Hinkley Point C New Nuclear Power Station

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

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

Preview
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Query from Paul Gripton by email on 24 September 2018:

Please find attached a letter detailing the issues and advice sought, mentioned in our previous phone conversation. It is lengthy but evidenced.
Response by email on 15 October 2018:

With apologies for the delay, please see our response to your queries below:

Query 1: Are the discharging authorities and EDF Energy, non-compliant with the DCO and/or the EIA Regulations and Directive if they failed to comply with DCO provisions involving Discharge of Requirement PW 10 (TIMP) Traffic Incident Management Plan?

Response: In the event that requirements of a DCO have not been correctly discharged, and the applicant proceeds with a development, then the applicant may be proceeding to construct an NSIP in the absence of Development Consent. Section 160 of the Planning Act 2008 is clear that a ‘person commits an offence if the person carries out, or causes to be carried out, development for which development consent is required at a time when no development consent is in force in respect of the development.’

Query 2: If it were shown that the Councils (as discharging authorities) and the undertaker were non-compliant, would West Somerset and Sedgemoor District Councils be responsible for ‘enforcement’ against themselves and EDF Energy?

Response: The local planning authority would be responsible for enforcing compliance with the requirements of the DCO. If you have raised a matter relating to non-compliance with them, and they have not responded to your satisfaction, you should first exhaust their complaints procedure. If having done that and you are still dissatisfied, you may wish to refer the matter to the Local Government Ombudsman.

Query 3: Do the updated EIA Regulations 2017, apply to change/Requirement Discharges (involving HPC) undertaken after 16th May 2017, including the new provisions regarding ‘risk to human health’ and part 12 concerning ‘objectivity and bias’ regarding an authorities duty including the need for ‘functional separation’ and conflict of interest measures?

Response: The Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 (the EIA Regulations 2017) came into force on the 16th May 2017. At that point and in accordance with Regulation 37 of the EIA Regulations 2017 the previous Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations and Amending legislation were revoked (see Regulation 37 of the EIA Regulations 2017). The EIA Regulations 2017 include a transitional provision (Regulation 37 (2)) which would allow for previous Regulations (as specified) to continue to apply where certain circumstances are met (Regulation 37 (2) (a & b)). The extent to which the transitional provisions apply is a matter for the Competent Authority (for the purposes of the Regulations) in determining their duties in accordance with the EIA Regulations 2017 it will be relevant for any such decision to take into account the specific details of the application as made.

Query 4: Should, the possibility of materially new or materially different environmental effects other than those assessed in the Environmental Statement be identified under subsequent requests for change/discharge, what response is required by the undertaker/authorities, including public involvement?

Response: Section 153 and Schedule 6 of the Planning Act 2008 include provision for changes to, and revocation of, orders granting development consent. An Applicant seeking to make any such change is required to follow the process prescribed by the Planning Act 2008 and any other relevant secondary legislation including the EIA Regulations 2017. The discharge of requirements in a Development Consent Order (DCO) is a matter for the relevant discharging authority. A proposed change to an Order Granting Development consent or request to discharge specific DCO requirement(s) may engage the EIA Regulations 2017 ‘subsequent application’ regulations (Regulation 22-25) although the extent to which they apply will depend upon the specific nature of proposal and decisions to be taken by the relevant Competent Authority for the purposes of the Regulations.

Query 5: When considering if there are materially new or different effects,(with respect to EIA impacts/regulations) do the discharging authorities take mitigation into account or is the ‘test’ as stated in the DCO (Schedule 2 para 4) just to identify (unmitigated?) new or different effects than those included in the Environmental Statement? Whilst identifying and applying mitigation is important, basically is consideration of effects including mitigation preventing identification of significant effects and circumventing the EIA regulations and Directive, including the need for subsequent public participation and possibility to comment?

Response: The approach to be taken to determine the applicability of the EIA Regulations 2017 to the discharge of requirements in a Development Consent Order (DCO) is a matter for the relevant discharging authority.

