Project meeting with Highways England
See attached meeting note

Highways England - anon.

I was surprised to read from paragraph 1.4.2 of the Report to the SoS that Royal Mail’s submission following the IP Registration date was not treated as a Relevant Representation despite correspondence from PINS accepting it as such (as attached) and subsequent dialogue with PINS and HE up to 22 May 2017 before completion of the Examination on 2 June 2017. Based on previous advice from PINS, as a statutory consultee Royal Mail is able to notify the Examining Authority under section 89(2A) b of the Planning Act 2008 that it wishes to become an IP post registration.

Please can you explain why Royal Mail was not advised that its submission was not being treated as a Relevant Representation during the Examination process.
The representations submitted by Royal Mail were received on 19 October 2016. The registration or ‘Relevant Representation’ period closed on 3 October 2016.

What constitutes a Relevant Representation is a matter of fact, as set out in s102(4) of the Planning Act 2008. The representations provided by RM were not in the prescribed form and were received later than the applicable deadline under s56 (3 October 2016). RM’s submission therefore could not be treated as a Relevant Representation. Please see my attached email to you dated 25 November 2016.

Notwithstanding this, statutory consultees such as RM can notify an Examining Authority of their wish to be considered as an Interested Party at any time prior to the close of an Examination.

In short, RM became an IP following our receipt of your 19 October 2016 email request, but the attached submission could not be treated as Relevant Representation. The submission was however accepted by the ExA to be read in conjunction with the Examination.

BNP Paribas for Royal Mail - Daniel Parry-Jones

Gowling WLG submitted correspondence to the Planning Inspectorate after the statutory six month examination deadline of 2 June 2017.
Because your submission was received after the statutory six month deadline of 2 June 2017, the Examining Authority (ExA) will be unable to consider it as part of his recommendation to the Secretary of State for Transport (SoST).

However, your submission will be forwarded to the SoST alongside the ExA’s recommendation report on or before 2 September 2017. It will be for the SoST to decide whether to consider the content of your submission in making his final decision.

Gowling WLG for Friends Life Ltd - Vicky Fowler

Mrs Swandale submitted a suite of photographs in support of her 31 May 2017 submission.
Because your submission was received after the statutory six month deadline of 2 June 2017, the Examining Authority (ExA) will be unable to consider it as part of his recommendation to the Secretary of State for Transport (SoST).

However, your submission will be forwarded to the SoST alongside the ExA’s recommendation report on or before 2 September 2017. It will be for the SoST to decide whether to consider the content of your submission in making his final decision.

Sharon Swandale

I am a resident of Church Road, XXX XXX, who is currently suffering the access for residents and traffic issues surrounding the Barrey Road junction/A2070 now that the Ashford Business Park new tenants are attracting steady business from both the local and outside area.

To be honest the traffic is becoming so severe that I fear that a fatality is imminent.

I am writing in order to gain some clarification on the responsibility of the lack of proposal to the Barrey Road/A2070 junction when planning the J10a M20 proposal.

For clarification can you kindly confirm:

1. Are there any plans to modify the Barrey Road/A2070 junction within the Junc 10a M20 proposal? (I cannot see any modification on the latest amendment)

2. Was there ever any modification plans in place that have been amended due to a cost cutting exercise? If so who was responsible for this decision and what body did they represent?

3. Can you furnish me with the key names of the person(s) from ABC/KCC who are involved in the key decision making processes?

I fear that residents and local businesses are not being given fair and accurate information and are informed by local Cllr's that HA are responsible for the absence of modification to the Barrey Road/A2070 junction yet I suspect that this may not be the case and that the decision making processes lay with Ashford Borough and Kent County Councils who have made a cost cutting exercise.

Once the residents and local businesses are aware of who is responsible for lack of modification or amendments to remove modifications, we will know who to lobby, rather than having a scattergun approach.
From our records, I have been unable to identify you as an Interested Party for the purposes of this Examination.

The period within which members of the public could register to become an Interested Party expired on 3 October 2016. You may still make representations to the Examination, but they will be accepted (or otherwise) at the discretion of the Examining Authority (the Inspector appointed to examine the application). For assistance understanding the decision-making process under the Planning Act 2008, there is a suite of non-technical advice notes available on our website, here: [attachment 1]

Notwithstanding this, I will respond to the points about which you seek clarification:

1. Are there any plans to modify the Barrey Road/A2070 junction within the Junc 10a M20 proposal? (I cannot see any modification on the latest amendment)

The latest plans setting out the development proposed by Highways England are available on our website, here: [attachment 2] Click the 'Documents' tab and search for 'Works Plans'. You may also consider contacting Highways England directly to discuss the detailed design of the scheme. The relevant team is available at [email protected] or on 03004701297.

