Email received requesting information regarding missing details in the Book of Reference
The Planning Inspectorate advised that the statutory 6 month examination closed on 6 August 2014. It was explained that correspondence was sent throughout the examination to the address details provided by the applicant in its Book of Reference. The Planning Inspectorate advised the enquirer to contact the applicant directly if they felt that the information was incorrect. It was explained that any correspondence received by the Planning Inspectorate since the elapse of the examination period would be sent directly to the Secretary of State for Transport for his consideration alongside the Examining Inspector?s report and recommendations. The deadline for submission of the report is 6 November 2014.

Chartman Ltd - Clive Sheppard

Cornwall Council referred to commercially sensitive information comprised within the Series 3000 drawings requested by the Examining Authority (ExA) under Rule 17 of Infrastructure Planning (Examination Procedure) Rules 2010 on 23 May 2014.
Without fettering the judgement of the ExA, I would anticipate that detailed reasons justifying the omission of the Series 3000 drawings from the examination will be requested. As an organisation we are sympathetic to commercial sensitivities, however in this context there appears to me an inherent risk that in absence of the requested material it may not be possible for Cornwall Council to demonstrate how adequate mitigation will be secured. This issue of course, in light of the high-level nature of the draft Landscape Ecological Management Plan (LEMP) as initially submitted, was the crux of the ExA?s request for further information in the first instance.

In my opinion, there remains for you two options at this stage, and it will be for the Council to take its own legal advice on which might be most appropriate. One option would be for the ?commercially sensitive? information to be submitted to the Inspectorate and redacted ahead of publication. This however may be difficult given the nature of some of the information comprised within drawings. The other option would be to submit ?non-commercially sensitive? versioning of the drawings which you feel would demonstrate that the necessary mitigation is secured.

To summarise, I would emphasise that the ExA will need to be assured that appropriate mitigation will be secured for the scheme. It is implied in his request for further information in relation to the draft LEMP that the Series 3000 drawings will be required to inform this satisfaction. It is clear that Cornwall Council is keen to assist the examination to the extent that it is able, but in consideration of the content of your voice message I would strongly advise that where you feel that withholding any information requested by the ExA is necessary, detailed justification is provided to the examination in writing.

Cornwall Council - Mark Allott

On 28 April 2014, Mr Lamond submitted a suite of questions to the Planning Inspectorate requesting their inclusion by the Examining Authority (ExA) in his second round of written questions to interested parties. Issue of the second round of question had been timetabled by the ExA for 30 April 2014.

Previously, Mr Lamond had written to the ExA on 18 March describing personal circumstances that would prevent him from attending the hearings as timetabled in the draft examination timetable attached to the 'Rule 6' letter.
Thank you for your submission dated 28 April 2014. The Examining Authority (ExA) has chosen to exercise his discretion and has accepted the submission to be read in conjunction with the examination. Your representation will be published to the A30 project webpage as soon as is practicable.

I would emphasise however and you will already be aware, that the process for examining nationally significant infrastructure projects under the Planning Act 2008 (the PA2008) is primarily inquisitorial. It is for the ExA to decide what questions to direct to which interested parties based on the need to gather evidence to advise the decision-maker; in this case the Secretary of State for Transport. Such evidence will be that which the ExA considers to be relevant and important to the examination.

You may wish to consider pursuing answers to the questions set out in your submission directly with the applicant, Cornwall Council. You may then wish to submit additional evidence at the appropriate stage in the examination to update the ExA on any outstanding matters or any issues that in your opinion the applicant has not addressed through direct questioning. Another appropriate means by which you might bring these issues to the attention of the ExA would be at a relevant hearing. The notification of those to be held in June and July of this year is scheduled to be issued to interested parties shortly. ExAs are committed to the imperative that interested parties are not denied the opportunity to ask questions where the answers are required in order to complete their cases, and you will note from DCLG?s guidance document ?Planning Act 2008: examination of applications for development consent? that in certain circumstances cross-examination may be allowed at hearings.

Finally, in relation to the notification of forthcomings hearings in June and July, I refer to the request about timing in your email to the ExA dated 18 March 2014. All parties are challenged by the statutory 6 month examination timetable and you will therefore understand that it is normally impracticable and inequitable for special measures to be employed to accommodate individuals or their representatives. The PA2008 does, however, make provision for parties unable to make representations orally to provide them in writing.

