Feedback meeting between Navitus Bay Development Limited and the Planning Inspectorate following the Secretary of State?s decisions on the Navitus Bay Wind Park project.
See attached note of the meeting.

Navitus Bay Development Limited - Stuart Grant

A number of our Association members have asked whether, in view of the unprecedented interest in this project, in addition to recording on the PINS website that the ExA Report has been sent to SoS, it would be possible to alert IPs by sending one of your PINS notifications to all IPs?

Many had assumed that the timescale was three months plus a further three months for SoS, rather than the SoS having three months from receipt of the ExA Report.
PINS will not notify IPs individually when the report is submitted. IPs should check the website regularly as this will be updated when the report is submitted to the SoS, as you are aware, this must be by 11 June 2014.

If IPs have signed up for email alerts on the case they should receive an email alerting them that the case has been submitted to the secretary of state. IPs can still sign up for email updates should they so wish.

Please note that PINS will inform Individuals IPs when the SoS decision is made. The decision along with the ExA report will then published on the website.

PCBA - Roy Pointer

I should be grateful if you will respond to the following process query concerning the review of the noise issue by ExA.

All the evidence so far presented has been on the basis of the ETSU Simplified Procedure as normally used for wind farm applications.

It now appears the the Applicant wants at some future time to put in hand a different method for establishing the noise nuisance. This method is known as the ETSU Standard Procedure. For all sorts of reasons this would be very problematical and unsatisfactory.

Since it would be carried out after the close of the Examination, it would be completely unacceptable. There would be no chance for IPs to be involved.

The matter is dealt with in more detail within today?s Representations at para. 51 et seq.

Please therefore can you confirm that the ExA will only look at the noise evidence made available to the Examination up to today?s date of closure, i.e. on the ETSU Simplified Procedure, in reaching its conclusions?
I reiterate my reply to Mr Pointer yesterday in which I stated that any submissions or representations received after an examination has closed (during the recommendation stage) are not made available to the Examining authority and will not be taken into account within an Examining authority's report to the Secretary of State. The Planning Inspectorate will hold any representation until the end of the recommendation stage and then send it separately to the relevant Secretary of State, immediately following the submission of the Examining authority's recommendation report. It is then for the Secretary of State to decide whether or not to take further representations into consideration.

Bill Hoodless

The PCBA team and member supporters have raised some questions that I agreed to send to you; I should be glad of your advice.

1. Will you and the PINS team still be able to answer questions after 11 March Closure?
2. What happens to materials considered as Representations sent in to PINS after Closure?
3. Will you notify IPs that the ExA report has been sent to Secretary of State (SoS) and the date on which it was sent?
4. We understand that ExA has three months to make a report to SoS; he has a further three months in which to decide the Application. If the ExA report is made before its ?time is up?, does the SoS ?three months? begin then, or can the full six months elapse before a decision is due?
5. This is an Application that has generated an unprecedented amount of public interest and input. It would be appreciated if a copy of the ExA Report could be made available to IPs at the time it is sent to the Secretary of State. This would mirror the approach with other planning reports which are available to interested parties prior to the meeting at which a decision is taken to consent, or not. Is there anything that prevents this happening in the case of Navitus Bay?
1. We will only be able to answer questions regarding the NSIP process and will not make comments on the evidence submitted in the examination.

2. Submissions received after an examination has closed (during the recommendation stage) are not made available to the Examining authority and will not be taken into account within an Examining authority's report to the Secretary of State. The Planning Inspectorate will hold representation until the end of the recommendation stage and then send it separately to the relevant Secretary of State, immediately following the submission of the Examining authority's recommendation report. It is then for the Secretary of State to decide whether or not to take further representations into consideration

3. We do not send a letter to interested parties but the website will be updated to inform the public that the report has been submitted to the Secretary of State.

4. The Secretary has three months from the date that he/she receives it. Therefore if the report is submitted early the Secretary of State decision will be issued within 3 months of that date.

5. The report is a report on the ExAs findings and gives the Secretary of state the ExAs recommendation, it is not a consultation document and as such there is no provision to make the report publically available prior to the secretary of state?s decision.

Roy Pointer

Question regarding the time the examination ends, and questions regarding ability to submit further documents after the final deadline today.
The examination must close by midnight on 11 March 2015.
Any submission on comments on the further information requested in the ExAs rule 17 letter should be received by the Inspectorate by midnight today as this is the final deadline.
Submissions received after that date or submissions received on the date on another topic, will be subject to the ExA using discretion to accept representations and would therefore need to be reviewed by the ExA in order to determine whether that discretion should be exercised. It should also be noted that any late submission accepted by the ExA will be posted on the web as soon as is practicable and may not be immediately available to other parties.

Bill Hoodless

I see that this very large number of submissions for Deadline VII, yesterday, have today been placed on the PINS website.

They include a huge amount of fresh information, especially from the Applicant, which has not been seen before by IPs.

It is not practicable for anyone to study this number of items and make a full response to them before the Examination closes on 11 March 2015.

I do realise (from experience of previous requests) that there is no prospect of extending the Examination to allow time for the Deadline VII submissions to be reviewed adequately.

However, I should nonetheless be grateful for your confirmation that further general representations, made by IPs before the close, will be put before ExA and considered by ExA.
Can I reiterate the advice given to Mr Pointer on 12 February, there is no deadline in the examination timetable for general submissions.

The previous deadline for submissions was 5 March 2015 which included provision for the following submissions:

? Comments on ExA?s revised draft DCO
? Comments on responses to ExA?s second written questions
? Comments on ExA?s RIES
? Receipt of any further information as requested (this refers to information requested in the ExAs rule 17 letter sent on 26 March 2015)
? Comments on additional representations on the merits of the Turbine Area Mitigation Option

There is no provision for further comments.

The next and final deadline is the 10 March 2015 and this is specifically for comments on the further information requested in the ExAs rule 17 letter.

The ExA can use its discretion to accept representations from interested parties on other matters up to the close of the examination, and any such representation would therefore need to be reviewed by the ExA in order to determine whether that discretion should be exercised. However, we would strongly advise that interested parties consider carefully whether such a representation constitutes useful new evidence which has not already been put before the ExA.

PCBA - Bill Hoodless

Would like to respond to aplicant last submssion, specifically the applicants Appendix 13: Taddiford Gap further clarifications note
The next and final deadline is the 10 March 2015 and this is specifically for comments on the further information requested in the ExAs rule 17 letter.

The ExA can use its discretion to accept representations from interested parties on other matters up to the close of the examination, and any such representation would therefore need to be reviewed by the ExA in order to determine whether that discretion should be exercised. However, we would strongly advise that interested parties consider carefully whether such a representation constitutes useful new evidence which has not already been put before the ExA.

John Sharpe

See attached letter from Freeths LLP on behalf of Challenge Navitus
Thank you for your email. I hope I can explain the purpose of the Report on the Implications for European Sites (RIES).

Under Regulation 61(3) of The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended) (the Habitats Regulations) and Regulation 25(3) of The Offshore Marine Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c) Regulations 2007 (as amended) (the Offshore Marine Regulations), the competent authority (the Secretary of State) must consult the appropriate nature conservation body and have regard to any representations made by that body. A RIES is issued during the examination of nationally significant infrastructure projects to ensure that Natural England, as the statutory nature conservation body, has been consulted formally on Habitats Regulations matters.

The RIES is an account of the information and evidence provided to the Examining Authority (ExA) on HRA matters during the examination up to the date of the publication of the RIES. It is a signposting document for the purposes of assisting the Secretary of State, as competent authority, to undertake their HRA. It will be used by the Secretary of State in conjunction with the ExA?s recommendation report, which will take account of detailed submissions from all interested parties on Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA)matters. It is also important to note that whilst the RIES is an ExA document, it is not the ExA?s opinion on HRA matters. The publication of the RIES is not the final stage of a HRA and comments on the RIES have been invited by the ExA for Deadline VII (5 March 2015). We note your concerns that your previous submissions appear to have not been taken into account in the Navitus Bay RIES and recommend that you express these comments in your response to the RIES. It will be useful for you to look in detail at the RIES and comments on areas where you feel your specific issues have not been noted, with reference to your previous representations. Any comments received will be taken into account as part of the ExA?s recommendation to the relevant Secretary of State. An Appropriate Assessment, if required, will subsequently be undertaken by and reported upon by the Secretary State as part of their decision making process; this will take into account the RIES, any consultation responses and the ExAs recommendation report.

Your letter and this advice will be published on our website under section 51 of the Planning Act 2008

Freeths LLP - Penny Smith

I have been following the debate over the proposed Navitus Bay development very carefully. Not least because when I bought a house in the area recently this proposal came up on the local searches. I have seen the new visuals showing the Navitus Bay Turbine Area Mitigation Option (630MW) which are very helpful but I have decided to write to you formally to ask if you would consider holding a further public information session after the General Election.

I am concerned that the debate in the media is becoming a political football and that the coverage is not really providing the necessary factual information to the public. Our future energy supply is more important than scare stories about the potential loss of World Heritage status to the Dorset coast. As has been pointed out by my colleague Clare Moody MEP this status is based on its geological significance, not its natural setting. As such Unesco has stated publicly that the proposed development will have no impact on the coast's particular criterion for qualification or World Heritage designation. It seems to me that we need facts not speculation.

Whilst respecting the views of those who are seeking to challenge the Navitus proposal I am concerned that the forthcoming election is causing some to declare their opposition to the development when in fact a more considered view might be more appropriate.

I realise that the timetable of this has been carefully set out but I hope that you might feel able to consider a further opportunity for public engagement once the heat of the General Election has passed.
Thank you for your email which relates to a proposed nationally significant infrastructure project (NSIP).

I feel it would be useful to explain the process, and the Planning Inspectorates role for dealing with such projects. This advice is provided under s51 of the Planning Act 2008 and as such your email and our reply will be published on the Planning Inspectorate?s website.

Offshore generating stations in England or Wales that have a capacity of more than 100 megawatts are classified as NSIPs. Therefore, for any development of this nature and above the threshold an applicant is obliged to submit an application to the relevant Secretary of State, in this case the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, for development consent under the Planning Act 2008. The application for the Navitus Bay Wind Park was submitted to the Planning Inspectorate on 10 April 2014, and was then subsequently accepted for examination on 8 May 2014.

The Secretary of State?s decision as to whether or not to accept an application for examination must accord with the provisions of section 55 of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended).

The completed s55 checklist that details the Planning Inspectorate?s consideration of whether or not to accept the application can be viewed on our website. Issues related to the merits of the application are considered by an impartial Examining Authority during the examination of the case.

Following acceptance The Secretary of State appointed the ?Examining Authority? to examine the application. The Examining Authority reviewed the application and all relevant representations and identified the principal issues for examination. Following this, the Planning Inspectorate invited all interested parties to attend a meeting, known as the Preliminary Meeting, which was held to consider how the application will be examined. The meeting was held on 11 September 2014, at Tregonwell Hall, Bournemouth International Centre, Exeter Road, Bournemouth, BH2 5BH. The meeting included questions and answers about the key issues that will need to be examined, the timetable for the examination and other important organisational details.

The Examining Authority is now investigating the merits of the application during the examination stage which started the day after the close of the Preliminary Meeting.

The Examining Authority has a statutory duty to complete its examination within 6 months. The examination is a formal legal process, during which careful consideration is given to all the important and relevant matters, including the representations of all interested parties, any evidence submitted and answers provided to questions set out in writing and explained at hearings. The examination is nearing an end and must close by 11 March 2015. All hearings have taken place and there is one final deadline for submissions of 5 March 2015.

Within three months of examination period closing the Examining Authority must prepare a report on the application to the relevant Secretary of State, in this case the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change. The report will include a recommendation. The Secretary of State then has a further three months to make the decision on whether to grant or refuse development consent.

The Planning Inspectorate has published a series of advice notes which explain the process, including information on how to get involved. These are available at the following web address: [attachment 1]. Information about the project can be found on the Planning Portal website address [attachment 2]

Patrick Canavan

As the examination has progressed and the ExA has managed to draw more information from the Applicant, our residents? community has experienced a growing concern and interest in what the project might entail both in size and operational duration. This has become marked with the advent of the ?so called? turbine mitigation option. Many people who had not previously registered as IPs now wish to register their objections.

Can you advise whether, if such people write to PINS, their representations will be made available to the ExA for consideration as part of the process, always providing that they are made before the closing date of 11 March?
As you are aware the deadline for registering as an interested party in the examination closed on 23 June 1014.

The ExA can use its discretion to accept representations from parties other than registered interested parties. The ExA can and has already exercised that discretion in this case on a number of occasions, particularly in respect of deadline VIa where the ExA expressly requested views on the turbine mitigation option, paragraph 5.9 of the ExA?s letter of the 13 January refers. Whilst it is noted that a number of representations submitted for that deadline are stating their objection to the development as a whole, and may not be seen as expressly related to the mitigation option the ExA felt that accepting the representations for that deadline adhered to the Wheatcroft principles.

I would like to explain that the process for registering as an interested party is to enable people to participate in the examination as a whole. The purpose of written representations is to provide the ExA with submissions and evidence regarding issues which are important and relevant to the consideration of the application and not to solely to express an objection.

It is important to note that when parties submit their representations, consideration of the application is based on the quality of the planning issues; and from this perspective, it is unlikely that greater consideration will be given to a high number of representations from different parties who are all raising the same/similar points. It is often more beneficial for people to form groups and submit joint representations. Therefore if there are local people who have not registered as an interested party they can ask that you, as an organisation, represent them for the remaining examination period. We would strongly advise that members of the public consider carefully if they have any new evidence that should be submitted to the examination authority prior to writing to us.

There is no deadline in the examination timetable for general submissions; the next deadline for submissions is 5 March 2015 which includes provision for the following submissions:

? Comments on ExA?s revised draft DCO
? Comments on responses to ExA?s second written questions
? Comments on ExA?s RIES
? Receipt of any further information as requested
? Comments on additional representations on the merits of the Turbine Area Mitigation Option

I would like to re-emphasise that the ExA?s consideration is based on the quality of the planning issues; and there is no greater weight accorded to a high number of representations from different parties who are all raising the same/similar points, therefore should you wish to make further representation for PCBA or on behalf of members of the public you are representing on the matters listed above, these should be made to the Inspectorate by midnight on 5 March 2015.

Roy Pointer

As the Examination progresses, we continue to notice the wide disparity in the assessment of the noise implications of the proposal as between the Applicant and PCBA and others. The topic is complex but, as you know, both PCBA (Dr John Yelland) and Challenge Navitus (Dr Andrew Langley) have carried out detailed analyses of the risks and have already shared results extensively with ExA. Both show that the officially recognised guidance in ETSU-R-97 (as updated) would be breached at the shore around the bays. Nevertheless, the Applicant has steadfastly refused to acknowledge that there is a problem. I write to ask whether, in light of the huge differences between the Applicant and at least two other IPs, the ExA has sought, or intends to seek, an independent report on noise risks together with a review of the IP evidence now available to ExA, to assist in making recommendations on the project to the Secretary of State in due course.
Thank you for your email. The Examining Authority does not commission independent reports. The Examining Authority uses written questions to enable additional information required from any interested parties to be submitted at any stage of the examination process.

s100 of the PA2008 allows for the Secretary of state, at the request of the Examining Authority to appoint an assessor. The use of an assessor could be important in assisting the progress of the examination towards a quicker understanding of the more technical and specialised issues, however the Examining Authority does not feel that this course of action is required for this case.

PCBA - Roy Pointer

Dorset County Council responded to the Rule 17 letter issued by the Examining Authority on the 21 November 2014 requesting:
? A submission on the status and admissibility of the Turbine Area Mitigation Option put forward by the Applicant; and
? A response to the Applicant?s documents submitted at Deadline IV.

Despite what the County Council felt at the time to be insufficient time and inadequate information on which to make a full assessment, the Council provided written comments to Deadline V (7 January 2015) on the SLVIA and socio-economic and tourism impacts.

The Council still considers that there has not yet been sufficient time or information provided to date that would enable full and proper assessment of the impact of the Turbine Area Mitigate Option. The County Council continues to develop its case regarding the merits and impact of the Turbine Area Mitigation Option but is not in a position at Deadline VI (a) to add further to its current submissions and evidence. As such, no submission is made to this Deadline

However, the County Council would wish to respond fully to Deadline VII when an assessment of all information provided on the Turbine Area Mitigation Option has been made.
As discussed, to clarify the deadline the deadline of 5 February ? deadline VIa, is for additional representations on the merits of the Turbine Area Mitigation Option. To clarify this is a new deadline as detailed in the ExA? s procedural decision letter of 13 January 2015 and is to allow interested parties to comment specifically on the merits of the mitigation option should they wish.

There is a further deadline ?deadline VII- in the timetable on 5 March for:
? Comments on ExA? s revised draft DCO
? Comments on responses to ExA? s second written questions
? Comments on ExA? s RIES
? Receipt of any further information as requested at item 21 (if required)
? Comments on additional representations on the merits of the Turbine Area Mitigation Option

This deadline is your (and other interested parties) opportunity to comment on all of the documents submitted for deadline VI and VIa.

Dorset County Council - Ken Buchan

Clarification on the provision of documents within the examination timetable.
To clarify the deadline of the 29 January 2014 - deadline VI - was for receipt by the examining authority of the following documents:
? Responses to ExA?s second written questions
? Post hearing documents including any written summary of an oral case put at hearings held on 21 and 22 January and any documents/amendments requested by the ExA
? Comments on the applicant?s revised DCO

The documents submitted by the applicant (and other interested parties) to which you refer and published on our website on 30 January and 2 February are documents in response to this deadline (Deadline VI).

The deadline of 5 February (deadline Via) was for additional representations on the merits of the Turbine Area Mitigation Option. To clarify this is a new deadline as detailed in the ExA?s procedural decision letter of 13 January 2015 and is to allow interested parties to comment specifically on the merits of the mitigation option should they wish. It does not have to incorporate all interested parties' comments on the documents requested for deadline VI.

There is a further deadline (deadline VII) - 5 March which includes:
? Comments on responses to ExA?s second written questions(received at deadline VI)
? Comments on additional representations on the merits of the Turbine Area Mitigation Option (documents received at deadline VI and VIa)

Deadline VII is your (and other interested parties') opportunity to comment on the documents submitted for deadlines VI and VIa. This can also include your response to Compulsory Hearing Action Point 9. This is 25 working days after deadline VI and 20 working days after deadline VIa.

Bill Hoodless

We appreciate that in order to expedite the procedure for major infrastructure developments it is important that timetables are set and adhered for the submission of relevant documents and representations. As a council we have adhered to this process and I note that this is also the case for those other interested parties. However, I am writing to express my concern at the approach taken by NBDL in these later stages of the process, in relation to the deadline of 5 February. Since 26 January NBDL have released 35 documents on which the Council (and others) need to consider and respond to within 5 working days. I appreciate that some of this material relates to issues previously submitted or discussed. However, a substantial element concerns the 'mitigation' option that you will be aware this Council believes should not be considered in this case. As such it is new material there is a danger that given the volume and the short time period for consideration those interested parties will miss something that may be pertinent to their case. In order to avoid the potential for legal challenge at a later stage I would suggest that an extended deadline be granted in relation to the responses to the material relating to the 'mitigation' option.
As you are aware the examining authority has a duty to complete the examination of the application into the proposed Navitus Bay wind park in the statutory time scale of 6 months. Therefore the examination must close on 11 March 2015.

To clarify the deadline of the 29 January 2014 - deadline VI - was for receipt by the examining authority of the following documents:

? Responses to ExA?s second written questions
? Post hearing documents including any written summary of an oral case put at hearings held on 21 and 22 January and any documents/amendments requested by the ExA
? Comments on the applicant?s revised DCO

The documents submitted by the applicant (and other interested parties) to which you refer are in response to this deadline.

The deadline of 5 February ? deadline VIa, the deadline to which you refer that is 5 working days following the previous deadline, is for Additional representations on the merits of the Turbine Area Mitigation Option. To clarify this is a new deadline as detailed in the ExA?s procedural decision letter of 13 January 2015 and is to allow interested parties to comment specifically on the merits of the mitigation option should they wish.

There is a further deadline ?deadline VII- in the timetable on 5 March for:
? Comments on ExA?s revised draft DCO
? Comments on responses to ExA?s second written questions
? Comments on ExA?s RIES
? Receipt of any further information as requested at item 21 (if required)
? Comments on additional representations on the merits of the Turbine Area Mitigation Option

This deadline is your (and other interested parties) opportunity to comment on all of the documents submitted for deadline VI and VIa. This is 25 working days after deadline VI and 20 working days after deadline VIa.

Bournemouth Borough Council - Mike Holmes

Wishes to comment on the applicant, although is not an Interested Party.
Unfortunately, it is not now possible for you to register as an Interested Party in the process. The deadline for registering was 23 June 2014. Although you are not an Interested Party, you can however send us a written submission and request that the Examining Authority accepts it. It will be for the Examining Authority to decide whether to do so. I attach a pdf of Advice Note 8.5 (which is one of several useful advice notes that you will find on our website) which gives you more information and should assist you.

Claire Coward

Advice to Local authorities and the applicant involved in the Navitus Bay Wind park project in respect of s106 agreements, following a discussion at the issue specific hearing held 21 January 2015.
In respect of s106 agreements the PINS guidance (Procedural Guide Planning appeals England, 1 April 2014, (available at [attachment 1] ), is as follows:

?Counterpart documents are legal documents identical in all respects except that each is signed by a different party or parties. This is not appropriate to planning obligations, since these are public law documents which are entered on the planning register and the local land charges register and are often copied to residents and other interested people. The planning obligation should be conveniently available as one single document executed by all the relevant parties.

There may be circumstances where it is agreed in advance by the parties that counterparts are the only practical option. In these cases, both the Inspector and the local planning authority should be satisfied that certified copies of all the individually signed documents have been provided (by a solicitor or other suitably legally qualified person).?

Therefore a single document is considered best, however counterparts can be acceptable if the correct documents are provided as evidence. The s106 should include a clause explicitly providing for the deed to be executed in counterpart.

An example counterpart clause would be "This [agreement OR deed] may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which when executed [and delivered] shall constitute a duplicate original, but all the counterparts shall together constitute the one agreement.?

This communication does not constitute legal advice and parties should seek their own independent legal advice.

Local Authorities and NBDL - anon.

Question regarding the submission of more up to date visuals for the Turbine Area Mitigation Option, and whether the applicant will be asked to submit them.
Thank you for your email, the contents of which have been noted. Your original email and subsequent emails form your views on the applicants submitted visuals, as such we will publish your emails as a submission for the next deadline (Deadline VI). Other IPs, including the applicant, will be able to respond to your views at subsequent deadlines.

This advice and any previous advice given to you will be published as s51 advice, and your emails regarding your views on the visuals will be published as your Deadline VI submission.

John Lambon

Further to the procedural decision by the Examining Authority can you please clarify the following points: -

You have stated in point 1.1 ?the Examining Authority has decided that the Turbine Area Mitigation Option does amount to a material change but not to the point of constituting a new application?. Can you be specific as to what point the changes would have constituted a new application. As the statement stands it is a very subjective comment with no background information and no indication of what constitutes a new application.


Point 1.3 ?While recognising that the Environmental Statement is based on the Realistic Worst Case Scenario (RWCS), and that the Turbine Area Mitigation Option falls within that scenario, the Examining Authority will need to examine whether the reduction in scale and therefore impacts are sufficient to conclude on its acceptability.? Can you let me know whether you are treating the two options as a single application ? in which case the RWCS I assume is based on the original option 1 or are you treating the two options separately ? If they are being treated separately will the ExA be giving separate decisions on the two options? You also link the reduction in scale to reduction in impacts. This does seem to be influenced by the Developers? statements before evidence has been presented.
As explained in the procedural decision letter regarding the Turbine Area Mitigation Option issued on 13 January 2015, the Examining Authority (ExA) has decided that the Turbine Area Mitigation Option does amount to a material change but not to the point of constituting a new application. It can therefore be included in the examination as part of the application (para 1.1). In their letter, the ExA have provided a substantial amount of information to explain their decision to include the Mitigation Option as part of the application. Paragraph 5 explains the ExA?s reasoning, and whilst not specifically addressing your question I believe that this paragraph does clearly explain the ExA?s reasoning in this case.

Regarding your second question, the Turbine Area Mitigation Option will be considered within the existing application. To clarify, the Mitigation Option does not replace the original application, as explained in paragraph 3.5 of the procedural decision. DCLG Guidance allows for more than one option in the draft Order and for the option to be explored as part of the examination. This is what the ExA have decided to do.

Mike Sanderson

I am writing to express very considerable surprise that ExA has not invited Challenge Navitus, PCBA or their acoustic consultants to answer the questions set out in the Noise, Vibration and EMF section (section 3).

This is despite the fact that it is due to our work that the developer has had to admit his first claims about noise impact were understated and completely wrong. More progress was made in this direction when John Yelland and Andrew Langley conducted the cross examination at the ISH. Without straying too far into the noise objection, suffice it to say that they have disproved the developer's claim that the Noise Regulations would not be infringed.

None of the invitees has the expertise in acoustics which we are fortunate to possess at CN and PCBA, although the other bodies do of course have an operational interest in this serious matter.

Having regard therefore to the depth of criticism of the Applicant?s noise analysis, it is surprising that ExA do not want to investigate in detail. The matter will again be referred to at the Compulsory Acquisition ISH and we should have thought, it was of great concern to ExA.

As you make clear on the documentation, anyone can take it upon themselves to answer a question despite not being so invited and that is planned to take place in this case. Nonetheless, it would be helpful to know please just why there was no invitation.
Thank you for your email. The questions are designed to seek information on a number of points including those of a technical nature, updates on positions between parties and to seek clarification and views of the persons or organisations to which they are directed. The ExA have identified the persons that they feel can best answer these questions. As you have noted you can of course, if you feel it is appropriate, supply an answer to the questions.

You will also have noted that deadline VII provides an opportunity for IPs Comments on responses to ExA?s second written questions.

PCBA - Bill Hoodless

Please could you clarify whether the application now contains both the original turbine area and the turbine area mitigation option, or just the latter. If it contains both options, will the panel be recommending just one of them to the Secretary of State?
As explained in the procedural decision letter regarding the Mitigation Option issued on 13 January 2015, the Examining Authority (ExA) has decided that the Turbine Area Mitigation Option does amount to a material change but not to the point of constituting a new application. It can therefore be included in the examination as part of the application (para 1.1).

The Mitigation Option therefore will be considered within the existing application. To clarify, the Mitigation Option does not replace the original application, as explained in paragraph 3.5 of the procedural decision. DCLG Guidance allows for more than one option in the draft Order and for the option to be explored as part of the examination. This is what the ExA have decided to do.

Angus Walker

Query regarding the Mitigation Option submitted by the applicant as Appendix 43 to their Deadline III submission.
As part of the applicants submissions for Deadline III they submitted a number of appendices. One of the appendices (Appendix 43) referred to a ?Mitigation Option?. As you will see from our letter of 21 November 2014, a change to the timetable was made to address the mitigation option put forward by the applicant in Appendix 43 of their Deadline III submission.

The Examining Authority is likely to issue a procedural decision this week, addressing the status of the mitigation option and which may address some of your questions. Currently the application that is being examined is the original application submitted by the applicant.

As you are a registered Interested Party you should receive letters from us. When we issue a letter it will appear on the front ?Overview? page of the Navitus Bay project page on our website. Here is a link to the latest letter for your information: [attachment 1] (copy and paste this into your browser).

Please check our website regularly to ensure that you are aware of the latest documents accepted into the examination as well as any updates. I appreciate that there is a lot to look at on our website ? the ?Overview? tab on the Navitus project page is where you will see headline updates of recently published documents. If you go into the ?Documents? tab you will see all documents accepted into the examination ? use the filter box on this page to put in key words to search that way.

Toby Parker

See attached letter
See attached response letter

Christchurch and East Dorset C - David Barnes

See attached letter
Thank you for your letter dated the 3 December addressed to Mrs Wood. The Examining authority will not enter into correspondence directly with an interested party therefore I am replying to the points raised.

The Inspectorate did not issue any section 51 advice to the developer in respect of the submission of the mitigation option and the details of the option were not discussed with the developer. The phone call that Mr Houghton refers to is a call between the project manager for Navitus Bay limited and the PINS case manager, where PINS was alerted to the fact that documentation would be submitted as part of deadline III that would include, amongst other things, details of a potential mitigation option. A discussion took place on how the documents would be best practically delivered (i.e. by email and/or physical mail and the timing for PINS to accept those documents).

Discussions regarding the details of the mitigation option have not been held with the developer outside of the public arena of hearings or the written examination process.

You are correct that the date of the 14 January does not appear in our letter of the 21 November or in the revised timetable on the PINS website. This is because the Examining authority aims to make the decision on or by the 14 January, however the examining authority can make a procedural decision at any time before or after the preliminary meeting, as stated in s89(3) of the Planning Act 2008. Rule 9 of The Infrastructure Planning (Examination Procedure) Rules 2010 states that ?As soon as practicable after making any procedural decision, the Examining authority must notify all interested parties of the decision.?

You are correct the revised timetable regarding the issue specific hearing on the 22 January as shown on the PINS website was inconsistent with our letter of the 21 November in that the words ?Date reserved? had been omitted from the description. This has now been amended.

No other changes to the timetable have been made since 18 November 2014 and as detailed in our letter of the 21 November. I can also confirm that no discussions between the Developer or its agents with PINS regarding details of any options or evidence, other than those of a practical nature on the best way to deliver documents, has taken place between outside the public arena of the hearings or written communications.

Philip Collins

1. IPs have received the PINS? letter of 21 November twice. Is the second letter a duplicate of the first please?
2. During the discussion towards the end of the hearing on Thursday 20 November, in response to a request for clarification from our Chair, Roy Pointer, I understood that there were two alternative answers that could be given in relation to the status of Appendix 43. Either it amounted to a new project that cannot be considered now, or alternatively, it could be considered as part of the existing Application. I felt this was clear and told Roy it was helpful to have these two alternatives. I understood that the ExA?s decision in the matter would be announced on 14 January 2015. But the letter of 21 November (bottom bullet on first page) gives three alternatives which appear to overlap. This is because the first ?alternative? does not distinguish between a material change which may be considered acceptable (which we believe needs a basis in new technology) and one which is not acceptable (as we believe to be the case here where there is no new technology). Both cases are included under the first ?alternative.? The second alternative is clear. The third ?alternative? appears to incorporate a technology-based material change which would enable it to be considered under the existing Application. Hence, we do not have clear alternatives; please can you clarify?
3. Once you have clarified the alternatives, we still need to advise our residents? associations and it would be necessary to know the implications. For example, am I right in thinking that if ExA decides that Appendix 43 cannot be considered as it would be unlawful, does that mean that the Examination would proceed as if Appendix 43 had never been put forward? If, on the other hand, ExA decides it falls to be considered as part of the existing Application, what difference does that make as to what happens during the remainder of the process? This is particularly important in relation to timescale and the need for adequate consultation and opportunity for IPs (and others) to make representations. This would be critical for consultees? production of new visuals and research on other technical issues such as noise impact.
4. The letter makes no mention of the ExA?s planned decision date of 14 January 2015 mentioned by the ExA Chair. Is this still in place?
Point 1 ? IPs may have received the letter twice, we became aware of some possible IT issues and therefore resent the email as a ?belt and braces? approach to ensure delivery. Therefore, the second was a duplicate of the first.

Points 2, 3 and 4? The ExA aims to make its decision on 14 January. The decision that needs to be taken is whether the ExA considers that the mitigation option given in appendix 43 amounts to a change that would materially alter the application so that it falls outside the parameters of the application accepted for Examination and outside the ES envelope assessed as part of that application. To help the ExA to decide this you are being asked to provide:

Your views on whether the mitigation option set out in Appendix 43 amounts to a material change of such a degree that it constitutes a new project or whether it can still be considered under the existing application.