2. Was there ever any modification plans in place that have been amended due to a cost cutting exercise? If so who was responsible for this decision and what body did they represent?

The application is made by Highways England (HE), and HE is therefore wholly responsible for the design of the proposed development. Information about the design evolution of the proposed development can be found the application documentation, available to view as per my above response. In this respect, the 'Consultation Report' may be of particular interest to you, so search for this.

3. Can you furnish me with the key names of the person(s) from ABC/KCC who are involved in the key decision making processes?

Under the Planning Act 2008, local authorities have a bespoke role. ABC and KCC were consulted by HE as the scheme was developed at the Pre-application stage of the process, and also made representations to the Planning Inspectorate about the adequacy of HE's Pre-application consultation. In the Examination, local authorities are Interested Parties and may make representations to the Examining Authority about the merits of the application. They do not have a decision-making role. For the avoidance of doubt, the Planning Inspectorate operates under a delegated function from the SoS for Communities and Local Government - it examines applications for development consent. The Inspectorate then makes a recommendation to the relevant SoS (in this case, the SoS for Transport), who takes the final decision.

Based on the information that we have on record, I understand that Mark Davies is the relevant contact at ABC and Katie Stewart at KCC.

Andrew Whybrow

Mr Lowe queried whether the Open Floor Hearing (OFH) scheduled to follow the Preliminary Meeting on 2 December 2016 would allow for representations to be made about the merits of the proposed development. He further queried whether his attendance at the OFH would be essential, and what further opportunities there would be in the course of the Examination to make oral representations on behalf of his clients.
The Open Floor Hearing (OFH) scheduled to be held on the afternoon of 2 December 2016 will deal with matters beyond the procedure for the Examination. The following extract from our ‘Advice note 8.5: Participating in the examination’ deals with OFHs:

“Open floor hearings: These can be requested by anyone who has registered and made a relevant representation or by other interested parties. Requests [for an OFH to be held] must be made by the deadline which is set by the Examining Authority. At the hearing, anyone who is an interested party can give oral evidence based on their relevant or written representation.”

Advice note 8.5 is available to read in full, here: [attachment 1]

By way of clarification, the purpose of OFHs are to allow Interested Parties (IP) to expand upon the representations that they have already made in writing ie at this stage, your Relevant Representation (RR). The Examining Authority will not wish to hear RRs simply repeated orally. A simple agenda will be published ahead of the OFH which will consist of a ‘running order’ for the Examining Authority to hear representations from IPs who have notified us of their wish to speak.

We very much welcome all IPs to make oral representations at OFHs where the content of those representations includes new evidence which could add value to the Examination. IPs also have a statutory right to be heard.

There are likely to be Issue Specific Hearings (ISH) (see Advice note 8.5) which deal with design/ socio-economic matters later in the Examination, but these types of hearing tend to be more technical. The specific issues which will be heard at ISHs will also be led by the Examining Authority through the publication of detailed agenda, and so they are a little less flexible than the OFH set-up.

The Executors of Marianne Clunies-Ross - David Lowe

Section 51 advice issued to Highways England following the Secretary of State's decision to accept the application for examination.
See attached letter.

Highways England

The Council's adequacy of consultation included commentary about the Applicant's duties under s49 of the Planning Act 2008.
By means of clarification, the request sent by the Planning Inspectorate to local authorities sought responses in respect only of the applicant’s duties under sections 42, 47 and 48 of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008). The PA2008 defines an adequacy of consultation representation as follows:

“adequacy of consultation representation” means a representation about whether the applicant complied, in relation to that proposed application, with the applicant’s duties under sections 42, 47 and 48.”

The test under s49 of the PA2008 is applied by the Planning Inspectorate during its consideration of the application for acceptance.

If the application is accepted to proceed to be examined by the Planning Inspectorate, the applicant will be required to serve notice to you in respect of that decision. The notice will include details about how and when interested parties will be able to make relevant representations about design detail and the merits of the scheme. I would advise for the Council to resubmit its comments in respect of the lead local flood authority, highways authority recommendations and public rights of way at this stage. In the meantime I would encourage the Council to contact the developer directly in order to share any concerns.

Kent County Council

The Council's adequacy of consultation representation included commentary about the merits of the proposed scheme.
By means of clarification, the request sent by the Planning Inspectorate to local authorities sought responses in respect only of the applicant’s duties under sections 42, 47 and 48 of the Planning Act 2008 (re. the adequacy of the applicant’s pre-application consultation).

Your letter comprises commentary about the merits of the scheme in the context of impacts on the Council’s interests. Please note that at this stage of the process we are unable to take any such commentary into account.

