide and to record on our website the name of the person or organisation who asked for the advice. We will however protect the privacy of any other personal information which you choose to share with us and we will not hold the information any longer than is necessary.

Before sending information to the IPC, please consider our Openness Policy, which can be viewed on our website here:
[attachment 1].

16 November 2011
Burges Salmon - Elizabeth Dunn
Enquiry received via post
response has attachments
Request for s51 advice re: s56 notification - please see attached letter dated 24.10.11
Please see attached letter from the IPC dated 10.11.11

10 November 2011
Burges Salmon - Elizabeth Dunn
Enquiry received via post
response has attachments
Formal Request for Advice under s.51 of the Planning Act 2088
Please see the attached document for the s.51 reply from the IPC and the initial request letter from Burgess Salmon

10 November 2011
E Dunn
Enquiry received via email
Can you confirm how this impacts on the Ashford Borough Council area with regards to a pipeline /cable route. I was not aware any of the proposed development was either within or close to the Ashford Borough Council area. The cable/pipeline seems to be around Herne Bay which is miles away from us. If I have missed something on this then please me know.
Sections 42 and 43 of the Planning Act 2008 (PA 2008) set out the developer?s duty to consult about a proposed application, and respectively the identification of relevant local authorities for this purpose.

A local authority is within s42(b) if the land to which the application relates is within the authority's area or the authority shares a boundary with a local authority in whose area the application is proposed.

The IPC invites all s42(b) local authority consultees of a proposed development, to submit an ?adequacy of consultation representation? which the IPC must have regard to in deciding whether or not to accept an application (s55 (4)(b) PA 2008). This ?adequacy of consultation representation? means a representation about whether the developer has complied, in relation to the proposed application, with its duties under sections 42, 47 and 48 of PA 2008 relating to consultation and publicity.

Details of the offshore and onshore elements of the proposed application can be found
in the developer?s Consultation Report.

25 October 2011
Ashford Borough Council - Mark Davies
Enquiry received via phone
Inquired why Tunbridge Wells Borough Council is being invited to make representations on the consultation undertaken for the Kentish Flats Extension.
The IPC invites all s42b local authority consultees of a proposed development, to submit an ?adequacy of consultation representation? which the IPC must have regard to in deciding whether or not to accept an application (s55 (4)(b) PA 2008). This ?adequacy of consultation representation? means a representation about whether the developer has complied, in relation to the proposed application, with its duties under sections 42, 47 and 48 of PA 2008 relating to consultation and publicity.

A local authority is within s42b if the land to which the application relates is within the authority's area or the authority shares a boundary with a local authority in whose area the application is proposed.

17 October 2011
Tunbridge Wells Borough Council - Louise Philllips
Enquiry received via phone
Inquired why Tandridge District Council is being invited to make representations on the consultation undertaken for the Kentish Flats Extension.
The IPC invites all s42b local authority consultees of a proposed development, to submit an ?adequacy of consultation representation? which the IPC must have regard to in deciding whether or not to accept an application (s55 (4)(b) PA 2008). This ?adequacy of consultation representation? means a representation about whether the developer has complied, in relation to the proposed application, with its duties under sections 42, 47 and 48 of PA 2008 relating to consultation and publicity.

A local authority is within s42b if the land to which the application relates is within the authority's area or the authority shares a boundary with a local authority in whose area the application is proposed.

05 October 2011
Tandridge District Council - Thomas James
Enquiry received via post
response has attachments
Letter to inform relevant local authorities of imminent submission of Kentish Flats extension application to IPC and that the IPC will be writing to these Local Authorities once the application has been received with an invitation to make an 'adequacy of consultation representation'.
Please see the attached letter sent to the following local authorities-

Canterbury City Council
Kent County Council
Ashford Council
Dartford Borough Council
Dover District Council
East Sussex County Council
Gravesham Borough Council
City of London
London Borough of Bromley
Maidstone Borough Council
Medway Council
Rother District Council
Sevenoaks District Council
Shepway District Council
Surrey County Council
Swale Borough Council
Tandridge District Council
Thanet District Council
Thurrock Council
Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council

04 October 2011
Local authorities As listed
Enquiry received via phone
Advice was sought on the stage at which a local authority (LA) should submit their ?Local Impact Report? (LIR), and what should be contained within this document. Clarity was also sought on the process by which a LA would submit an ?adequacy of consultation representation?.
Upon submission of an application, the IPC will invite relevant LAs (i.e. the host ?B? and adjoining ?A? authorities) to submit an ?adequacy of consultation representation?. This representation means a representation about whether the developer has complied, in relation to the proposed application, with their duties under sections 42, 47, and 48 of the Planning Act 2008 (PA 2008). The IPC must determine whether the application can be accepted or not within the period of 28 days, beginning with the day after the date of receipt of the application. The IPC therefore seek a response from LAs within 14 days of requesting any adequacy of consultation representation. LAs are therefore encouraged to start thinking of the content and internal approval procedures for this as early as they can.