Query 6: With regard to the updated TIMP and the ‘new’ Section 5 - Which now includes Significant Road Works as an incident and exceptional circumstance, consequently involving compensatory extended HGV delivery periods outside the normal permitted limits during unsocial hours. – The Transport Review Group, (which contains significant EDF Energy representation and voting rights that they have used previously when deciding change on their own proposals) appear to have usurped the role of the discharging authorities contrary to the DCO, carrying out the role and decisions designated to the recognised discharging authorities. Basically are the discharging authorities (West Somerset and Sedgemoor District Councils) allowed to transfer their role and responsibilities for granting agreement or approval designated to them under the DCO to a group under which the proposer has a significant voting right (with a history of using it) on their own proposal?

Response: The Planning Inspectorate does not comment on the role of a local planning authority when performing functions required as a discharging authority. Please see the answer to point 2 regarding the opportunity to raise the matter with the Local Government Ombudsman.

Query 7: The TRG through the S 106 agreement appear to have a different, lower standard than that undertaken by discharging authorities under the DCO requirements when ‘testing’ their satisfaction that there are unlikely to be materially new or different environmental effects . Under the DCO authorities must be ‘satisfied’, which is an absolute obligation. The TRG under the S 106 agreement are required to be ‘reasonably satisfied’ which is a lower qualified obligation. Should the TRG test to the higher standard prescribed under the DCO if they are allowed to grant agreement/approval of exceptional circumstances under Requirement PW10?

Response: The Planning Inspectorate does not comment on the role of the local planning authority when performing functions required as a discharging authority.

15 October 2018
Paul Gripton
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached

20 July 2018
EDF Energy - anon.
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting in relation to the proposed material change to the DCO
Please see attached meeting note

03 April 2018
EDF Energy - Carly Vince
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Hi thank you for the response, for clarity:-

The consultees to non material changes do not include interested or registered persons from the full formal process?
Who are the required consultees?
How do i register to receive or be made aware of any published item on the HPC inspectors page?
Increasing the size of a building by some 50% to form one of the largest building on site and major changes to the sea wall are not seen as a material change?

Thank you for your time.
Thank you for your email. I will attempt to answer your questions. The answers to questions 1 and 2 are found in regulation 7 of the Infrastructure Planning (Changes to, and Revocation of, Development Consent Orders) Regulations (as amended).

[attachment 1]

The copy on legislation.gov.uk does not include the amendments made in 2015:

[attachment 2]

1) Parties who registered as interested parties are not automatically consulted on a proposed non-material change.

2) The required consultees are each person for whose benefit the development consent order has effect; each person that was notified of the acceptance of the original application for a Development Consent Order by the applicant under S56 of the Planning Act 2008; and any other person who may be directly affected by the changes proposed in the application. This is subject to a provision that allows the Secretary of State to consent to a shorter list of consultees on a case-by-case basis. By way of an example, please see this letter here:

[attachment 3]

3) There is no way to register to be informed directly every time a document is published on our website.

4) This is a matter for the Secretary of State. The decision on the application will include a decision on whether or not the proposed change is material.

As I mentioned below, there is guidance on changes to development consent orders, which can be found here:

[attachment 4]

27 November 2017
Leigh Redman
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Good afternoon, i note on your website a number of ‘non material changes’ have both been advertised and confirmed, i was part of the original inspection, registering and speaking.

I am interested to understand why as has been indicated, I have an interest in the process, i do not appear to have received formal notification from you of these requests to change/vary the DCO.

During the process great play was made of the fact that ‘once agreed there will be no change to the DCO’.

Your response would be welcomed.
Thank you for your email. The process for making non-material changes to a Development Consent Order is governed by the Infrastructure Planning (Changes to, and Revocation of, Development Consent Orders) Regulations (as amended) which set out the parties who must be consulted, and allow the Secretary of State to give consent for the applicant to consult less widely.

The process can only be used if the change is not material. There are alternative processes for material changes, which can include a further examination of those changes in a similar fashion to the examination of the original application. The Secretary of State has published guidance on changes to development consent orders which can be found here and may answer many of your questions.

[attachment 1]

22 November 2017
Leigh Redman
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Meeting regarding proposed non-material change application
Please see attached meeting note

28 June 2017
EDF Energy - Carly Vince
response has attachments
Please see attached letter from EDF Energy
Please see attached letter from the Planning Inspectorate

06 January 2017
EDF Energy - Carly Vince
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Meeting to update on project progress and to discuss proposed applications to make changes to the DCO
see attached meeting note

19 July 2016
EDF Energy - Tim Norwood
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
see attached letter
see attached response

22 January 2015
Bridgwater Town Council - Alan Hurford
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Meeting between EDF and the Planning Inspectorate regarding lessons learnt on the administration of the Hinkley Point C application.
Please see attached meeting note.

