Navitus Bay Wind Park

Enquiry received via email

Navitus Bay Wind Park

11 December 2014
PCBA - Bill Hoodless


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?

Advice given

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.
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.