IPC Advice note one: Local Impact Reports (LIR), which is available on the IPC website, concerns the production of the LIR, and is intended to assist LAs with the form and content of these reports.

The deadline for submission of the LIR is set following the preliminary meeting. The Examining Authority (ExA) agrees the date by which any LIR must be received by the Commission and the period within which an interested party will have the opportunity to make written comments on that report as part of the examination timetable. CLG guidance indicates that the deadline for submission should be six weeks from the last day of the preliminary meeting, though the actual deadline is at the discretion of the ExA.

11 August 2011
Canterbury City Council - Nick Churchill
Enquiry received via email
The developer submitted the draft Habitats Regulations Assessment for comment. Advice on the draft Development Consent Order and Deemed Marine License was also provided.
Thank you for emailing us your draft Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) report on 06 July 2011 for comment. As you know we?re not able to comment on the merits of the assessment, but welcome the opportunity to raise any technical points. Also, following further consideration of the draft DCO and deemed marine licence a number of additional points have arisen which I set out below.

Please note, the following is advice and is not intended to be prescriptive. It is for developers to review their work and satisfy themselves that they have complied with relevant legislation and had regard to relevant guidance obtaining their own legal advice on which they can rely if this is considered necessary. We must also stress the decision of whether or not to accept an application will be taken by a Commissioner who has had no involvement in the pre-application stage for this proposal. All advice the Commission provides at this stage does not prejudice or pre-judge the decision of the Commissioner regarding acceptance or non-acceptance of an application.

Draft Habitats Regulations Assessment Report

Please note that at the pre-application stage the IPC does not undertake a detailed formal review of draft HRA Reports. These initial comments do not prejudice the position of the IPC at further stages of the DCO process including determining whether ?sufficient information? as required under Regulation 5(2)(g) of the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedures) Regulations 2009 has been provided to the IPC when the application for development consent is submitted.
In determining the relevant elements/information needed to support an HRA report the IPC refers developers to Appendix 1 of Advice Note 10 which should be completed and submitted by developers at point of application.

General Comments

The IPC has identified several inconsistencies within the draft HRA report and raises these for your consideration:

At page 66, para 6.1.3 and 6.1.4 of Appendix 2 the reader is referred to Table 2 which should demonstrate the heights at which birds are flying as used to inform the assessment of collision risk.

Table 2 is in fact found on page 62 and identifies the list of consultation bodies of relevance to the No Significant Effects Report.

At page 71 Table 5 does not recognise that London Array is now under construction and not just consented as stated.

At page 72 Table 4 demonstrating the interaction values has considered London Array 1 twice but with the same approximate area but a different interaction value.

The IPC has previously issued advice within the EIA Scoping Opinion regarding survey work and methodology. In particular the IPC notes the importance of ensuring that survey work is comprehensive, relevant and up to date. The IPC has also previously expressed the importance of agreeing the approach to assessment with the relevant consultees.

Information on the international sites and their qualifying interest features

The sites considered by the draft HRA are all of those which fall within the Thames Estuary area, all the sites are within 25km of either the offshore wind farm or the landfall. The IPC notes that there is no specified maximum distance from a site boundary beyond which proposals can be dismissed as having no effect. The report does not set out the framework by which decisions have been made regarding the extent of the study area and the sites required for consideration.

Consultation on the HRA

The IPC?s Advice Note 10 (Habitat Regulations Assessment relevant to nationally significant infrastructure projects) emphasises the importance of consultation with relevant statutory nature conservation bodies. In particular Developers are advised to use the pre-application consultation process to seek assurances from the relevant statutory bodies that all potential impacts have been properly addressed in sufficient detail before the application is submitted. The IPC notes that there is evidence of consultation being carried out and selective quotes from relevant responses received. The IPC advises that relevant responses are included in full within the report.