14 November 2012
EDF - Tim Norwood & Katy McGuinness
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Assuming EDF is given planning consent for Hinkley PointC, could it delay the start of the project for a period of time, possibly years?
Draft Development Consent Order provides that the authorised project must commence within 5 years of the date of the Order, as stated in the PW1 (Project Wide Requirement), in Schedule 11 (Requirements) of the DCO. That particular Requirement can be found on page 113. Please see the attached link : [attachment 1] .

13 July 2012
John Lucas
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The Equality and Human Rights Commission requested if they could be removed from the Hinkley Point C mailing lists as information regarding planning applications does not fit with the type of work carried out by the organisation.
I can confirm that we have removed the Equality and Human Rights Commission from the Hinkley Point C mailing list. Your Interested Party status however remains active if you wish to participate in any future part of the process for the above application.

Please be aware that the Equality and Human Rights Commission is listed as a prescribed consultee under the relevant planning legislation. This means we have a statutory obligation to consult EHRC regarding all National Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP) applications likely to affect land in England and Wales during their pre-application and initial stages.

Once you have received our Rule 4 / 6 letter (detailing the appointment of the Examining authority and how to be become involved in the process) and Rule 8 letter (detailing how the application is to be examined) for each application, you will only receive further correspondence if you notify us of your wish to become an Interested Party or make a relevant representation during the registration period.

Further information on the applicable planning legislation can be found on our website. A link to the relevant section is provided below.

[attachment 1]

I hope this response has been helpful, but if you have any further questions or require a more in depth response, please do not hesitate to contact us. Our Helpdesk is also available for queries on 0303 444 5000.

11 July 2012
Jacinta Marshall
Enquiry received via phone
Mr Gripton called to clarify when he could submit comments into the Hinkley examination process on the issues discussed at the Issue Specific Hearing on 26-27 June 2012.
I would suggest that you could tie the points you wish to raise into answering the further written questions posed by the Panel. The deadline for responses to the second round of questions is 12 noon 9 July 2012.

There will be an opportunity to make comments relating to EDF's responses at the second Issue Specific Hearing on 17th July 2012, to which you have recently been invited. The responses from EDF at this hearing may raise the issues that you wish identify or resolve them.

04 July 2012
Otterhampton Parish Council - Paul Gripton
Enquiry received via email
Avon & Somerset Police have sought clarification as to the matters to be covered at the Issue Specific Hearing on 26 June 2012 to which they are invited.
The Hinkley Panel have indicated that they would expect to hear comments on the draft s106 at the issue specific hearing to the extent necessary for them to understand its provisions and the bearing that those provisions would have on the DCO and the requirements contained therein. As you will appreciate, the detailed terms of the s106 are essentially a matter for the signatories thereto to agree.

A further follow up email was sent:

As indicated in the invitation that was sent to you on 30 May 2012, the Issue Specific Hearing arranged for 26 June 2012 will focus on the terms of the draft Development Consent Order (DCO) and particularly on the draft requirements in Schedule 11 of that document.

Avon and Somerset Police were invited to the Issue Specific Hearing because they have suggested that new requirements should be introduced in respect of such matters as security fencing; the provision of a dedicated area of the Hinkley Point C site for protests; the provision of a shuttle bus service; and the regulation of workers' conduct. It is for Avon and Somerset Police however to decide how they wish to be represented at the Issue Specific Hearing, but the attendance of a QC and Senior Officers will not be necessary.

The Examining authority has no jurisdiction over the Applicant's financial obligations to the police or any other body. Such obligations form no part of the proposed Development Consent Order, which is before the Secretary of State for consideration. The Applicant has separately submitted a draft agreement under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, which includes provision for financial payments to be made to the Avon and Somerset Constabulary and others. This may be the subject of further negotiation between the various parties concerned.

However, the Examining authority will take no part in those negotiations, and no Hearing has been arranged for their discussion. Nevertheless, when preparing their report to the Secretary of State, the Examining authority will take account of any obligations that the Applicant has entered into, together with any representations received from Interested Parties about the adequacy of those obligations.