And

Your responses to documents submitted at deadline IV ? this means that you should prepare any comments you have on the documents submitted to date in respect of appendix 43, and also comments on any new issues you feel are raised by any documents submitted for deadline IV on 11 December.

The deadline for the above responses is the 7 January 2015. Any letter sent out on the 14 January will give the ExA?s procedural decision and will seek to explain how the examination may proceed following the decision made.

PCBA - Bill Hoodless

I am writing following the recent meeting of PCBA Steering Group after the end of the two weeks of Issue Specific Hearings. Colleagues have become increasingly concerned at the way in which the innocuous sounding Appendix 43 was being dealt with. I refer particularly to the answer given to my question at the ISH on Thursday 27 November regarding Community Consultation on such a major departure from what the general public had seen prior to the Application. You will recall that I was told that the vehicle for this activity was the PINS web site. The question, therefore, arises as to how people are supposed to be aware of this new proposal; the average member of the public is hardly scanning the web site casually. Even if they did, they are not likely to stumble on App 43, save by accident.

Your letter to IPs dated 21 November does not (eg. as a banner headline) draw the reader?s attention to the significant new material in the process; I expect most IPs saw no need to act further having already sent in their written representations. Most were not ?invitees? to the Hearings and so would not have felt the need for specific action. We are all now faced with having to await the Applicant submitting materials by 11 December and then having only until 7 January (including the period of the Christmas and New Year holidays) to comment. The only ?consultation? envisaged in this period appears to be with primary stakeholders, whereas the original proposals were the subject of two years of public engagement, exhibitions, meetings and the like.

We believe this new material should be the subject of a proper round of local publicity and consultation so that feedback can be obtained as to whether this proposal should be allowed to be considered by ExA under the original Application and, if so, its merits. We cannot simply rely on the odd report in the local paper or broadcast media. These have not conveyed to IPs nor the general public that they still have a role in contributing to the decision making process.

I should be glad to have the view of the ExA on the position. You will know that the PCBA opinion is set out in detail in our letter to you dated 10 November 2014.
The documents relating to appendix 43 were submitted to PINS as part of Deadline III and as such were published on our website and made publicly available. The timetable has been varied to ensure that interested parties have had an opportunity to comment on the documents (our letter of the 21 November). Whilst this letter did not draw the reader?s attention to the specifics or volume of the documentation it does specifically refer to appendix 43. This letter was sent to all interested parties. This is the way the ExA is seeking to obtain feedback as to whether this proposal should be considered under the original Application and, if so, its merits.

Regarding the general public having a role in contributing to the decision making process, they may write to the Planning Inspectorate, but if they have not registered as an interested party, there is no guarantee that the representation will be taken into account. Whilst the Examining Authority does have discretion to accept written representations even from people who have not submitted a valid relevant representation, this should not be relied upon because people who are not interested parties have no legal entitlement to participate.

Those who have not registered as an interested party, can also consider grouping together with an individual or organisation which has already registered and become an interested party, where they have similar views to their own, so that they can express their views on their behalf.
If members of the public choose to do this, they may also wish to ask this person or organisation to keep them informed regarding the progress of the application, as the Examining Authority only writes directly to interested parties about the progress of the application.

PCBA - Roy Pointer

How can I make a personal submission to the Navitus Bay enquiry?
It is not now possible for you to register as an interested party in the process. The deadline for registering was 23 June 2014. Although you are not an interested party, you can send us a written submission and request that the Examining Authority accepts it. It will be for the Examining Authority to decide whether to do so. I attach a pdf of Advice Note 8.5 (which is one of several useful advice notes that you will find on our website) which gives you more information and should assist you.

Please follow the link to our website for further information regarding the examination timetable: [attachment 1]

W D Frewing

Query regarding how and when to submit a document into the examination that is not intended to be a new representation, but is additional information to assist the ExA.
Thank you for your email and I note that you state that this is not intended as a new representation and that it is intended to provide to the Examining Authority (ExA) certain evidence and information. I am writing to you to offer the following advice under section 51 of the Planning Act 2008 (?PA2008?).

Any evidence or information that interested parties wish to be put before the ExA must be submitted as a written or oral representation (ss 90 and 91 of PA2008 and Rule 10 and 14 the Infrastructure Planning (Examination Procedure) Rules 2010) (?the Procedure Rules?). Under rule 21 of the Procedure Rules, the inspectorate will make available copies of representations received.

I therefore ask you to clarify the intended status of your submission. It is not clear if it is intended to be a submission in relation to deadline 3 of the timetable as:
? a response to comments on relevant representations;
? a comment on written representations;
? a comment on responses to the ExA?s written questions; or
? a comment on a Local Impact Report.

If you feel it falls under one of these categories I can ask the ExA to consider accepting your submission as a late submission for that deadline.

If the submission is intended to be a written summary of any oral case you intend to put at the hearings (should the ExA seek views on the subject), I can arrange for this to be published and put before the ExA.

If the submission is not in relation to any of the above I can ask the ExA to consider using their discretion to accept the submission into the examination. I would however ask that if you have any other evidence that you wish to submit that this is submitted in writing at a relevant deadline.

I would be grateful if you could confirm your intended approach.

John Searle

I would like to ask a few questions about the Navitus Bay Examination.
1) When making submissions for the 5th November deadline is it acceptable to mix the category of submission within one document e.g. comment on response the Ex A question and comment on response to WR's etc. or is it best to send them as 2 separate documents?
2) Have all the submissions for the 20th October deadline now been posted on the website?
3) Will it be possible to present visual material e.g. projected photographs from a p.c. at the specific hearing on landscape etc. and if so what facilities will be available?
With regards to the recent Deadline II, I can confirm that all submissions have now been published on our website. As for Deadline III, you are welcome to make your submissions as one document or as two separate documents. Whichever way you find easiest.

You also query whether you can make visual representations at an issue-specific hearing. At the forthcoming issue-specific hearings each interested party is entitled to make oral representations about the relevant issue, subject to the Examining Authority?s powers of control over the conduct of the hearing (s91(3) of the Planning Act 2008). Furthermore, under section 94 of the Act, it is for the Examining Authority to determine how hearings are to be conducted. Ultimately it is for the Examining Authority to decide, in light of the particular circumstances of the case, which matters it wishes to receive oral (or in this case visual) evidence on. These may or may not be issues that you wish to speak on or present visual information.

In this case the Examining Authority is expected to make use of its powers of control over the conduct of hearings. Accordingly the issue-specific hearings will be largely restricted to specific matters identified by the Examining Authority and considered necessary to explore with the applicant and invited attendees only. This approach is being adopted to ensure that the hearings are carried out as efficiently as possible, whilst remaining fair to all parties and thorough in their examination of evidence.
Current PINS guidance is that PINS will only accept visual evidence that can be made accessible to the public and where it does not clearly identify people without their consent. If we accept visual evidence into the examination then it must be published on the website and it must be available to the public. For this reason any visual submission which exceeds the publishable file size would not be accepted.
PINS has an adopted policy whereby any photo?s which clearly identify a person is redacted. This policy can equally apply to video?s which clearly identify people and therefore cannot be accepted into examination without consent of the person in the video or redaction of identifying features. Therefore PINS will only accept video?s that can be made accessible to the public and where it does not clearly identify people without their consent.
PINS cannot be responsible for the equipment that is being used to view the data. Should you wish to show visual evidence at any hearing then PINS will not be responsible for the supply or setting up of any equipment required to view the evidence. Please note that if the ExA does give you the opportunity to present your visual evidence, then you will be required to submit this for Deadline IV of the timetable.

Graeme Crouch

There has been an exceptional response to Deadline II, not least from the applicant, including new information that we would have expected to have been available pre-application when there was more time for review.

Because of the bulk of the data, some of it has only just been published on your website (e.g. the Applicant's Written Response to Deadline II of 297 pages on 27/10/14, which includes their answers to the ExA's questions). Even with our best efforts, there is not time to make a reasonable assessment of all this new information and respond by 5th November. Therefore, we request an extension of at least five days to Deadline III. This would help us (and probably others) to contribute effectively to the progress of the examination.
Given the amount of material we are expecting throughout the examination, it is felt that it would not be prudent to allow any slippage at this stage therefore the Panel is not prepared to extend deadline 3. Furthermore, the agenda for the forthcoming hearings is to be issued by 10 November which will be based on the material submitted to date.

You are asked to submit any comments and representations that you have prepared by the deadline date. However, at the hearings interested parties can explain the areas they were unable to respond to, due to lack of time. There is the opportunity of deadline 4 (11 December) to add to further comments.

Challenge Navitus - Andrew Langley

On behalf of PCBA I am writing to note the substantial volume of material that you have received by way of Written Reps. Our early review suggests this is an unprecedented volume with substantial packages from the Applicant, some of which, in our opinion, is new material that should have been available as part of Community Consultation. Some material did not get to the web until 27 October which makes it almost impossible for respondents to assimilate and make sensible comment.

Accordingly I should be glad if you would request on our behalf that the deadline for comment on WRs be extended by one week to ensure that ExA get the best quality comment material on which to continue its Examination.
Given the amount of material we are expecting throughout the examination, it is felt that it would not be prudent to allow any slippage at this stage, therefore the Panel is not prepared to extend the deadline. Furthermore, the agenda for the forthcoming hearings is to be issued by 10 November which will be based on the material submitted to date.

You are asked to submit any comments and representations that you have prepared by the deadline date. However, at the hearings interested parties can explain the areas they were unable to respond to, due to lack of time. There is the opportunity of deadline 4 (11 December) to add to further comments.

PCBA - Roy Pointer

When the Jurassic Coast was given World Heritage status, by UNESCO the UK govt was charged with ensuring its status in perpetuity against massive industrial development. The proposed Wind Farm in Poole Bay, Dorset, with a minimum of 194-plus towers and turbines, 200m tall, if allowed to proceed will totally wreck the superb landscape/seascape of the Jurassic Coast. And all towns along the coast. UNESCO has stated that if the development proceeds, it will withdraw its natural World Heritage status, the only one in Britain, on a par with the Grand Canyon, USA. All local organisations and town councils are against it and it will ruin one of the most protected coastal landscapes of Durlston which is an AONB plus many SSI's and a vast area of Purbeck and coastal landscape which visitors come from far and wide to enjoy. I believe the British government is not doing enough to protect this area of AONB (Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty), and is reneging on its duty to protect this area.
Thank you for your email to the Prime Minister, the Rt Hon David Cameron of 15
October 2014 in relation to the proposed Navitus Bay Wind Park.

Your letter has been passed to me as it relates to a proposed nationally significant
infrastructure project (NSIP). I have been asked to reply as the Planning Inspectorate,
as the agency of the Department for Communities and Local Government responsible
for examining NSIP applications for development consent under the Planning Act 2008
(the PA2008).

Offshore generating stations in England or Wales that have a capacity of more than
100 megawatts are classified as NSIPs. Therefore, for any development of this nature
and above the threshold an applicant is obliged to submit an application to the
relevant Secretary of State for development consent under the PA2008. As you are
aware this application was submitted to the Planning Inspectorate on 10 April 2014,
and was then subsequently accepted for examination on 8 May 2014.

I note that you made a ?relevant representation? within the correct period which closed
on 23 June 2014, and you are therefore registered as an ?interested party? in the
examination. This gives members of the public an opportunity to participate in the
examination of the application.

The Secretary of State appointed the ?Examining Authority? to examine the
application. As you may be aware the Examining Authority reviewed the application
and all relevant representations and identified the principal issues for examination.
Following this, the Planning Inspectorate invited all interested parties to attend a
meeting, known as the Preliminary Meeting, which was held to consider how the
application will be examined. The meeting included questions and answers about the key issues that will need to be examined, the timetable for the examination and other
important organisational details.

The Examining Authority will now investigate the merits of the application during the
examination stage which started the day after the close of the Preliminary Meeting.
The meeting was held on 11 September 2014, at Tregonwell Hall, Bournemouth
International Centre, Exeter Road, Bournemouth, BH2 5BH.

The Examining Authority has a statutory duty to complete its examination within 6
months. The examination is a formal legal process, during which careful consideration
is given to all the important and relevant matters, including the representations of all
interested parties, any evidence submitted and answers provided to questions set out
in writing and explained at hearings.

Within three months of the six month examination period closing the Examining
Authority must prepare a report on the application to the relevant Secretary of State,
in this case the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change. The report will
include a recommendation. The Secretary of State then has a further three months to
make the decision on whether to grant or refuse development consent.

The Planning Inspectorate has published a series of advice notes which explain the
process, including information on how to get involved. These are available at the
following web address: [attachment 1]
advice-notes You may wish to sign up on this webpage to receive email alerts
on the progress of the project.

Gerald Austin

Could you clarify 3 points for me:
a) I am already registered as an Interested Party. Does this allow me to attend the hearing scheduled for 22 January 2015 on Compulsory Acquisition ?

b) If I am intending to seek compensation under the Compulsory Purchase Code is it necessary for me
to register this in some way ?

c) As a joint owner of the property is it necessary for my wife to register as an IP in order to claim compensation?
Your registration allows you to attend the hearing and your request has been noted

The examining authority when making its recommendation to the Secretary of State will make a recommendation about whether or not to grant Compulsory Acquisition powers. The Examining authority will have looked at all the evidence provided in making such a decision. The following guidance may be useful to you [attachment 1] . However we suggest that you seek your own professional or legal advice about how compensation works. Information is also publicly available, for example [attachment 2]

Entitlement to compensation, if the DCO is made and the applicant exercises the Compulsory Acquisition powers isn't dependent on registration as an IP

John Searle

Query regarding the Issue Specific Hearings and how people can request to attend or speak. Ms Corrie also queried how people would know that they needed to submit a Written Representation or make a request to speak or attend a hearing.
Anyone who wishes to attend or speak at a hearing will need to email with their request, however it is ultimately the decision of the Examining Authority. The timetable for the examination was sent to Interested Parties and has also been published on our website. The Planning Inspectorate notifies Interested Parties of hearing dates ahead of the hearings, explaining that those who wish to attend or speak must contact the Case Team at the Planning Inspectorate to let them know.

The process is predominantly a written process and it is important that Interested Parties do submit Written Representations. This is clearly shown on the examination timetable. The Examining Authority have re-iterated this recently at both the Preliminary Meeting and the Open-floor hearing.

Bournemouth Borough Council - Claire Corrie

Query relating to a newspaper article.
Thank you for your email forwarding a copy of an article recently published in the Daily Echo.

The comments made by Mr McNamara in the article form his own viewpoint, and are therefore not for the Planning Inspectorate to comment on. However, the article is factually incorrect on a couple of points which, given that you have emailed with regards to the article, I would like to take the opportunity to clarify for you now.

Firstly, the article refers to an 'Assessor'. To clarify, an Assessor has not been appointed in relation to this application. The Secretary of State has appointed a panel of Inspectors to act as the Examining Authority. The Examining Authority will make a recommendation to the Secretary of State, and it is then for the Secretary of State to determine the application. An Assessor is not the same as the Examining Authority.

Secondly, the deadline of 6 October is referred to in the article. There is a deadline of 6 October, but this deadline is for the submission of a variety of documents including Local Impact Reports and Statements of Common Ground. The timetable which explains what we expect to be submitted by this deadline, was sent to you on 22 September and has also been published on our website. Please refer to the timetable for information relating to deadlines and what is expected at each deadline.

P Dewhurst

Query regarding how to become an Interested Party.
Dear Ms Kindred,

Further to our recent telephone conversation, please follow the attached link to view the Navitus Bay project page of the Planning Inspectorate website: [attachment 1]

As I confirmed to you on the phone, it is not now possible for you to register as an Interested Party in the process. The deadline for registering was 23 June 2014. Although you are not an Interested Party, you can send us a written submission and request that the Examining Authority accepts it. It will be for the Examining Authority to decide whether to do so. I attach a pdf of Advice Note 8.5 (which is one of several useful advice notes that you will find on our website) which gives you more information and should assist you.

Clarissa Kindred

We have received from the Applicant a draft SOCG that is under consideration. Since there is the question of compulsory powers to consider, am I right in thinking this would be a suitable matter to try and agree within the SOCG please? It is certainly something which is expected to feature amongst our objections.
Annex H of the Rule 6 letter (available here [attachment 1] ) sets out the general approach to the preparation of Statements of Common Ground (SOCG), and includes reference to relevant guidance [attachment 2] (paragraphs 57-62 of this document). This makes it clear that SOCGs should also set out areas where agreement has not been reached. Other than this, I cannot comment on the specific content of the SOCG, which is to be agreed between the relevant parties. I am therefore unable to offer any advice on the question of compulsory powers and if they should form part of the SOCG. However, if relevant representations by affected landowners are made about the use of compulsory acquisition powers, a hearing will be held to address this issue, and Thursday 22 January 2015 has been provisionally reserved for this. You should seek your own legal advice on any issues that you may have regarding compulsory acquisition.

Bill Hoodless

Query relating to the use of Section 106 Agreements.
We note your comments and confirm that it is for the Examining Authority to consider the timetable for the provision of any development consent obligation (under s106 Town and Country Planning Act 1990) which might be required.

Alan Rayner

PCBA has reviewed its approach to the Examination in light of your procedure letter dated 31 July. In that letter you request submissions before 1 September and I am sending you this note to cover the requests of PCBA; I should be glad if you would let me have a reply picking up each point in turn:
1 At the Preliminary Meeting (PM) we shall be requesting the opportunity to speak at Open and Issues Specific hearings to emphasise the key point or points in each of our 15 objections.
2 Whilst these verbal submissions would be brief, we should like more time to be available to our expert witnesses: Noise (J Yelland), Onshore cable route (J Sharpe), Planning Failure (P Bratby) and Bournemouth Sense of Place (J Soane).
3 We shall need the opportunity at the PM to explain that our Planning Failure objection (to be addressed at an Open Floor hearing), is not questioning the merits of planning policy but rather the Project?s failure to comply with that policy.
4 We shall need the opportunity at the PM to confirm that the Open Floor hearing is an appropriate forum for five of our objections: Planning Failure, Public Opposition, Consultation Adequacy, Distance Offshore and possibly Onshore Works although we acknowledge that this issue may be covered in an Issue Specific hearing. In these cases, we would propose a brief context overview followed by our specialists speaking to each of the objections.
5 Please would you confirm either prior to, or at the PM that Powerpoint slides may be used by prior arrangement with your staff team. We would provide the slides prior to the relevant meeting and I should appreciate knowing any time or slide number limits that would apply.
6 Referring to 1 ? 5 above, please confirm that these points can be dealt with under the Procedures part of the Agenda for the PM immediately after the Welcome and Introductions, or alternatively where they will be covered.
7 We will be putting forward at the PM that there should be another day allocated later in the timetable to ?Wash up? the results of matters raised in Open Floor and Issue Specific hearings since we already know that many representations will concern missing or inadequate information needed from the developer, which information will become available in time for such a ?Wash up? hearing.
8 In view of the Examination timetable being largely confined to the winter period, we would like to suggest that an extra accompanied site visit be inserted in September this year so that the ExA is apprised of conditions nearer to the summer visitor period.
9 Generally, we would request the opportunity for each of our specialists and experts to contribute to the examination of each of our objections at the appropriate hearings. Their names are given in the copy section of the address box to this note. The thrust of their contributions is covered in the individual Written Representations and, for those issues to be raised at the Open Floor hearing, I can arrange for you to have a summary for each prior to that meeting.
10 We are planning to establish a realistic speaking plan for all our objections; if it would help you allocate time slots etc., I can arrange to let you have that for the benefit of the ExA.
11 We consider that there is a major procedural problem for the ExA concerning the treatment of evidence on visuals. Official guidelines have been improved recently and now endorse the best practice method preferred throughout the process thus far by both Challenge Navitus and PCBA. However, NBDL declined to use best practice and has only used the industry practice method which greatly underplays the visual impact of the proposal. We suggest the most appropriate way to deal with this would be for the developer to produce images now on the best practice method and then carry out a fresh consultation. In that way, the public will not have been misled, as we contend they have been to date. We have in mind suggesting this as the right process at the PM because realistic images of the wind farm are extremely important. Kindly advise as appropriate.
12 We need to inform you now that we are planning to ask the ExA for a declaration at the PM that Renewables Policy will not override Net Scheme Merits.
May I also draw you attention to advice note 8.4 ?Influencing how an application will be examined ? the Preliminary Meeting? [attachment 1]. Please see comments below to address each of your points in turn:
1 - There is no requirement for you to request the opportunity to speak at the open floor and issue specific hearings at the PM. I have noted your requests and made the ExA aware of your request. The PM will discuss only the procedural running of the examination and will not discuss any merits of the case and will not deal with any specific points of any objections.
2 - The PM will discuss only procedural running of the examination and is not the forum for expert witnesses to give verbal submissions. If you wish for any of your experts to be heard at an issue specific hearings your request will be noted prior to the relevant meeting. It is for the examining authority to decide who can speak at hearings and I refer you in particular to The Infrastructure Planning (Examination Procedure) Rules 2010.
14. (1) The Examining authority shall preside at any hearing and shall determine the procedure at the hearing.
(2) At the start of the hearing the Examining authority shall identify the matters to be considered at the hearing, and any matters on which the Examining authority requires further explanation from?
(a)the persons entitled under section 91(3), 92(4) or 93(3) to make oral representations; or .
(b)the persons permitted under rule 14(10) to make oral representations. .
(3) Any oral representations must be based on either the relevant or written representations made by the person by whom or on whose behalf the oral representations are made; and where those relevant or written representations exceed 1500 words the person by whom they were made must prepare a summary.
(4) Without prejudice to the Examining authority?s discretion as to the conduct of the hearing, nothing in paragraph (2) or (3) precludes a person from referring to issues which they consider relevant to the examination of an application or specified matters but which are not issues identified by the Examining authority pursuant to paragraph (2) or included in their relevant or written representations.?
3 - Again the PM is not the correct forum to explain your objection, this should be done in your written representation and at the open floor hearing. We have noted your request to speak on this matter at the open floor hearing.
4 - The ExA will address the open floor hearing at the PM. There is no need to provide an overview of the context of the objections at the PM, but an overview prior to the open floor hearing will be helpful and will help the ExA decide the time allocated.
5 - This will be discussed at the PM and if it is decided that PowerPoint presentations are to be used, providing the slides prior to the relevant meeting will be welcomed. Time limits and slide limits can be discussed prior to any meetings.
6 - The ExA may refer to your email at the PM and is likely that the points will be covered at the appropriate bullet point under the heading ?Draft timetable for the examination?, and the heading ?Hearings and accompanied site visit?.
7 - Noted, the ExA will discuss this at the PM.
8 - Noted, the ExA will discuss this at the PM.
9 - Noted and a summary prior to any meeting will be useful. Please note that any summary received will be published on our website.
10 - Noted and again this will be useful and any submission to us will be published on our website.
11 - You should cover this point in written submission that you submit to us at the appropriate deadline. It is for the ExA to decide the appropriate way to deal with the points you raise.
12 - The ExA will not make any declarations at the PM and it is important to note that the ExA makes a recommendation to the Secretary of State for climate change and it is ultimately the Secretary of States that makes the decision in respect of the application.

Roy Pointer

I have noted in your letter of 31st July that the Panel has decided to accept the submission of the technical annexes and has set a deadline of 6th October
Would you please advise if within these submissions there will be the additional modelling of the bird species Dark Bellied Brent Goose and Bar Tailed Godwit as promised to be supplied at Page 108, section 12.5.106 of Chapter 12 Offshore Ornithology Volume B-Document 6.1.2.12. It is stated that this information will be provided following the submission of the Environmental Statement but prior to the examination phase for the project.
At section 12.5.107 it is stated that further estimation of numbers of Common Ten, Sandwich Tern, Arctic Skua and Great Skua will also be provided.
The documents referred to in our letter of 31 July are the annexes to Chapter 16, as detailed only and do not include a request for the additional modelling you mention.

Your comments regarding the ornithological data have been brought to the attention of the Panel, and should they feel that the data is required they may ask the applicant to clarify the status of the data. Should it be submitted to us during the examination then it will be published on our website.

Meanwhile if you feel that you require the information prior to the examination you should contact the developer to request it.

Peter Fenning

As we mentioned at our previous meeting, we will have video evidence to submit to the ExA during the Navitus Bay examination. This will require some fairly standard hardware, but it must be "High Definition" i.e. with a native resolution of at least 1920x1080 pixels. An HD TV or large HD monitor is suitable for this. Night-time video simulations are difficult to display realistically and may require specific display types and dark viewing conditions to be representative but they are much more realistic than a static print viewed in daylight.

We are wondering how to ensure that the ExA has an adequate opportunity to view this evidence in appropriate conditions and with the correct equipment.

Please would you advise how we should proceed.
In accordance with ERP Rule 21 any written reps, relevant reps or documents must be made available to all interested parties. A written representation is defined as full particulars of a case which includes any evidence or supporting documents. As with a photograph, a video is capable of falling within the definition of a written representation.

Current PINS guidance is that PINS will only accept video evidence that can be made accessible to the public and where it does not clearly identify people without their consent.

If we accept a video evidence into the examination then it must be published on the website and it must be available to the public. For this reason any video which exceeds the publishable file size would not be accepted and equally any video with a link to an external weblink that PINS cannot ensure would always be accessible, would also not be accepted.

PINS has an adopted policy whereby any photo?s which clearly identify a person is redacted. This policy can equally apply to video?s which clearly identify people and therefore cannot be accepted into examination without consent of the person in the video or redaction of identifying features. Therefore for PINS will only accept video?s that can be made accessible to the public and where it does not clearly identify people without their consent.

PINS cannot be responsible for the equipment that is being used to view the data, once published and cannot guarantee that it will be ?High Definition?. Should you wish to show the video at any hearing then PINS will not be responsible for the supply or setting up of any equipment required to view the video.

Challenge Navitus - Andrew Langley

Has information about this project been put on Face Book which would inform young 18 to 30 year old adults
The Planning Inspectorate maintains the national infrastructure planning website such that all information pertaining to applications for NSIPs is open and accessible to the public. It is the developer's responsibility to undertake extensive consultations locally before the application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate. That includes holding events for local people to understand more about the proposal. The Planning Inspectorate does not maintain a Facebook page but we use Twitter to provide updates on key stages of NSIPs (see [attachment 1] ). I also draw your attention to the guidance on how to have your say on a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project available on Youtube [attachment 2].

Donia Gray

In accordance with the requirements of the relevant legislation NFDC have worked hard with NBDL and others, notably the other landside LPA?s, to maximise common ground and deliver a mechanism that will ensure adequate resources are in place to manage the landside works if the project proceeds. These will require Section 106 Agreement(s) and/or Unilateral Undertakings and a PPA.

The Council?s likely position in terms of its SoCG and the LIR is dependant in a large part on the above being in place. What mechanism will there be during the decision-making process to ensure this is the case, and at what session or sessions would the Panel suggest such matters are considered?
There is no mechanism within the PA2008, and the examination, which ensures that the agreements such as s106, unilateral undertakings and PPAs are in place. However it is useful for your written representations and your SoCG could detail the stages and agreements that you and the developer have in place or intending to have in place. The Examining Authority may wish to know what progress has been made with any s106 and unilateral undertakings. Copies of any draft documents could be included with your representations or SoCG. It would also assist the Examining Authority if completed undertakings/agreements were to be submitted before the end of the examination. Regarding which sessions that will deal with these matters, I assume that you mean which hearings and it will be for the ExA to decide if the matters require any further clarification and discussion and will issue agendas for hearings accordingly.

New Forest District council - Andrew Herring

Request for submission of the LIR on 10 October rather than the deadline of 6 October as stated in the Rule 6 letter, this is due to timings around committee meetings and availability of key members.
Thank you for bringing to our attention the committee meetings dates and the impact on submission of your LIR. The ExA is aware of the situation and will address this at the preliminary meeting. Whilst I understand that this is after your planning committee date for September, when you suggest a number of key people are unavailable, this is unfortunate but the Examining Authority has already made a procedural decision that the deadline for receipt of the LIR is to be 6th October. It is felt that any change to that deadline is best addressed at the preliminary meeting as The Infrastructure Planning (Examination Procedure) Rules 2010 require this deadline to be included in the timetable which the Examining Authority has to set either at the preliminary meeting itself or as soon as practicable after the end of the meeting(Rule 8(1)).

LIRs are often required early in the examination period and the deadline given for the submission of the LIR following the preliminary meeting is often short. Therefore, you are strongly encouraged to use this period to evaluate the local impacts of the proposal. Local authorities are encouraged to compile the LIR as soon as the application has been accepted formally by the Secretary of State. This approach should enable the LIR to be produced within the deadlines. In practice, local authorities will know about the application some time before it is submitted, through the pre-application consultation carried out by the applicant.

Whilst we have sympathy with the situation it is important to remember that local authorities should prioritise preparation of their LIR irrespective of whether the local authority considers the development would have a positive or negative impact on their area. The local authority will be able to submit a separate written representation if it wishes to express a particular view on whether the application should be granted

Local authorities should ensure any necessary internal authorisation processes are in place to meet the timetable. It is entirely a matter for local authorities to determine whether or not an LIR requires approval by Members and in what form. Can I reiterate that changes to the deadline for submission of LIRs, although discussed at the Preliminary meeting, are not encouraged. If the date remains as detailed in the draft timetable sent with the rule 6 letter, and you do not submit the LIR by the specified date, the ExA need not have regard to it under s104(2) of the PA2008.

New Forest District Council - David Groome

I am now writing as arranged with some queries and requests in order that we can contribute to smooth running of the Examination ?
1. One of the headings in Annex H of the Rule 6 letter for SOCG includes noise. PCBA is prepared to see if there is common ground here but are not included on the list. Kindly advise.
2. We would advise that we would like issue-specific hearings to cover all our objections. Please let me know if you need to know the objection headings.
3. The various PCBA objections to the project do not all obviously fall within the Annex C categories. With the exception mentioned below, do you want me to suggest a number of separate and extra categories, or can we agree under which category each of our objections should fall please? This would be most easily resolved over the phone I think before written confirmation.
4. The exception is this. Since it is so important and a technical-based objection, it would probably be best to have a new category for the failure to comply with planning guidance. To assist your consideration of the request, I would mention that the objection covers the necessary implementation of national planning guidance regarding CO2 emissions and cost/benefit analysis. Kindly confirm that this can be a new category with some time allocated to it at a hearing.
5. For the issue-specific hearings, we consider that some time should be set aside for us to present the key points of certain objections with Powerpoint. The reason is that with the large amount of material to be seen by the ExA, we want to make sure that these key points can be conveyed to the ExA in a way that is hard to do purely in writing. A good example is noise impact.
6. The issue specific hearings in the draft timetable cover a whole range of topics over altogether several days. We would like to be able to comment, generally briefly, on each of our items. Please confirm that this is acceptable and can be incorporated in the process.
7. It would also greatly help to have your advice confirmed please as to the difference between open floor and issue specific hearings, i.e. in how they are run. We can then finally decide whether to attend the mainland open floor hearing in order to make oral representations. In the meantime, please take this email as a request from PCBA for a mainland open floor hearing as per page 4 of Advice Note 4.
8. Please note (and confirm back to me) my request to attend and speak at the Preliminary Meeting and also the open floor hearing for mainland UK, i.e. both personally and on behalf of PCBA.
The points concerning running of the examination will be addressed at the preliminary meeting. However, to enable you to prepare for the examination, I am responding to your email.

It is important to remember that the examination is primarily a written process. The main purpose of hearings is for clarification or elaboration of issues already raised or thought to be of concern to the ExA. Hearings are not the appropriate place to present a party?s full case. For that reason, interested parties are encouraged to engage fully in the written process rather than wait for a particular hearing to influence the proceedings.