The IPC is aware that an Ornithological Review Group (ORG) has been set-up in connection with the London Array development. The HRA does not appear to mention the activities of this group or state if they are a body with whom KFE has consulted. In assessing the in-combination impacts of the KFE the IPC would expect the HRA fully to consider relevant information prepared for and by this group.
Appendix 2: Information to inform the Appropriate Assessment

Disturbance effects on SPA species

The IPC notes that there is a consideration of potential impacts occurring at construction and operation. There is no explanation as to why impacts during decommissioning are not an issue.
In-combination assessment

The IPC notes the choice of terminology applied within the assessment of in-combination effects in particular the use of ?cumulative? assessment. The IPC refers the developer to the advice previously provided within the Scoping Opinion with regards to terminology.

Draft Development Consent Order

Article 4

We understand from your letter of 3 June 2011 that you?re proposing to identify the limits of deviation as 160m lateral micrositing tolerance from the grid co-ordinates of each of the turbines identified in schedule 1.

The National Policy Statement for Renewable Energy Infrastructure (EN-3) (which is expected to be designated on 19 July 2011) does not specify a typical tolerance for off-shore wind farms. In relation to on-shore wind farms 30-50m is, however, indicated as typical. It would therefore seem helpful if you could justify in the Explanatory Memorandum the level of micrositing tolerance being sought.

Schedule 1

The description of the authorised development should be detailed and identical to the description of the works included in the deemed marine licence as set out in paragraph 2 of the deemed licence. The DCO must be able to be read as a standalone document and therefore the level of detail in the description of the works should reflect this.

Work No. 1

Currently no minimum/maximum number of inter-array cables has been specified. To ensure that the DCO does not authorise development which could have a greater impact than has been assessed through the Environmental Statement (ES), further clarity on this would seem necessary.

Deemed Marine Licence

Schedule 2, Part 1, Para 2(3)(ii)

The caveat ?except with the prior written approval of the Commission? should be taken out. There are no powers in the 2008 Planning Act which would allow the decision making authority to make a change to a provision in a DCO (which has been made) which relates to a deemed marine licence (Schedule 6 sub-paragraphs 1 and 6).. Furthermore, such a caveat would seem to introduce the possibility of the development authorised by the DCO to be extended beyond what was assessed in the ES/HRA and thus potentially breaching duties under the relevant European Directives.

Schedule 2, Part2, Requirements

Para 1(5) specifies 5 working days notice before commencement of a licensed activity.
Para 1(7) specifies 10 (working?) days notice for mariners.
Have these timescales been discussed and agreed with the MMO?
Para 1(6) should the publication be specified in the DCO or should it simply be in a publication agreed by the MMO?
Para 1(7) requires a Notice to Mariners to be issued but would seem to leave it unclear as to how such notice is administered.
Para 1(8) what is the definition of ?regular intervals??
Para 4: pre-construction plans and documentation. Will drafts of these documents be submitted as part of the DCO application?

Please note that the issues highlighted above and comments made in our earlier letter of 20 June 2011 do not constitute an exhaustive list. It is the applicant?s duty to ensure that all documents submitted with the DCO application comply with the relevant legislation and required standards.

21 July 2011
Burgess Salmon - Elizabeth Dunn
Enquiry received via email
Vattenfall have raised a question regarding the availability of the Examining Authority's recommendation in the event that the Secretary of State is the decision-maker for Kentish Flats.

My assumption would be that the Examining Authority's recommendation would not be publically available until the Secretary of State's decision is published in the same way as was done for consents under section 36 of the Electricity Act and recovered planning appeals. However, as the Planning Act regime is new and the IPC are promoting greater transparency in the decision-making process can you confirm the position?
There is no requirement under the Planning Act 2008 (PA 2008) that the recommendation from the Examining Authority to the Secretary of State (SoS) must be published. However, as you know, once the SoS has made a decision, under s.116 PA2008 a statement of reasons for grant or refusal of an order for development consent must be published and a copy must be provided by the appropriate authority to each person who is an interested party and must also be published in "such a manner as the appropriate authority thinks appropriate". The "appropriate authority" is the SoS when they are the decision maker. There is no intention to publish the recommendation.