Stephens Scown LLP - Ian Lamond

Mr Kennen queried the sending of examination correspondence to Treswigga Farm for the attention of a former owner, and provided the address details of the present owner. Mr Kennen requested for the Planning Inspectorate's 'residence database' to be updated to reflect this change in ownership, and also for examination correspondence to be sent for his attention at Treswigga Farm. He stated that he had registered his interest in the application with Cornwall Council at the pre-application stage, and did not understand why examination correspondence was not being sent to him.
Under the Planning Act 2008 (the PA2008), the examination of applications for development consent must rely upon the information provided by applicant?s in relation to land interests. Applicants are required to document land interests, based on their own inquiries, in a Book of Reference (BoR) which must be submitted alongside their application. Based on the information provided in BoRs, applicants are required to provide the Planning Inspectorate with a list of persons with an interest in land to which a compulsory acquisition request relates, and also to notify those persons and other categories of persons referred to in section 57 of the PA2008 of an application which has been accepted by the Inspectorate as of a satisfactory standard to be examined.

Persons notified in the manner described above are automatically afforded status in the examination of nationally significant infrastructure projects which enables them to take part by making written and oral representations, and by attending any site inspections. In addition, the Planning Inspectorate is also required to send those persons all procedural decisions made by an Examining Authority (the Inspector or panel of Inspectors appointed to examine an application) over the course of an examination.

Mr Runnalls was described within the BoR submitted by Cornwall Council as the owner of Treswigga Farm; hence the address is receiving procedural decisions marked for his attention. In response to your statement that ownership of the farm changed in 1998, I must emphasise that it would be unlawful for the BoR to be amended by the Inspectorate at this stage of the process. Whilst correspondence must continue to be sent to Mr Runnalls at Treswigga Farm, I have forwarded your email to the Council for its consideration of the change in ownership. I would anticipate that a response will be provided to you shortly.

In response to your registration at Blisland Village Hall in 2013; this exhibition is likely to have been one of Cornwall Council?s pre-application consultation events held on 10 and 11 of January and 23 and 24 May of last year. To take part in the examination of the application, persons whom were not notified in the manner described in paragraph one and whom did not fall within any of the other categories set out in section 102(1)(a) to (e) of the PA2008 were required to register with the Planning Inspectorate to become an interested party by making a ?relevant representation?. This period was advertised by Cornwall Council and ended on 22 November 2013.

If, as your email suggests, you are a resident of land formerly owned by Mr Runnalls which would be subject to powers of compulsory acquisition were development granted and the Order made in its present form, and you were not notified of the accepted application, the ability for you to become an interested party has not elapsed. You may make an application to the Examining Authority to become an interested party using the form available at the following link: [attachment 1]

If in the meantime you wish to keep up to date with the progress of the examination, all of the documents attributed to it have been published to the project webpage on the Planning Portal, here: [attachment 2]

Phil Kennen

The applicant queried the status of its application under s131 and s132 of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended); made to the Common Land Team at the Planning Inspectorate on 15 August 2013.
The Planning Inspectorate advised that the provisions of the Growth and Infrastructure Act 2013 (the GIA2013) mean that, as this application was made after 24 June 2013, it would need to be examined and reported upon by the appointed Examining Authority as part of the examination of the application for development consent; removing the need for certification by Defra and the potential for public inquiry.

As such, the application for certification made to the Common Land Team had been retrieved by the Major Applications and Plans Directorate for consideration by the appointed ExA in the manner described above. The associated documentation was published to the A30 Temple to Higher Carblake Improvement project page on the National Infrastructure pages of the Planning Portal website on 2 October 2013.

Representations should be made on this material in the usual way; and the applicant should note that the ExA, once appointed, may request changes to the application documents to reflect the statutory changes brought about by the GIA2013.

Cornwall Council

The Planning Inspectorate has issued advice under s51 of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended) in relation to its observations under the s55 Acceptance tests.
The ?s55 acceptance checklist? published on our website sets out the Planning Inspectorate?s comments in respect of the tests that must be met under s55 of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended) (the PA2008).

Cornwall Council is strongly advised to review the checklist, and to read it in conjunction with the following advice.

Environmental Statement

The Inspectorate is of the view that the Environmental Statement (ES) should contain further information in order to comply with the requirements of the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2009 (the EIA Regulations).