Turning to the points in the order set out in your email:

1. The list compiled by the ExA in Annex H of the preliminary meeting letter is not exhaustive or exclusive. If there is scope to find common ground with the applicant on any of the topics listed, the ExA would welcome contributions from any IP to the process of preparing Statements of Common Ground. The applicant should be contacted accordingly. Equally, parties with common interest or objections should give consideration to combining forces in the preparation of Statements of Common Ground, and during the examination process itself. Your comments regarding your willingness to engage in this process has been drawn to the attention of the ExA and will be addressed at the Preliminary Meeting.

2. The ExA has carefully considered the issues raised in the relevant representations, and the material submitted by the applicant to date and having identified the broad areas for consideration it appears probable that these would be covered by one or a number of the likely topics identified for issue specific hearings listed in items 9 and 10 of the draft timetable (Annex D to the preliminary meeting letter). During the examination it remains open to the ExA to decide whether issue specific hearings are necessary, and the topics to be discussed, either to ensure adequate examination of an issue or if an interested party needs to be given a fair chance to put forward their case. Some IPs may find it more useful to attend an open floor hearing to make representations about the application. Hearings are there to build on written representations and on responses to questions put by the ExA.

3. The ExA has carefully considered topics covered in the relevant representations, and has identified a number of topics listed in their initial assessment of principal issues (Annex C to the preliminary meeting letter). It is important to note that this is an initial assessment and it is not a comprehensive or exclusive list of all relevant matters. If you remain uncertain about categorising a particular objection, there is no reason why you cannot expand on the matter in your written representations as a freestanding objection. For this reason alone you may find it more beneficial to attend and answer questions on your representations at an open floor hearing, as opposed to an issue specific hearing.

4. It appears that your concerns about CO2 emissions and cost/benefit assessments could be covered by items 1 and 12 of the principal issues identified in Annex C of the preliminary meeting letter.

5. While in principle there is no objection to a PowerPoint presentation, the ExA remains to be convinced that it is the most effective and/or expeditious use of time at a hearing. The ExA will be relying on the parties? written representations in their consideration of the issues and a PowerPoint presentation may not fully record the points you would wish the ExA to take account of.

6. At an issue specific hearing each interested party is entitled to make oral representations about the issue, subject to the ExA?s powers of control over the conduct of the hearing (s91(3) of the Planning Act 2008). The ?Planning Act 2008: guidance for the examination of applications for development consent for nationally significant infrastructure projects?, published by DCLG provides instructive guidance on procedure at hearings and could help an IP to decide whether to attend the open floor or issue specific hearings.

7. If the above guidance does not answer all of your questions regarding procedure at the hearings, the ExA would clarify the matter at the preliminary meeting.

8. Your request to speak at the preliminary meeting and to attend an open floor hearing at the mainland is noted.

PCBA - Bill Hoodless

Please see attached TO correspondence
Please see attached response

Richard Malton

Query enquiring when further comments will be requested to be submitted
A letter inviting interested parties to the Preliminary Meeting to be held on Thursday 11 September 2014 was issued yesterday, Thursday 31 July 2014. Annex D to this letter set out a draft timetable for the examination, which includes deadlines for parties to submit further written evidence, as well as proposed dates for issue specific hearings.

This draft timetable will be discussed with parties during the Preliminary Meeting. Shortly after the close of the meeting, a further letter will be issued to all interested parties, which will set out the confirmed examination timetable.

The Planning Inspectorate has published a series of Advice Notes; in particular, I draw your attention to Advice Notes 8.1-8.5, which provide guidance and information on the process and how parties can become involved.
[attachment 1]

David Law

In preparation for written representations on the Navitus Bay wind farm, please would you tell me on what media you will accept large data files. It is impractical to email large files, so we may have to resort to DVDs, USB sticks etc. to send you the data. Also, how many copies of any printed data, such as images, are likely to be required?
I refer you to advice note 6 [attachment 1] which details how an application should be submitted to us but the principles it contains also apply to submission a Written representation. I draw your attention in particular to pages 4 and 5, and please note that electronic copies will be uploaded to the National Infrastructure Portal web site, so file sizes should be kept to a maximum of 50MB each.

You should note that any information submitted to us must be made available on our website, if you have drawings or plans we must be able to upload those to our website, and as such would ask that these are submitted in an electronic format.

If you wish to submit hard copies of documents or documents on DVD/USB we will require 5 copies. If you do submit on DVD/USB then the size of each separate file should not exceed 50MB. All submissions including electronic or any hard copies or DVD/USB submissions must be with us by the deadlines set by the ExA in the examination timetable.

Any submission by email must not exceed 12MB, if you wish to send your submission by email we can accept it in several emails but please ensure that the emails are marked clearly.

Challenge Navitus - Andrew Langley

Query relating to the submission of Written Representations, and to how they will know what sort of information to bring to any hearings.
Advised that there is a 12MB size limit on files being submitted to the Planning Inspectorate so that although Written Representations can be submitted as one document, they will need to be broken down into smaller files if the document as a whole is over 12MB.

The Planning Inspectorate advised that agenda's will be issued prior to a hearing, which will identify areas for discussion.

Poole & Christchurch Bay Assoc - Roy Pointer

If the CAA are a statutory consultee does ODPM 01/2003 not apply which would result in Bournemouth Airport being a statutory consultee as that circular took the responsibility for safeguarding from the CAA to local aerodromes?
Following advice from colleagues, I have been informed that ODPM 01/2003 only applies to Town and Country Planning Act (TCPA) applications and not the Planning Act 2008. As local aerodromes are not listed as a prescribed bodies under the PA 2008, this means that Bournemouth Airport are not automatically a statutory party in relation to the Navitus Bay application.

However, the Examining Authority does have the discretion to accept written or oral representations, throughout the examination, from any party.

Bournemouth Airport - Will Fuller

Query relating to whether The Planning Inspectorate can legally request that a Local Authority gets involved in the examination.
Local Authorities are not legally obligated to get involved in the process, so it is not possible for The Planning Inspectorate to insist on their involvement.

Alan Gray

Correspondence relating to the application.
Letter attached.

Ian Mihell

Query relating to the next stages of the process following the close of the relevant representations period, specifically querying at what stage Local Impact Reports and Written Representations will be required from Local Authorities.
After the registration period has closed, the Secretary of State will appoint the Examining Authority.

Once appointed, the Examining Authority has up to 21 days to review the application and all relevant representations and identify the initial principal issues for examination. These are included together with a draft timetable, in a letter inviting all interested parties to attend the Preliminary Meeting, to discuss the procedure to be adopted for the examination.

After the Preliminary Meeting, the Examining Authority will issue a procedural decision to all interested
parties, stating how the application will be examined, including a timetable for the examination. The final timetable will include details about when Written Representations can be made, and when Local Impact Reports are to be submitted.

A Christchurch Resident

Query relating to the next stages of the process following the close of the relevant representations period
After the registration period has closed, the Secretary of State will appoint the Examining Authority.

Once appointed, the Examining Authority has up to 21 days to review the application and all relevant representations and identify the initial principal issues for examination. These are included together with a draft timetable, in a letter inviting all interested parties to attend the Preliminary Meeting, to discuss the procedure to be adopted for the examination.

After the Preliminary Meeting, the Examining Authority will issue a procedural decision to all interested
parties, stating how the application will be examined, including a timetable for the examination.

Susan Massey

Query from West Dorset District Council and Weymouth & Portland Borough Council requesting amendments of relevant representations
Unfortunately, as the deadline for registration closed on Monday 23 June, we are unable to amend your representation, or remove a representation, at this stage.

However, we can advise that you include any corrections or amendments to your relevant representations within your written representations which will be requested during the examination stage.

Joint Councils - Hilary Jordan

Queries regarding the examination process
Interested parties can take part in the examination of the above application for development consent which has been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) and you can become an interested party if you make a relevant representation. Everyone who has registered as an interested party in relation to an application is given the opportunity to provide a more detailed written representation, supported with relevant information and evidence, by the deadline set out in the examination timetable.

The examination is first and foremost a written process, based upon the relevant and written representations of interested parties and the written responses to questions asked by the Examining Authority.

As written evidence is such an important part of the examination, it is essential that you make any points you wish to make in writing, before the deadlines set by the Examining Authority.

The Planning Inspectorate has published a series of advice notes which explain the process, including information on how to get involved. These are available at the following link:

[attachment 1]

I would draw your attention in particular to advice notes 8.1 through 8.5.

Elizabeth Wood

Query regarding submitting comments
Any comments should be submitted on the correct ?relevant representation? form on our website. By completing the relevant representation form you are registering as an ?Interested Party? in the examination of this application. Please follow the link below to the Navitus Bay project page, where there is a link in banner to ?Register online?, which will direct you to the form: [attachment 1].

The deadline for registering is 11.59pm on Monday 23 June 2014.

Before completing the form you may find it useful to read our ?Advice Notes? which you will also find on our website, which explain the Planning Act 2008 process as well as how to complete the relevant representations form. In particular, Advice Note 8.3 provides advice on how to register as an interested party: [attachment 2].

Margaret Manning

On ploughing through the Application it seems there may be information on which a Written Rep. should be made notwithstanding that the topic was not specifically identified and therefore mentioned at the time when Relevant Reps were made. Does the process allow for this to happen at the WR stage?
A written representation is a more detailed representation, supported with relevant information and evidence and is not constrained by the topic you identified in your relevant representations. The purpose of written representations is to provide the Examining Authority with submissions and evidence regarding issues which are important and relevant to the consideration of the application. You may provide as much or as little detail as you wish in your written representation, but a representation is more likely to carry weight with the Examining Authority if it is specific and supported by evidence.

Roy Pointer

Unfortunately, I cannot find annexes A, B or C referenced in the ES Cat 6 Vol B Appendices [6.2.2.16.1......Appendix 16.1.pdf] which is the navigation risk assessment. I presume these annexes should have been contained in this document, but they seem to be missing.. Please could you either point me in the right direction, or ask NBDL to provide them asap?

Also, we have in the past requested data from NBDL that they have refused to supply and that are still not available in the full ES. As an example, we have requested radar track data from the summer navigation survey for a few specified individual days rather than the whole period so that individual tracks can be made out (the scale of NBDL's charts is very small). How should I request that these data are made available so that we can prepare a properly informed response? These and other missing data currently impede independent assessments of parts of the ES.
Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention. It does appear that the annexes you identified have not been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate. We have contacted the applicant and they have confirmed the omission which appears to be due to an administrative oversight. The applicant has sought the Inspectorate?s advice into how the documents can be submitted into the examination. The Inspectorate has given the applicant the following advice which constitutes s51 advice under the Planning Act 2008 (as amended).

The earliest opportunity for submission of the documentation will be the preliminary meeting. The Examining authority will then be able to make a decision on how to proceed.

To enable this information to be brought into the public domain and comply with the Planning Inspectorate's openness policy, we have suggested that the applicant submits a formal request for the Examining authority, when appointed, to accept the information at the preliminary meeting. If the Examining authority decides to accept the information, the information would then be published on the Planning Inspectorate project webpage shortly after the preliminary meeting and considered by the Examining authority as formally submitted. This would afford all interested parties the opportunity to view and comment on the submitted material at the start of the examination period.

If you wish to view the documentation prior to its formal submission into the examination then you should contact the applicant directly to request this.
I cannot comment on your request for the applicant to supply you with radar track data from the summer navigation survey as this is a matter between you and the applicant. An Examining authority, when appointed, will look in detail at the data and representations submitted and if they subsequently feel that the data, as you describe, is required then they can request this from the applicant. If you feel that this would be useful then can draw the Examining authority?s attention to this in your relevant representation, but it is ultimately for the Examining authority to decide if it is required for the purposes of the examination.

Challenge Navitus - Andrew Langley

We understand that three Annexes to the technical appendix of Chapter 16 (Shipping and Navigation), Volume B of the Environmental Statement were erroneously omitted from Navitus Bay's electronic submission. These Annexes are as follows:

? Annex A ? Consequences Assessment Report
? Annex B ? Hazard Log
? Annex C ? Navitus Bay MGN Checklist.

We would be grateful if this omission could be brought to the attention of the Examining Authority when appointed, so that an appropriate opportunity to submit copies of the Annexes can be scheduled into the examination timetable
We note that there are a small number of annexes to the Environmental Statement that were unintentionally omitted from your application to the Planning Inspectorate for the Navitus Bay Wind Park. It is understood that this is the result of an administrative oversight.

As you will be aware, the application is currently in the pre-examination stage and an Examining authority has not yet been appointed to examine the project. We are not able to accept any other documentation until the examination begins and as such, the omitted annexes cannot be entered into the examination at this stage. It is up to you, as the applicant, to decide when to make the Examining authority aware of this information. The Planning Inspectorate however offered the following advice on how to proceed.

The earliest opportunity for submission of the documentation will be the preliminary meeting. The Examining authority will then be able to make a decision on how best to proceed including whether or not to accept the material into the examination.

To enable this information to be brought into the public domain and comply with the Planning Inspectorate's openness policy, I would suggest that you follow the following approach.

You may wish to submit a formal request to the Examining authority, when appointed, to submit the information at the preliminary meeting. When issuing the Rule 6 letter, the Examining authority may make reference to this information and bring these matters to the attention of all interested parties and other persons invited to the preliminary meeting in advance of that meeting.

If the Examining authority decides to accept the information, the information would then be published on the Planning Inspectorate project webpage shortly after the preliminary meeting and considered by the Examining authority as formally submitted. This would afford all interested parties the opportunity to view and comment on the submitted material at the start of the examination period.

Navitus Bay Development Ltd - Helen Cassini

Questions regarding the process for making represenations and queries regarding taking part in the examination process
This application was submitted to the Planning Inspectorate on 10 April 2014. There is a period of 28 days from 10 April to decide whether or not to accept it. This decision should be made not later than Thursday 8 May 2014.

The Secretary of State?s decision as to whether or not to accept an application for examination must accord with the provisions of section 55 of the PA 2008. Amongst other things, the application must be of a standard the Secretary of State considers satisfactory to proceed to examination and the applicant?s pre-application consultation should have complied with the statutory procedure. Please see link to the checklist:

Link to Checklist

Issues related to the merits of an application, such as the location of the proposal, can only be considered during the examination of an application. If an application is accepted for examination, the applicant is, amongst other things, required to publicise the acceptance for at least two successive weeks in a local newspaper. A period for the making of ?relevant representations? is also opened via the Planning Inspectorate?s website.

Interested parties can take part in the examination of the above application for development consent which has been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) and you can become an interested party if you make a relevant representation. Everyone who has registered as an
interested party in relation to an application is given the opportunity to provide a more detailed written representation, supported with relevant information and evidence, by the deadline set out in the examination timetable.
The examination is first and foremost a written process, based upon the relevant and written representations of interested parties and the written responses to questions asked by the Examining Authority.

As written evidence is such an important part of the examination, it is essential that you make any points you wish to make in writing, before the deadlines set by the Examining Authority.

The Planning Inspectorate has published a series of advice notes which explain the process, including information on how to get involved. These are available at the following link:

[attachment 1]

I would draw your attention in particular to advice notes 8.1 through 8.5.

Mark Watts

Please see attached TO correspondance letter
Please see attached response

Colin Merritt

Query regarding the potential date for and preliminary meeting and other queries regarding submission of Local Impact reports and written represenations.
As the representation period is still open the inspectorate has not appointed an examining authority and therfore a date for the Preliminary neeting date has not yet been set.

Relevant local authorities should prioritise preparation of their LIR irrespective of whether the local authority considers the development would have a positive or negative impact on their area. The local authority will be able to submit a separate written representation if it wishes to express a particular view on whether the application should be granted.

Bournemouth Borough Council - Phil Robinson

Correspondence relating to the application.
Letter attached

Alison Hunt

Query regarding the application.
The Secretary of State?s decision as to whether or not to accept an application for examination must accord with the provisions of section 55 of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended). Amongst other things, an application must (where applicable) be accompanied by an Environmental Statement required pursuant to the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2009 (as amended) and must be of a standard the Secretary of State considers satisfactory to proceed to examination.

On consideration of the Navitus Bay Wind Park application, the Planning Inspectorate, on behalf of the Secretary of State, had regard to the matters set out in section 55 of the Planning Act 2008 and concluded that the application (including accompaniments) is of a standard considered to be satisfactory to be accepted for examination.

The completed s55 checklist that details the Planning Inspectorate?s consideration of whether or not to accept the application can be viewed on our website. Issues related to the merits of the application will be considered by an impartial Examining Authority during the examination of the case.

Regarding your query about your interpretation of the law, The Planning Inspectorate is unable to provide you with legal advice. If you feel you require legal advice on any matter I would advise you to seek this independently.

David Gerry

Enquiry about Best Available Technology Not Entailing Excessive Cost (BATNEEC).
"I should be grateful to know where this method or its equivalent for National Infrastructure is covered in the legislation, whether it is in the Planning Act or elsewhere."
The concept of Best Available Technology Not Entailing Excessive Cost (BATNEEC) has been replaced by that of Best Available Techniques (BAT), emanating from Directives of the European Parliament and Council. The most recent relevant Directive being Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 on industrial emissions (integrated pollution prevention and control), more commonly known as the Industrial Emissions Directive 2010.

It should also be noted that the Marine Management Organisation (MMO) is the UK Government?s expert body on marine management and as such it has important roles to play under the 2008 Act regime in relation to proposed NSIPs in the marine area.

Statutory nature conservation agencies are able to advise on current best practice relating to matters within their statutory functions.
The Planning Inspectorate?s Advice Note Eleven ?Working with public bodies in the infrastructure planning process? (including its annexes) summarises the roles of the MMO and of certain other public bodies. Links to Advice Note Eleven (and its annexes) are provided below:

[attachment 1]

[attachment 2]
[attachment 3]
[attachment 4]
[attachment 5]
[attachment 6]

The Planning Inspectorate is unable to provide you with legal advice. If you feel you require legal advice on this or any other matter please seek this independently

Bill Hoodless

Query regarding the application.
This application was accepted for examination by the Planning Inspectorate on behalf of the Secretary of State on 8 May 2014. During the 28 day acceptance period, which began when the application was submitted on 10 April 2014, Planning Inspectorate staff completed the ?Section 55 Acceptance of Application checklist? which sets out the tests and criteria which the application documents must fulfill. During this stage of the process, the application was reviewed under procedural tests as set out by the Planning Act 2008 and its subsidiary legislation; there is no consideration of the merits of the application as these will be examined later in the process.

The s55 checklist was completed by Planning Inspectorate staff, including input from an Examining Inspector who was appointed to advise on the acceptance decision. Based on the findings of the checklist, a recommendation was put forward to the acceptance decision maker who is the Planning Inspectorate?s Director of Major Applications and Plans, on behalf of the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. You can view the s55 checklist for the Navitus Bay Wind Park application on our website by looking under the ?Documents? tab.

David Gerry

Query regarding submitting comments.
Any comments should be submitted on the correct ?relevant representation? form on our website. By completing the relevant representation form you are registering as an ?Interested Party? in the examination of this application.

Before completing the form you may find it useful to read our ?Advice Notes? which you will also find on our website, which explain the Planning Act 2008 process as well as how to complete the relevant representations form.

David Gerry

Query regarding on what grounds it is possible to object to an application, specifically the following points:

1. Is it legitimate, as a ground of objection, to challenge the development's suitability on the basis that it will not in fact make the stated contribution to the reduction of CO2 emissions; that it may not make any contribution at all; and that, in certain circumstances that depend upon the mix of installed capacity supplying the grid and the demand pattern and the weather, it may in fact cause a net increase by substitution in the nation's CO2 emissions?

Comment: There is evidence that wind farms either diminish national CO2 emissions by a very small amount or increase them, depending upon the operating conditions. In my submission, challenging this development on this ground does not question the merits of the Government's policy: but it does question the extent to which the development makes a useful contribution to the achievement of the policy. I should be grateful to know whether the Inspectorate concurs.

2. Is it legitimate, as a ground of objection, to challenge the development's suitability on the basis that the project's unit mitigation cost in US$ per Kelvin of global warming likely to be abated is excessive in comparison with the unit mitigation cost of other actual or potential methods of attempting to abate CO2-driven global warming?

Comment: Again, the challenge is not to the emissions-reduction policy itself but to the cost of this development when compared with the cost of other available methods of reducing the nation's CO2 emissions. If I were to challenge the proposal on this ground, would the inspectorate dismiss the challenge a priori on the basis that it regards this challenge as a challenge to the policy?

3. Is it legitimate, as a ground of objection, to draw attention to misleading statements or diagrams by the developers?

Comment: This question does not relate to "the merits of policy" at all, but to the merits of the application. There are a number of points that appear to be misleading in the application. Am I allowed to challenge the application on this basis?

4. Is it legitimate, as a ground of objection, to raise questions about whether the Government's overarching CO2 reduction objective is still in date and appropriate, given emerging science and data demonstrating - for instance - that the planet has been warming since 1990 at half the rate predicted by the IPCC, that in the past two decades it has not been warming at a rate at all distinguishable from the measurement uncertainties, and that for theoretical as well as empirical reasons it is not now likely to warm at anything like the previously-predicted rates?

Comment: Here, I am indeed proposing to challenge "the merits of policy" - but to do so not on the basis that the policy was incorrect at the time it was made, but on the basis that it has arguably become incorrect since it was made, in the light of the further scientific information and data that were not then available but are available now. One understands that if the facts and data had not changed it would not be appropriate for an objector to second-guess Parliament's policy decisions. However, now that the facts and data have indeed changed, am I debarred from objecting on the ground that the policy is now out of date?

5. Is it legitimate, as a ground of objection, to draw attention to the evidence that the supposed "97% consensus" to the effect that most of the small global wamring since 1950 was manmade is in fact 0.5%, and that Ministers and MPs who have referred to a "97% consensus" may have taken their decisions to enact the current overarching policy objectives on the basis of information such as this that has subsequently been demonstrated in the scientific literature to be false, and which (in this instance) is the subject of criminal enquiries on three continents?

Comment: This is one of the many points at which the facts and data have changed. It was previously thought, and the Secretary of State also said he thought, that there was a 97% consensus that most of the small global warming since 1950 was anthropogenic. However, the facts no longer support any such contention. Is it, therefore, permissible for me to bring these facts to the attention of the Secretary of State via my objection to this proposal, so that whatever the merits of the original policy he can consider whether the policy ought to be persisted in?

6. Is it legitimate, as a ground of objection, to draw attention to the fact that the very large subsidies available for CO2 mitigation constitute in effect a money-laundering scheme for funding major political parties (on all sides of the aisle) by favouring developers who are then expected, via various subterfuges, to recycle a substantial fraction of the subsidies to the parties in donations or in profitable directorships for Members of Parliament?

Comment: If the policy was in substance motivated by the prospect of financial gain for political parties rather than for any discernible environmental objective, is it permissible, in an objection, to indicate the scale of the contributions to political parties from those who have benefited from the very large subsidies that are now available?

In asking these questions of you, I am not asking for any indication of whether the inspectorate thinks my proposed grounds of objection are meritorious in se. I am asking, on purely procedural grounds, which of the grounds of objection identified in the questions would be regarded as a valid ground on which an objection might be made (without regard to the merits of that ground at this stage). I do hope, therefore, that you will be able to give me an early answer on each of these six points.
As you have already made a relevant representation there is no need for you to submit any further representations before the closing date of 23 June 2014 (unless you would like to do so). If you do wish to make further representations by the deadline, these will be added to the representation that you have already made. Please note that as you have already registered as an Interested Party there will be further opportunities to submit information to us once the examination has started.

Regarding the specific questions that you have raised, the Inspectorate cannot advise you further on the content of the points raised. I would advise you to submit all of the comments that you wish to make about the application at this stage so that they can be put before the Examining Authority when appointed. It will be for the Examining Authority to decide what regard to have to the comments submitted, as relevant representations, during examination of the application and when making a recommendation to the Secretary of State who will decide the application.

If you feel you require legal advice on this matter please seek this independently. The Planning Inspectorate is unable to provide you with legal advice or to pre-judge what an Examining Authority?s views may be on any representation received.

I attach links to our Advice Note 8 series which may be of assistance to you:

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

Christopher Monckton

Query regarding content of representation
In the second paragraph of your email you ask whether we ?have the power to require the developers to answer straightforward factual questions from potential objectors about the project? to help you make your objections accurately, and query whether you can send us a sheet of questions for us to ask the applicant. Unfortunately we cannot do this at this stage. It will be for the Examining Authority, once appointed, to ask questions and examine these issues through the Examination stage of the Planning Act 2008 (PA 2008) process.

We note that as you have previously submitted a representation to us. This means that you become an ?Interested Party? giving you a statutory status with entitlements before, during and after the Examination process. You will be invited to the Preliminary Meeting and you will be informed directly about the Examination timetable and any procedural decisions taken by the Examining Authority during the Examination. Everyone who has registered as an interested party in relation to an application is given the opportunity to provide a more detailed written representation, supported with relevant information and evidence, by the deadline set out in the examination timetable. If you wish to add further details your submitted representation we can accept addition submissions until 23 June 2014 . You may wish to include any questions you have within the substance of your relevant representation. This will then be put before the Examining Authority who will consider it in identifying the principal issues to be examined.

With reference to your other questions, I would refer you to s104* of the PA 2008 which sets out the matters to which the Secretary of State must have regard in deciding whether or not to grant consent for the application. This includes the relevant National Policy Statements (NPS), which for this case would appear to include EN-1 and EN-3. The NPSs set out the need case for certain types of energy infrastructure and the framework for assessing projects being examined. I would also draw your attention to s106* of the PA 2008 which sets out matters that may be disregarded by the Secretary of State when deciding an application. This includes representations relating to (amongst other things) the merits of policy set out in NPSs. I replicate the text of these sections below for ease of reference.

We would advise you to consider these two sections of the PA 2008 and to note that matters relating to the merits of policy set out in an NPS may be disregarded by the Secretary of State.

*s104(2) of the PA 2008 says:??In deciding the application the [Secretary of State] must have regard to -
(a) any national policy statement which has effect in relation to development of the description to which the application relates (a ?relevant national policy statement?),
(aa) the appropriate marine policy documents (if any)determined in accordance with section 59 of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009,
(b) any local impact report (within the meaning given by section 60(3)) submitted to the [Secretary of State] before the deadline specified in a notice under section 60(2),
(c) any matters prescribed in relation to development of the description to which the application relates, and
(d) any other matters which the [Secretary of State] thinks are both important and relevant to [the Secretary of State?s] decision?

s106(1) says: ?In deciding an application for an order granting development consent, the [Secretary of State] considers that the representations ?
(a) are vexatious or frivolous
(b) relate to the merits of policy set out in a national policy statement, or
(c) relate to compensation for compulsory acquisition of land or of an interest in or right over land?

Christopher Monckton

The National Park Authority is a statutory consultee on the application. As a statutory consultee, is the Authority still required to formally ?register? as an interested party to take part in the examination or is the Authority automatically registered as an interested party?

Secondly, the ?Registration and Relevant Representation Form? is available online, with the website stating a paper form is available on request. Could you please let me know if it is possible to get a Word version of the form that the Authority could fill in?
As a ?B? Local Authority you are automatically registered as an Interested Party in the process. However, it would be useful if you could submit a relevant representation as it will assist the Examining Authority, when appointed, to form their initial assessment of principal issues.

Regarding your other query, we are not able to send you a Word version of the relevant representations form. You should be able to complete and submit the form on-line, however if you need to please reply to this email and we can send you a paper copy of the form to complete.

New Forest NP Authority - David Illsley

Phone call enquiring about the process involved for the application of the Navitus Bay Wind Park
This application was submitted to the Planning Inspectorate on 10 April 2014, and was then subsequently accepted for examination on 8 May 2014. We are currently in the relevant representations period, which is when you can register with the Planning Inspectorate and make a ?relevant representation? so that you will become and ?interested party?. This will give you an opportunity to participate in the examination of the application. The deadline for making a representation is 23 June 2014.

Shortly after the period for making a relevant representation has closed the Secretary of State will appoint the ?Examining Authority? to examine the application. After the close of the registration period, the Examining Authority has up to 21 days to review the application and all relevant representations and identify the principal issues for examination. Following this, the Planning Inspectorate invites all interested parties to attend a meeting, known as the Preliminary Meeting. This is chaired by the Examining Authority and is held to consider how the application will be examined. The meeting may include questions and answers about the key issues that will need to be examined, the timetable for the examination and other important organisational details. However, the merits or otherwise of the application will not be discussed at the meeting, which is purely procedural.

Following the Preliminary Meeting, the Examining Authority will issue a procedural decision including the timetable for the various stages of the examination (including the periods allowed for submission of further written evidence and any hearings the Examining Authority has decided to hold).

The Examining Authority has a statutory duty to complete its examination within 6 months after the last day of the Preliminary Meeting. The examination is a formal legal process, during which careful consideration is given to all the important and relevant matters, including the representations of all interested parties, any evidence submitted and answers provided to questions set out in writing and explained at hearings.

The Planning Inspectorate has published a series of advice notes which explain the process, including information on how to get involved. These are available at the following address: [attachment 1]. I would draw your attention in particular to advice notes 8.1 through 8.5.

If you wish to register as an interested party, you will be able to register online from the Navitus Bay project page at the following link: [attachment 2].

Gay Napier

Mr Erlebach has already registered as an Interested Party by making a representation on-line, but would like to know when he can submit more information?
As you have already registered as an Interested Party by making a relevant representation via our website, you do not need to submit anything further to us at this time. A Preliminary Meeting will be held whereby the Examining Authority appointed by the Secretary of State will set out how the examination will run. You will be told in writing when to submit any further comments, once the Preliminary Meeting has taken place. As an Interested Party you will be invited in writing to the Preliminary Meeting. A date for this meeting will be arranged in due course. Once the timetable and any deadlines for the submission of information required by the Examining Authority is known, it will be published on our website so that you know when to make any further submissions.

Richard Erlebach

Ms Sparks queried what it means to register her interest and also queried what type of information the form should contain. As she is a Clerk to a Parish Council, she also wanted to know how to submit the views of the Parish Council, but also how individual Councillors could submit their own individual views.
In order to register as an interested party, you must submit a relevant representation which should include a summary of what you agree and/or disagree with in the application, what you consider the main issues to be, and their impact. A brief list of points is all that is really required. If a form is being submitted on behalf of an organisation like a Parish Council, it must have the Parish Council's name on it and be clear that it has come from the Parish Council and reflects their views. If however it is being submitted by an individual with their own views, the form will need to have the individuals name on it, rather than the Parish Council's to avoid any confusion about whose views are being expressed.

Mary Sparks

Query regarding last day of submission of paper form and query regarding photocopying of forms
The last date that paper forms can be accepted is 23 June.

In order to enable the efficient and accurate processing of representations,paper forms can only be made available to named individuals and it is not possible for multiple hard copies to be issued for copying and wider distribution.

Jilly Duff

Query in regards to the decision to accept the Navitus Bay Wind Park application for examination
This application was accepted for examination by the Planning Inspectorate on behalf of the Secretary of State on 8 May 2014. During the 28 day acceptance period, which began when the application was submitted on 10 April 2014, Planning Inspectorate staff completed the ?Section 55 Acceptance of Application checklist? which sets out the tests and criteria which the application documents must fulfil. During this stage of the process, the application is being reviewed under procedural tests as set out by the Planning Act 2008 and its subsidiary legislation; there is no consideration of the merits of the application as these will be examined later in the process.

The s55 checklist is completed by Planning Inspectorate staff, including input from an Examining Inspector who was appointed to advise on the acceptance decision. Based on the findings of the checklist, a recommendation was put forward to the acceptance decision maker who is the Planning Inspectorate?s Director of Major Applications and Plans, on behalf of the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. You can view the s55 checklist for the Navitus Bay Wind Park application and the letter issued to the applicant, NBDL, notifying of the decision at the following links:

S55 checklist: [attachment 1]

Notification of decision: [attachment 2]

Poole & Christchurch Bays Assoc - Roy Pointer

Mr Nock requested to register as an interested party in regards to Navitus Bay Wind Park development
This application was submitted to the Planning Inspectorate on 10 April 2014 and accepted to proceed to examination on 8 May 2014.