18 June 2012
Avon & Somerset Police - Andrew Beard
Enquiry received via phone
EDF sought clarification regarding the exact nature of the six sites highlighted in paragraph 1.8 of the Hinkley Panel?s Further Written Questions (extract shown below).

Question for the Applicant

1.8 In the case of the six sites together with the Combwich freight lay down facility where powers of compulsory acquisition are sought, the Applicant acknowledges that it requires a temporary interest only for a number of years. What is the Applicant?s case for seeking to acquire compulsory acquisition powers for the freehold interests in this land, as opposed to leasehold interests for use of the land?
The six sites in the Hinkley Panel's Further Written Questions are identified below along with their location in application documentation:

Bridgwater A - Para 5.3.9 of Statement of Reasons (SoR)
Bridgwater C - Para 5.3.11 SoR
Junction 23 - Para 5.3.13 SoR
Junction 24 - Para 5.3.16 SoR
Canningtion Park and Ride - Para 5.3.19 SoR
Williton - Para 5.3.22 SoR

Additionally there is reference to the Combwich Laydown Facility, which can be found at Para 5.3.28 of the Statement of Reasons.

18 June 2012
EDF - Tim Norwood
Enquiry received via email
Sedgemoor District Council, Somerset County Council and West Somerset District Council asked for clarification about the Panel?s intentions concerning the invitation to Interested Parties in the Procedural Decision dated 8 June 2012 to comment on the updated draft Development Consent Order (including Requirements), the Mitigation Route Map and Code of Construction Practice (Point 2 of the procedural decision).

The document submitted by EDF Energy entitled ?Updated Draft Development Consent Order and Proposed Mitigation? includes 5 Appendices but the Procedural Decision only refers to four of these. No specific mention of Appendix 4 (Draft s106 Agreement) is made in the procedural decision. The Councils asked the Planning Inspectorate to clarify whether the Panel will be expecting and will accept comments from Interested Parties on the draft s106 agreement as well as the other appendices?
The Planning Inspectorate advised that the Panel would expect to hear comments on the draft s106 at the hearing to the extent necessary for them to understand its provisions and the bearing that those provisions would have on the DCO and the requirements contained therein. The detailed terms of the s106 are essentially a matter for the signatories thereto to agree.

15 June 2012
Three Somerset Authorities - Alyn Jones
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Mr Rigby queried the application process for Hinkley Point C and when he had the opportunity to make objections to the scheme.
Thank you for your email.

The examination process for Hinkley Point C is conducted primarily through written representations, although it does include opportunities to make oral representations to the Panel as part of an Open Floor Hearing, Issue Specific or Compulsory Acquisition Hearing (affected persons only).

The next deadline regarding the above project is for making Comments on the Local Impact Reports, Relevant Representations, Written Representations and Responses to Panel?s First Questions. These must be received by 31 May 2012 (tomorrow) at 11:59pm.

All of the above types of representation received by the Planning Inspectorate (and its predecessor, the Infrastructure Planning Commission) can be found by following the link provided below. If this does not work automatically, please copy and paste it into your browser.

[attachment 1]

I attach a copy of the Rule 8 letter for this application, which contains further details on how it is being examined and a full timetable giving details of the major application deadlines. Further procedural decisions supplying specific information on hearings, such as the one relating to the Issue Specific Hearing of 26 June to which your email query was in response, are sent out in advance of the event itself.

Finally our Advice Note 8.1: How the Process Works may be of interest in getting an overview of the application process for Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects. A link to the relevant section of our website is provided below.

[attachment 2]

I hope this response has been helpful, but if you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to ask. Our Helpdesk is also available for queries on 0303 444 5000.

30 May 2012
Mike Rigby
Enquiry received via phone
1) At what point would it be sensible for any revised DCO to be submitted to the examination to give parties an opportunity to comment on any revised drafting of requirements or DCO provisions?

2) What format should documentation take regarding the proposed compulsory acquisition of land; would the ExA wish to see the history of negotiations betweens the applicant and landowners?
1) The Inspectorate advised that any representations should be submitted to coincide with one of the deadlines set in the examination timetable as any documentation received would be uploaded and all parties would be aware it had been submitted and was available for comment. It was also possible to submit documents at a hearing and that these would be published as documents submitted at the hearing, however, it would assist to narrow issues discussed at a hearing if parties had sight of those documents at an earlier stage. There was nothing to stop the applicant discussing issues with certain interested parties in order to reach agreement on some issues outside the formal examination process and then putting forward an agreed view at the examination so that all interested parties had an opportunity to comment.