Project description

The ES contains limited information on the dimensions of the different elements of the proposed development. The road widths have been identified in some places (e.g. paragraphs 2.3.14 to 2.3.15) and can be inferred from figures contained within the ES. However, with regards to vertical alignment there is no description of this except at paragraph 15.7.9 of the ES, which states that there are 10 areas of cutting proposed. The depths of each of the cuttings have not been specified although it is stated that they range in depth between approximately 1 to 5m.

Cross sections of the proposed road and cuttings are shown at drawings TRXCP311_PA_6.02_FIG_08.06.06 to .08 (inclusive); the locations of which are shown on TRXCP311_PA_6.02_FIG_08.06.01 to .05 (inclusive). These drawings are intended to show landscape mitigation measures, and are to scale, although not dimensioned. No cross sections or information on height are provided in respect of the proposed overbridges which, together with associated structures, will be the most visually dominant elements of the scheme. The depths of cuttings at these locations can be estimated by extrapolation, but are not shown definitively.

A clear plan showing the key elements of a proposed development should be provided within an ES. The Planning Inspectorate considers that ES ?Figure 01.02: Route Design? is of poor quality and should be updated taking into account the observations below:

? Whilst it is possible to identify the location of the proposed development from the figure, this is difficult due to a lack of notation of the surrounding properties, villages and towns.
? Due to the low resolution and scale at which the figure is provided, it is not possible to accurately determine the locations of cuttings. In addition it is not possible to determine the heights of overbridges and depths of cuttings from the figure or the text description contained within the ES.
? New access roads and construction compounds are not clearly identified on the figure.
? Due to the low resolution at which the figure is provided, it is not easy to decipher the precise red line boundary. For example, the red line boundary adjacent to the assumed attenuation pond and also adjacent to the central overbridge is not clear. It is not possible to determine whether these areas are included or excluded from the red line boundary.
? It is not clear what works will take place in the 'empty' areas within the red line boundary (i.e. where the red line extends beyond the proposed scheme (shown in black); although these are understood from the land plan to be land for temporary use/possession. A key would be useful to clearly explain what the land will be used for (e.g. as construction compounds).
? The figure does not identify what the two discrete land parcels to the north/north west of the scheme are. It is understood from Table 14.11 and other application documents that this is replacement common land, however this is not immediately clear from the figure (or until Chapter 19 of the ES that such replacement land is required) and a key would be useful to identify such land for readers of the ES.

This lack of information on the design of the proposed development means that it is not possible to readily determine the basis upon which the assessments have been undertaken. It is also not known if consultees have had access to this information during the statutory consultation. This is of particular importance for the landscape and visual assessment as the depths of cuttings and heights of embankments, overbridges and associated structures would inevitably impact upon the assessment outcome. In this regard it is noted that the methodology referred to in the landscape and visual impact assessment, Interim Advice Note 135/10 Landscape and Visual Effects Assessment, sets out at Annexes 1 and 2 that ?Define Project Characteristics? Size and extent? Location and alignment? Type? Massing? comprise the first stage of the methodologies for assessment of landscape and visual effects.

It is noted that of the three overbridges proposed, two are located within Bodmin Moor AONB, and the third is located on the margin of the Camel and Allen Valleys AGLV. It is therefore important that the full details of the overbridges and associated junctions can be established so that the potential impact on these sensitive areas can be considered during the Examination.

It is also noted that the photomontages provided within the ES (Figures 08.08.01 to .10 (inclusive)) are stated to be for illustrative purposes and cannot therefore be relied upon for dimensions or accuracy. Confirmation should be provided of the engineering design used as the basis for the presentation of the photomontages.

Figure 13.01 shows the existing Public Rights of Way (PRoW), but it is not possible to determine from the figure where alterations to these will be made (the ES refers the reader to Drawing Reference TRXCP311_PA_2.04 which does not form part of the ES). Paragraph 2.3.23 states that the diversion on the Stokely Farm route (FP/503/16 [Blisland Civil Parish]) is approximately 480m. Without information on the location of the diversions there is insufficient information to assess the potential impacts of these alterations. The Inspectorate requests that a plan clearly identifying the PRoW diversions is provided.