06 July 2011
Burges Salmon - Liz Dunn
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
To discuss the draft Development Consent Order (DCO) for the Kentish Flats offshore wind farm extension.
Please see attachments

20 June 2011
Burges Salmon - Elizabeth Dunn
Enquiry received via phone
The caller questioned; who is the target reader for the Local Impact Report (LIR), and when the deadline for the LIR for Kentish Flats Wind Farm Extension is expected to be?
It was explained to the caller that the deadline for the LIR is dependent on when the application for the Kentish Flats Wind Farm Extension is submitted, and whether the IPC decides to accept the application for submission. The caller was talked through figures 1 and 2 of advice note 1: Local Impact Reports, explaining the timescales of the IPC process and how the local authority fits into this process. In which the deadline for when the LIR is to be submitted is set at the preliminary meeting.

The use of the LIR was also explained, where by the Commission, or the Secretary of State (SoS) as appropriate, must have regard to the LIR in deciding on applications. Therefore, the target reader for the LIR is the commissioner(s), and the SoS.

14 April 2011
Kent County Council - Julian Dipper
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Please see the attached document for a note of the meeting. The meeting was held to receive an update on the project and to provide advice on pre-application procedures.
See meeting note

31 March 2011
Vattenfall - Göran Loman
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
A presentation and Q&A session was held to inform the Kent Planning Officers Group - Planning Policy Forum, of the IPC planning process for Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIPs).
Please follow the link to the meeting note of the session
[attachment 1]

11 March 2011
Kent Planning Officers Group Planning Policy Forum
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I refer you to Civil Aviation Authority evidence of endangerment to members of the public engaged in paragliding at the paragliding site at Beltinge:
[attachment 1] Sect 9.1 (Chapter 2. P.6)
Any new wind turbines must be built further offshore to the current turbines or intense opposition will result from the community, including litigation for any serious injuries or death that occur at paragliding site Beltinge due to Wake Turbulence caused by Vattenfall wind turbines.
The currently installed turbines already have caused accidents at Beltinge, including one involving myself where a wing collapse caused by wake turbulence from the turbines resulted in a 50ft fall and collision with the cliff. People have been paragliding there, a charted CAA aviation site since the birth of the sport, and the installatoin of turbines has caused much degradation of the laminar wind on which we rely in a Northerly wind direction. The turbines have also caused much disruption to the Sailing, Windsurfing and especially the Kitesurfing community - with kites collapsing and becoming uncontrollable when the wind blows from the turbines over the Whitstable Street. The potential for litigation from accidents in this sport is also not to be discounted.
It does not escape one's attention that wind turbines only create approximately 15% of the power claimed ([attachment 2]) and that the turbines are in fact negative in terms of CO2 emissions in their life cycle, not least because of the high maintenance but also because backup fossil power stations that have to be run in conjunction with all windfarms due to their unreliable delivery to the grid. It also does not escape the community's attention that the turbines are subsidised to such an extent that we are apparently paying to turn them? - allegedly approximately £300000 of subsidy is provided for every £200000 of revenue created by each turbine.
Any information that you have that proves otherwise would be of interest by return.
Please note, no opposition will result if the proposal filed with IPC does not include turbines closer to the shore or any new shoreline being blocked by turbines than is already the case. Higher turbines must be built even further offshore than the current array in a northerly direction.
Thank you for your e-mail received 23rd January 2011, notifying the IPC of correspondence sent to Vattenfall with regard to the Kentish Flats Wind Farm Extension Proposal. It is helpful for the Commission to be kept notified of the progress of this application from local stakeholders and we have therefore kept this information on record. At the pre-application stage, the developer has a duty to consult with local authorities, statutory consultees and the local community. We encourage interested members of the public to make their views known to the developer as part of the developer's pre application consultation which we understand is currently on-going. For further information about this please visit Vattenfall's web-site at [attachment 3] and [attachment 4].
The developer will also invite members of the public to make initial representations to the IPC if the application is accepted for examination by the IPC. More detailed representations can then be made during the examination. If you would like to find out more about the 2008 Planning Act process please visit the 'application process' tab on our web-site: [attachment 5]. There is also more detailed advice and guidance on the process available on our web-site in the 'legislation and advice' section.