In order to register as an interested party, you must submit a relevant representation which should include a summary of what you agree and/or disagree with in the application, what you consider the main issues to be, and their impact. You can do this using our online registration form, which will be available from our Navitus Bay project page at the following link: [attachment 1]. Alternatively, you can request a paper copy of the form from our helpline on 0303 444 5000. The period in which you can register as an interested party opened today, 13 May, and will close on 23 June 2014.

You can find further information on becoming an interested party and submitting a relevant representation within our advice note at the following link: [attachment 2]. I would also like to draw your attention to our other advice notes, particularly to Advice Notes 8.1 through 8.5, which explain our process and how to get involved.

David Nock

I have been looking at the extensive application documents for the proposed Navitus Bay Wind Park project. It seems that it is not possible to highlight or cut and paste elements of the application which makes the preparation of responses much more problematic than it need be. Is it possible to enable these features with the documents or am I doing something wrong?
The application documents are as submitted to The Planning Inspectorate by the developer, in the form of secured pdf?s. The secured nature of the files means that the copy and paste function is disabled. We are unfortunately unable to change the file format from that submitted to us, so are unable to enable this function.

Graeme Crouch

Query regarding the outreach event on 22 May, and the location of future hearings.
The outreach event which is being held on 22 May will advise the public of the PA 2008 process and how to get involved. It is likely that any hearings that take place during the examination into the application will be held in a different venue to that of the outreach event. The location of a venue for future hearings will be carefully considered and a variety of options looked at.

J H Smith

Query in regards to application documentation
Many thanks for you email in regards to an incorrect link for 6.1.2.12 Volume B Offshore Chapter 12 Offshore Ornithology. We aware of this error and we have been informed by the applicant that it is simply the front two cover pages which are incorrect on this document; the content is correct for the Offshore Ornithology chapter. We will amend the front pages shortly so that the document is correctly titled.

The application documents which are available on the project pages, are shown as they were received by the Inspectorate from the applicant, NBDL, when they submitted the application on 10 April. Therefore, unfortunately we are unable to provide copies on DVD or hard copies. It may be worthwhile contacting the applicant directly to request copies from them.

Although, there is no overall index for the documents within the Environmental Statement, the Introductions for each section/volume include tables which set out the titles of the documents within that particular section/volume.

Friends of Durlston Committee - Hilarie Lewis

Query in regards to potential content of a relevant representation
During the examination period the Examining Authority must, as in line with s104 of the PA 2008, have regard to any national policy statement which has effect in relation to the development, and the appropriate marine policy documents.

Just to confirm, the relevant representations period opens tomorrow, 13 May, and will close on 23 June 2014.

Bill Hoodless

Query relating to when various issues raised will be examined. What is the process?
That there will be a 6 month examination period in which the Examining Authority will examine issues that have been identified. At the end of the pre-examination part of the PA 2008 process, which is likely to last around 3 months, the examination period will begin. However the Planning Inspectorate does not have any further information on when the examination will begin at present. When this is known it will be advertised on our website and people who have made relevant representations will be written to.

Sharpe

Query in regards to registering as an interested party for the Navitus Bay Wind Park
The relevant representations period is due to open tomorrow, 13 May, and will remain open for people to register as an interested party until 23 June. You will be able to register online from the Navitus Bay project page at the following link: [attachment 1]. Alternatively you can request a paper copy of the form from our helpline on 0303 444 5000. The Planning Inspectorate have produced an advice note on how to register as an interested party and how to make a relevant representation: [attachment 2].

Unfortunately, as you cannot attend the outreach event to be held in Bournemouth on 22 May, there will not be an opportunity for you to meet us. However, our series of advice notes may assist you with further knowledge about our process, and also familiarising yourself with the application documents and adequacy of consultation responses which have been published on the project page may provide you with further information. Please see the links below:

Advice notes: [attachment 3]

Navitus Bay Documents: [attachment 4]

Samar Taha

Query in regards to the next stages in the process for the Navitus Bay Wind Park application
Now that the application has been accepted for examination, the pre-examination period begins and lasts approximately 3 months. At the end of this period a Preliminary Meeting will be held, and the 6 month examination period will commence( section 98 of the Planning Act 2008) the day after the last day of the Preliminary Meeting. The Preliminary Meeting is where the applicant and other interested parties make representations to the Examining Authority on how the application should be examined (s.88 Planning Act 2008).

The pre-examination stage of the process has no fixed timetable because the Planning Inspectorate has flexibility over when the Preliminary Meeting is held. The period where the public can register with the Planning Inspectorate and make a relevant representation opens on 13 May and will close on 23 June.

Hampshire County Council - Pete Errington

Correspondence recieved during acceptance regarding consultation process
Please see letter attached

Hurn Parish Council - Nicola Shaw

Mr Stebbings requested to register with the Planning Inspectorate as an interested party.
The proposal by Navitus Bay Development Ltd for the Navitus Bay Wind Park has today been accepted by the Planning Inspectorate on behalf of the Secretary of State, to proceed to be examined.

The developer, Navitus Bay Development Ltd, is now required to advertise in local and the national press, the period within which anybody will be able to make a ?relevant representation? and register to become an interested party. It is anticipated that this period will open shortly, and a notification will also appear on the Planning Inspectorate?s project page, here: [attachment 1]. To have your views taken into account you must register.

A form will be available online from the Planning Inspectorate?s project page for parties to register. A paper copy of this form can also be requested from our helpline on 0303 444 5000.

Michael Stebbings

Correspondence recieved during acceptance regarding consultation process
Please see letter attached

John Sharpe

Please see attached advice issued at acceptance

Navitus Bay Development Limited

Query on how to become involved with the process for the Navitus Bay Wind Park Application, and when.
The Planning Inspectorate has 28 days from 10 April to decide whether or not to accept the application. The decision will be made no later than Thursday 8 May 2014. If the application is accepted a period of 'relevant representations' is opened via the Planning Inspectorate's website, where a form will be available.

Sophie Jephcote

Query on how to become involved in the process for the Navitus Bay Wind Park application, and when.
The Planning Inspectorate has 28 days from 10 April to decide whether or not to accept the application. The decision should therefore be made no later than Thursday 8 May 2014. If the application is accepted a period of 'relevant representations' is opened via the Planning Inspectorate's website, where a form will be available.

Ian Mateer

Emai receivieved from Department of Culture, Media and Sport, enclosing correspondence from UNESCO
Thank you for your email enclosing the correspondence from UNESCO in relation to the proposed Navitus Bay Wind Park project.

We note that UNESCO has submitted representations to you and has asked that these be taken into account by the relevant competent authority when making a decision on whether the application should proceed to examination. It appears to relate to merits of the application and the views held by UNESCO. I set out some advice below about the application acceptance process and ask that you pass this information on to UNESCO.

The application:
The application for the proposed Navitus Bay Wind Park project was submitted to the Planning Inspectorate on 10 April 2014. The Planning Inspectorate on behalf of the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government has a period of 28 days from 10 April to decide whether or not to accept the application to proceed to examination. This decision should be made not later than Thursday 8 May 2014. I believe that this is the critical date to which your email refers. If the application is accepted, an Examining Authority will be appointed to examine it through a process of written representations and possibly some hearings held in the local area.

The application acceptance process:
The Secretary of State?s decision as to whether or not to accept an application for examination must accord with the provisions of section 55 of the Planning Act 2008. Amongst other things, the application must be of a standard the Secretary of State considers satisfactory to proceed to examination and the applicant?s pre-application consultation should have complied with the statutory procedure.

During the 28 day acceptance period relevant local authorities have an opportunity to make representations about the adequacy of the applicant?s pre-application consultation, and any such representations received help to inform the Secretary of State?s decision about whether or not to accept an application. Under the legislation, there is no specific provision for parties other than the relevant local authorities to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate during the acceptance period.

UNESCO?s letter of 2 May 2014:
We note that UNESCO, in their letter of 2 May 2014, submitted representations to you and have asked that these are made available to the decision maker in respect of whether or not the application should proceed to examination. Whilst there is no provision for parties to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate during the acceptance period, UNESCO?s letter and its annex have been made available to the decision maker (which is the Planning Inspectorate on behalf of the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government) when considering the decision about whether or not to accept the application under section 55 of the PA 2008. Any weight given to the comments will depend on the individual facts of the case.

UNESCO should note that issues related to the merits of an application can only be considered during the examination of an application. We note that UNESCO do not state whether they have informed the applicant or any relevant local authority about their views on the project. We would advise that if UNESCO have not already done so, they contact the applicant (Navitus Bay Development Limited) as soon as possible to make them aware of their views.
Next steps

If the application is accepted for examination, the applicant is, amongst other things, required to publicise the acceptance for at least two successive weeks in a local newspaper. A period for the making of ?relevant representations? is opened via the Planning Inspectorate?s website. This period must run for at least 28 days. If UNESCO are interested in the progress of this application, and if it is accepted for examination, they will need to register to become an interested party in the examination by making a relevant representation during the advertised period. Registering as an interested party would enable UNESCO to participate fully in the examination, including through the making of written representations and if relevant, oral submissions at any hearings that may be held. An Examining Authority would be appointed to examine the application and would make a recommendation to the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change who would be ultimately responsible for making a decision about whether or not to grant consent for the project.

DCMS - Leila AL KAZWINI

Query regarding the Navitus Bay Wind Park development
This application was submitted to the Planning Inspectorate on 10 April 2014. There is a period of 28 days from 10 April to decide whether or not to accept it. This decision should be made not later than Thursday 8 May 2014.

The Secretary of State?s decision as to whether or not to accept an application for examination must accord with the provisions of section 55 of the PA 2008. Amongst other things, the application must be of a standard the Secretary of State considers satisfactory to proceed to examination and the applicant?s pre-application consultation should have complied with the statutory procedure.

Issues related to the merits of an application, such as the location of the proposal, can only be considered during the examination of an application. If an application is accepted for examination, the applicant is, amongst other things, required to publicise the acceptance for at least two successive weeks in a local newspaper. A period for the making of ?relevant representations? is also opened via the Planning Inspectorate?s website. If you are interested in the progress of this application, and if it is accepted for examination, you will need to register to become an interested party in the examination by making a relevant representation during the advertised period, which must run for at least 28 days. Notification of this period will also appear on the Planning Inspectorate's project webpage, here:
[attachment 1]

The Planning Inspectorate has published a series of advice notes which explain the process, including information on how to get involved. These are available at the following link: [attachment 2]. I would draw your attention in particular to advice notes 8.1 through 8.5.

Carole Hamburger

Query during acceptance regarding access to documentation.
We note the statements in your email that "This would allow our expert to critique it and hopefully result in a saving of valuable time during the Examination. Moreover, it could produce very helpful information that would obviate the need for the ExA to have its own independent advice on this important and highly technical issue".

We feel it would be helpful to provide some advice to you about the application process, and opportunities to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate about an application. This advice is provided under section 51 of the PA 2008, and as such will be published on our website.

As you are aware the Secretary of State?s decision as to whether or not to accept an application for examination is based on the tests set out in section 55 of the PA 2008 and is, in summary, a decision about whether the application documents are of a satisfactory standard to proceed to examination, and whether the applicant?s pre-application consultation has complied with the statutory procedure.

Issues related to the merits of the application can only be considered during the examination of an application. If an application is accepted for examination, the applicant is, amongst other things, required to publicise the acceptance for at least two consecutive weeks in a local newspaper. A period for the making of ?relevant representations? is also opened via the Planning Inspectorate?s website. If you are interested in the progress of this application, and it is accepted for examination, we would strongly encourage you to register to become an interested party in the examination by making a relevant representation during the advertised period, which must run for at least 28 days. Becoming an interested party will enable you to participate in the examination and submit written representations to the Examining Authority when appointed. It will also allow you to participate in hearings should they be held.

Public copy of the application documents

You also sent a further email dated 28 April 2014 asking whether the developer should have provided at least one public copy of the submitted application documents in accordance with the quote below which is taken from page 3 of the PINS Advice Note 6: ?At least one public inspection copy should also be made available at a location or locations in the vicinity of the proposed development?. The first line of the paragraph to which you refer states: ?Applicants are reminded that they are required to make the full application including all documents and information accompanying the application available to each person notified of the accepted application.? It is important to highlight that this advice refers to any application accepted by the Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) for examination and does not therefore require applicants to make a copy of the application documents available prior to the application being accepted.

The advice note also states ?The Planning Inspectorate also strongly advises applicants to send a public inspection copy of their submission to the local authority(s) within whose area(s) the project is located.? Please note that this is not a statutory requirement but is our good practice advice to applicants.

William Hoodless

Could you please tell me how I may access information on how many formal objections have currently been recieved in opposition to the project and also if possible the nature of these objections.
This application is currently at the Acceptance stage of the Planning Act 2008 process. A decision whether or not to accept the application for examination must be made by 8 May 2014.

If the application is accepted to be examined, the application documents will be published on the Navitus Bay project pages of the website, which can be found at the following address:
[attachment 1]

Also, following a successful acceptance, the developer will be required to advertise in local and national press the period within which anybody will be able to make a 'relevant representation' and register to become an interested party. These representations will be also be published on our website following the deadline for registration.

The Planning Inspectorate has published a series of advice notes which you may find useful in understanding our process. These are available at the following address: [attachment 2]. I would draw your attention in particular to advice notes 8.1 through 8.5.

Danny Alexander

Query regarding the Navitus Bay Wind Park development
This application was submitted to the Planning Inspectorate on 10 April 2014. There is a period of 28 days from 10 April to decide whether or not to accept it. This decision should be made not later than Thursday 8 May 2014.

The Secretary of State?s decision as to whether or not to accept an application for examination must accord with the provisions of section 55 of the PA 2008. Amongst other things, the application must be of a standard the Secretary of State considers satisfactory to proceed to examination and the applicant?s pre-application consultation should have complied with the statutory procedure.

Issues related to the merits of an application, such as the location of the proposal, can only be considered during the examination of an application. If an application is accepted for examination, the applicant is, amongst other things, required to publicise the acceptance for at least two successive weeks in a local newspaper. A period for the making of ?relevant representations? is also opened via the Planning Inspectorate?s website. If you are interested in the progress of this application, and if it is accepted for examination, you will need to register to become an interested party in the examination by making a relevant representation during the advertised period, which must run for at least 28 days. Notification of this period will also appear on the Planning Inspectorate's project webpage, here:
[attachment 1]

The Planning Inspectorate has published a series of advice notes which explain the process, including information on how to get involved. These are available at the following link: [attachment 2]. I would draw your attention in particular to advice notes 8.1 through 8.5.

T Harwood

Query on how to become involved with the process for the Navitus Bay Wind Park application
This application was submitted to the Planning Inspectorate on 10 April 2014. There is a period of 28 days from 10 April to decide whether or not to accept it. This decision should be made not later than Thursday 8 May 2014.

Issues related to the merits of an application, such as the location of the proposal, can only be considered during the examination of an application. If an application is accepted for examination, the applicant is, amongst other things, required to publicise the acceptance for at least two successive weeks in a local newspaper. A period for the making of ?relevant representations? is also opened via the Planning Inspectorate?s website. If you are interested in the progress of this application, and if it is accepted for examination, you will need to register to become an interested party in the examination by making a relevant representation during the advertised period, which must run for at least 28 days. Notification of this period will also appear on the Planning Inspectorate's project webpage, here:
[attachment 1]

The Planning Inspectorate has published a series of advice notes which explain the process, including information on how to get involved. These are available at the following link: [attachment 2]. I would draw your attention in particular to advice notes 8.1 through 8.5.

Mr Rigler

Query from a Local Authority as to why they are being invited to comment on a proposal for on offshore wind farm off the Hampshire/Dorset coast.
Developers are expected to consult widely on their proposals and have regard to Government guidance as well as the views of relevant local authorities on their proposed consultation of the local community under s.47 of the Planning Act 2008. The local authorities (including District and County Councils and National Park Authorities) where an NSIP is based are known as the 'B' local authorities, while 'A' local authorities are those that share a boundary with a 'B' authority. All 'A' and 'B' authorities must be notified under Regulation 9 of the EIA Regulations 2009. Your authority has been identified as an 'A' authority and as such we have written to you to advise you that the developer intends to submit an application on 10 April 2014.

For further information on the development, please visit the Navitus Bay project page of the Planning Inspectorate's National Infrastructure Planning Portal website [attachment 1]. You may also wish to visit the developers website at [attachment 2].

Waverley District Council - Graham Parrott

Query regarding applicant pre application consultation
We feel it would be helpful to provide some advice to you about the application acceptance process, and opportunities to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate about an application. This advice is provided under section 51 of the Planning Act 2008 (?PA 2008?), and as such will be published on our website.

The application was submitted to the Planning Inspectorate on 10 April 2014. There is period of 28 days from 10 April to decide whether or not to accept it. This decision should be made not later than Thursday 8 May 2014.

The Secretary of State?s decision as to whether or not to accept an application for examination must accord with the provisions of section 55 of the PA 2008. Amongst other things, the application must be of a standard the Secretary of State considers satisfactory to proceed to examination and the applicant?s pre-application consultation should have complied with the statutory procedure.

During the 28 day acceptance period relevant local authorities have an opportunity to make representations about the adequacy of the applicant?s pre-application consultation, and any such representations received help to inform the Secretary of State?s decision about whether or not to accept an application. Under the legislation, there is no specific provision for parties other than the relevant local authorities to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate during the acceptance period.

We note that you have, in your email of 22 April 2014, submitted representations to the Inspectorate about the applicant?s pre-application consultation and these will be retained on file and will be made available to the decision maker, which is the Planning Inspectorate, on behalf of the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, when considering the decision about whether or not to accept the application under section 55 of the PA 2008. Any weight given to your comments will depend on the individual facts of the case.

You do not state whether you have informed the applicant about your concerns, but it is noted that you have sent a copy of your letter to the relevant local authority. Local Authorities may wish to incorporate your views into any adequacy of consultation representation they may make. Under s55 PA 2008, regard must be had to relevant local authorities? adequacy of consultation representations, should they choose to submit them.

Issues related to the merits of an application can only be considered during the examination of an application. If an application is accepted for examination, the applicant is, amongst other things, required to publicise the acceptance for at least two successive weeks in a local newspaper. A period for the making of ?relevant representations? is also opened via the Planning Inspectorate?s website. If you are interested in the progress of this application, and if it is accepted for examination, you will need to register to become an interested party in the examination by making a relevant representation during the advertised period, which must run for at least 28 days

Nicola Shaw

Query regarding applicant pre- application consultation and request to become an interested person
We feel it would be helpful to provide some advice to you about the application acceptance process, and opportunities to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate about an application. This advice is provided under section 51 of the Planning Act 2008 (?PA 2008?), and as such will be published on our website.

The application was submitted to the Planning Inspectorate on 10 April 2014. There is period of 28 days from 10 April to decide whether or not to accept it. This decision should be made not later than Thursday 8 May 2014.

The Secretary of State?s decision as to whether or not to accept an application for examination must accord with the provisions of section 55 of the PA 2008. Amongst other things, the application must be of a standard the Secretary of State considers satisfactory to proceed to examination and the applicant?s pre-application consultation should have complied with the statutory procedure.

During the 28 day acceptance period relevant local authorities have an opportunity to make representations about the adequacy of the applicant?s pre-application consultation, and any such representations received help to inform the Secretary of State?s decision about whether or not to accept an application. Under the legislation, there is no specific provision for parties other than the relevant local authorities to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate during the acceptance period.

We note that you have, in your email of 21 April 2014, submitted representations to the Inspectorate about the applicant?s pre-application consultation and these will be retained on file and will be made available to the decision maker, which is the Planning Inspectorate, on behalf of the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, when considering the decision about whether or not to accept the application under section 55 of the PA 2008. Any weight given to your comments will depend on the individual facts of the case.

You do not state whether you have informed the applicant or the relevant local authority about your concerns. Local Authorities may wish to incorporate your views into any adequacy of consultation representation they may make. Under s55 PA 2008, regard must be had to relevant local authorities? adequacy of consultation representations, should they choose to submit them. If you have not already done so, we would suggest that you contact the relevant local authority and the applicant as soon as possible to make them aware of your views.

Issues related to the merits of an application can only be considered during the examination of an application. If an application is accepted for examination, the applicant is, amongst other things, required to publicise the acceptance for at least two successive weeks in a local newspaper. A period for the making of ?relevant representations? is also opened via the Planning Inspectorate?s website. If you are interested in the progress of this application, and if it is accepted for examination, you will need to register to become an interested party in the examination by making a relevant representation during the advertised period, which must run for at least 28 days.

BAHA - Andrew Woodland

Phone call received from Mr hoodless regarding noise matters relating to the proposed Navitus Bay Wind Park development
This application is currently at the Acceptance stage of the Planning Act 2008 process. A decision whether or not to accept the application for examination must be made by 8 May 2014.
As such, should the application to accepted and you wish for comments on specific points about the application to be taken into regard by the Examining Authority appointed to examine the application, it is suggested that you submit these comments as a relevant representation during the Pre-Examination stage. There will be a minimum period of 28 days to provide these comments.

Bill Hoodless

Query regarding Adequacy of consultation reports
Section 55(4) of the Planning Act 2008 provides that in reaching a conclusion as to whether or not an applicant has complied with chapter 2, part 5 of Planning Act 2008 (pre-application procedure), the Secretary of State must have regard to the documents, representations and matters listed in that subsection.

There is not a prohibition against the Secretary of State having regard to representations made by persons not referred to in s55(4). Any weight given to representations made by such persons will depend on the individual facts of the case.

Navitus Bay Development Ltd - Daniel Bates

Query regarding developer's consultation
The application was submitted to the Planning Inspectorate on 10 April 2014. There is period of 28 days from 10 April to decide whether or not to accept it. This decision should be made not later than Thursday 8 May 2014.

The Secretary of State?s decision as to whether or not to accept an application for examination must accord with the provisions of section 55 of the PA 2008. Amongst other things, the application must be of a standard the Secretary of State considers satisfactory to proceed to examination and the applicant?s pre-application consultation should have complied with the statutory procedure.

During the 28 day acceptance period relevant local authorities have an opportunity to make representations about the adequacy of the applicant?s pre-application consultation, and any such representations received help to inform the Secretary of State?s decision about whether or not to accept an application. Under the legislation, there is no specific provision for parties other than the relevant local authorities to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate during the acceptance period.

We note that you have, in your email of 14 April 2014, submitted representations to the Inspectorate about the applicant?s pre-application consultation and these will be retained on file and will be made available to the decision maker, which is the Planning Inspectorate, on behalf of the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, when considering the decision about whether or not to accept the application under section 55 of the PA 2008. Any weight given to your comments will depend on the individual facts of the case.

You do not state whether you have informed the applicant or the relevant local authority about your concerns. Local Authorities may wish to incorporate your views into any adequacy of consultation representation they may make. Under s55 PA 2008, regard must be had to relevant local authorities? adequacy of consultation representations, should they choose to submit them. If you have not already done so, we would suggest that you contact the relevant local authority and the applicant as soon as possible to make them aware of your views.

Issues related to the merits of an application can only be considered during the examination of an application. If an application is accepted for examination, the applicant is, amongst other things, required to publicise the acceptance for at least two successive weeks in a local newspaper. A period for the making of ?relevant representations? is also opened via the Planning Inspectorate?s website. If you are interested in the progress of this application, and if it is accepted for examination, we would strongly encourage you to register to become an interested party in the examination by making a relevant representation during the advertised period, which must run for at least 28 days.

Becoming an interested party will enable you to participate in the examination and submit written representations to the Examining authority in due course. It will also allow you to participate in certain hearings should they be held. The Planning Inspectorate has produced the Advice Note Eight series which explains the process under the PA 2008, and how you can become involved. It can be viewed at: [attachment 1]

John Lambon

Query relating to where to view the application documents
When the application has been submitted the application documents will be published on the National Infrastructure pages of the Planning Portal, however until this time the developers website is the best place to go to get information on the Navitus Bay project.

John Riddington

Query relating to adequacy of consultation
The Planning Inspectorate, on behalf of the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, makes the decision about whether or not to accept an application for examination. So far as we are aware, the application is expected to be submitted to the Planning Inspectorate today, 10 April 2014.

Section 55 of the Planning Act 2008 relates to acceptance of applications for examination . Section 55(4) of the Planning Act 2008 provides that in making its decision about whether or not to accept an application the Secretary of State must have regard to (amongst other things) any adequacy of consultation representation received from a prescribed local authority consultee. For this reason, once an application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, we invite the host and neighbouring local authorities to submit a representation about whether the applicant has complied with its duties under sections 42, 47 and 48 of the Planning Act 2008

We note that you have submitted representations to the Inspectorate about the developer?s pre-application consultation and these will be retained on file and will be made available to the decision maker, which is the Planning Inspectorate, on behalf of the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, when considering the decision about whether or not to accept the application under section55 of the Planning Act 2008. .
You do not state whether you have informed the developer or the relevant local authority about your concerns. Local Authorities may wish to incorporate your view into their adequacy of consultation representation. As outlined above, the local authorities? views on the adequacy of consultation, should they choose to submit them, form a part of the section 55 assessment. If you have not already done so, we would suggest that you contact the relevant local authority and the developer as soon as possible to make them aware of your views.

Issues related to the merits of the application can only be considered during the examination of an application. If the application is accepted for examination, the Planning Act 2008 provides an opportunity for individuals, organisations and to submit a 'relevant representation' and to register as ?interested parties?. Developers are required to advertise the acceptance of an application and the period within which a relevant representation must be made - this period must be at least 28 days. Relevant representation forms must be completed online or in paper copy and at the relevant time the forms will be available on the Planning Portal?s Navitus Bay Wind Park project webpage: [attachment 1]

Relevant representations should indicate whether an individual, organisation or group supports or opposes a scheme and highlight any issues that they may wish to make further detailed representations on later in the examination process. All relevant representations will be made available to the appointed Examining Authority in conjunction with the application documents and may influence the Examining Authority?s initial assessment of the principal issues for examination.

Peter Fenning

Submission regarding adequacy of consultation
The Planning Inspectorate is expecting the Development Consent Order application to be submitted tomorrow - 10 April 2014.

You have written to us to express concerns about the developer?s pre-application consultation for this project.

It is noted that you have submitted the attached reports to relevant local authority representatives for possible inclusion in their adequacy of consultation reports, and it is noted that the reports have also been sent to Navitus Bay Development Limited (NBDL).

The Planning Inspectorate, on behalf of the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, makes the decision about whether or not to accept an application for examination. The Secretary of State has 28 days from the date of submission to decide whether the application meets the required standards to proceed to examination. This will include an assessment of whether the applicant has complied with all the relevant pre-application procedures including having regard to consultation responses.

The requirements that must be satisfied in order for an application to be accepted for examination are set out in s55 of the PA 2008. s55(4) of the PA 2008 states that in making its decision about whether or not to accept an application the Secretary of State must have regard to (amongst other things) any adequacy of consultation representation received from a local authority consultee. For this reason, once an application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, we invite the host and neighbouring local authorities to submit a representation about whether the applicant has complied with its duties under sections 42, 47 and 48 of the PA 2008. Under the legislation there is no provision for parties other than the relevant local authorities to make adequacy of consultation representations to the Planning Inspectorate. As you have sent your reports to the local authorities they may wish to incorporate your view into their adequacy of consultation representation, once an application is submitted to us.

As you have submitted representations directly to the Planning Inspectorate about the developer?s pre-application consultation, these will be retained on file. The concerns detailed in your correspondence will be made available to the decision maker which is the Planning Inspectorate, on behalf of the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, when considering the decision about whether or not to accept the application under s55 of the PA 2008. It will be for the Secretary of State to decide the weight to give the views expressed in your correspondence based on the individual facts of the case.

Issues related to the merits of the application can only be considered during the examination of an application. If the application is accepted for examination, the PA 2008 provides an opportunity for individuals, organisations and groups to register as ?interested parties? and to submit a 'relevant representation'. Developers are required to advertise the acceptance of an application and the period within which a relevant representation must be made - this period must be at least 28 days. Relevant representation forms must be completed online or in paper copy and at the relevant time the forms will be available on the Planning Portal?s Navitus Bay Wind Park project
Relevant representations should indicate whether an individual, organisation or group supports or opposes a scheme and highlight any issues that they may wish to make further detailed representations on later in the examination process. All relevant representations will be read by the appointed Examining Authority in conjunction with the application documents and may influence the Examining Authority?s initial assessment of the principal issues for examination.

Challenge Navitus - Andrew Langley

Ms. Sheldon requested to register with the Planning Inspectorate as an interested party.
The proposal by Navitus Bay Development Ltd for the Navitus Bay Wind Park is currently at the 'pre-application' stage of the process for making decisions on nationally significant infrastructure projects (NSIPs) under the Planning Act 2008 (as amended) regime.

The opportunity for persons to register to become an 'interested party' will not arise until any formal application has been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate and accepted to proceed to be examined. If the application is accepted to be examined, the developer will be required to advertise in local and national press the period within which anybody will be able to make a 'relevant representation' and register to become an interested party. Notification of this period will also appear on the Planning Inspectorate's project webpage, here: [attachment 1].

Based on current information, Navitus Bay Development Ltd anticipate submitting this application shortly. Until such time as the application is accepted to proceed to be examined by the Inspectorate, any views about the proposal should be directed to the developer (email: [email protected] tel. 01926671592).

The Planning Inspectorate has published a series of advice notes which explain the process, including information on how to get involved. These are available at the following address: [attachment 2]. I would draw your attention in particular to advice notes 8.1 through 8.5.

Tracy Sheldon

Correspondence relating to acceptance
Letter attached

Steve Brine

Query regarding local authority status and adequacy of consultation submissions by a party other than the local authority.
Your Status is as an A authority, because the project is not based in your authority. Local authorities where an NSIP is based are known as the 'B' local authorities, while 'A' local authorities are those that share a boundary with a 'B' authority.

Any local resident or local resident group, who have a view or complaint about the adequacy of a developer consultation will be advised that they may wish to notify the Local Authority of their views or complaint. The CLG Guidance states that Local Authorities can consider the complaint as part of their representation to the Secretary of State, it would therefore be helpful if your submission includes the Local Authority?s consideration/view on any submissions of this type that you have received. You may also wish to attach their comments to your adequacy of consultation representation.

I attach the relevant guidance for information.

[attachment 1]

Poole Borough Council - Rebecca Landman

Query regarding receipt of letter by local authority
Developers are expected to consult widely on their proposals and have regard to Government guidance as well as the views of relevant local authorities on their proposed consultation of the local community under s.47 of the Planning Act 2008. The local authorities (including District and County Councils and National Park Authorities) where an NSIP is based are known as the 'B' local authorities, while 'A' local authorities are those that share a boundary with a 'B' authority. All 'A' and 'B' authorities must be notified under Regulation 9 of the EIA Regulations 2009. Your authority has been identified as an 'A' authority and as such we have written to you to advise you that the developer intends to submit an application on 10 April 2014.

For further information on the development, please visit the Navitus Bay project page of the Planning Inspectorate's National Infrastructure Planning Portal website [attachment 1]. You may also wish to visit the developers website at [attachment 2].

Somerset County Council - Paul Browning

Query regarding receipt of letter by local authority
Developers are expected to consult widely on their proposals and have regard to Government guidance as well as the views of relevant local authorities on their proposed consultation of the local community under s.47 of the Planning Act 2008. The local authorities (including District and County Councils and National Park Authorities) where an NSIP is based are known as the 'B' local authorities, while 'A' local authorities are those that share a boundary with a 'B' authority. All 'A' and 'B' authorities must be notified under Regulation 9 of the EIA Regulations 2009. Your authority has been identified as an 'A' authority and as such we have written to you to advise you that the developer intends to submit an application on 10 April 2014.

For further information on the development, please visit the Navitus Bay project page of the Planning Inspectorate's National Infrastructure Planning Portal website [attachment 1] . You may also wish to visit the developers website at [attachment 2] .

Chichester District Council - anon.