Non-technical Summary

In addition to the information required above, the Inspectorate also considers that the Non-technical Summary (NTS) is of a poor quality and should be updated. It is noted that the use of figures within the NTS is limited. The scheme location is shown in Figure 1.1 but at a very low resolution and it is therefore not possible to determine the exact location of the development. In addition, a number of the elements of the proposed development have not been identified; for example the new junctions at Cardinham Downs, Preeze Cross and Temple Tor, and the locations of private accesses and existing PRoWs that will be diverted. The Inspectorate recommends that a higher quality figure is provided within the NTS.

The NTS contains only a high level explanation of the consideration of alternatives but does not specifically identify alternative route options that were considered by the applicant. The Inspectorate therefore considers that this should be rectified to contain more detail; using figures where appropriate.
It is likely that the NTS will form a key document in the Examination and it would be advantageous to the Examining Authority (ExA) and the conduct of the Examination if the information summarised in the NTS was clearly cross referenced to the relevant locations in the ES.

Cornwall Council is strongly advised to address these issues in the Pre-examination period; in preparation for the examination of the application. It is likely that the ExA will set a deadline for receipt of amended/updated documentation early in the Examination timetable.

Duty to consult

You will note that section 3.1 of the s55 checklist identifies the following:

?There is suggestion that the applicant?s s42 consultation could have commenced before the Planning Inspectorate was notified under Regulation 6.?

The applicant is reminded of the requirements of Regulation 6 of the EIA Regulations which provide that:

?6.?(1) A person who proposes to make an application for an order granting development consent must, before carrying out consultation under section 42 (duty to consult) either?
(a)request the Commission to adopt a screening opinion in respect of the development to which the application relates; or
(b)notify the Commission in writing that the person proposes to provide an environmental statement in respect of that development.?

On the basis of the information provided, it appears that Cornwall Council issued letters notifying consultees of the commencement of s42 consultation on 2 January 2013; two days before notifying the Planning Inspectorate under Regulation 6 on 4 January 2013. It is possible therefore that s42 consultation could appear to have begun before notification to the Inspectorate under Regulation 6; particularly as the letter to s42 consultees did not state 4 January 2013 as the date of commencement. The Inspectorate advises that for any future applications for development consent, the applicant ensures that the requirements of Regulation 6 are met.

The applicant should be aware that in accordance with the saving provisions of the Infrastructure Planning (Prescribed Consultees and Interested Parties) (Amendment) Regulations 2013 (the PCIP Regulations), where notification has been given under Regulation 6 of the EIA Regulations before 6 April 2013, the definition of consultation bodies in the EIA Regulations relies on the prescribed consultee list in Schedule 1 of the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009 (the APFP Regulations); without any amendments contained within the amendment regulations. This means that when complying with Regulation 13 and 14 of the EIA Regulations the applicant must ensure that all bodies listed in the ?old? APFP Regulations are consulted. The applicant should also note that Regulation 13(2) requires applicants to consult with every person that was notified to the applicant under regulation 9(1)(c).

Section 3.4 of the s55 checklist identifies a number consultees prescribed in the APFP Regulations that, on the basis of the information provided in the Consultation Report, do not appear to be have been consulted by Cornwall Council under s42 of the PA2008. The Consultation Report does not appear to provide any explanation as to why these consultees were omitted. If they were not omitted, no appropriate action has been evidenced.

As a result of that observation, the Inspectorate requested all consultation responses from the applicant under Regulation 5(5) of the APFP Regulations on 28 August 2013. These were received from Cornwall Council on 2 September 2013. The purpose of this request was to identify whether any of the apparently omitted consultees had made representations to the applicant at the pre-application stage. On the basis of the consultation responses now provided by the applicant, it appears none of the omitted consultees listed in Section 3.4 of the s55 checklist made representations to the applicant during the pre-application stage.

The applicant is reminded of duties under s42 of the PA2008, and the Inspectorate strongly advises that for any future applications for development consent the applicant ensures that these duties are fully met.

The applicant should note that the requirement under s56 is to notify persons as prescribed by the APFP Regulations in Schedule 1. The PCIP Regulations state that where the Secretary of State (SoS) has been notified under s46 of the PA2008 before 6 April 2013 then the amendments in the regulations do not apply and the ?old? APFP regulations apply. In this case it appears that the applicant notified the SoS under s46 on two occasions; the first on 21 December 2012 and again on 16 May 2013. It is for the applicant to decide the implications of this when considering who it should notify under s56. The applicant is advised to seek legal advice on this matter and to ensure that a clear explanation is provided with the s56 notice to justify the approach taken to notification.