23 January 2011
Cpt C Calthrop
Enquiry received via email
Should a list of other consents, licences and permits that are likely to be sought in addition to or as part of the DCO (setting out what licence/permit etc is sought from whom approximately when - in relation to the DCO application) be provided to the IPC in advance of the submission of the application.
The application form (box 24) asks applicants to list other consents / licences required under other legislation. Paragraph 47 of the CLG Application form guidance states about this: "Where the proposed development will also require other consents, licences, permits, etc, to enable it to be constructed and / or operational, and for which the Commission is not the authorising body, then the applicant must list and briefly describe these in Box 24. Reference should be given to any that have already been applied for, and a copy enclosed of any that the applicant may already be in the possession of. Such other consents could be required for controlling pollution, for example."

In addition, IPC Guidance Note 2, paragraph 22 sets out: "It is also possible for a draft Order to include provisions which remove the need to obtain certain additional authorisations, for example an order under s53 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 which modifies the definitive map of public rights of way. It is necessary for the authority responsible for granting the authorisation to consent to this process (see s150 of the Act). The list of authorisations which can be treated in this way are contained in Schedule 1 of the Infrastructure Planning (Miscellaneous Prescribed Provisions) Regulations 2010. The Explanatory Memorandum supplied to the IPC by the promoter should identify the authorisation, the reasons why the promoter is following this route and should state how close the promoter is to achieving consent of the authority concerned. Where a promoter is seeking separate authorisations or licences these should be separately listed in the application submitted to the IPC (see CLG Application form guidance)."

In summary, other consents/licences/permits are an important part of the DCO application. Understanding how these interrelate with the DCO application is particularly relevant to ensure that at submission of an application all necessary information is included to enable the efficient examination of all relevant matters including e.g. requirements necessitated or obviated by other licences/consents.

If you send us your working draft list of other consents/licences/permits we would be happy to provide you with Section 51 advice to help you in making your application under the Planning Act if any procedural points are raised by that list. There is no statutory obligation to publish the draft consents list (although as we discussed you are aware that it may be subject to a request under the Freedom of Information Act) but any advice given would be published on our register of advice. However, we cannot tell you what consents are needed or the approach you should take to obtaining the consents (whether as part of the DCO or in parallel).

21 January 2011
Burgess-Salmon - Elizabeth Dunn
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Advice on pre-application process in respect of the proposed extension to the Kentish Flats offshore wind farm.
[attachment 1]

14 December 2010
Vattenfall - Göran Loman
Enquiry received via phone
Whether or not neighbouring Local Authorities need to be consulted with in agreeing the Statement of Community Consultation.
Further to our telephone conversation last week with regards to who applicants need to consult with in agreeing their Statement of Community Consultation, I can now inform you that the advice set out in paras. 52 and 53 of the CLG Guidance to Local Authorities is incorrect, since it does not reflect the correct statutory position under s.47 of the Planning Act 2008. CLG have confirmed that there is an error in the document at paragraphs 52 and 53 of Section 8 (consultation with neighbouring authorities) and that a correction notice will be issued in due course. In the meantime, please note that Section 47(2) of the Planning Act 2008 requires the promoter to consult only the local authority or authorities for the area where the land the subject of a possible scheme is situated before preparing a Statement of Community Consultation (SoCC). There is no legal requirement to consult neighbouring authorities about the SoCC.

22 November 2010
Vattenfall - Göran Loman
Enquiry received via phone
Whether the EIA Reg 6 notification submitted together with the EIA Reg 8 request for a scoping opinion contained all necessary accompanying information.
Confirmed that the requirements of EIA reg 6 have been complied with and that all the information required for EIA Reg 6 has been received.

28 October 2010
Burges Salmon - Elizabeth Dunn
Enquiry received via phone
Letter seeking to notify IPC under Reg 6 Infrastructure Planning (EIA) Regulations 2009 without some of the information prescribed to accompany a Reg 6 notification.
Thank you for your letter seeking to notify us under Reg 6 of the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2009 that Vattenfall Wind Power ltd intend to apply for a development consent order for an extension to the existing 90MW Kentish flats off-shore wind farm. Unfortunately we cannot accept it as a Reg 6 notification as it doesn't provide us with all the information that Reg 6 requires for this purpose.

However, you can submit your Reg 6 notification together with your formal scoping request under Regulation 8(1) as the latter requires the same accompanying information.

11 October 2010
Vattenfall UK - Goran Loman
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
The meeting was held to discuss the proposed extension to the Kentish Flats offshore wind farm (Kentish Flats 2), including the IPC scoping process and the IPC outreach programme.
Please follow the attachement to the meeting note, including the advice given: [attachment 1]

30 September 2010
Vattenfall - anon.