Questions regarding the Planning Process and Adequacy of Consultation queries
The decision maker about whether or not to accept an application for examination is The Planning Inspectorate, on behalf of the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government.

Any weight given to comments submitted by parties other than local authorities will depend on the individual facts of the case. Section 55 of the Planning Act 2008 explains what the decision maker must have regard to when deciding whether an application can be accepted. Comments sent to the Planning Inspectorate by Poole & Christchurch Bays Association are currently being kept on file and will be made available to the decision maker. Any comments which are made available to the Planning Inspectorate, who is the decision maker on behalf of the Secretary of State, are therefore also before the Secretary of State. Parties are of course able to make further representations, by sending them to [email protected] at the Planning Inspectorate, if they so wish.

Section 55 of the Planning Act 2008 provides that, in making a decision on whether to accept an application, the decision maker must have regard to, amongst other specified matters, any adequacy of consultation representation submitted by a prescribed local authority. Because the legislation is clear on this point, the CLG Guidance Planning Act 2008: guidance on the pre-application process [attachment 1]; advises that where other parties wish to comment on the adequacy, they should in the first instance inform the applicant of their views (to allow the applicant time to consider those views) and they can also submit the comments to the relevant local authorities. In making comments to the local authorities before an application is submitted, local authorities will have the opportunity to include any comments (if they so wish) in any adequacy of consultation representation they may make.
If the comments from other parties are provided to the local authority before the application is submitted, they may have more time to consider if they wish to include these points in any representation they make.

The procedure to challenge decisions, in relation to Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects, made under the Planning Act 2008 (as amended) is to make an application to the High Court for judicial review under section 118 of the Planning Act 2008. A judicial review application can be made by any party and not solely the applicant. We are not able to provide parties with legal advice on which they may rely. They should seek their own independent legal advice on the extent of permitted challenges, if required.

Once an application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, we invite the host and neighbouring local authorities to submit an adequacy of consultation representation. The definition in the legislation of an adequacy of consultation representation is a ?representation about whether the applicant has complied, in relation to that proposed application, with the applicant?s duties under sections 42, 47, and 48?. of the Planning Act 2008. The CLG Guidance: Planning Act 2008: guidance on the pre-application process ([attachment 1];) states that ?Any representation must be limited to how the applicant has carried out the consultation?.

Poole & Christchurch Bays Assoc - Roy Pointer

Query regarding PINS guidance advising members of the public to make their concerns known about the Adequacy of consultation to local authorities
Under the legislation, the decision maker must have regard to any adequacy of consultation representation received from a Local Authority consultee, when making a decision on whether or not an application can be accepted for examination. The legislation does not refer to adequacy of consultation representations received from other parties when making this decision.

The Planning Inspectorate has been contacted by P&CBA and we have advised, in line with the guidance, that they should inform the developer about their concerns as soon as possible and allow time for a response. We also advised that they may also wish to notify the Local Authority, who may wish to incorporate P&CBAs view into their adequacy of consultation representation. If you wish to see the full advice given it has been published on the National Infrastructure pages of the Planning portal website. The CLG Guidance states that Local Authorities can consider the complaint as part of their representation to the Secretary of State, it would therefore be helpful if your submission includes the Local Authority?s consideration/view on P&CBAs comments. You may also wish to attach their comments to your adequacy of consultation representation.

Comments on the proposed scheme itself should always be made directly to the developer at the pre-application stage of the process. This allows the developer to have regard to these comments prior to finalising and submitting their application. The guidance suggests that comments on the pre-application consultation undertaken by the developer (as opposed to comments on the scheme itself) can be made to the developer, local authority and The Planning Inspectorate, prior to an application being submitted. I hope this provides clarification.

Hampshire County Council - Pete Errington

Please see attached meeting note

Local Authorities - anon.

Query regardimng adequacy of consultation.
Please see attached letter

Roy Pointer

Concerns about the Inspectorate's future consideration of the Visual Impact information provided to date by developers for the Navitus Bay Wind Park development
The Navitus Bay Offshore Wind Park application is yet to be formally submitted to the Planning Inspectorate and is currently at the 'pre-application' stage of the process for making decisions on nationally significant infrastructure projects (NSIPs) under the Planning Act 2008 (the PA2008) regime. The developer currently anticipates that the application will be submitted in Quarter 1 2014. On submission, the Planning Inspectorate, on behalf of the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, makes the decision about whether or not to accept an application for examination. The Secretary of State has 28 days from the date of submission to decide whether the application meets the required standards to proceed to examination. This will include an assessment of whether the applicant has complied with all the relevant pre-application procedures including having regard to consultation responses. Until this decision is made, your point of contact in relation to the proposed scheme should be the developer - Navitus Bay Development Limited - on the following details: [email protected] or 01926671592.

The requirements that must be satisfied in order for an application to be accepted for examination are set out in s55 of the PA 2008. s55(4) of the PA 2008 states that in making its decision about whether or not to accept an application the Secretary of State must have regard to (amongst other things) any adequacy of consultation representation received from a local authority consultee. For this reason, once an application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, we invite the host and neighboring local authorities to submit a representation about whether the applicant has complied with its duties under sections 42, 47 and 48 of the PA 2008

If the application is accepted for Examination, the PA2008 establishes the opportunity for individuals, organisations and other groups to register as ?interested parties? by completing a registration form and submitting a 'Relevant Representation'. Relevant Representation forms can be completed online, and will be available on the project webpages of the Planning Portal, here: attachment 1. It is also possible to call the Inspectorate?s customer service desk on 0303 444 5000 to request a paper copy of the registration form. The developer will advertise when and how long the period for registration will be open; which must be a minimum of 28 days.

Relevant Representations should include whether an individual, organisation or other group supports or opposes a scheme and highlight any issues that they may wish to make further detailed representations on later in the Examination process. All Relevant Representations will be read by the appointed Examining Authority, and in conjunction with its reading of the application documents, will help to inform its 'Initial Assessment of Principal Issues'. If you choose to register to become an interested party, you can include your concerns over visual impact in your Relevant Representation. By registering as an interested party with the Inspectorate, you will be kept informed of the Examination by either email or post and be invited to engage in the process further by making written representations (and oral representations at any hearings) over the course of a statutory 6 month Examination period.

Worth Matravers Parish Council - Roger Khanna

Project Update draft documents feedback meeting. Please see attached meeting note.

Navitus Bay Development Limited

1) Are you able to confirm that the "host" authorities for the purpose of s43 of the 2008 Act are:
    a) Dorset county council as the upper tier authority.
    b) East Dorset DC as the lower tier authority?

2) In view of this, are you able to confirm that the Unitary Authority on the Isle of Wight will be excluded from the right to see an advance copy the Consultation Report and to make comments on adequacy under s56(4) during the Acceptance assessment?

3) Further, can you confirm that the Unitary Authority will nevertheless be invited to the Preliminary Meeting with a "Rule-6" letter - and have opportunity to submit a "Local Impact Statement" (LIS) that will be considered equally with any Local Impact Reports (LIRs) that may be submitted by other authorities under s60 of the Act?

4) Can you confirm that the reduction of rights accorded to the Unitary council as a result of the drafting of s43 (and s102) of the Act is a cause of concern that the Inspectorate will refer to the formal review of the Act due to occur during 2014?

  
5) Consequent upon changes to the scheme, would the list of consultees in Appendix One of the November 2011 Scoping Opinion still be valid? What changes would be needed if it were to be complied now?

6) Are there any other aspects of the process where exclusions arising from the drafting of s43 currently place the Unitary Authority in a less advantageous position than it would be if the Solent were to be deemed of zero width and thus Wight be contiguous with Hampshire?

My impression is that the island despite being the second nearest land to the proposed development (just one kilometre further than Dorset) may be at significant disadvantage compared to places like Wiltshire that have no immediate impact from the development. Thus I would hope that relevant minds can give this issue some attention. Whilst the LIS procedure reduces the detriment to local interests resulting from s60 there is still some detriment in that the decision-making Secretary of State is not obliged to have the same regard to any LIS as is required to be given under s105(2) to a Local Impact Report.
1) In May 2011 the Planning Inspectorate received a notification from the applicant, Navitus Bay Development Ltd, under Regulation 6 of the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2009. This triggered the requirement for the Inspectorate to produce a list under Regulation 9 of those regulations. On the basis of the information provided by the applicant in relation to this request, the following local authorities were identified by the Inspectorate as host authorities under the ?B? and ?C? tests described in s43 of the Planning Act 2008:

a) New Forest National Park
b) Dorset County Council
c) Hampshire County Council
d) Christchurch Borough Council
e) Bournemouth Borough Council
f) East Dorset District Council
g) New Forest District Council

2) The Consultation Report will be sent to s43 local authorities at the start of the Acceptance period to seek an ?Adequacy of Consultation Representation? from them. Since none of the proposed development is within the Isle of Wight and it does not share a boundary with any of the ?host? authorities listed above; the Isle of Wight Council is not a s43 local authority as prescribed by the PA2008 and therefore the Consultation Report would not automatically be shared with it at the Acceptance stage. What constitutes a s43 local authority is a matter of fact, and the tests in the PA2008 are clear.

This scenario however does not mean that the Isle of Wight Council could not request that the Consultation Report is sent to it at the same time as to the s43 local authorities, or that the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) could not have regard to any representation received from the Isle of Wight Council in making its decision as to whether the applicant has complied with Chapter 2 Part 5 of the PA2008. It also does not preclude the Isle of Wight Council from making representations to a s43 local authority, including a request for the content of that representation to be considered as part of the s43 authority?s ?Adequacy of Consultation Representation? to the Inspectorate.

As you are aware, the Isle of Wight Council will be afforded the opportunity to register as an interested party and on this basis make written and oral representations to an appointed Examining Authority (ExA) at the appropriate time.

3) As described above, the Isle of Wight Council would not be a s43 local authority for the scheme as currently proposed, and therefore it would not be automatically invited to the Preliminary Meeting under Rule 6 of the Infrastructure Planning (Examination Procedure) Rule 2010 (as amended). The Council, however, can secure an invitation by making a relevant representation at the appropriate time. An appointed ExA also has discretion to invite ?Other Persons? to a Preliminary Meeting; where it feels representations from them would help its consideration of how an application should be examined.

S60 of the PA2008 states that the Inspectorate, on behalf of the Secretary of State, must invite all s56A local authorities to submit a Local Impact Report. An appointed ExA may also invite representations to be provided by local authorities not covered by s56A of the PA2008, which could comprise the same type of information that would be included in a Local Impact Report. The weight attributed to any such statement would be at the discretion of that ExA.

4) The ?2014 Review? of the Planning Act 2008 regime is being undertaken by the Department for Communities and Local Government (CLG). The Inspectorate is unable to make any comments pre-empting how CLG will interpret its findings, or on any amendments to the regime which may or may not emerge from these. Details on how to respond to CLG?s consultation in relation to the ?2014 Review? can be found on pages 7 and 8 of the following document: [attachment 1]

5) The list of consultees identified in Appendix One of the Inspectorate?s 2011 Scoping Opinion was generated based on a GIS shape file provided by the applicant at that time. A shape file in this context identifies the Order limits (or ?red line boundary?) of the proposed development.

Immediately prior to the submission of a DCO application, the Inspectorate will request a contemporary GIS shape file from the applicant based on the Order limits of the proposed development as applied for. From this an up-to-date list of consultees will be generated, reflecting any geographical or jurisdictional changes to any Schedule 1 bodies. It is from the list generated at submission of a DCO application that the Inspectorate will base its statutory correspondences in the Acceptance and Pre-examination periods.

6) I would reemphasise the content of my responses to questions 1 and 2, where the PA2008 provides mechanisms for non-prescribed local authorities to provide representations on the adequacy of consultation, and to register as interested parties and become fully engaged with the examination process. I would also request that any comments on the PA2008 statute in the context of the ?2014 Review? should be made directly to CLG by the means described in my response to question 4.

Alan Rayner

FAO Sophie Moeng.
I refer to your e-mail sent to xxxx and dated 02.2013 and sent at 3.08pm.
I note that a full set of documents(for the above application) will be available for the public to read at---- and you list 4 locations.
Would you please note that either Swanage Library or Swanage Town Hall should be also be issued with a full set of all documents .

The People of Swanage and nearby villages have to travel about 18 miles to Bournemouth via a ferry crossing or a distance of about 20 miles to Poole central Library, and some may be involved in several bus routes.

The population of Swanage includes a higher than national average of Senior Citizens , some of whom may have difficulty in reaching the libraries in Poole and Bournemouth .

If / when this application reaches your office, it will generate intense local interest. It is anticipated that the application will be many, many pages long and may well take some hours / days to read and digest properly and it would be wise to make several copies available at each of the locations that they are sent to, otherwise members of the public may have to wait or make appointments to be able to access the documents.
Perhaps it would be worth making the documents available on a web site and give some publicity to that fact.
Thank you for your email. I note that it is marked for the attention of Sophie Moeng; the Senior Stakeholder Manager at Navitus Bay Development Ltd. If Ms. Moeng was the intended recipient of this correspondence, may I recommended redirecting your email for her attention to [email protected]

If and when the application for the proposed Navitus Bay Wind Park is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, and if it is decided that that application is of a satisfactory standard to be examined by the Inspectorate on behalf of the Secretary of State, both the application documents and all submissions to that examination will be published to the National Infrastructure pages of the Planning Portal website. The Navitus Bay Wind Park project page is available on the following link:
[attachment 1]

Based on the information available to me, Swanage Library appears to offer full internet access to the public and therefore if the application is accepted to be examined by the Inspectorate residents of Swanage should be able to use their local library to access the application and examination documents if they wish. The opening hours for Swanage Library are available on the following link:
[attachment 2]

David Gerry

There is a particular problem with how the consultation has been conducted by the company.

Much information has been delayed, some of it is very relevant but even now unavailable and many company claims about the scheme are incorrect.

My concern is that the absence of sufficient proper information has had a bad effect on public appreciation of the wind farm plan.

While this is going on, the company endlessly have statements published in the main local newspaper, the Bournemouth Echo, saying how keen they are to consult with everyone, answer all questions and take all comments on board with a view to mitigation.

To be clear, the questions have been asked of the company already, but without result.

Kindly advise if there is any way the public are able to bring to your attention the numerous examples of such poor consultation. If so, what would be the best procedure to use please?
Before a decision can be made by the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) on whether to accept an application for Examination, local authorities are invited to make representations to the Inspectorate concerning the adequacy of the applicant?s pre-consultation. The Inspectorate will write to relevant local authorities when an application has been received to ask for their comments in relation to this. The Inspectorate, on behalf of the Secretary of State, must have regard to these representations in making its decision on whether to accept an application to proceed to be examined.

Pre-application consultation is a statutory duty for applicants, and the Planning Act 2008 requires for it to be carried out in a certain manner and to a certain standard. Issues about the adequacy of an applicant's pre-application consultation should be shared and considered prior to the Inspectorate making a decision on accepting an application for examination. Where any person feels that an applicant's pre-application consultation was inadequately carried out, they should seek resolution by approaching the applicant in the first instance.

If persons remain unsatisfied, they should make a complaint to the relevant local authority (who can consider this complaint as part of their representation to the Secretary of State on the adequacy of consultation), or to the Secretary of State (via the Inspectorate). Any complaint should be made promptly following the close of consultation to ensure that it is received not later than the point at which an application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate. In all cases, the final decision as to whether pre-application consultation was adequately carried out rests with the Secretary of State.

Separately, where someone believes they have identified an issue which has not been adequately addressed by the applicant, despite raising it with them as part of their pre-application consultation exercises, they may wish to make a written representation about that issue to the Examination of that application. This will ensure that the issue is read by the appointed Examining Authority during the Examination.

You may also find the following guidance and advice note helpful:

Guidance on the Pre-Application Process (The Planning Act 2008):
[attachment 1]

Advice note sixteen: The developer?s pre-application consultation, publicity and notification duties:
[attachment 2]

Bill Hoodless

For the landscape and visual assessment, can consented projects that have not yet been constructed be included in the baseline or can they be included in the cumulative assessment?
I refer you to Appendix 3 of the Infrastructure Planning Commission scoping opinion for the proposed Navitus Bay Wind Park (November 2011) which contained advice on assessing cumulative impacts. The Scoping Opinion states that the potential cumulative impacts with other major developments should be identified, and the significance of such impacts should be shown to have been assessed against the baseline position (which would include built and operational development). The advice continues to provide a list of project types to be considered in a cumulative assessment and includes permitted applications that have not yet been implemented. On this basis, the Planning Inspectorate advises that consented but not yet built projects are addressed in the cumulative assessment and are not included in the baseline.

I also refer you to Advice Note 10 (September 2013); whilst this advice note is specifically for Habitats Regulations Assessment, it contains a revised list of project types that the Planning Inspectorate considers are also relevant to EIA cumulative assessments.

Whilst it is for the applicant to determine their assessment methodology, the Planning Inspectorate strongly advises that you follow and clearly reference in the Environmental Statement (ES) any relevant guidance. We recommend that you agree your methodology for determining the baseline and assessing impacts with relevant consultees (for landscape and visual assessment this would likely include, but not be limited to, relevant local planning authorities and Natural England). Where you have such agreements these should be clearly documented in the ES. Should you depart from the advice provided within the Scoping Opinion or from consultees then we strongly recommend that you provide justification for doing so within your ES.

Navitus Bay Development Limited - Chris Lloyd

Requested comments on draft Habitats Regulations Assessment documents

Navitus Bay Development Limited - Mr Chris Lloyd

Cllr. Woodcock requested to register with the Planning Inspectorate as an interested party.
The proposal by Navitus Bay Development Ltd for the Navitus Bay Wind Park is currently at the 'pre-application' stage of the process for making decisions on nationally significant infrastructure projects (NSIPs) under the Planning Act 2008 (as amended) regime.

The opportunity for persons to register to become an 'interested party' will not arise until any formal application has been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate and accepted to proceed to be examined. If the application is accepted to be examined, the developer will be required to advertise in local and national press the period within which anybody will be able to make a 'relevant representation' and register to become an interested party. Notification of this period will also appear on the Planning Inspectorate's project webpage, here: [attachment 1]

Based on current information, Navitus Bay Development Ltd anticipate submitting this application at some point in Quarter 1 2014. Until such time as the application is accepted to proceed to be examined by the Inspectorate, any views about the proposal should be directed to the developer (email: [email protected] tel. 01926671592).

The Planning Inspectorate has published a series of advice notes which explain the process, including information on how to get involved. These are available at the following address: [attachment 2]. I would draw your attention in particular to advice notes 8.1 through 8.5.

Cllr. Tony Woodcock

Ms. Rance requested to register with the Planning Inspectorate as an interested party.
The proposal by Navitus Bay Development Ltd for the Navitus Bay Wind Park is currently at the 'pre-application' stage of the process for making decisions on nationally significant infrastructure projects (NSIPs) under the Planning Act 2008 (as amended) regime.

The opportunity for persons to register to become an 'interested party' will not arise until any formal application has been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate and accepted to proceed to be examined. If the application is accepted to be examined, the developer will be required to advertise in local and national press the period within which anybody will be able to make a 'relevant representation' and register to become an interested party. Notification of this period will also appear on the Planning Inspectorate's project webpage, here: [attachment 1]

Based on current information, Navitus Bay Development Ltd anticipate submitting this application at some point in Quarter 1 2014. Until such time as the application is accepted to proceed to be examined by the Inspectorate, any views about the proposal should be directed to the developer (email: [email protected] tel. 01926671592).

The Planning Inspectorate has published a series of advice notes which explain the process, including information on how to get involved. These are available at the following address: [attachment 2]. I would draw your attention in particular to advice notes 8.1 through 8.5.

Cherrill Rance

L A Bird requested to register with the Planning Inspectorate as an interested party.
The proposal by Navitus Bay Development Ltd for the Navitus Bay Wind Park is currently at the 'pre-application' stage of the process for making decisions on nationally significant infrastructure projects (NSIPs) under the Planning Act 2008 (as amended) regime.

The opportunity for persons to register to become an 'interested party' will not arise until any formal application has been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate and accepted to proceed to be examined. If the application is accepted to be examined, the developer will be required to advertise in local and national press the period within which anybody will be able to make a 'relevant representation' and register to become an interested party. Notification of this period will also appear on the Planning Inspectorate's project webpage, here: [attachment 1]

Based on current information, Navitus Bay Development Ltd anticipate submitting this application at some point in Quarter 1 2014. Until such time as the application is accepted to proceed to be examined by the Inspectorate, any views about the proposal should be directed to the developer (email: [email protected] tel. 01926671592).

The Planning Inspectorate has published a series of advice notes which explain the process, including information on how to get involved. These are available at the following address: [attachment 2]. I would draw your attention in particular to advice notes 8.1 through 8.5.

L A Bird

Mr. Davies queried the status under the Planning Act 2008 of Bournemouth Borough Council in relation to the emerging application for the Navitus Bay Wind Park.
At the ?pre-application? stage of the process, applicants are required to identify and consult statutory consultees about the proposed development in compliance with section 42 of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended) (the PA2008) and Schedule 1 of the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009. Local authorities as defined under section 43 are statutory consultees for any proposed Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP) which is located in (a 'host' authority) or adjacent to (a 'boundary' authority) their area. If you are in any doubt as to Bournemouth Borough Council?s pre-application status in relation to the proposed Navitus Bay Wind Park, please contact the applicant (email [email protected] or telephone 01926671592).

If an application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate and accepted for examination, section 102 of the PA 2008 applies and sets out those persons who are 'interested parties' and therefore enjoy certain entitlements such as the ability to make written representations and oral representations at any hearings. Host local authorities are automatically registered as interested parties under s102.

If the NSIP or its associated development would not be located in land under jurisdiction of a local authority, but that authority shares a boundary with a host authority, in order to participate in the examination of the application the boundary authority would be required to either:

· register as an interested party by making a relevant representation; or

· as a s43 statutory consultee, confirm to the appointed Examining Authority (ExA) its desire to become an interested party in writing; if possible by a deadline timetabled in that ExAs letter under Rule 8 of the Infrastructure Planning (Examination Procedure) Rules 2010 (the Exam Rules).

S43 authorities that share a boundary with a host authority or authorities will receive an invitation to the Preliminary Meeting under Rule 6 of the Exam Rules, and the procedural decision following that meeting under Rule 8. Unless one of the steps described in the bulleted list above were then taken, the Rule 8 letter would be the last correspondence from the Inspectorate that a boundary authority would receive.

For information on the content and submission of Local Impact Reports, I refer you to the Planning Inspectorate?s non-statutory Advice Note One: Local Impact Reports: [attachment 1]

Bournemuth Borough Council - Steve Davies

Could you advise please concerning the statutory consultees for this national infrastructure scheme?

I am aware that there is Schedule One in S.I. 2009/2264 at [attachment 1]

However, that is very general including many consultees that would have no interest in this particular plan.

Thus it occurred to me you may already have a publicly available list of statutory consultees for the Navitus proposal and if so, I should be grateful to receive a copy.
You are correct in stating that the persons prescribed for the purposes of an applicant's duty to consult are those listed in column 1 of the table in Schedule 1 of the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009.

The Planning Inspectorate uses specialised software to generate a list of prescribed persons based on a shape file (mapping the Order limits) provided by an applicant. This is usually done twice; first under Regulation 9 of the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2009 and again in immediate advance of the submission of an application. The list generated by the Inspectorate under Regulation 9 of the above regulations for the proposed Navitus Bay Wind Park is available to view publicly as an appendix (Appendix 1) to the Inspectorate's Scoping Report, here: [attachment 2]

While lists generated under Regulation 9 of the above regulations are shared with applicants, the Inspectorate emphasises that applicants should not rely on their contents to inform an applicant's duty to consult under the Planning Act 2008 (as amended). It is for an applicant to identify the required bodies subject to its own investigation and its own legal advice.

The purpose of the list generated by the Inspectorate before submission of an application is to identify any jurisdictional or boundary changes associated with the prescribed bodies in advance of a potential Examination. In practice this may increase or decrease the amount of prescribed bodies. This list will inform to whom an appointed Examining Authority (ExA) will send its letter under Rule 6 of the Infrastructure Planning (Examination Procedure) Rules 2009; which amongst other things invites all prescribed bodies to the Preliminary Meeting. Following the Preliminary meeting, the ExA will issue a second letter under Rule 8 of the above rules, to all interested parties and all prescribed bodies. Appended to this letter will be a timetable for the Examination which will include a deadline by which prescribed bodies must respond to the Inspectorate to confirm their status as an 'interested party'. Those bodies which do not reply will not be afforded interested party status, and will not be sent correspondence or consulted with further in the Examination.

Bill Hoodless

Is it acceptable for objectors to a wind farm to refer to their negative view of policy matters within their objections please? If not, would the Inspector strike out the entire objection as tainted with an item beyond his or her remit, or instead, say the objection has been considered except for the part relating to policy? Alternatively, would the Inspector consider the merit of the entire objection, giving due weight to all parts of it?
As you may be aware, the policy context for nationally significant infrastructure projects under the Planning Act 2008 regime is embedded in a suite of national policy statements (NPSs). There are six NPSs designated in the energy sector, and these are available to view via the following link: [attachment 1]. Where one or more national policy statements have been designated and are relevant to a specific type of development, those statements have primacy in the decision-making process.

Section 102(4) of the Planning Act 2008 defines the term 'relevant representation'; making explicit that a representation is not a relevant representation if it contains material about the merits of policy set out in a national policy statement. The Planning Inspectorate's advice note 8.3: [attachment 2] expands on the content of this provision, stating that " [...] the Examining Authority may disregard representations which it considers are vexatious or frivolous, or those which deal with the merits of matters of national policy, contained in National Policy Statements (NPSs). NPSs have already been the subject of consultation and parliamentary approval and it is not the role of the examination to debate the merits of national policy."

Therefore if a representation were to include material about the merits of national policy, that part may be disregarded by an Examining Authority. A representation that refers solely to the merits of national policy, therefore, is likely to be disregarded entirely by an Examining Authority. The latter scenario may compromise the 'relevant representation' test described above under s102 of the PA2008; and in turn a persons 'interested party' status.

Bill Hoodless

Mr and Mrs Holloway wrote to David Cameron the Prime Minister at his Whitney Constituency office with an accompanying e-mail to Christopher Chope MP regarding the proposed application for the Navitus Bay Wind Park. The Planning Inspectorate responded on their behalf.
Please see attached letter.

Mr. and Mrs. Holloway

Ms. Charman wrote to the Rt. Hon. Eric Pickles MP, Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, regarding the proposed application for the Navitus Bay Wind Park. The Planning Inspectorate responded on Mr. Pickles' behalf.
Please see attached letter.

Patricia Charman

Mr. Hoodless wrote on behalf of the Poole & Christchurch Bays' Association to the Department for Communities and Local Government (CLG) regarding the proposed application for the Navitus Bay Wind Park. The Planning Inspectorate respondend on behalf of CLG.
Please see attached letter.

Poole & Christchurch Bays' Ass. - Bill Hoodless

The Planning Inspectorate received an email comprising comments objecting of the proposed Navitus Bay Wind Park
As no formal application has yet been made to the Planning Inspectorate by the developer, the Navitus Bay Wind Park scheme is at its Pre-Application stage. Please note that the developer is expected to submit its application in quarter 1 of 2014.

Until the application is submitted to the Inspectorate, your point of contact should be the developer. Taking part by commenting to the developer at this stage does not prejudice your ability to make representations to the Inspectorate later in the process. Therefore you should inform the developer about your concerns as soon as possible and allow time for a response. I recommend that you refer to the developer's website for information about how to contact them (link to Developer's website: attachment 1).

Should the application be formally submitted, the Inspectorate on behalf of the Secretary of State has a 28 day period to determine whether to accept the application to progress to Examination. If the application progresses to Examination, the process then provides the opportunity for people to register as an Interested Party by competing a Relevant Representation. Please note that only Relevant Representations submitted on the prescribed form will be accepted during this period. Once the Registration period opens, if you have access to the internet an electronic version of the form will be available on the Inspectorate's project webpage. A paper copy of the registration form can also be requested from the Inspectorate's customer services number on 0303 444 5000. All Relevant Representations will be read by the appointed Examining Authority.

Once you have submitted a Relevant Representation you will become an Interested Party for the whole application process. As an Interested Party, you will receive relevant updates regarding the application and will be invited to submit written representations in which you can expand, with evidence, on any issues mentioned in your Relevant Representation. You will also be invited to any hearings held during the Examination.

The Inspectorate has produced several advice notes to help provide an overview of the Planning Act 2008 process and the opportunities to get involved. These are available on the national infrastructure pages of the Planning Portal's website; here: [attachment 1]

attachment 1
[attachment 2]

Ann & Nigel Griffiths

The interested party made a phone request for information regarding how to make her views known regarding the proposed scheme.
Please see attached letter.

Annetta Chennell

I write to express my concerns about this proposed wind farm.

My first concern is that this wind farm will destroy the landscape and one for the best view in England not just for now but forever. You will be able to see this wind farm from a great distant as it is to be built in an area overlooked from miles of cliffs and hills including designated sites such as the two Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty and England's only natural World Heritage site. Landside installations and cable routes to support the wind farm will also have a detrimental effect on the landscape.

Why don?t you follow Government recommendations and common European practice and site this wind farm further offshore?

We run the risk of destroying the local economies that rely on much on tourism.

Would people still come to the beach in this area if all they could see is a wind farm?

Why would we want to degrade a highly valuable national asset and further risk a fragile tourist industry which is based on the area's wonderful natural environment?

There is also a risk to safety in one of the UK's busiest marine leisure areas as well as an impact on the local ecology and environment effecting fish, marine mammals, migrating and breeding birds, coastal habitats, noise, light pollution, changes in weather and wave patterns, underwater noise.

I hope you will do your best to see that the concerns raised by myself and others are taken on board and are not ignored which is usually the case.

I await your comments.
The Navitus Bay Offshore Wind Park application is yet to be formally submitted to the Planning Inspectorate and is currently at the 'pre-application' stage of the process for making decisions on nationally significant infrastructure projects (NSIPs) under the Planning Act 2008 (the PA2008) regime. The developer currently anticipates that the application will be submitted in Quarter 1 2014. On submission, the Inspectorate will have a 28 day period within which to decide whether or not the application meets the standards required to be formally accepted for Examination. Until this decision is made, your point of contact in relation to the proposed scheme should be the developer - Navitus Bay Development Limited - on the following details: [email protected] or 01926671592.

Section 47 of the PA2008 places a statutory requirement on developers to consult local communities before submitting to the Inspectorate an application for an order granting development consent. Developers must create and publish a 'Statement of Community Consultation' (SoCC), in consultation with the relevant local authorities, which sets out how the they intend to consult the local community. Developers are required to conduct their consultation as set out in the published SoCC, and to demonstrate how they have had regard to any responses received. Developers should then produce and submit to the Inspectorate a 'Consultation Report', as part of the application, which will amongst other things explain how they have consulted the local community in line with their SoCC.

Navitus Bay Development Limited have a number of phases of community consultation, with the final phase closing on 11 October 2013. I therefore advise submitting your concerns to the developer before the final phase of consultation closes.

If the application is accepted for Examination, the PA2008 establishes the opportunity for individuals, organisations and other groups to register as ?interested parties? by completing a registration form and submitting a 'Relevant Representation'. Relevant Representation forms can be completed online, and will be available on the project webpages of the Planning Portal, here: [attachment 1]. It is also possible to call the Inspectorate?s customer service desk on 0303 444 5000 to request a paper copy of the registration form. The developer will advertise when and how long the period for registration will be open; which must be a minimum of 28 days.

Relevant Representations should include whether an individual, organisation or other group supports or opposes a scheme and highlight any issues that they may wish to make further detailed representations on later in the Examination process. All Relevant Representations will be read by the appointed Examining Authority, and in conjunction with its reading of the application documents, will help to inform its 'Initial Assessment of Principal Issues'. If you choose to register to become an interested party, you can include your concerns below in your Relevant Representation. By registering as an interested party with the Inspectorate, you will be kept informed of the Examination by either email or post and be invited to engage in the process further by　making written representations (and oral representations at any hearings) over the course of a statutory 6 month Examination period.