Cornwall Council - Mark Allott

Issue of section 51 advice following the decision to accept the application to proceed to examination on 9 September 2013
Please see the attached meeting note

Mark Allot

Issue of section 51 advice following the decision to accept the application to proceed to examination on 9 September 2013
Please see the attached meeting note

Mark Allot

Draft documents submitted by Cornwall Council for comments on 4th and 5th July 2013
Thank you for your emails of the 4th and 5th July 2013 in which you request the Planning Inspectorate?s comments on the following draft application documents submitted with the emails, namely:

· Draft DCO (received by email 4th July)

· Explanatory Memorandum (received by email 4th July)

· Book of Reference (received by email 5th July)

· Land plans (received by email 5th July)

[LP1] Land Plan (Sheet 1 of 5) (Doc TRXCP311_PA_2.02_01)

[LP2] Land Plan (Sheet 2 of 5) (Doc TRXCP311_PA_2.02_01)

[LP3] Land Plan (Sheet 3 of 5) (Doc TRXCP311_PA_2.02_03)

[LP4] Land Plan (Sheet 4 of 5) (Doc TRXCP311_PA_2.02_04)

[LP5] Land Plan (Sheet 1 of 5) (Doc TRXCP311_PA_2.02_05)

· Works plans (received by email 4th July)

[WP1] Works Plan (Sheet 1 of 5) (Doc TRXCP311_PA_2.03_01)

[WP2] Works Plan (Sheet 2 of 5) (Doc TRXCP311_PA_2.03_02)

[WP3] Works Plan (Sheet 3 of 5) (Doc TRXCP311_PA_2.03_03)

[WP4] Works Plan (Sheet 4 of 5) (Doc TRXCP311_PA_2.03_04)

[WP5] Works Plan (Sheet 5 of 5) (Doc TRXCP311_PA_2.03_05)

Works Plans Key Plan (Doc TRXCP311_PA_2.03_00)

· Draft HRA (received by email 5th July)

· Consultation Report (received by email 5th July)

· Street Plans (received by email 5th July)
The applicant should note that sections A to D (incl) below highlight significant issues to be addressed by the applicant in the application documents prior to formal submission while sections E to H (jncl) highlight other issues of lesser significance, including typos, clarity issues etc., which would be helpful to address prior to your formal submission.

Please note that the following advice is not intended to be prescriptive, and it is for the applicants to determine the content of their applications. We must also stress the decision of whether or not to accept the application will be taken by an Inspector who has had no involvement at pre-application stage for this proposal. All advice PINS provides at this stage does not prejudice or prejudge the decision of the inspector regarding acceptance or non-acceptance of an application.


A. Explanatory Memorandum (13 June 2013; Version 2) (Doc TRXCP311/P1/X.X) and

Draft Development Consent Order (13 June 2013; Version 4) ((Doc TRXCP311/P1/X.X)

(i) As previously advised (meeting with PINS on 10/06/2013) the applicant is advised that at paragraph 3.1 the EM defines the project as an improvement of a 4.5km section of the A30. At paragraph 3.5 the EM refers to Work No. 1 as the construction of a permanent highway. The applicant is advised that the EM should clearly explain the apparent inconsistency between paragraphs 3.1 and 3.3 of the EM which refer to the project being the improvement of the highway and an NSIP in accordance with section 22(1)(c) and (5) of the Planning Act 2008 (which relate to the improvement of a highway); and paragraph 3.5 and Work no 1 in the DCO which describes the NSIP as being the construction of a highway

(ii) The Explanatory Memorandum assumes that the Highway and Railway (NSIP) Order 2013 has come into effect ? it is expected to at the end of July. The applicant is advised to ensure that it has come into effect before submission. If it has not, the EM will need to be altered to reflect this.

B. Book of Reference

(i) In accordance with Section 7 (1)(d) of The Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedures) Regulations 2009 Part 4 of the Book of Reference (BoR) should contain all Crown interests in the land which is proposed to be used for the purposes of the order for which the application was made. The applicant is advised to list the owner of any Crown interest in this section.

(ii) There appears to be a lot of plots listed in Part 4 but there are no articles in the DCO in relation to Crown interests. Crown interests owned by the Crown cannot be compulsorily acquired (s.135) For compulsory acquisition of an interest in Crown Land held otherwise than by or on behalf of the Crown and for any other provision applying in relation to Crown land or rights, s 135 requires express Crown consent. The applicant is advised to seek this express consent as early as possible if necessary. If Crown Rights are to be affected it is advisable to include an Article in the DCO protecting Crown rights and preventing their interests from being affected by any of the provisions of the order.