If the application is accepted to proceed to be examined by the Planning Inspectorate, the applicant will be required to serve notice to you in respect of that decision. The notice will include details about how and when interested parties will be able to make relevant representations about the merits of the scheme. I would advise for the Council to resubmit its comments about traffic impacts on the road network at this stage. The Council may also wish to contact the developer directly for associated discussion.

Shepway District Council

M20 Junction 10a draft documents feedback and logistics of submission
Please see the attached meeting note

Highways England - Salvatore Zappala

M20 Junction 10a project update meeting (teleconference)
Please see attached meeting note

Highways England

M20 Junction 10a project update meeting
Please see attached meeting note

Highways England

Project update meeting - please see attached meeting note

Highways England

Any procedure associated with sending PEIR to statutory environmental bodies
Please see Advice Note 7, as up-dated in March 2015 [attachment 1]. In terms of procedure, there is nothing prescribed on this particular point (i.e. providing PEIR to statutory bodies). Other applicants who have chosen to share PEIR with statutory consultees have included that document within the ?bundle? (or CD etc) of documents that they send at s42 (Planning Act 2008). There is also no formal notification in respect of just providing the PEIR. In terms of undertaking consultation with statutory parties under s42, you would need to notify the Planning Inspectorate on or before commencing that consultation and would need to provide us with the same information that would be sent to the prescribed parties (s46 Planning Act 2008).

Matt MacDonald - Clare Postlethwaite

Seek clarification on whether a red line boundary needs to be continuous or whether it can contain discrete red line bounded areas?
A red line boundary does not need to be continuous and can have discrete red line boundaries for a/some particular elements. For highways schemes, please note the relevant section of the PA 2008 ? s22(9)(a) and (b) state that non-adjoining land does not form part of the area of development which would justify the NSIP threshold in s22(4).

Mott MacDonald - Clare Postlethwaite

Project update meeting for the M20 Junction 10A scheme.
Please see attachment.

Highways England - Valerie Stephens

A planning permission by AxA & DMI Properties had recently been refused and they were reviewing design options for their scheme. The site of this scheme is to the south of your proposal and your red line boundary had included an access point for this site. You were therefore reviewing your scheme and red line boundary to consider whether this access point was still needed or its precise location as part of your proposals.
Submission of a scoping request to PINS is entirely at the discretion of the applicant and therefore any amendments to the scheme from an original scoping would not require a further scoping request. You may wish to request a further scoping opinion from PINS if you think this would add value to your approach in assessing environmental impacts. It is accepted that schemes evolve and that red line boundaries etc may change after a scoping opinion has been issued.

It was noted that as part of the issued Scoping Opinion, there would a list of bodies that PINS has consulted as part of the statutory requirement to consult with specified statutory consultees ? its is called the ?Reg 9 List? following Regulation 9 of The Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2009. This is a different Regulation to s42 Planning Act 2008 and Schedule 1 of The Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedures) Regulations 2009.

You noted that your statutory consultation was not scheduled until July/August 2015 and so any amendment of the red line boundary could be reflected in the proposal before the statutory consultation was undertaken.

In light of the change to the scheme, there was a discussion about what options and mechanisms there might be for securing the eventual access to the site, presuming that a subsequent planning application was submitted, these included:
? Amend your scheme in light of the up-dated planning application.
? Consult on, assess and submit your scheme with alternatives (i.e. without the access or with 1 or 2 potential access points).
? Request a post-submission change to the scheme once there is more certainty about the planning application, the risk will relate to whether the ExA determine if this would amount to a different scheme.
? Seek a post-decision material/non-material change to the scheme.
? Progressing the NSIP with no access and a planning application with proposed access to a currently unbuilt highway would potentially result in abortive works.

Andrew Jarmin

Meeting to discuss the M20 Junction 10a project. Please see attached meeting note.

Highways Agency

Currently states that the application is expected to be submitted to the Planning Inspectorate Q1 2013 ? Has this now been submitted?
Please be advised that both projects M20 Junction 10A Improvement (TR010006) and M20 to A2070 Link Road (TR010013) are dormant pending future funding announcements by the Highways Agency (HA). We recommend that you contact the respective developers directly if you require any further information on these projects.
Contact details for the developers are included below.

M20 to A2070 Link Road
Contact ? David Jarman
Email - [email protected]
Tel - 01233 506201

M20 Junction 10A Improvement
Contact ? Roger Hawkins
Email - [email protected]
Tel ? 01234 796228

Hugh Chesterton

Please see attachment
Please see attachment

WYG Transport Planning - Arnold Ashton

Advice required about proposed project.
Please see attachment

Kent Wildlife Trust - Debbie Salmon

Initial meeting to discuss proposed highway project
To view the meeting note please click here:

[attachment 1]

Highways Agency - Roger Hawkins