The Inspectorate has produced a suite of advice notes to help provide an overview of the PA2008 process and explain how to get involved. These are available at the following links:

Advice note 8.1: How the process works

Advice note 8.2: Responding to the developer's pre-application consultation

Advice note 8.3: How to register and become an interested party in an application

Advice note 8.4: Influencing how an application will be examined - the Preliminary Meeting

Advice note 8.5: Participating in the examination

I hope you have found this information useful, please contact me on the details below if you wish to discuss this matter further.

Chris Goldthorpe

An enquiry via post voicing concerns regarding the proposed scheme.
Please see attached letter.

Mr and Mrs A. Rogers

The Planning Inspectorate received an email comprising comments objecting the proposed Navitus Bay Wind Park.
As no formal application has yet been made to the Planning Inspectorate by the developer, the Navitus Bay Wind Park scheme is at its pre-application stage. Please note that the developer is expected to submit its application in Quarter 1 of 2014.

Until the application is submitted, your first point of contact should be the developer. Taking part by commenting at this stage does not prejudice your ability to make comments to the Planning Inspectorate on the scheme later in the process. Therefore you should inform the developer about your concerns as soon as possible and allow time for a response. As such, I recommend that you refer to the developer's website for information about how to contact them with feedback (link to Developer's website: attachment 1).

Should the application be formally submitted, the Planning Inspectorate on behalf of the Secretary of State has a 28 day period to determine whether to accept the application to progress to Examination. If the application progresses to Examination, the process then asks people to register as an Interested Party with the Planning Inspectorate by sending us a Relevant Representation about the proposal. Please note that only Relevant Representations submitted on the prescribed form will be accepted during this period. Once the registration period opens a paper copy of the registration form can be requested from the Planning Inspectorate's customer services number on 0303 444 5000. Alternatively, if you have access to the internet, an electronic version of the form will be available on the project webpage. All Relevant Representations will be read by the appointed Examining Authority.

Once you have submitted a Relevant Representation you will then become an Interested Party for the whole application process. As an Interested Party, you will receive relevant updates regarding the application and will be invited to submit written representations in which you can expand, with evidence, on any issues mentioned in your Relevant Representation. You will also be invited to any hearings held during the Examination.

The Planning Inspectorate has produced several advice notes to help provide an overview of the Planning Act 2008 process and the opportunities to get involved. These are available at the following link: attachment 2

In this instance I recommend the advice note eight series - How to get involved in the planning process.

attachment 1
[attachment 1]

attachment 2

Nigel Griffiths

Whilst I have read the information on your website I am not totally clear on when, as an interested member of the public, I should register to express my objection to this proposed development. If I understand it correctly, it is only after the developers have submitted a formal planning application in Q1 2014.

I have already sent a letter of objection to the developer, which has been acknowledged.

I would request that my name and email address be added to any database the Planning Inspectorate maintains so that I receive updates on this proposed development.
As you correctly stated, no formal application has yet been made to The Planning Inspectorate by the developer and the application is expected to submit by the developer in Quarter 1 of 2014, therefore the scheme is currently at its 'Pre-Application' stage. Until the application is submitted, your first point of contact should be the developer, for which we note you have already submitted comments to.

Depending on the nature of your comments to the developer you may also wish to notify the local authority of your comments, as they will later have the opportunity to report to the Planning Inspectorate on their view of the adequacy of the developer?s pre-application consultation, measuring what was delivered against the commitments made in the Statement of Community Consultation (SOCC). Before formally consulting people living in the vicinity of the project, the developer will have prepared a SOCC, having first consulted relevant local authorities about what it should contain. The purpose of the SOCC is to detail the consultation the developer intends to undertake with the local community about their project. The developer is then required to carry out their consultation with the local community as set out in the SOCC.

Should the application be formally submitted, the Planning Inspectorate on behalf of the Secretary of State has a 28 day period to determine whether to accept the application to progress to Examination. If the application progresses to Examination, the process then asks people to register as an ?Interested Party? with the Planning Inspectorate by sending us a 'Relevant Representation' about the proposal. This Representation will be considered by the appointed Examining Authority during the Examination period. By registering as an 'Interested Party' with the Planning Inspectorate, you will be kept informed of the application by email or post. Therefore in direct response to your query it is at this Relevant Representation period that you should register with The Planning Inspectorate.

The Planning Inspectorate has produced several advice notes to help provide an overview of the Planning Act 2008 process and the opportunities to get involved. These are available at the following link: [attachment 1]. In this instance I recommend the advice note eight series - 'How to get involved in the planning process'.

Ian White

Dear Sir/Madam

I want to know if your organisation has granted them planning permission yet to erect their proposed meteorological mast in Poole Bay. As Navitus Bay have in the past promised to keep members of the public informed of developments, their failure to respond in this case is not in keeping with this undertaking.
Dear Ms Chennell

Thank you for your query received on the 19 August 2013 concerning the proposed meteorological mast in Poole Bay.

The Planning Inspectorate on behalf of the Secretary of State will determine, if submitted and accepted for examination, the proposed Navitus Bay Offshore Wind Farm. The proposed meteorological mast does not fall within the threshold for Planning Act 2008 regime and therefore will not be determined by the Planning Inspectorate.

I can however confirm that the proposed meteorological mast application is to be decided by the Marine Management Organisation (MMO). Therefore I advise that you contact the organisation directly for progress of the planning application for the proposed mast.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any further queries on the information set out above or the process by which the Navitus Bay Offshore Wind Farm proposal, if formally submitted, will be determined.

Anita Chennell

Poole and Christchurch Bays' Association have serious concerns that the imaging used by Navitus Bay Development Ltd currently fails to provide valid pictoral descriptions and fails to pick up adequate relationship material such as coastline features.
We strongly encouraged you to always share such concerns with the developer in the first instance and would encourage you to ensure that Navitus Bay Development Limited (NBDL) are aware of your specific concerns and suggestions noted in your letter. You also note in your letter that the local authorities will be appraised of your findings, and again we fully support that approach.

As the project is still in the pre-application stage, it would be inappropriate for the Planning Inspectorate to make direct observations about the adequacy of evidence used in NBDL's consultation exercises and/or impact assessments.

Should an application be formally submitted to the Planning Inspectorate and be accepted to progress to examination, to become an interested party and therefore actively participate in the examination you will be asked to submit a relevant representation. This representation is your opportunity to set out to the Examining Authority those matters of issue/concern that you wish to be considered.

It is during the examination stage that an Examining Authority (ExA) may wish to examine the matters you raise in your correspondence in more detail. Should this be discussed during the examination, it would be for the ExA to then report on the matter to the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change as part of their Recommendation Report. The Secretary of State would then make the final decision about the scheme.

Roy Pointer

To our Councillors.

I live in Tuckton and am now aware of the wind farm in ?Navitas bay? which will be right on our door step.

I absolutely support 90% of the renewable strategies being laid down by the government but there are a couple which have real local impacts, the one in question is the Navitus proposal.

If I think of the local economy which is tourist based with key selling points being the new forest, purbecks, Jurassic coast line and beaches ? having a wind farm placed so NEAR to the local community will surely have a detrimental impact.

The little research I?ve read, most of the wind farms are 13 miles plus away from built up areas. Blackpool is a parallel to Bournemouth and the wind farm there is some 24 miles away and the units only 120m high.

This farm threatens so much locally being so close, I cant imagine the impact to the Isle of wight, which is totally tourist based.

FYI I supported the reef as it was a catalyst for the whole of boscombe and the redevelopment is fantastic, a place, jobs and business. This farm would wipe all that out.

Would you let me know how you stand with this subject and advise how I can progress my objection.
Dear Mr Harris

Thank you for your email received on 29 July 2013 setting out your concerns regarding the Navitus Bay Offshore Wind Farm proposal. Your email was forwarded to the Planning Inspectorate by Bournemouth Borough Council.

As no formal application has yet been made to the Planning Inspectorate by the developer, the Navitus Bay Offshore Wind Farm scheme is at its 'Pre-Application' stage. Please note that the developer is expected to submit its application in quarter 1 of 2014.

Until the application is submitted, your first point of contact should be the developer. Taking part by commenting at this stage does not prejudice your ability to make comments to the Planning Inspectorate on the scheme later in the process. Therefore you should inform the developer about your concerns as soon as possible and allow time for a response. As such, I recommend that you refer to the developer's website for information about how to contact them with feedback (link to Developer's website: [attachment 1]).

Should the application be formally submitted, the Planning Inspectorate on behalf of the Secretary of State has a 28 day period to determine whether to accept the application to progress to Examination. If the application progresses to Examination, the process then asks people to register as an ?Interested Party? with the Planning Inspectorate by sending us a 'Relevant Representation' about the proposal. This Representation will be considered by the appointed Examining Authority during the Examination period.

The Planning Inspectorate has produced several advice notes to help provide an overview of the Planning Act 2008 process and the opportunities to get involved. These are available at the following link: [attachment 2]
In this instance I recommend the advice note eight series - 'How to get involved in the planning process'.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any further queries on the information set out above or the process by which the Navitus Bay Offshore Wind Farm proposal, if formally submitted, will be determined.

Mark Harris

Dangers to health from Wind Turbine Noise ? need for new Regulations

The attention of the Poole and Christchurch Bays? Association (PCBA) has been drawn to potentially serious health dangers due to the proximity of wind generators, and their turbulence, to dwellings. This proximity, or inadequate setback, arises from deficiencies in the current regulations in providing protection to the public. Noise limits are currently regulated under ETSU-R-97, regulations we believe were largely formulated by the wind generation industry without proper medical input.

Our concerns centre on the potential for Wind Turbine Syndrome (WTS). WTS has been medically established as a range of health impacts driven by the proximity of turbines to dwellings. Reports include conditions such as tinnitus, raised blood pressure, sleep deprivation, panic attacks, increased stress levels, depression, headache, vertigo, rapid heart rate, irritability, nausea and memory and concentration loss. It appears that people suffering from motion sickness, migraine and probably people over 50 years old are particularly susceptible. We can provide plenty of references for these fully verified and genuine reports but I assume your team will have access to them.

We also understand that, contrary to some suggestions, walls of dwellings do not provide effective insulation from this phenomenon. Moreover, different noise levels are relevant during the night from those in the day. The method of noise measurement is also important, as is wind shear, particularly at night.

The current industry approach suffers from at least five key weaknesses:
(1) The absence of proper medical input on the effects of low frequency noise and infrasound, and
(2) The use of dBA limits which filter out nearly all the low frequency noise and infrasound created by turbulence around the blades, i.e. it ignores the type of sound which damages health. Un-weighted sound measurements, reflecting the health damaging noise, should be used in assessing the effects on humans.
(3) The use of average noise levels, not worst case, thereby making the limits far too lax.
(4) The false assumption that background noise masks turbine noise.
(5) Inadequate assessment of night time noise and amplitude modulation.

The Government has, through agents, embarked on a major push into both onshore and offshore wind energy generation with ambitious targets to 2020. In order to avoid the incidence of, and potential claims relating to, WTS we recommend and request that the Department take urgent steps during 2013 to:
(1) Commission health professional led analysis of the existing globally reported literature and evidence of WTS and the protection provided by the existing UK regulations. In particular, existing wind farms, with significant WTS complaints, should have both dBA and un-weighted noise measured both inside and outside the dwellings of sufferers. This first step should result in setting acceptable noise limits.
(2) Abolish ETSU-R-97 and issue new regulations (independently compiled, i.e. not by the wind industry advisors) to protect against the health effects cited in this letter and avoiding the weaknesses above.
(3) Require proposals for generation not yet committed to be covered by the new regulations and to pass post-construction compliance testing. Any wind farm which did not comply would have to be shut down in whole or part.
(4) Test existing wind farms against the new regulations and require modifications for compliance as necessary. If such mitigation is not possible, there should be compensation based on damage suffered.

A copy of this letter is being sent to the Secretary of State for Health in view of that Department?s potential interest in, and support for action on the issue. A copy is also being sent to Planning Inspectorate in its role in recommending individual projects. Local Authorities will also be apprised of our interest in the issue.
Thank you for your email received on 15 July 2013 regarding the Navitus Bay offshore wind farm proposal setting out your concerns regarding the health and noise implications that may be associated with wind farms.

I can advise that in this instance the Planning Inspectorate notes your concerns and will keep them on record due to the non case specific nature of the issues. However, it should be noted that in instances where concerns are specific to the proposal and prior to the application being submitted, then your first point of contact should be the developer, making comments to the developer at this stage does not prejudice your ability to make comments to the Planning Inspectorate later in the process.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any further queries on the information set out above or the process by which the Navitus Bay Offshore Wind Farm proposal, if formally submitted, will be determined.

Roy Pointer

The query in the correspondence relates to Local Impact Reports (LIR) and in particular:

~ the role, if any, of a LIR in representing the views of the wider community;

~ in setting out whether impacts are likely to be positive, neutral and negative, how does that not cover expressing an opinion on merits; and

~ how a Local Authority can engage with the Examination process.
A Local Authority can engage with the Examination process in a number of ways. Firstly, they are invited to submit Adequacy of Consultation Representations once a formal application has been received by the Planning Inspectorate. These representations however are focused on whether the applicant has carried out the consultation in accordance with the Statement of Community Consultation, upon which the Local Authority could have provided comments.

Secondly, whilst a Local Authority may well be a statutory party we strongly encourage the organisation to make a relevant representation. This is about 500 words that summarises which aspects of the scheme you agree or disagree with. Submitting this information at this early stage greatly assists the Examining Authority to understand the principal issues and start to decide how best to examine the application. Where individual elected members (and indeed members of the public) do not necessarily agree with the approach in the Council's response, we encourage them to submit relevant representations on their own behalf.

As you may be aware, the Planning Act 2008 places great significance on LIRs in the process. In coming to a decision, the Secretary of State must have regard to any LIR submitted by the deadline set in the Examining Authority's timetable. Local Authorities are invited to submit these documents early in the Examination process, as they are of great assistance to the Examining Authority. A Local Authority need not produce an LIR.

Further into examination, the Examining Authority may direct written questions to an individual Local Authority asking for a written response. Local Authorities may also provide comments on the relevant representations of other participants. Finally, Local Authorities may wish to submit Written Representations providing more detailed evidence or data to supplement their own Relevant Representation. In terms of oral evidence, the Local Authority may seek to represent their cases at any Open Floor or Issue-Specific Hearings. So conclude on the first point, whilst the LIR is given significance through the Planning Act process, there are multiple ways in which a Local Authority can make representations on an application.

Turning to the second point about LIRs and expressing opinions on the merits of an application. Whilst an LIR may chose to represent a broad range of impacts they should be categorised as positive, neutral or negative. If those impacts are considered to be neutral they may not appear in any other Local Authority representation. However, where an element of balance, weighting or interpretation may be needed to overlay this factual analysis of impacts this is where a Local Authority may express its views about the merits of the application. For example, a Local Authority may conclude that there will be a likely negative impact in terms of a particular traffic impact, but that the positive impact in terms of job creation outweighs that effect and so, with the possibility for appropriate traffic mitigation measures, the Local Authority may support the scheme. Furthermore, a Local Authority may have a particular concern or objective that could be expressed through a Written Representation, such as a design related matter or concerns about the ability to discharge a particular/number of requirements.

Turning to the first point, a LIR should be a document that covers all local impacts from the perspective of the Local Authority and it may refer to the broader views of the community in terms of identifying impacts. It often refers extensively to local strategies, plans and policies and how the proposal fits in (or otherwise). Perhaps the best way to see how an LIR might do this or the possible relationship between an LIR and subsequent representations would be to view similar documents for schemes further on through the examination process on our website.

Steve Davies

Dear Sir,

We write to you as we understand you are consultees in the planning process for Navitus Bay Wind farm

We would like to lodge our strong objection to the planned giant wind turbine farm off the coast of Swanage and the Isle of purbeck.

It is almost beyond belief that anyone would plan such an huge eye-sore in such a sensitive area; a blot of such prominence to all around designated areas of outstanding natural beauty, the UK?s only World Heritage Site - the world famous Jurassic Coast, as well as many areas utterly dependant upon tourism, in particular the very beaches which will overlook this huge site. There are the sea-bird colonies which migrate here each year and all the marine life. Not to mention the hazards it would present to the intense marine activity in the area, and the light pollution it would cause at night with flashing warning beacons.

Surely, areas of outstanding natural beauty are defined as such simply because they are not blighted by un-natural monstrosities such as a giant windfarm within their scene scope!

To put all this at stake on such a massive scale, when the net ?green? energy benefit obtained is in any case far from convincing just seems so ludicrous and ill-conceived.

These plans must be stopped, and common sense prevail.
Dear Mr and Mrs Seedall

Thank you for your email received on 12 June 2013 setting out your concerns regarding the Navitus Bay Offshore Wind Farm proposal.

As no formal application has yet been made to The Planning Inspectorate by the developer, the Navitus Bay Offshore Wind Farm scheme is at its 'Pre-Application' stage. Please note that the developer is expected to submit its application in Quarter 1 of 2014.

Until the application is submitted, your first point of contact should be the developer. Taking part by commenting at this stage does not prejudice your ability to make comments to the Planning Inspectorate on the scheme later in the process. Therefore you should inform the developer about your concerns as soon as possible and allow time for a response. As such, I recommend that you refer to the developer's website for information about how to contact them with feedback (link to Developer's website: [attachment 1]).

Should the application be formally submitted, the Planning Inspectorate on behalf of the Secretary of State has a 28 day period to determine whether to accept the application to progress to Examination. If the application progresses to Examination, the process then asks people to register as an ?Interested Party? with the Planning Inspectorate by sending us a 'Relevant Representation' about the proposal. This Representation will be considered by the appointed Examining Authority during the Examination period.

The Planning Inspectorate has produced several advice notes to help provide an overview of the Planning Act 2008 process and the opportunities to get involved. These are available at the following link: [attachment 2] . In this instance I recommend the advice note eight series - 'How to get involved in the planning process'.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any further queries on the information set out above or the process by which the Navitus Bay Offshore Wind Farm proposal, if formally submitted, will be determined.

and Mrs Seedall

Project Up-date between Navitus Bay Development Limited and the Planning inspectorate
Please see attached meeting note

Navitus Bay Development Limited

1) Is the applicant required to publish the results of consultation before submitting an application?
2) Is the applicant required to release data for the EIA before submitting an application?
1) There is no requirement for an applicant to publish results of their consultation before an application is submitted. When the application is submitted, it must be accompanied by a consultation report which should provide an audit trail of consultation undertaken, summarise issues raised and demonstrate how consultation responses have been taken into account by the applicant. The consultation report does not have to contain copies of all correspondence, however these may be requested by PINS during the acceptance period.

2) The applicant will consult on preliminary environmental information during their pre-application consultation, however there is no requirement for an applicant to publish a draft ES before it is submitted. The applicant may however request comments on the ES from local authorities during their Section 42 consultation.

Bryan Smith

Please see attachment
Dear Mr Whiffen

Thank you for your letter received on 29 April 2013 setting out your concerns regarding the Navitus Bay Offshore Wind Farm proposal. In your letter you state you were advised to send your letter of objection to the Planning Inspectorate, for our information may we enquire as to who might have suggested this to you?

As no formal application has yet been made to the Planning Inspectorate by the developer, the Navitus Bay Offshore Wind Farm scheme is at its 'Pre-Application' stage. Please note that the developer is expected to submit its application in Quarter 1 of 2014.

Until the application is submitted, your first point of contact should be the developer. Taking part by commenting at this stage does not prejudice your ability to make comments to the Planning Inspectorate on the scheme later in the process. Therefore you should inform the developer about your concerns as soon as possible and allow time for a response. As such, I recommend that you refer to the developer's website for information about how to contact them with feedback (link to developer's website: [attachment 1]).

Should the application be formally submitted, the Planning Inspectorate on behalf of the Secretary of State has a 28 day period to determine whether to accept the application to progress to Examination. If the application progresses to Examination, this is the stage where the process then asks people to register as an ?Interested Party? with the Planning Inspectorate by sending us a 'Relevant Representation' about the proposal. This Representation can contain any concerns you may have and will be considered by the appointed Examining Authority during the Examination period.

Although the Planning Inspectorate is unable to take into account your objections at this stage, your query relating to the decommissioning of the onshore and offshore infrastructure has been taken into consideration. The Planning Inspectorate are however unable to provide a definitive answer as the developer has yet to submit a proposal, what we are able to advise is that infrastructure decommissioning is usually a ?requirement? within the ?Development Consent Order?. In previous case examples, offshore decommissioning has consisted of a written decommissioning programme that must be submitted to and agreed by the Secretary of State prior to commencement of any authorised development. Onshore decommissioning has previously consisted of a scheme for the demolition and removal of infrastructure which is submitted to the relevant planning authority for approval. Any decommissioning that takes place is usually completed at the expense of the developer.

The Planning Inspectorate has produced several advice notes to help provide an overview of the Planning Act 2008 process and the opportunities to get involved. These are available at the following link: [attachment 2]. In this instance I recommend the advice note eight series - 'How to get involved in the planning process'.

John Whiffen

Letter dated 3rd April from Mr. Alok Sharma MP to Ed Davey MP dated 03 April 2013 received by email by the Planning Inspectorate on 12 April 2013. Mr. Sharma's letter raised concerns on behalf of a constituent, Mr. Ian Jones, regarding the proposed wind farm at Navitus Bay. Mr. Jones main concerns were:
1. The scale and proximity of the windfarm to the coastline will serve to have a detrimental effect on the landscape and views from a number of spots. This will serve to reduce the appeal of the area to tourists with a negative consequent impact on the economy.
2. The scale and location of th windfarm should be reviewed - i.e. a smaller farm at a greater distance should be developed
3. A forensic examination of plans by the relevant secretary of state should be undertaken and all viable alternatives considered.
PINS responded by letter emailed to Mr. Sharma on the 24 April 2013 with the following advice issued:

Thank you for your correspondence dated 03 March 2013 addressed to Rt Hon Edward Davey MP outlining the concerns of one of your constituents, Mr. Iain Jones, regarding the Navitus Bay Wind Park proposal off the Isle of Wight. Your correspondence has since been copied to the Planning Inspectorate by Edward Davey MP as the Planning Inspectorate is responsible for operating the process by which a recommendation will be issued to the relevant Secretary of State on whether to consent a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP).

The Navitus Bay Wind Park project has been deemed an NSIP and therefore will be submitted to the Planning Inspectorate under the Planning Act 2008 consenting regime. As no formal application has yet been submitted by the developer the proposed Navitus Bay Wind Park project is currently at its ?Pre-Application? stage. The developer is expected to submit the application to the Planning Inspectorate in Quarter 1 of 2014. Until the application is submitted Mr. Jones? first point of contact should be with the developer. Responding to the developer?s pre-application consultation is the best time to influence a project, whether to express agreement with it, disagreement with it or to suggest ways that it could be improved. Should an application then be made to the Planning Inspectorate, the developer will be required to explain how it has taken account of comments received during their consultation. I would therefore strongly encourage Mr. Jones to forward his comments to the developer, Navitus Bay Development Limited, as soon as possible. As such, I recommend that he refer to the developer?s website for information on how to contact them with feedback (link to developer?s website: [attachment 1]). Participating at this stage does not prejudice his ability to make comments on the proposed scheme to the Planning Inspectorate later in the process.

Should an application be formally submitted the Planning Inspectorate, on behalf of the Secretary of State, has a 28-day period to determine whether the correct application documents have been submitted and whether the consultation requirements have been carried out in accordance with the Planning Act 2008. If the application is accepted to progress to the Examination stage, the legislation then provides individuals with the opportunity to register with the Planning Inspectorate as an 'Interested Party' by sending us a 'Relevant Representation' about the proposal. This representation will be considered by the appointed Examining Authority during the Examination period. It is advised that Mr. Jones register as an ?Interested Party? at the Examination stage. Once he has registered as an Interested Party the Planning Inspectorate will issue him with a timetable for the Examination period and will endeavour to keep him informed of any updates regarding the proposed project. The National Infrastructure project page is regularly updated with advice on how and when individuals can register to become Interested Parties:
[attachment 2]

The Planning Inspectorate has also produced several advice notes to help provide an overview of the Planning Act 2008 process and the opportunities to get involved. They are available at the following link:
[attachment 3]
In this instance, I recommend the advice note eight series: How to get involved in the planning process.

Alok Sharma

Mrs. Perrins addressed correspondence to Mr. David Cameron, MP. The correspondence was passed on to the Planning Inspectorate to deal with. Mrs. Perrins concerns related to the proposed Navitus Bay Wind Park application with the following main concerns highlighted:
1. The development will destroy the seascape of this World Heritage coastline, also the seascape from the Bournemouth area and the Isle of Wight.
2. The developer appears to believe that it is more important to preserve a shipping route than it is to preserve an irreplaceable and beautiful seascape, hence the location of the proposed development
3. it would appear that in certain other EU countries (Netherlands and Germany?) there are laws that prevent wind farms being as close to the coast as this one. So why do Britain allow this?
4. All windfarms should be out of site of land
Thank you for your email correspondence of 3 April 2013 to David Cameron MP regarding the Navitus Bay Wind Park proposal. Your correspondence has since been copied to the Planning Inspectorate by Mr. Cameron as the Planning Inspectorate is responsible for operating the process by which a recommendation will be issued to the relevant Secretary of State on whether to consent a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP).

The Navitus Bay Wind Park project has been deemed an NSIP and therefore will be submitted to the Planning Inspectorate under the Planning Act 2008 consenting regime. As no formal application has yet been submitted by the developer the proposed project is currently at its ?Pre-Application? stage. The developer is expected to submit the application to the Planning Inspectorate in Quarter 1 of 2014. Until the application is submitted your first point of contact should be with the developer. Responding to the developer?s pre-application consultation is the best time to influence a project, whether you agree with it, disagree with it or believe it could be improved. Should an application then be made to the Planning Inspectorate, the developer will be required to explain how it has taken account of comments received during their consultation. I would therefore strongly encourage you to forward your comments to the developer, Navitus Bay Development Limited, as soon as possible. As such, I recommended that you refer to the developer?s website for information on how to contact them with feedback- link to developer?s website: [attachment 1]. Participating at this stage does not prejudice your ability to make comments on the proposed scheme to the Planning Inspectorate later in the process.

Should an application be formally submitted, the Planning Inspectorate on behalf of the Secretary of State has a 28-day period to determine whether all the correct application documents have been submitted and whether the consultation requirements have been carried out in accordance with the Planning Act 2008. If the application is accepted to progress to the Examination stage, the legislation then provides individuals with the opportunity to register with the Planning Inspectorate as an 'Interested Party' by sending us a 'Relevant Representation' about the proposal. This representation will be considered by the appointed Examining Authority during the Examination period. It is advised that you register as an ?Interested Party? at the Examination stage. Once you have registered as an Interested Party the Planning Inspectorate will issue you with a timetable for the Examination period and will endeavour to keep you informed of any updates regarding the proposed project. The National Infrastructure project page is regularly updated with advice on how and when individuals can register to become Interested Parties:
[attachment 2]

The Planning Inspectorate has also produced several advice notes to help provide an overview of the Planning Act 2008 process and the opportunities to get involved. They are available at the following link: [attachment 3]
In this instance, I recommend the advice note eight series : How to get involved in the planning process.

M Perrins

"I am writing to you regarding the siting of the Navitus Bay Wind Farm just 8 miles off the beautiful Purbeck coastline.

The siting of this, world's largest, wind farm within sight of a large stretch of our local coast devastates me. I am just so upset by the whole matter and find it totally unbelievable that anyone would even consider siting such a monstrosity within sight of land (either here or anywhere else in the world!). This will destroy the seascape of this World Heritage coastline, also the seascape from the Bournemouth area and the Isle of Wight.

I understand from Navitus that Crown Estates have only allowed them a limited area in which to work and the planned site is the furthest from land it can be bearing in mind other factors such as unsuitable seabed and shipping lanes. They did say if they put it in one area it would destroy the Poole to Cherbourg ferry route - I feel that is an outrageous argument - so it's more important to preserve a shipping route than it is to preserve an irreplaceable and beautiful seascape!!!

A major factor I learned from visiting a recent Navitus presentation is that Navitus were pleading the case that their hands are tied because the Crown Estate has only allowed them to develop this Wind Farm in an area which is what I would consider to be much to close to the coastline. I understand that in certain other EU countries (Netherlands and Germany?) there are laws that prevent wind farms being as close to the coast as this one. So why do Britain allow this?

So I ask that the Crown Estates (presumably basically the government) review their previous decisions and I ask that the Government does not allow their agents i.e. Navitus to ruin our World Heritage Coastline - which we then have to live with and our World Heritage Coastline is ruined for future generations - what an inheritance!!

ALL WIND FARM SITINGS SHOULD BE DEFINITELY OUT OF SIGHT OF LAND AS THEY ARE IN CERTAIN OTHER EU COUNTRIES."
Thank you for your email correspondence of 3 April 2013 to David Cameron MP regarding the Navitus Bay Wind Park proposal. Your correspondence has since been copied to the Planning Inspectorate by Mr. Cameron as the Planning Inspectorate is responsible for operating the process by which a recommendation will be issued to the relevant Secretary of State on whether to consent a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP).

The Navitus Bay Wind Park project has been deemed an NSIP and therefore will be submitted to the Planning Inspectorate under the Planning Act 2008 consenting regime. As no formal application has yet been submitted by the developer the proposed project is currently at its ?Pre-Application? stage. The developer is expected to submit the application to the Planning Inspectorate in Quarter 1 of 2014. Until the application is submitted your first point of contact should be with the developer. Responding to the developer?s pre-application consultation is the best time to influence a project, whether you agree with it, disagree with it or believe it could be improved. Should an application then be made to the Planning Inspectorate, the developer will be required to explain how it has taken account of comments received during their consultation. I would therefore strongly encourage you to forward your comments to the developer, Navitus Bay Development Limited, as soon as possible. As such, I recommended that you refer to the developer?s website for information on how to contact them with feedback- link to developer?s website: [attachment 1]. Participating at this stage does not prejudice your ability to make comments on the proposed scheme to the Planning Inspectorate later in the process.

Should an application be formally submitted, the Planning Inspectorate on behalf of the Secretary of State has a 28-day period to determine whether all the correct application documents have been submitted and whether the consultation requirements have been carried out in accordance with the Planning Act 2008. If the application is accepted to progress to the Examination stage, the legislation then provides individuals with the opportunity to register with the Planning Inspectorate as an 'Interested Party' by sending us a 'Relevant Representation' about the proposal. This representation will be considered by the appointed Examining Authority during the Examination period. It is advised that you register as an ?Interested Party? at the Examination stage. Once you have registered as an Interested Party the Planning Inspectorate will issue you with a timetable for the Examination period and will endeavour to keep you informed of any updates regarding the proposed project. The National Infrastructure project page is regularly updated with advice on how and when individuals can register to become Interested Parties:
[attachment 2]

The Planning Inspectorate has also produced several advice notes to help provide an overview of the Planning Act 2008 process and the opportunities to get involved. They are available at the following link:

[attachment 3]

In this instance, I recommend the advice note eight series : How to get involved in the planning process.

Margaret Perrins

Mrs. Ruth Neary raised a number of objections to the proposed Navitus Park wind park. A summary of the main concerns raised are as follows:
1. The cost of the windpark will be £3 billion+ and will be subsidised by taxpayers; 2. Unsure if the windpark will produce enough energy to be profitable in this lifespan of 20 years
3. Taxpayers will be left with a decommissioning and environmental clean-up bill
4. There is a risk of geological damage with the possibility of instability to the sea-bed and erosion of the coast
5. The tourist industry will be damaged; the area is part of a World Heritage Site and close to Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty
6. There is a danger element to the scheme as the area is a busy shipping area
7. Wind turbines are dangerous for birds (the area is a migration route)
8. Marine mammals will be at put at risk
Thank you for your correspondence dated 26 March 2013 addressed to Ed Davey MP regarding the Navitus Bay Wind Park proposal. Your correspondence has since been copied to the Planning Inspectorate by Ed Davey MP as the Planning Inspectorate is responsible for operating the process by which a recommendation will be issued to the relevant Secretary of State on whether to consent a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP).