(iii) The applicant is advised that Part 4 of the BoR (pg 197), specifies that the owner of any Crown Land where it is proposed to use for the purpose of the order of the application should be listed under this section. Upon review of the Land Plans and DCO it doesn?t appear that any Crown Land is associated with the application and therefore listing all parcels of land within Part 4 of BoR implies that Crown Land is associated to the application. The applicant is advised to review BoR, Land Plans and DCO and clarify whether if any Crown Land is associated to the application. If not, Part 4 should be left blank or make clear ?that no Crown Land is associated to the application.?

(iv) The applicant is advised that Part 5 of the BoR (PG 250), refers to Special Category land. See reg 7(1)(e) of The Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009. The DCO under requirement 30 refers to Special Category land, however it is interpreted as though ?Special Category? land to date have not yet been identified, this is also evident as none of the land plans depict any Special Category to be CA. Part 5 of the BoR should only include land parcels which the applicant has identified to be Special Category land and this should also be reflected on the Land Plans.


C. Works Plans

(i) The EM in paragraph 7.6 refers to ?limits of deviation shown on works plans? but no such limits have been indicated on these plans. In accordance with Section 5 (2)(j)(ii) of The Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedures) Regulations 2009 the applicant is advised to indicate the Limits of Deviation on the works plans

(ii) In accordance with Section 5(j) of The Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedures) Regulations 2009 the applicant is requested to clearly indicate all existing features

(iii) The applicant is advised to clearly label all those works set out in Schedule 1 of the draft Development Consent Order on the works plans

D. A30 Temple to Carblake Habitat Regulations Screening Assessment: No Significant Effects Report (July 2013)

(i) Should the application be accepted for examination, the examining authority will likely seek assurances from Natural England (NE) that the correct sites, features and potential impacts have been identified, and that they agree with the outcome of the screening assessment, alone or in-combination with other projects. The draft HRA report (paragraph 1.5.1) states that a meeting was held with NE on 9 April 2013 to discuss the scope of the HRA, where it was agreed that the project would be unlikely to result in significant effects. It is recommends that evidence of this meeting, for example a meeting note or meeting minutes, is appended to the submitted HRA report.


E. Explanatory Memorandum (13 June 2013; Version 2) (Doc TRXCP311/P1/X.X) and

Draft Development Consent Order (13 June 2013; Version 4) ((Doc TRXCP311/P1/X.X)

(i) Paragraph 7.1: The EM states ?to temporarily remove a grade 11 listed milestone during the authorised development.? Perhaps this should read ?during the construction of the authorised development? as it is intended to be a temporary measure. The applicant is advised to clarify.

(ii) Work 1(h) of the DCO refers to ?the temporary removal of the grade II listed milestone east of Glenavon (Listing ID 1142395). The applicant may wish to consider including a requirement to address how and when it will be removed and reinstated.

(iii) Sections 131 and 132 of the Planning Act 2008, as amended by the Growth and Infrastructure Act 2013, apply as the application includes compulsory acquisition of common land. S.131 & 132, as amended, state that an order granting development consent is subject to Special Parliamentary Procedure (SPP) unless the Secretary of State is satisfied that the tests set out in those sections are met AND that fact and the subsection concerned are recorded in the Order or otherwise in the instrument or other document containing the Order. At present the Order does not explicitly record that the Secretary of State is satisfied that the requisite test are met and set out the specific subsections applicable. As these provisions are new there is no precedent for how this should be recorded in the Order and it is for the applicant to decide how best this can be done. Some applicants have dealt with this matter in the preamble to the Order. Alternatively consideration could be given to amending Article 31 of the DOC which refers to special category land not vesting in undertaker until replacement land has been acquired and the Local Planning Authority has certified that a scheme for provision of replacement land has been implemented to its satisfaction. The applicant will also need to ensure that somewhere in the application documents, for example, in the statement of reasons, detailed information is given to satisfy the Secretary of State that the tests are met.

(iv) Article 39 of the DCO refers to documents certified by the Secretary of State. The environmental statement and landscape plans should be included in this article as they are defined in Article 2 of the DCO as being documents certified by the Secretary of State and reference is made in Schedule 2 to the environmental statement being the document certified in accordance with article 39(1) of the DCO.