The Navitus Bay Wind Park project has been deemed an NSIP and therefore will be submitted to the Planning Inspectorate under the Planning Act 2008 consenting regime. As no formal application has yet been submitted by the developer the proposed Navitus Bay Wind Park project is currently at its ?Pre-Application? stage. The developer is expected to submit the application to the Planning Inspectorate in Quarter 1 of 2014. Until the application is submitted your first point of contact should be with the developer. Responding to the developer?s pre-application consultation is the best time to influence a project, whether you agree with it, disagree with it or believe it could be improved. Should an application then be made to the Planning Inspectorate, the developer will be required to explain how it has taken account of comments received during their consultation. I would therefore strongly encourage you to forward your comments to the developer, Navitus Bay Development Limited, as soon as possible. As such, I recommended that you refer to the developer?s website for information on how to contact them with feedback (link to developer?s website: [attachment 1]). Participating at this stage does not prejudice your ability to make comments on the proposed scheme to the Planning Inspectorate later in the process.

Should an application be formally submitted, the Planning Inspectorate on behalf of the Secretary of State has a 28-day period to determine whether all the correct application documents have been submitted and whether the consultation requirements have been carried out in accordance with the Planning Act 2008. If the application is accepted to progress to the Examination stage, the legislation then provides individuals with the opportunity to register with the Planning Inspectorate as an 'Interested Party' by sending us a 'Relevant Representation' about the proposal. This representation will be considered by the appointed Examining Authority during the Examination period. It is advised that you register as an ?Interested Party? at the Examination stage. Once you have registered as an Interested Party the Planning Inspectorate will issue you with a timetable for the Examination period and will endeavour to keep you informed of any updates regarding the proposed project. The National Infrastructure project page is regularly updated with advice on how and when individuals can register to become Interested Parties:
[attachment 2]

The Planning Inspectorate has also produced several advice notes to help provide an overview of the Planning Act 2008 process and the opportunities to get involved. They are available at the following link:
[attachment 3]
In this instance, I recommend the advice note eight series : How to get involved in the planning process.

Ruth Neary

Mr. and Mrs A and R Rogers raised a number of objections in their correspondence. The following is a summary of the main concerns raised:
1. The proposed turbines will
(i) stand 200 metres tall at a distance of 8.6 miles from the nearest land
(ii) an obstruction to shipping
(iii) a hazard to bird life
(iv) reduce the fishing grounds
(v) be made from non-recyclable, imported, expensive, non-durable and difficult to maintain materials,
(vi) be an inefficient way to produce electricity as they are turned off in high winds and electricity cannot be stored
(vii) ruin the outstanding views and tourism in the area
Thank you for your correspondence dated 26 March 2013 addressed to Ed Davey MP regarding the Navitus Bay Wind Park proposal. Your correspondence has since been copied to the Planning Inspectorate by Ed Davey MP as the Planning Inspectorate is responsible for operating the process by which a recommendation will be issued to the relevant Secretary of State on whether to consent a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP).

The Navitus Bay Wind Park project has been deemed an NSIP and therefore will be submitted to the Planning Inspectorate under the Planning Act 2008 consenting regime. As no formal application has yet been submitted by the developer the proposed Navitus Bay Wind Park project is currently at its ?Pre-Application? stage. The developer is expected to submit the application to the Planning Inspectorate in Quarter 1 of 2014. Until the application is submitted your first point of contact should be with the developer. Responding to the developer?s pre-application consultation is the best time to influence a project, whether you agree with it, disagree with it or believe it could be improved. Should an application then be made to the Planning Inspectorate, the developer will be required to explain how it has taken account of comments received during their consultation. I would therefore strongly encourage you to forward your comments to the developer, Navitus Bay Development Limited, as soon as possible. As such, I recommended that you refer to the developer?s website for information on how to contact them with feedback (link to developer?s website: [attachment 1]). Participating at this stage does not prejudice your ability to make comments on the proposed scheme to the Planning Inspectorate later in the process.

Should an application be formally submitted, the Planning Inspectorate on behalf of the Secretary of State has a 28-day period to determine whether all the correct application documents have been submitted and whether the consultation requirements have been carried out in accordance with the Planning Act 2008. If the application is accepted to progress to the Examination stage, the legislation then provides individuals with the opportunity to register with the Planning Inspectorate as an 'Interested Party' by sending us a 'Relevant Representation' about the proposal. This representation will be considered by the appointed Examining Authority during the Examination period. It is advised that you register as an ?Interested Party? at the Examination stage. Once you have registered as an Interested Party the Planning Inspectorate will issue you with a timetable for the Examination period and will endeavour to keep you informed of any updates regarding the proposed project. The National Infrastructure project page is regularly updated with advice on how and when individuals can register to become Interested Parties:
[attachment 2]

The Planning Inspectorate has also produced several advice notes to help provide an overview of the Planning Act 2008 process and the opportunities to get involved. They are available at the following link:
[attachment 3]
In this instance, I recommend the advice note eight series: How to get involved in the planning process.

Arthur and Shirley Rogers

A.I. Stonehouse raised concerns regarding the proposed Navitus Bay off-shore wind farm. In summary, the main concerns raised were:
1. In Holland no wind turbines have been erected less than 25 miles from shore
2. Projected designated Marine Conservation Zone seems to conflict with the erection of wind turbines in the area
3. It is not clear where the energy gained would be linked to the National Grid
4. The plans do not show the shipping lands. The proposed wind farm would pose a major risk to navigation
5. Wind turbines are neither effective or cost efficient.
Thank you for your correspondence dated 25 March 2013 addressed to Tobias Ellwood MP and Conor Burns MP regarding the Navitus Bay Wind Park proposal. Your correspondence has since been copied to the Planning Inspectorate as the Planning Inspectorate is responsible for operating the process by which a recommendation will be issued to the relevant Secretary of State on whether to consent a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP).

The Navitus Bay Wind Park project has been deemed an NSIP and therefore will be submitted to the Planning Inspectorate under the Planning Act 2008 consenting regime. As no formal application has yet been submitted by the developer the proposed Navitus Bay Wind Park project is currently at its ?Pre-Application? stage. The developer is expected to submit the application to the Planning Inspectorate in Quarter 1 of 2014. Until the application is submitted your first point of contact should be with the developer. Responding to the developer?s pre-application consultation is the best time to influence a project, whether you agree with it, disagree with it or believe it could be improved. Should an application then be made to the Planning Inspectorate, the developer will be required to explain how it has taken account of comments received during their consultation. I would therefore strongly encourage you to forward your comments to the developer, Navitus Bay Development Limited, as soon as possible. As such, I recommended that you refer to the developer?s website for information on how to contact them with feedback (link to developer?s website: [attachment 1]). Participating at this stage does not prejudice your ability to make comments on the proposed scheme to the Planning Inspectorate later in the process.

Should an application be formally submitted, the Planning Inspectorate on behalf of the Secretary of State has a 28-day period to determine whether all the correct application documents have been submitted and whether the consultation requirements have been carried out in accordance with the Planning Act 2008. If the application is accepted to progress to the Examination stage, the legislation then provides individuals with the opportunity to register with the Planning Inspectorate as an 'Interested Party' by sending us a 'Relevant Representation' about the proposal. This representation will be considered by the appointed Examining Authority during the Examination period. It is advised that you register as an ?Interested Party? at the Examination stage. Once you have registered as an Interested Party the Planning Inspectorate will issue you with a timetable for the Examination period and will endeavour to keep you informed of any updates regarding the proposed project. The National Infrastructure project page is regularly updated with advice on how and when individuals can register to become Interested Parties:
[attachment 2]

The Planning Inspectorate has also produced several advice notes to help provide an overview of the Planning Act 2008 process and the opportunities to get involved. They are available at the following link:
[attachment 3]
In this instance, I recommend the advice note eight series: How to get involved in the planning process. For your convenience I have attached Advice Notes 8.1: How the Process Works and Advice Note 8.2: Responding to the Developer?s Pre-Application Consultation which will prove most useful at this stage.

A.I. Stonehouse

I would like to make my objections to the windfarm development, I am
involved in the fishing industry And have had a meeting with
representatives from the windfarm development, Nothing from that meeting
reassured me That enough is being done For the environmental impact
assessment to research the many problems involved with the construction
and development of such a very large Windfarm. The noise levels produced
from the drilling or piling Both High And low frequency will kill a
large quantity of spawned Larvae And juvenile fish unable to move away
from the area. Ongoing vibrations will have an effect on the shoaling
behaviour For the life of the windfarm. sediments from the drillings
will have a large smothering Effect in the water column and to the
Habitat living on the seabed. The cables carrying the electricity to the
land will cause much disruption to the seabed, and produce an Electro
magnetic field which Research has shown some species of fish will not
cross, This will have a large effect on the migratory patterns of many
species. The position of this windfarm Is in the middle of a large
spawning ground, One species sea-bass Spawns in this area Which provides
the bass for the Protected Inshore Nursery areas, Established Buy seafas
in the 1970s and 80s This could result in very low or no recruitment to
these Nursery areas for a three year period,This will have a very large
effect on the inshore fishermen along a large stretch of the coast.
If more research and monitoring starting with a better baseline
establishment of fish stocks, Migration patterns, Small mesh trawling
surveys, larvae Sampling, and breeding grounds Is not established We
will not see the results and possible destruction Of inshore fish stocks
until seven years After the start of construction.
Your comments have been noted and we will keep your correspondence on file and make it available for the Acceptance Inspector if an application is submitted by the developer.

As no formal application has yet been made to The Planning Inspectorate by the developer, the Navitus Bay Wind Farm scheme is at its 'Pre-Application' stage. Please note that the developer is expected to submit its application in Quarter 1 of 2014.

Until the application is submitted, your first point of contact should be the developer. Taking part by commenting at this stage does not prejudice your ability to make comments to the Planning Inspectorate on the scheme later in the process. Therefore you should inform the developer about your concerns as soon as possible and allow time for a response. In this instance I note you have already contacted the developer and as such at this stage of the Planning Act 2008 process I would encourage you to continue to correspond directly with them.

Before formally consulting people living in the vicinity of the project, the developer will have prepared a SOCC, having first consulted relevant local authorities about what it should contain. The purpose of the SOCC is to detail the consultation the developer intends to undertake with the local community about their project. The developer is then required to carry out their consultation with the local community as set out in the SOCC. If you have any concerns regarding the consultation that has taken place you may wish to notify the local authority, as they will later have the opportunity to report to the Planning Inspectorate on their view of the adequacy of the developer?s pre-application consultation, measuring what was delivered against the commitments made in the Statement of Community Consultation (SOCC).

Should the application be formally submitted, the Planning Inspectorate on behalf of the Secretary of State has a 28 day period to determine whether to accept the application to progress to Examination. If the application progresses to Examination, the process then asks people to register as an ?Interested Party? with the Planning Inspectorate by sending us a 'Relevant Representation' about the proposal. This Representation will be considered by the appointed Examining Authority during the Examination period.

The Planning Inspectorate has produced several advice notes to help provide an overview of the Planning Act 2008 process and the opportunities to get involved. These are available at the following link: [attachment 1] . In this instance I recommend the advice note eight series - 'How to get involved in the planning process'.

Ian Mackenzie

I am writing to express my and my family`s very deep concern about the proposed Navitus Bay Offshore Wind Farm.

This will be a huge, multi point industrial structure in sight of one of the finest stretches of coast in Europe. The various views of the Isle of Wight alone, from many vantage points along this coast, are superb and absolutely precious.

This development will destroy these views completely and will have a huge detrimental effect on the area, both economically, due to a potentially vast downturn in tourism and sailing activities, and in the general quality of life of the large number of inhabitants of this area. Who wants to look out to sea at such a monstrous development?

As a keen sailor and a member of the RYA, I will be put off for ever from sailing this area again and I am sure I am not alone in this. And what of the dangers imposed on shipping, both in normal weather conditions, and, more severely, in inclement weather?

As well as the effects it will have on the human population, we are deeply concerned about the effect that so many rotating huge structures will have on bird life. And what of the damage to the seabed caused by so many vast foundations?

We strongly oppose this development.
As no formal application has yet been made to The Planning Inspectorate by the developer, the Navitus Bay Offshore Wind Farm scheme is at its 'Pre-Application' stage. Please note that the developer is expected to submit its application in Quarter 1 of 2014.

Until the application is submitted, your first point of contact should be the developer. Taking part by commenting at this stage does not prejudice your ability to make comments to the Planning Inspectorate on the scheme later in the process. Therefore you should inform the developer about your concerns as soon as possible and allow time for a response. As such, I recommend that you refer to the developer's website for information about how to contact them with feedback (link to Developer's website: [attachment 1]).

Should the application be formally submitted, the Planning Inspectorate on behalf of the Secretary of State has a 28 day period to determine whether to accept the application to progress to Examination. If the application progresses to Examination, the process then asks people to register as an ?Interested Party? with the Planning Inspectorate by sending us a 'Relevant Representation' about the proposal. This Representation will be considered by the appointed Examining Authority during the Examination period.

The Planning Inspectorate has produced several advice notes to help provide an overview of the Planning Act 2008 process and the opportunities to get involved. These are available at the following link: [attachment 2] . In this instance I recommend the advice note eight series - 'How to get involved in the planning process'.

Kenneth Potter

I am writing to express my opposition to the Navitus Bay Wind Farm proposal on a number of grounds.

1. I am not against offshore wind energy. However, I object to I the proposed siting of this particular wind farm because of its proximity to two Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty and England's only natural World Heritage site. Not only will it severely deface the visual beauty of this largely unspoilt coastline; it is also likely to have a destructive impact on tourism, which is the lifeblood of the economy in the area.

2. As you are aware, the Department for Energy and Climate Change has written in its 2011 Offshore Energy Strategic Environmental Assessment 2 (OESEA2) report, "Major development of offshore wind farms in nearshore waters could result in significant effects on landscape/seascape. The siting of offshore wind farms at well away from the coast is consistent with what is occurring in other European countries, and the potential use of alternative foundation types would facilitate OWF siting in deeper waters. Reflecting the previous OESEA and the relative sensitivity of multiple receptors in coastal waters, OESEA2 recommends that the bulk of new OWF generation capacity should be sited away from the coast, generally outside 12 nautical miles. [ie outside the equivalent of 22.2382 km] The environmental sensitivity of coastal areas is not uniform, and in certain cases new offshore wind farm projects may be acceptable closer to the coast. Conversely, siting beyond 12nm may be justified for some areas/developments."

This environmental assessment is clear and unambiguous. The bulk of windfarms should be sited outside 12 nautical miles off the coast. In areas of high environmental sensitivity, siting beyond 12 nautical miles may be justified. However:
(a) 85% of this proposal is inside 12 nautical miles
(b) it lies 7.5 nm from one AONB and 7.7 nm from another - in full view from both
(c) it lies in an area of intense marine leisure activity
(d) it would be sited on an important international bird migration route
(e) not only would the turbines be highly visible by day, the lights would also be highly visible by night.

3. As a sailor, I am very concerned about the hazard to navigation. I attach a paper that I have written on the subject.

4. The core of my objection is the positioning of this proposed windfarm. It sits like a wedge in the arc of Poole Bay and the Isle of Wight. This means it is within clear sight of a huge length of coastline - a coastline which happens to be spectacularly beautiful. Moreover, it acts as a blockage or obstruction to the approach to two highly important ports of refuge - Poole Harbour to the West and the Solent leading to Yarmouth, Lymington and Southampton to the East. In adverse weather, this is bound to be a dangerous hazard to navigation.

5. I believe that you, NBDL, the developer, has been disingenuous and misleading in the consultation process. In particular, the visuals shown to the public give no true impression of the impact the windfarm will have on the human eye. Moreover, you claim to have 'moved' the windfarm, and this is just not true. What you have done is slice a section off so as not to obstruct the approach to the Hurst light; this not moving it.

I would like to know from NBDL when your own Environmental Impact Assessment will be published and whether members of the public will be able to read it before the next round of public consultation.

To summarise, this is a bad plan in the wrong place and breaches government recommendations. If government recommendations had been followed, both by the Crown Estate and by the developer, this proposal would never have got to this stage.
As no formal application has yet been made to The Planning Inspectorate by the developer, the Navitus Bay Offshore Wind Farm scheme is at its 'Pre-Application' stage. Please note that the developer is expected to submit its application in Quarter 1 of 2014.

Until the application is submitted, your first point of contact should be the developer. Taking part by commenting at this stage does not prejudice your ability to make comments to the Planning Inspectorate on the scheme later in the process. Therefore you should inform the developer about your concerns as soon as possible and allow time for a response. In this instance I note you have already contacted the developer and as such at this stage of the Planning Act 2008 process I would encourage you to continue to correspond directly with them.

Should the application be formally submitted, the Planning Inspectorate on behalf of the Secretary of State has a 28 day period to determine whether to accept the application to progress to Examination. If the application progresses to Examination, the process then asks people to register as an ?Interested Party? with the Planning Inspectorate by sending us a 'Relevant Representation' about the proposal. This Representation will be considered by the appointed Examining Authority during the Examination period.

The Planning Inspectorate has produced several advice notes to help provide an overview of the Planning Act 2008 process and the opportunities to get involved. These are available at the following link: [attachment 1] . In this instance I recommend the advice note eight series - 'How to get involved in the planning process'.

Crispin Read Wilson

I would like to register my concern about the proposed Navitus Bay wind farm project near the Isle of Wight. I am not opposed to wind farms in general, nor to the need for renewable energy resources. Neither am I being a NIMBY. It just seems to me that if ever there is a wrong place for a wind far, this is it. Surely on what is one of the most popularly visited coasts in the UK, when you look out from the cliff top, you expect to see the sea and not hundreds of propellers. It's a seascape and horizon that should be preserved because it is an irreplaceable asset.
As no formal application has yet been made to The Planning Inspectorate by the developer, the Navitus Bay Offshore Wind Farm scheme is at its 'Pre-Application' stage. Please note that the developer is expected to submit its application in Quarter 1 of 2014.

Until the application is submitted, your first point of contact should be the developer. Taking part by commenting at this stage does not prejudice your ability to make comments to the Planning Inspectorate on the scheme later in the process. Therefore you should inform the developer about your concerns as soon as possible and allow time for a response. As such, I recommend that you refer to the developer's website for information about how to contact them with feedback (link to Developer's website: [attachment 1]).

Should the application be formally submitted, the Planning Inspectorate on behalf of the Secretary of State has a 28 day period to determine whether to accept the application to progress to Examination. If the application progresses to Examination, the process then asks people to register as an ?Interested Party? with the Planning Inspectorate by sending us a 'Relevant Representation' about the proposal. This Representation will be considered by the appointed Examining Authority during the Examination period.

The Planning Inspectorate has produced several advice notes to help provide an overview of the Planning Act 2008 process and the opportunities to get involved. These are available at the following link: [attachment 2] . In this instance I recommend the advice note eight series - 'How to get involved in the planning process'.

Roger Teugels

We wish to strongly object to the proposed Navitus Bay Windfarm, the vast off-shore windfarm planned for the Dorset coast, for the reasons outlined below:

What is currently planned is much bigger than any operating offshore windfarm anywhere in the world ? and would probably not be allowed in any other country. For example, the Dutch government planned windfarms are more than 24km from the coast (compared with 13km), and the German government, more than 30km ? and at these greater distances, the turbines have much less visual impact.

The area for this is poorly chosen in a region of great natural beauty, the proposed shape of the windfarm does not minimize its visual effect, and its scale is too large. It also lies in an area of intense marine activity and high tourist attraction.

These 100?s of turbines will, if this plan goes ahead, be overlooked by two Areas of Outstanding Beauty and a National Park ? and will also be close to England?s only natural World Heritage site.

Dorset?s and East Devon?s majestic Jurassic Coast is the only natural UNESCO world heritage site in England. That status was granted 10 years ago, in recognition of a coastline, which UNESCO describes as being of ?outstanding universal value.? This rating would be at risk if this plan is allowed to proceed.

Surely the government should put an exclusion zone around World Heritage Sites that stops development being undertaken within a certain area. This is already being done in France around World Heritage Sites and areas of outstanding natural beauty.

After the beauty and seclusion of Mont Saint Michel in France was threatened by the possibility of just three wind turbines 20 kilometres away, UNESCO considered rescinding its world heritage site designation. The French electricity firm involved quickly backed down, leaving Mont Saint Michel undisturbed, surrounded by a permanent, 40 by 80 kilometre exclusion zone.

The area here in Dorset is a prized designation, and is a magnet for 16 million day visitors every year. Tourists spend nearly £700 million a year in the area and support more than 45,000 jobs. These turbines will have an unacceptable visual impact from the coast ? and this will lead to an impact on the tourism industry.

If this planned windfarm goes ahead we will look back in the future and be disgusted at what we let happen!

In addition, the proximity of Navitus Bay to our shoreline contradicts the Government?s own guidelines, which suggest that such developments should be more than 23 kilometres from the coast. The vast majority of the Navitus Bay wind farm is inside that limit, with the closest point a mere 14.3km off shore. This means that anyone looking out to sea along the 85 miles of coastline from Portland to Ventnor would have an uninterrupted view of turbines.

The truth is that Navitus Bay will be too big and too close.

Ironically, our commitment to green targets may destroy some of our most valuable natural assets. The potential effect of these giant turbines on the environment is catastrophic. South Dorset's limestone clifftops are ?touch down? for to countless birds, on the major migratory route to and from the Cherbourg peninsula. Scientific studies of possible avian mortality rates are so far incomplete but suspected to be high.

Noise pollution, flicker, vibration, rain shadows and radar shadow are just a few more of the turbine fans? unwelcome environmental effects.

Why so many sacrifices for a hugely inefficient system that is useless if there is too much or too little wind? We hope that the National Trust are also voicing their objections to this proposal which we feel would be disastrous for this whole area.
As no formal application has yet been made to The Planning Inspectorate by the developer, the Navitus Bay Offshore Wind Farm scheme is at its 'Pre-Application' stage. Please note that the developer is expected to submit its application in Quarter 1 of 2014.

Until the application is submitted, your first point of contact should be the developer. Taking part by commenting at this stage does not prejudice your ability to make comments to the Planning Inspectorate on the scheme later in the process. Therefore you should inform the developer about your concerns as soon as possible and allow time for a response. As such, I recommend that you refer to the developer's website for information about how to contact them with feedback (link to Developer's website: [attachment 1]).

Should the application be formally submitted, the Planning Inspectorate on behalf of the Secretary of State has a 28 day period to determine whether to accept the application to progress to Examination. If the application progresses to Examination, the process then asks people to register as an ?Interested Party? with the Planning Inspectorate by sending us a 'Relevant Representation' about the proposal. This Representation will be considered by the appointed Examining Authority during the Examination period.

The Planning Inspectorate has produced several advice notes to help provide an overview of the Planning Act 2008 process and the opportunities to get involved. These are available at the following link: [attachment 2] . In this instance I recommend the advice note eight series - 'How to get involved in the planning process'.

R and Mrs T M Smith

am writing to express my very strong opposition to the proposal to build a huge industrial wind turbine generation plant within sight of the UK's heritage site on Dorset's Jurassic Coast.

Furthermore, it is disingenuous of you to fall for the company's state funded PR hype by referring to this ugly eyesore as a 'park' which suggests some kind of recreational or environmental space. In fact it will be a veritable forest of hundreds of ugly pylons soaring some 600ft into the air and blighting views from the Isle of Wight, Studland and Poole Bay for millions of visitors and residents alike.

I also believe the company's 'consultation' to have been flawed; as a resident on Bournemouth's West Overcliff, whose views will be greatly impacted by this development, I have received no communication from the company and have not been invited to any consultative meetings.
Your comments have been noted and we will keep your correspondence on file and make it available for the Acceptance Inspector if an application is submitted by the developer.

As no formal application has yet been made to The Planning Inspectorate by the developer, the Navitus Bay Wind Farm scheme is at its 'Pre-Application' stage. Please note that the developer is expected to submit its application in Quarter 1 of 2014.

Until the application is submitted, your first point of contact should be the developer. Taking part by commenting at this stage does not prejudice your ability to make comments to the Planning Inspectorate on the scheme later in the process. Therefore you should inform the developer about your concerns as soon as possible and allow time for a response. As such, I recommend that you refer to the developer's website for information about how to contact them with feedback (link to Developer's website: [attachment 1] ).

Before formally consulting people living in the vicinity of the project, the developer will have prepared a SOCC, having first consulted relevant local authorities about what it should contain. The purpose of the SOCC is to detail the consultation the developer intends to undertake with the local community about their project. The developer is then required to carry out their consultation with the local community as set out in the SOCC. If you have any concerns regarding the consultation that has taken place you may wish to notify the local authority, as they will later have the opportunity to report to the Planning Inspectorate on their view of the adequacy of the developer?s pre-application consultation, measuring what was delivered against the commitments made in the Statement of Community Consultation (SOCC).

Should the application be formally submitted, the Planning Inspectorate on behalf of the Secretary of State has a 28 day period to determine whether to accept the application to progress to Examination. If the application progresses to Examination, the process then asks people to register as an ?Interested Party? with the Planning Inspectorate by sending us a 'Relevant Representation' about the proposal. This Representation will be considered by the appointed Examining Authority during the Examination period.

The Planning Inspectorate has produced several advice notes to help provide an overview of the Planning Act 2008 process and the opportunities to get involved. These are available at the following link: [attachment 2] . In this instance I recommend the advice note eight series - 'How to get involved in the planning process'.

Philip Dewhurst

I am very strongly AGAINST this project in this area for the following reasons (NOT in any particular order):

# Whatever Navitus Bay Development Ltd (NBDL) claim to the contrary, the strong visual impact of this wind farm would undoubtedly totally ruin for ever the outlook from one of our most beautiful stretches of coastline, from the the Isle of Wight, the Solent, Christchurch Bay and then westwards to the Jurassic Coast (England?s only natural World Heritage site).

# One highly probable result of ruining the coastline would be a dramatic decline in tourism, to the huge detriment of the local economy.

# Wind turbines are probably the most unreliable form of energy generation that one could conceive. For a lot of the time the wind strength will be outside their wind force operating window (Beaufort Force 3 to Force 7?) and alternative reliable sources of power generation therefore have to be on standby at all times. Why therefore build the wind farms in the first place?

# As yet, no on-site meterological data has been obtained (!) and so a realistic initial load factor for the wind farm is a matter of conjecture.

# Informed sources (see the Daily Telegraph, 30 Dec 2012) predict that due to wear and tear the achievable load factor will approximately halve over 15 years.

# A study of nearly 3,000 existing onshore wind turbines has led to the conclusion that their effective life will be only 12 to 15 years - not the 20 to 25 years being used in their calculations by the wind energy industry and by the Government. It is likely that the highly corrosive marine environment of Navitus Bay will lead to even more rapid performance and life degradation.

# At the end of their short effective life, these wind turbines will have to be either dismantled or refurbished and upgraded. I do not believe that these costs been included in the case being made by NBDL.

# Nobody knows what the effect of plus-or-minus 200 wind turbines will be on the tidal flows entering the Solent. The substantial underwater support structures for this multitude of turbines are bound to create significant water flow turbulence. It could well be that, depending on the state of the wind and tide, turbulent water from Navitus Bay could have a further eroding effect upon Hurst spit and upon the foundations of Hurst Castle.

# NBDL would have us believe that we would not be able to hear the wind turbines from the nearby shore. I find it difficult to believe that, with the prevailing wind bringing the noise onshore, the aerodynamic noise from over 200 wind turbines only 9 to 12 miles offshore would not be heard on the coast.

# The construction of Navitus Nay Wind Park will pose formidable engineering problems and by definition will consume huge amounts of non-green energy. The net green energy contribution of Navitus Bay would be the total power generated by the wind farm over its life minus the non-green energy used in its construction, maintenance and demolition at the end of its life. I am not aware that this consideration has been addressed by NBDL.

# It is difficult to see how the huge monetary investment in Navitus Bay can be justified, in view of its likely short effective life. Would any sane individual spend 4 years building a very expensive house, in the knowledge that it would have to be demolished 12 to 15 years after moving in?

# Navitus Bay Wind Park would be in an area of intense commercial shipping and recreational boating activity. It would undoubtedly be a navigational hazard and its influence would extend far beyond the boundaries of the wind farm. As an example, the influence of Portland Bill on the sea state can extend to 8 or 10 miles offshore.

# The effect on local fish stocks and therefore on the fishing industry cannot be predicted, like so many other features of this project.

# The proposed site of the wind farm is on an important bird migration route.
As no formal application has yet been made to The Planning Inspectorate by the developer, the Navitus Bay Offshore Wind Farm scheme is at its 'Pre-Application' stage. Please note that the developer is expected to submit its application in Quarter 1 of 2014.

Until the application is submitted, your first point of contact should be the developer. Taking part by commenting at this stage does not prejudice your ability to make comments to the Planning Inspectorate on the scheme later in the process. Therefore you should inform the developer about your concerns as soon as possible and allow time for a response. In this instance I note you have already contacted the developer and as such at this stage of the Planning Act 2008 process I would encourage you to continue to correspond directly with them.

Should the application be formally submitted, the Planning Inspectorate on behalf of the Secretary of State has a 28 day period to determine whether to accept the application to progress to Examination. If the application progresses to Examination, the process then asks people to register as an ?Interested Party? with the Planning Inspectorate by sending us a 'Relevant Representation' about the proposal. This Representation will be considered by the appointed Examining Authority during the Examination period.

The Planning Inspectorate has produced several advice notes to help provide an overview of the Planning Act 2008 process and the opportunities to get involved. These are available at the following link: [attachment 1] . In this instance I recommend the advice note eight series - 'How to get involved in the planning process'.

Robin Potts

I am writing to OBJECT STRONGLY to your (Navitus Bay Development Ltd) proposed development of a WINDFARM off the south coast of ENGLANDin CHRISTCHURCH BAY, DORSET.

REASONS FOR OBJECTING ARE;

1. There is already significant cliff erosion all around the bay caused in the main by dredging in the bay, the construction of this farm would only aggravate the problem.

2. Once these machines were of no further use, the life of which cannot be determined, the sea area would be left with seabed concrete and rusting materials which is totally unacceptable.

3. This is one of very few outstanding natural beauty areas left in England and should remain so.

4. There would be a danger to shipping, yachting and boating.

5. It would be a visible blot on the views from the Touristic areas all around Christchurch Bay .

6. Surrounding inland areas, including the NEW FOREST(now a National Park) will also be destroyed by pipe lines etc.

7. It is too close to the shores and would be an absolute eyesore.

I hope common sense will prevail and this proposed development scrapped.
As no formal application has yet been made to The Planning Inspectorate by the developer, the Navitus Bay Offshore Wind Farm scheme is at its 'Pre-Application' stage. Please note that the developer is expected to submit its application in Quarter 1 of 2014.

Until the application is submitted, your first point of contact should be the developer. Taking part by commenting at this stage does not prejudice your ability to make comments to the Planning Inspectorate on the scheme later in the process. Therefore you should inform the developer about your concerns as soon as possible and allow time for a response. As such, I recommend that you refer to the developer's website for information about how to contact them with feedback (link to Developer's website: [attachment 1]).

Should the application be formally submitted, the Planning Inspectorate on behalf of the Secretary of State has a 28 day period to determine whether to accept the application to progress to Examination. If the application progresses to Examination, the process then asks people to register as an ?Interested Party? with the Planning Inspectorate by sending us a 'Relevant Representation' about the proposal. This Representation will be considered by the appointed Examining Authority during the Examination period.

The Planning Inspectorate has produced several advice notes to help provide an overview of the Planning Act 2008 process and the opportunities to get involved. These are available at the following link: [attachment 2] . In this instance I recommend the advice note eight series - 'How to get involved in the planning process'.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any further queries on the information set out above or the process by which the Navitus Bay Offshore Wind Farm proposal, if formally submitted, will be determined.

Alan and Shirley Frost

* Having seen your revised plans for the Navitus Bay windfarm my view is that it is an act of vandalism perpetrated upon one of the most attractive seascapes in the country. Any government allowing it to proceed will certainly forfeit my vote.

*The unsightly mess will unfortunately be visited upon us for generations to come and will despoil an important World Heritage Sight.

* It is far too near the coast and closer than Government recommendations.

* Furthermore, I object to the high cost and inefficiency of the project ? even before decommissioning costs of the individual turbines are fully taken into consideration.

I am not against wind farms in a suitable location [i.e. out of sight from areas of natural beauty] but this proposal is in the wrong place. In fact, it is hard to imagine a less suitable sight. I hope you will reconsider and abandon the project.
As no formal application has yet been made to The Planning Inspectorate by the developer, the Navitus Bay Offshore Wind Farm scheme is at its 'Pre-Application' stage. Please note that the developer is expected to submit its application in Quarter 1 of 2014.

Until the application is submitted, your first point of contact should be the developer. Taking part by commenting at this stage does not prejudice your ability to make comments to the Planning Inspectorate on the scheme later in the process. Therefore you should inform the developer about your concerns as soon as possible and allow time for a response. In this instance I note you have already contacted the developer and as such at this stage of the Planning Act 2008 process I would encourage you to continue to correspond directly with them.

Should the application be formally submitted, the Planning Inspectorate on behalf of the Secretary of State has a 28 day period to determine whether to accept the application to progress to Examination. If the application progresses to Examination, the process then asks people to register as an ?Interested Party? with the Planning Inspectorate by sending us a 'Relevant Representation' about the proposal. This Representation will be considered by the appointed Examining Authority during the Examination period.

The Planning Inspectorate has produced several advice notes to help provide an overview of the Planning Act 2008 process and the opportunities to get involved. These are available at the following link: [attachment 1] . In this instance I recommend the advice note eight series - 'How to get involved in the planning process'.

Ian Giles

I would like to record my objections to the proposed Navitus Bay wind farm off the coast of Swanage. It will ruin an area of outstanding natural beauty and have a dramatic effect on the local economy.

I urge all concerned to reconsider.
As no formal application has yet been made to The Planning Inspectorate by the developer, the Navitus Bay Offshore Wind Farm scheme is at its 'Pre-Application' stage. Please note that the developer is expected to submit its application in Quarter 1 of 2014.

Until the application is submitted, your first point of contact should be the developer. Taking part by commenting at this stage does not prejudice your ability to make comments to the Planning Inspectorate on the scheme later in the process. Therefore you should inform the developer about your concerns as soon as possible and allow time for a response. In this instance I note you have already contacted the developer and as such at this stage of the Planning Act 2008 process I would encourage you to continue to correspond directly with them.

Should the application be formally submitted, the Planning Inspectorate on behalf of the Secretary of State has a 28 day period to determine whether to accept the application to progress to Examination. If the application progresses to Examination, the process then asks people to register as an ?Interested Party? with the Planning Inspectorate by sending us a 'Relevant Representation' about the proposal. This Representation will be considered by the appointed Examining Authority during the Examination period.

The Planning Inspectorate has produced several advice notes to help provide an overview of the Planning Act 2008 process and the opportunities to get involved. These are available at the following link: [attachment 1] . In this instance I recommend the advice note eight series - 'How to get involved in the planning process'.

Craig Giles

Attention: Planning Directorate.

I wish to lodge my strong objections to this proposed development, and request that you both record my views and place them on record. I base my objection on the following points:
1. The development is only 9 miles from the Jurassic coast, this could result in it losing its World heritage status. This will impact on the tourism industry.
2. The UK already has existing sea-based windfarms, surely it would be cheaper and easier to further develop them - than constructing a new farm.
3. The UK should be building nuclear power stations, as they are more efficient and flexible in terms of electrical power generation.
4. The proposed location is close to areas of intense sea traffic, thus posing a threat to both shipping and yachts.
Thank you for your email received on 18th March 2013 which sets out your concerns regarding the Navitus Bay Offshore Wind Farm Proposals.

As you may be aware this proposal is identified under the project name of 'Navitus Bay Wind Park formerly Isle of Wight' on the National Infrastructure pages of the Planning Portal website: [attachment 1]. At this link you will find contact details given to us by the promoter Navitus Bay Development Limited as well as other relevant correspondence.

This project is currently in the pre-application stage and therefore has not been formally made to the Planning Inspectorate. Until an application is formally made to us, the project promoter is your first point of contact for any comments you have on the proposal. Responding to the developer?s pre-application consultation is the best time to influence a project, whether you agree with it, disagree with it or believe it could be improved. Should an application then be made to the Planning Inspectorate, the promoter will be required to explain how it has taken account of comments received during their consultation. I would therefore strongly encourage you to ensure that Navitus Bay Development Limited are aware of your concerns below.

Should the application be formally submitted and the Planning Inspectorate accept the application to proceed to an examination, there is an opportunity for people to register with the Planning Inspectorate to have their say. By registering at the appropriate time you will be asked to outline your concerns or objections to the Examining Authority.

For more advice on the process and how you can get involved please visit the Planning Portal website where numerous advice notes are available: [attachment 2] . In this instance I recommend the 'advice note eight series: How to get involved in the planning process'.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any further questions on the information above or the process by which the Navitus Bay Offshore Wind Park, if formally submitted, will be determined.

Gordon Ineson

Dear Sir/Madam

Re the Navitus Bay Wind Farm proposal - objection

I am writing to strongly object to this development.

We are recreational sailors, who enjoy cruising this area, and enjoy our lovely countryside.

This scheme will

? Cause havoc to small craft navigating from the Solent across channel, particularly in poor weather and poor visibility. The Solent is the busiest recreational cruising areas, with boats departing the Solent for the Channel Islands and France ? the proposed site is directly in the way, and will pose a navigational hazard.

? Will ruin our stunning coastline ? all the views from the Isle of Wight, the Purbecks and Christchurch Bay will be spoilt by this intrusion

? Bird migration will be disrupted and birds harmed, as the site is directly in the way

? This area is one of outstanding natural beauty, indeed the Jurassic Coast is only 8.9 nautical miles away - this is far too close for such a development, and blatantly ignores the Government?s own guidelines.

? We are ruining our future, this area should be left unspoilt for generations to come

? We are an island ? thought and development should be going into tidal power generation, benefiting from the strong currents that are round the UK

? It will dwarf the Needles

? Wind power is unpredictable, and needs to take power back out of the grid when there is little or no wind

I hope my concerns will be taken seriously
Thank you for your email with the attached letter received on 19th March 2013 which sets out your concerns regarding the Navitus Bay Offshore Wind Farm Proposals.

As you may be aware this proposal is identified under the project name of 'Navitus Bay Wind Park formerly Isle of Wight' on the National Infrastructure pages of the Planning Portal website: [attachment 1]. At this link you will find contact details given to us by the promoter Navitus Bay Development Limited as well as other relevant correspondence.

This project is currently in the pre-application stage and therefore has not been formally made to the Planning Inspectorate. Until an application is formally made to us, the project promoter is your first point of contact for any comments you have on the proposal. Responding to the developer?s pre-application consultation is the best time to influence a project, whether you agree with it, disagree with it or believe it could be improved. Should an application then be made to the Planning Inspectorate, the promoter will be required to explain how it has taken account of comments received during their consultation. I would therefore strongly encourage you to ensure that Navitus Bay Development Limited are aware of your concerns below.

Should the application be formally submitted and the Planning Inspectorate accept the application to proceed to an examination, there is an opportunity for people to register with the Planning Inspectorate to have their say. By registering at the appropriate time you will be asked to outline your concerns or objections to the Examining Authority.

For more advice on the process and how you can get involved please visit the Planning Portal website where numerous advice notes are available: [attachment 2] . In this instance I recommend the 'advice note eight series: How to get involved in the planning process'.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any further questions on the information above or the process by which the Navitus Bay Offshore Wind Park, if formally submitted, will be determined.

Janet Rule

Sir,

As it is now accepted that the Earth has cooled over the last 15 to 20 years, why is there still an obsession with encircling our shores with huge turbines.

This mis-guided policy is doubling the cost of our energy as we still require fixed generation capacity for when the wind doesn?t blow. Denmark, for example with the highest density of wind farms in Europe, have not reduced their fixed capacity by a single megawatt.

The damage that these high energy costs are doing to our manufacturing competitiveness, and our ability to attract inward investment, are incalculable.

These costs need to be reversed, not added to, by schemes that rely on taxpayers subsidies to make them viable.

The poor old taxpayers ends up paying twice in both high energy costs and subsidies.

In the case of the population along this part of the South Coast, where tourism is at the heart of the local economy, they will end up paying three times over.

The Navitus Bay wind farm would be far larger than anything that has been placed so close to a major tourist area before.

The visual effect of what is being planned off the Isle of Wight, is disastrous and, without a true analysis of the financial consequences, both locally and nationally, there is a substantial risk to the local economy and its income.

When will our representatives in Westminster do something about this madness and spend our money on proper infrastructure schemes that have some economic literacy.
Thank you for your email received on 14th March 2013 which sets out your concerns regarding the Navitus Bay Offshore Wind Farm Proposals.

As you may be aware this proposal is identified under the project name of 'Navitus Bay Wind Park formerly Isle of Wight' on the National Infrastructure pages of the Planning Portal website: [attachment 1]. At this link you will find contact details given to us by the promoter Navitus Bay Development Limited as well as other relevant correspondence.

This project is currently in the pre-application stage and therefore has not been formally made to the Planning Inspectorate. Until an application is formally made to us, the project promoter is your first point of contact for any comments you have on the proposal. Responding to the developer?s pre-application consultation is the best time to influence a project, whether you agree with it, disagree with it or believe it could be improved. Should an application then be made to the Planning Inspectorate, the promoter will be required to explain how it has taken account of comments received during their consultation. I would therefore strongly encourage you to ensure that Navitus Bay Development Limited are aware of your concerns below.

Should the application be formally submitted and the Planning Inspectorate accept the application to proceed to an examination, there is an opportunity for people to register with the Planning Inspectorate to have their say. By registering at the appropriate time you will be asked to outline your concerns or objections to the Examining Authority.

For more advice on the process and how you can get involved please visit the Planning Portal website where numerous advice notes are available: [attachment 2] . In this instance I recommend the 'advice note eight series: How to get involved in the planning process'.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any further questions on the information above or the process by which the Navitus Bay Offshore Wind Park, if formally submitted, will be determined.

Peter Cameron

Query relates to whether the Planning Portal Navitus Website can publish the minutes of a Hengistbury Residents' Association meeting of 21st September 2012.
It is understood that you are keen for these minutes to appear on the Navitus Bay Project Page on the Planning Portal. However, the information that is published on those pages is that which The Planning Act 2008 Section 51 requires the Planning Inspectorate to publish - that is we must publish advice that we provide to applicants or other persons and where we attend a meeting and similarly provide advice that is captured through our meeting minutes. It would not be possible or appropriate for the pages on the Planning Portal to hold all information that all parties would want to publish in respect of this scheme.

Bill Hoodless

Project update and draft Development Consent Order (DCO) meeting.
Please see attached meeting note.

Navitus Bay Development Limited - Marlene Biessy

Planning Inspectorate outreach meeting with Elected Members to provide an overview of the application process, including advice on how to effectively engage and participate.
See attached presentation slides and note of meeting.

Local Authority Elected Members

Please see attachment

Navitus Bay Development Limited - Helen Cassini

Clarification requested on the IPC scoping opinion process and how to have your say in the pre-application stage.
There are Regulations that set out who the IPC consults once they have received a scoping request from a developer (Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2009). Bournemouth Tourism Board would not have been one of those bodies, however you noted that following discussion with Bournemouth Borough Council, some of your concerns were covered in their letter of 19th October.

As the project is currently at the Pre-application Stage it has not been formally made to the IPC. Until an application is formally made to us, the project promoter is your first point of contact for any comments you have on the proposal. It is therefore encouraging to hear that you are due to meet with Eneco next week to discuss some of these matters and as with other cases at this stage in the process, we would encourage you to raise your concerns directly with the developer so that they can take them into account in preparing their scheme.

Should you send comments to Eneco as part of their statutory consultation periods, the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) states that Eneco has a duty to have regard to any such responses (section 49 PA2008) and as part of their Consultation Report (a document that must be submitted with an application) must show how account has been taken of any responses (section 37(7) PA2008) or explain why no action has been taken.

This meeting may also provide you with an opportunity to clarify with Eneco when their formal consultation periods are and for you to raise your concerns regarding the production of visualisations. Furthermore, you mentioned that you have an on-going dialogue with the Council. The Council may be undertaking some work that will feed into the preparation of a Local Impact Report; the intension of which is to provide the Examining Authority with a written report giving details of the likely impact of the proposed development on the authority/authorities' area.

Mark Smith

To voice strong opposition to the proposed windfarm on the Dorset coastline
This proposal is identified under the project name of 'Navitus Bay Wind Park formerly Isle of Wight' on the IPC website [attachment 1]. At this link you will find contact details given to us by the promoter Eneco Round 3 Development Ltd.

This project is currently in the Pre-application stage and therefore has not been formally made to the IPC. Until an application is formally made to us, the project promoter is your first point of contact for any comments you have on the proposal.

Eneco's website contains information surrounding their public consultation events as well as indicating that you can provide feedback on the proposals: [attachment 2] Eneco has advised us that there are a number of public exhibitions scheduled for various locations in February and March [attachment 3]

Should an application be made to the IPC, the promoter will be required to explain how it has taken account of comments received during this consultation.

Should the IPC then accept the application to proceed to an examination, there is an opportunity for people to register with the IPC to have their say. I attach a web link to the IPC Advice Note series of which IPC Advice Notes 8.1 - 8.5 outline how the process works and the opportunities to be involved: [attachment 4]

Mr & Mrs Smith

IPC outreach meeting with Elected Members re: process
See attached presentation slides and Note of Meeting.

Local Authorities Elected Members

Please let me know how and to whom I should make this point in order for it
to be taken into account in your proceedings - I think it is not sensible to site an offshore wind farm in an area with an economy significantly dependent on tourism due to the beautiful sea views.
It is an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty / World Heritage Site.
This proposal is identified under the project name of 'Navitus Bay Wind Park formerly Isle of Wight' on the IPC website [attachment 1]. At this link you will find contact details given to us by the promoter Eneco Round 3 Development Ltd.

This project is currently in the Pre-application stage and therefore has not been formally made to the IPC. Until an application is formally made to us, the project promoter is your first point of contact for any comments you have on the proposal.

Eneco's website contains information surrounding their public consultation events as well as indicating that you can provide feedback on the proposals: [attachment 2] Eneco has advised us that there are a number of public exhibitions scheduled for various locations in February and March [attachment 3]

Should an application be made to the IPC, the promoter will be required to explain how it has taken account of comments received during this consultation.

Should the IPC then accept the application to proceed to an examination, there is an opportunity for people to register with the IPC to have their say. I attach a web link to the IPC Advice Note series of which IPC Advice Notes 8.1 - 8.5 outline how the process works and the opportunities to be involved: [attachment 4]

Gilly Duff

Clarification of indicative timeline for IPC part of process
Formal submission of a DCO to the IPC triggers the Acceptance process and therefore in terms of identified timeframes by month, they are simultaneous rather than consecutive.
The Adequacy of Consultation Report informs consideration of whether an application is accepted for progression to Examination. Upon submission of a DCO, the Commission will write to the relevant authorities to invite them to submit their Adequacy of Consultation Reports. The Commission has 28 days to decide whether to accept an application therefore authorities are asked to make any adequacy of consultation representation within 14 days of receiving our letter. Again in terms of identified timeframes by month, this would be simultaneous with Submission and Acceptance.
IPC Advice Note 1 suggests that the deadline given for the submission of the LIR following the preliminary meeting is likely to be short. Therefore local authorities are strongly encouraged to use the pre-application period to start their own evaluation of the local impacts of the proposals. Local authorities should then begin to compile the LIR as soon as the application has been accepted formally by the Commission and they have been invited to submit an LIR.
Finally, the effects of the Localism Act will mean that IPC is no longer a decision-maker (in the event that the relevant NPS is designated). In terms of the timeline, it may be more realistic to provide for 6 months examination, 3 months for the Examining Authority to reach a recommendation to be given to the Secretary of State and 3 months for the Secretary of State to issue a decision.

Eneco - Rebecca Evans

Query relates to the status and description of local authorities under the Planning Act 2008.
In respect of the query regarding the status and description of authorities under the Planning Act 2008, local authorities are identified as Consultation Bodies in accordance with the criteria under Section 43 of the Planning Act 2008. The local authorities (including District and County Councils and National Park Authorities) where an NSIP is based are known as the 'B' local authorities, while 'A' local authorities are those that share a boundary with a 'B' authority. All 'A' and 'B' authorities must be notified under Regulation 9 of the EIA Regulations 2009. Purbeck District Council shares a boundary with both East Dorset District Council and Dorset County Council where the project is located and was therefore consulted on the scoping report as an 'A' local authority in accordance with Section 43 of the Planning Act.

Further information is provided in the IPC's Advice Note Three (Consultation and notification undertaken by the IPC):
[attachment 1]

The IPC Scoping Opinion issued in November 2011 contains a list of local authorities as identified by the IPC under s.43 of the Planning Act 2008 for purposes of this specific consultation process. These were identified on the basis of a red line boundary provided by Eneco to the IPC in a GIS shapefile. Please note, that should Eneco refine their boundary in the coming months, this may change the A and B authorities. However if part of the proposed development is within East Dorset, for example a substation, then Purbeck would remain as an A authority. Furthermore, if part of the proposed development was within an authority within Dorset, Purbeck would still be an A authority by virtue of sharing a boundary with the County.

Purbeck District Council - Bridget Downton

Inception meeting to discuss IPC process and role of the Local Authorities.

Local Authorities

Advice requested in regards to the consultation on the Statement of Community Consultation and the timeline for feedback. It was also queried who gets consulted on the scoping report and when the deadline was for commenting on the scoping report for Navitus Bay.
As set out in s47 of the Planning Act 2008 (PA 2008) the applicant needs to consult the local authority in whose area a proposed nationally significant infrastructure project (NSIP) is located on the draft Statement of Community Consultation (SOCC). In two-tier areas both the district and county council in whose area a proposed NSIP is located need to be consulted. The applicant needs to give the local authority(ies) 28 days from the day after the draft SOCC is received to respond with any comments they may have.

The scoping report for Navitus Bay was submitted to the IPC under the Infrastructure Planning (Environment Impact Assessment) Regulations 2009 Regulation 8 by Eneco. Under the provisions of those Regulations, the IPC must invite the prescribed consultees listed in schedule 1 of the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedures) Regulations 2009. Comments must be made within 28 days from the day after receipt (Reg 8 of the EIA Regulations 2009). The Navitus Bay Scoping consultation expired on the 21st October 2011.

deputy leader of Christchurch BC - Colin Jamieson

Is it possible for non-statutory consultees to participate in the IPC Scoping Opinion consultation?
The IPC has invited prescribed consultation bodies to make comments by the 21st October 2011 on a scoping report submitted by Eneco Round 3 Generation Ltd for Navitus Bay Wind Park.

The prescribed consultation bodies and the circumstances where they must be notified, as defined in the EIA reg. 2(1) a-c, are listed in columns 1 and 2 respectively of Schedule 1 of the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations and within Section 43 of the Planning Act 2008 (PA 2008) in regards to the applicable local authorities.

There is no formal provision for non-statutory consultees to provide comments directly to the IPC on the scoping report. However, you may submit comments directly to Eneco who have made us aware that there is information on their website for sending your views on any part of the proposals.

As part of the pre-application process there is a statutory requirement for the developer to consult with the local community and a duty to take account of the responses received (Sections 47 and 49 respectively of the PA 2008). We understand that Eneco are working with the local authorities about how this consultation will be undertaken. This would offer you a further formal opportunity to provide your comments to Eneco.

Should the application be submitted to the IPC and subsequently accepted to progress to examination, there will also be the opportunity for you to register as an interested party with the IPC and comment on the application. In the mean time, all comments during the pre-application stage should be directed to Eneco.

If you would like any further information about the IPC role and process during the pre-application stage, please do contact me or view our advice notes via our website.

Osana Price

Request information on relevant guidance for Statements of Community Consultation (SoCC)
There are several pieced of relevant guidance for the production and consultation of a Statement of Community Consultation. IPC noted the relevant sections of the Planning Act 2008, CLG Guidance on Pre-application Consultation (2009), Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2009 as well as IPC Guidance Note 1. IPC noted the importance of clarity about any multiple stages of consultation and how they might relate to different areas/zones or categories of consultees.

Eneco - Helen Cassini

We note on your website that a scoping report has been submitted to yourselves in relation to the Navitus Bay Wind Park. We also note in the advice given you mention a deadline of the 21st October 2011 for comments on the scoping report.

We are not aware of any formal consultation and cannot see from you website that this is the case or the process for commenting on any consultation .

Can you therefore please confirm whether there is a consultation on the scoping report and if so, whether the 21st October is the deadline for comments? What the process is for us getting comments to you on this?
As mentioned, a scoping report has been submitted by Eneco Round 3 Generation Ltd to the IPC for Navitus Bay Wind Park under Regulation 8 of the Infrastructure Planning (Environment Impact Assessment) Regulations 2009. Under the provisions of those Regulations, the IPC have invited prescribed bodies to make comments on the document by the 21st October 2011.

The prescribed bodies are defined in the Regulations (EIA Regulations 2(1) a-c; those bodies prescribed under s.42(a) of the Planning Act 2008 and listed in column 1 of the table set out in schedule 1 of the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009 ('the APFP Regulations') where the circumstances set out in column 2 are satisfied in respect of that body; and each authority that is within s.43 ('local authorities') of the Planning Act 2008 ).

The IPC's scoping opinion is then due for completion on the 2nd November 2011 and will be published on our website on or soon after that date. A list of the prescribed bodies that were consulted will be contained in the scoping opinion.

The Regulations prescribe the basis on which the IPC is to reach its opinion. There is no formal provision for Wildlife Trusts to provide comments directly to the IPC on the scoping report. However, you may submit comments directly to Eneco who have made us aware that there is information on their website for sending your views on any part of the proposals.

As part of the pre-application process there is a statutory requirement for the developer to consult with the local community and a duty to take account of the responses received (Sections 47 and 49 respectively of the Planning Act 2008). As required by Section 47 of the Planning Act 2008, we understand that Eneco are working with the local authorities about how consultation could be undertaken. This would offer you a further formal opportunity to provide your comments to Eneco.

Should the application be submitted to the IPC and subsequently accepted to progress to examination, there will be the opportunity for you to register as an interested party with the IPC and comment on the application. We currently expect the application to be submitted in the first quarter of 2013. In the mean time, all comments during the pre-application stage should be directed to Eneco.

For further information about the IPC role and process during the pre-application stage, our advice notes are available via our website.

Hampshire & IoW Wildlife Trust - Pauline Holmes

Is it possible to extend the deadline for comments that form part of IPC's scoping opinon?
Unfortunately, we are unable to amend the deadline for our scoping consultation. The 28 day deadline for consultees to respond to consultation is set out in Regulation 8 of the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2009. Therefore, for comments to be included in the Navitus Bay Scoping Opinion they must be received by the IPC by 21 October 2011.

The IPC will forward any replies received after this date to the developer, but these comments will not be incorporated into the Scoping Opinion.

Dorset Fire & Rescue - Dave Arundel

Eneco have submitted their scoping report to the IPC under the Infrastructure Planning (Environment Impact Assessment) Regulations 2009 Regulation 8. Under the provisions of those Regulations, the IPC have invited prescribed bodies to make comments on the document by the 21st October 2011.

The prescribed bodies are defined in the Regulations (EIA Regulations 2(1) a-c; those bodies prescribed under s.42(a) of the Planning Act 2008 and listed in column 1 of the table set out in schedule 1 of the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009 (?the APFP Regulations?) where the circumstances set out in column 2 are satisfied in respect of that body; and each authority that is within s.43 (?local authorities?) of the Planning Act 2008.

The IPC?s scoping opinion is then due for completion on the 2nd November 2011 and will be published on our website on or soon after that date. A list of the prescribed bodies that were consulted will be contained in the scoping opinion.

The Regulations prescribe the basis on which the IPC is to reach its opinion. There is no formal provision for you to provide your comments direct to the IPC on the scoping report. However, you may submit comments directly to Eneco and Eneco have made us aware that there is information on their website for sending your views on any part of the proposals.

As part of the pre-application process there is a statutory requirement for the developer to consult with the local community and a duty to take account of the responses received (Sections 47 and 49 respectively of the Planning Act 2008). As required by Section 47 of the Planning Act 2008, we understand that Eneco are working with the local authorities about how consultation could be undertaken. This would offer you a further formal opportunity to provide your comments to Eneco.

Should the application be submitted to the IPC and subsequently accepted to progress to examination, there will be the opportunity for you to register as an interested party with the IPC and comment on the application. We currently expect the application to be submitted in the first quarter of 2013. In the mean time, all comments during the pre-application stage should be directed to Eneco.

Andrew Langley

A suggested amendment to the deadline for comments on the Navitus Bay Scoping Opinion by Borough of Poole as part of the revelant local authority grouping.
With regards to amending the deadline for the IPC scoping consultation, unfortunately we are unable to do this. The 28 day deadline for consultees to respond to consultation is set out in Regulation 8 of the Infrastructure Planning (EIA Regulations) 2009, as is the 42 day deadline within which the IPC must respond to the scoping request. Therefore, for comments to be included in the Navitus Bay Scoping Opinion they must be received by the IPC by 21 October 2011.

The IPC will forward any replies received after this date to the Applicant, but these comments will not be incorporated into the Scoping Opinion.

Borough of Poole - R Landman

Role of the local authority in discussing a draft Statement of Community Consultation. Seeking clarity in respect of the integration of IPC with the Planning Inspectorate. Seeking clarity about the relevant Secretary of State for the Navitus Bay proposal.
Should the Localism Bill be enacted as it is currently drafted, the IPC would be abolished in April 2012. Ministers have made very clear statements that the expertise and processes held within the current regime would be transferred into a Directorate within the Planning Inspectorate. The IPC has made a commitment to those currently engaged with the Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIP) regime that the transition will be seamless. In terms of reaching decisions on NSIP applications, the National Infrastructure Directorate would make a recommendation to the relevant Secretary of State who would then have 3 months in which to reach a decision. In the case of offshore wind energy generating stations, we currently understand that the relevant Secretary of State would be that for the Department for Energy and Climate Change. Should this position change I will of course inform you.

We discussed the strong emphasis of the NSIP regime created by the Planning Act 2008 on early consultation with many stakeholders - in essence the consultation is frontloaded. Once an application has been formally submitted to the IPC, there are very limited opportunities for the scheme to be amended. Providing comments to the developers in the pre-application stage of the process is therefore a critical way to ensure that your comments are taken on board. Indeed, the Planning Act 2008 Section 49 requires developers to have regard to consultation responses made under the statutory parts of the pre-application process.

There are several key roles for local authorities in the pre-application stage including:

Firstly to provide comments to the developer on their draft Statement of Community Consultation - this is effectively providing comments on the quality of the consultation strategy proposed and ultimately commenting on the adequacy of the consultation undertaken against that strategy. From reviewing the email thread below, it would appear that the meeting with Eneco regarding the draft Statement of Community Consultation relates specifically to this point. As the IPC cannot enter into discussions about the merits of a scheme, it is not usual for us to have involvement in these discussions between developers and local authorities.

Secondly to consider the preparation of a Local Impact Report - this is effectively outlining the likely impact of the proposed development on an authority's area (or any part of that area). I understand that as part of a wider meeting currently being scheduled between local authority officers and the IPC, a representative of Bournemouth Borough Council will be present. Matters relating to the preparation and timing of a Local Impact Report would be covered in such a meeting.

However, should you and/or your fellow Councillors wish to discuss the IPC role and process in more detail, we would be more than happy to arrange to meet with you. As noted the IPC cannot enter into discussions about the merits of any scheme, however we could discuss the various stages of the process, the likely timescales and answer any procedural queries questions that you may have.

Bournemouth Borough Council - Peter Charon

Correspondent contacted IPC asking for advice as to how to object to Navitus Bay Wind Park.
As you may be aware, this proposal is identified under the project name of 'Navitus Bay Wind Park formerly Isle of Wight' on the IPC website [attachment 1]. At this link you will find contact details given to us by the promoter Eneco Wind UK Ltd.

Until an application is made to us, the project promoter is your first point of contact for any comments you have on the proposal. Eneco has published on their website information surrounding public consultation events and provided an email address for comments which should enable you to be involved in their consultation process. [attachment 2]

The Planning Act 2008 created the Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC) and the processes by which proposals for Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects will be determined. At this stage (pre-application), the Act only allows the IPC to provide advice on the process for submitting or commenting on a proposed application, rather than on the merits of the proposal.

The promoter has advised us that it is working with the local authorities about how consultation could be undertaken. There are also requirements about who should be consulted and these include specific local authorities, parish councils and the wider community among others.

Should an application be submitted, the promoter will be required to explain how it has taken account of comments received during any consultation. I attach a weblink to Government guidance on how promoters should approach the consultation process for this kind of development: [attachment 3].

Anthony Vickery

Update meeting with Eneco to discuss progress and IPC process.
[attachment 1]

Eneco - Helen Cassini

This large proposed wind farm has been reported in today's Southampton Daily Echo. It says a meeting is to be held in Lymington and refers to the windfarm affecting only the New Forest, however on looking at the map of the proposed wind farm, it would stretch from Lymington right across the Hampshire coastline and beyond Swanage in Dorset.

Also, this development would affect all residents of Hampshire and Dorset who visit their coasts, and the view from all the major beach sites such as Christchurch, Boscombe, Bournemouth and Poole would be filled with windmills on a clear day so there would be no uninterrupted view out to sea for miles along that stretch of coast. Meetings should therefore be held across the 2 counties, not just in Lymington, and the proposed development should be sufficiently publicised for all Hampshire and Dorset residents to have an opportunity to have their say for or against the proposal, or suggestions for changes to it.
Thank you for your comments regarding the proposed windfarm on the Hampshire Coast. As you may be aware, this proposal is identified under the project name of 'Isle of Wight Offshore Windfarm' on the IPC website [attachment 1]. At this link you will find contact details given to us by the promoter Eneco Wind UK Ltd.

Until an application is made to us, the project promoter is your first point of contact for any comments you have on the proposal. The Planning Act 2008 created the infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC) and the processes by which proposals for Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects will be determined. At this stage (pre-application), the Act only allows us to provide advice on the process for submitting or commenting on a proposed application, rather than on the merits of the proposal. The promoter has advised us that it is working with the local authorities about how consultation could be undertaken. There are also requirements about who should be consulted and these include specific local authorities, parish councils and the wider community among others.

Should an application be submitted, the promoter will be required to explain how it has taken account of comments received during any consultation. I attach a weblink to Government guidance on how promoters should approach the consultation process for this kind of development: [attachment 2].

Eneco has advised us that there are a number of public exhibitions scheduled for various locations, one of which is in Lymington. They have also advised us that these exhibitions are not part of their formal detailed consultation process. Their website contains detailed information surrounding public consultation events which should enable you to be involved in their consultation process at a location near you. [attachment 3]

Kay Wright

Meeting to discuss the proposed Isle of Wight Offshore Wind Farm project
Please see attached meeting note

Helen Cassini

Initial meeting to discuss the proposed Isle of Wight Offshore Wind Farm
Please see attached meeting note

Helen Cassini