(v) In schedule 2 Interpretation, the ?approved development plans? are defined as the plans certified in accordance with article 38(1). This appears to be an incorrect reference. It would appear to be article 39(1).

(vi) The EM does not match up with the requirements in the DCO. At 11.5 the EM states that requirement 4 requires the development to be carried out in accordance with the certified plans and requirement 5 is the CEMP. In the DCO requirement 4 is the CEMP and requirement 5 states that the development must be carried out in accordance with the approved development plans.

(vii) It is recommended that the EM provide a correct explanation of Requirement 4 and an explanation of requirement 5 of Schedule 2 of the DCO.

(viii) In addition at Requirement 5(2) when referring to substituted plans it should refer to these being within the scope of the Environmental Statement and not just within the Order limits (see 5(2)).

(ix) There is no definition of development plans in the Part 1 (2) Interpretation of the DCO. It would be advisable to include a definition of approved development plans here to avoid confusion with use of the term ?development plan? being associated with LPA local plans.

(x) Schedule 2 (article 3) of the DCO defines ?the approved development plans? as the plans certified in accordance with article 38(1) (certification of plans etc.). This should refer to ?article 39(1) which refers to certification of plans.

(xi) Paragraph 3.3 of the EM states that the proposed development is an NSIP for the purposes of section 14(1)(h) and 22(1)(c) and (5) of the Planning Act. It is unclear what part (5) refers to.

(xii) Paragraph 8.2 of the EM refers to a list of streets to be altered as being found in Schedule 2; it would appear that this should refer to Schedule 3 ? Streets Subject to Alteration in Layout.

(xiii) Paragraph 8.12 of the EM refers to Paragraph (5) of article 13; it would appear that this should refer to Paragraph (5) of article 12.


F. Book of Reference

(i) The column headings in Part 5 are confusing, addresses are listed under category of land and it is not clear if all the land is common land or if there is other special category land.

(ii) It is noted that a schedule of statutory undertakers is included. This is not required by the regulations. The applicant is requested to confirm if all statutory undertakers in the list are in the BoR.

(iii) There are references to footnotes but there do not appear to be any footnotes in the document provided (?)

(iv) Some footnotes are incorrect e.g. footnote 3 reference in the main body of text (begins on page 85 of BoR) appears to be associated with footnote no. 4 (footnote 4 should be amended to footnote 3);

(v) In the interests of consistency footnote 4 in the main body of text should remain referenced throughout Part 3 (beginning on page 141 ? 196 incl) of the BoR; the same applies for Part 4 (beginning on page 197 ? 249 incl.) and Part 5 (beginning on page 250 ? 304 incl)

(xiv) The applicant is advised that Part 2 of the BoR (pg 85) has incorrect footnote. This should reference ?3. A person is within Category 3 if the Applicant thinks that, if the order as sought by the application were to be made and fully implemented, the person would or might be entitled-

(a) as a result of the implementing of the order,

(b) as a result of the order having been implemented, or

(c) as a result of use of the land once the order has been implemented, to make a relevant claim.?

See section 57 (4) of the Planning Act 2008.

G. A30 Temple to Carblake Habitat Regulations Screening Assessment: No Significant Effects Report (July 2013)

(i) Paragraph 2.1.3 of the draft A30 Temple to Carblake Habitat Regulations Screening Assessment: No significant Effects Report (the draft HRA report) refers to Figure 2. The applicant is advised that there is no such figure provided within the report. It is recommended to include this figure in the submitted HRA report.

(ii) Paragraph 3.1.1 of the draft HRA report refers to Figure 3. The applicant is advised that there is no such figure provided within the report. It is recommended to include this figure in the submitted HRA report.

(iii) Paragraph 4.3.1 of the draft HRA report refers to Appendix C. The applicant is advised that there is no such appendix provided within the draft HRA report.

(iv) It is recommended that the HRA report contains a figure identifying the location of the River Camel Special Area of Conservation (SAC) relative to the proposed development.

(v) The potential impacts identified in paragraph 4.3.1 of the draft HRA report do not include all of those listed in Table 4.1 (namely impacts on habitat and hydrological change). It is advised that paragraph 4.3.1 and Table 4.1 of the HRA report should reflect one another.

(vi) Paragraph 4.4.2 of the draft HRA report states Cornwall Council (CC) has confirmed that there are no major developments within the vicinity of the proposed scheme. It is recommended that the applicant define the area covered by the term ?in the vicinity? and provided evidence of the confirmation from CC of no major developments in the vicinity in the submitted HRA report.

(vii) Paragraph 4.4.2 of the draft HRA report identifies two ?minor? planning permissions, the locations of these developments relative to the proposed development, and an explanation of what the ?work at Lyndhurst? comprises, should be included within the submitted HRA report.

(viii) In Table 4.1 the evidence supporting conclusions of the draft HRA report for the potential impact of increased light refers to the impacts of noise; this should be rectified within the submitted HRA report.

(ix) The applicant should note that Advice Note 10: Habitats Regulations Assessment was updated in January 2013 and now includes screening and integrity matrices; the checklists completed by the applicant as appendices to their draft HRA report comprise appendices to previous version of the advice note and are no longer relevant. The Planning Inspectorate expects the applicant to complete the applicable matrix/matrices in accordance with Advice Note 10 (January 2013), and to submit them with their DCO application in Word format. The information contained within Table 4.1 of the HRA report could be used to inform the matrices. Please note if the matrices are not submitted with the DCO application they will likely be requested by the examining authority if the application is accepted for examination.

(x) In paragraph 2.1.15 of the draft HRA report it refers to the fact that the impacts of lighting are considered in the Landscape and Ecology chapters. The applicant should clarify if this is a reference to the Landscape and Ecology chapters of the Environmental Statement or another document.

(xi) Paragraph 3.3.2 of the draft HRA report contains a number of footnote references; however there are no accompanying footnotes. The applicant is advised to rectify in the submitted HRA report.

(xii) The applicant should consider the inclusion of a glossary of technical terms and acronyms in the submitted HRA report.

(xiii) Paragraph 2.3.2 of the draft HRA report includes an incomplete sentence. In the interest of clarity the applicant is advised to complete this sentence / rectify in the submitted HRA report.

H. Land Plans

(i) The applicant is advised that whatever is indicated in the land plans is clearly indicated in the Book of Reference for each plot.

(ii) [Doc J] Additional plan submitted (Doc J:\13-14\CGD13)2 A30 ? Cornwall) titled Sheet 3 of 10. It is unclear what the purpose of this plan is, however the applicant should take special care to ensure that all plans submitted are consistent.

(iii) When comparing [Doc J] with [LP1] and [LP2] there are numerous discrepancies in terms of what is being acquired e.g. [LP1] depicts plot 01/22 as land rights to be acquired, however on plan [Doc J] it appears as though the land is to be compulsory acquired. It is advised that the applicant review all plans and ensure they are consistent.

(iv) The applicant is advised that in the following land plans submitted however it is unclear what rights are being sought or the plot to which rights apply to

LP1 ? 01/05; 01/08 and 01/26

LP2 ? 02/17

LP4 ? 04/42; 04/43; 04/66; 04/67 and 04/68

LP5 ? 05/06 refers to INSET A

Upon submission it should be clear to determine the associated rights being sought per plot.

(v) The applicant should take caution in ensuring that the ?cut line? for each of the sheets submitted particularly in reference to the Land Plans, reflects the overall scheme. It is advised that these sheets slightly overlap each other in order for a true reflection of the plots to be portrayed. The Works Plans represent a more consistent method in this regard.

(vi) The applicant may want to consider including an INSET on some of the Land Plans, especially where plot numbers are cluttered in order for PINS to have a clearer view. This potentially is something that is clearer on an A1 and if so this might not be necessary.

(vii) It appears on [LP2] that plot 02/45 is required for temporary use however plot 03/02 on [LP3], which appears to reflect the continuation of plot 02/45 is shown as land needed to be compulsory acquired. Again the applicant may want to overlay sheets to provide a clearer portrait of associated land rights.

(viii) It appears on [LP3] that plot 03/14 is required for compulsory acquisition however plot 04/03 on [LP4], which appears to reflect the continuation of plot 03/14 is shown as land needed to acquire permanent rights. Again the applicant may want to overlay sheets to provide a clearer portrait of associated land rights.

Cornwall Council - Tim Walmsley

A meeting was held with the promoter, Cornwall Council, about the progress of the project in the run up to submission. The advice given is recorded in the attached meeting note

Cornwall Council