2) The Inspectorate advised that the content of the representations to support the compulsory acquisition case is a matter for the applicant to determine based on the facts in each case and the representations made by the affected persons. With regard to the format, I advised that the applicant may wish to consider setting out its views to support its case by reference to each plot of land listed in the book of reference.

04 April 2012
EDF - Catherine Howard
Enquiry received via email
It is unfortunate that the IPC did not make it clear to parish or town councils that there was a possibility to meet with them, separate from the public meetings, in order to discuss procedural matters. As you know, the public meeting in the Victory Hall was solely to discuss registration details. Had Stogursey parish council been aware that it was also possible to discuss procedural issues at another arranged time, then doubtless it would have availed itself of such a valuable opportunity.( As, I am sure, would other affected councils).

I trust that in future applications of this nature that this matter will be rectified for the benefit of all affected parties.
The IPC came into existence in October 2009 and EDF were already underway with their community consultation by the time we were ready to meet with participants in the process. We usually try to meet with town and parish councils early in the pre application stage to provide advice about the process. This was not possible at Hinkley.

We have tried not to distract members of the public and other organisations from engaging with EDF during the pre application stage. As such, we only invited meetings with the District and County Councils and the Environment Agency. We met with these organisations because they have specific responsibilities to prepare Local Impact Reports and because of their involvement in the EIA and transport assessment process. We have always thought it was vital that the public and others engage fully with the developer at the pre application stage to ensure they can influence the preparation of the application, rather than meet with us. Of course where we got specific requests for meetings, such as from Otterhampton PC, we tried to accommodate them.

Naturally, people always want to discuss the merits of the application which is something we cannot do and so I think to have held outreach events or to have issued a more general invitation for meetings with the IPC during EDF's pre application consultation would have created more heat than light. We discussed the timing of the outreach events with the District Councils at our regular catch-up meetings and they supported our intention to hold them after the submission of the application because it was thought that to have done so in advance of this would have confused the public and others, especially given the volume of consultation that was ongoing and had already taken place about the Hinkley project by the applicant and other agencies.

I'll raise your concerns about the perceived inequity you clearly feel about this with our Head of Casework, to see if we can learn form this in our approach to meetings with individuals and organisations at the pre application stage on other projects. I reiterate that I do not believe you are in any way disadvantaged by not having met with the casework team at the pre application stage. I also reiterate that the Panel of Commissioners were not appointed until after the application was accepted for examination by the IPC and so any pre application meetings of the type you have referred to have had no bearing on the initial assessment of principal issues or the draft examination timetable.

12 March 2012
Susan Goss
Enquiry received via email
I?m still rather mystified as to how the Commissioners actually reached the conclusion that Combwich should be treated as a Principle issue. As the district councils have not yet submitted their Local Impact Reports it does seem rather odd that Combwich should have been singled out for this rather exceptional treatment at such an early stage in the process.

I would be very grateful if you could offer an explanation.
The Panel have read the application documents and the relevant representations in setting out their initial assessment of principal issues. The process set down in the Planning Act 2008 and secondary legislation requires the Examining Authority to undertake this assessment. The point of this is to flush out the type of views and opinions that you and others are making right now, so they can be put to the Commissioners at the Preliminary Meeting in an open and transparent way.

This is not an unusual process in the context of a large planning inquiry or examination where a draft timetable, setting out the proposed topic areas / issues is always presented to participants for them to comment on, ahead of the start of the examination or inquiry. Clearly, not all of the evidence has been presented at that stage.

Nothing is set in stone once the principal issues have been finalised after the Preliminary Meeting. The Examining Authority have the power to add specific issue hearings and to pose questions in writing about matters which they need further information or clarification about during the course of the examination, in response to the representations being put to them in writing or at oral hearings.

To reiterate, the principal issues are not necessarily the issues which will carry the most weight in decision making terms, rather they are the issues which the Panel feel they need further clarification or more information about.

I'm sure you won't be surprised to hear that it wouldn't be appropriate for me to comment on the inclusion of Combwich in the Panel's initial assessment of principal issues. As our letter of 10th February explains, any Interested Party is able to put their views about the draft timetable and initial assessment of principal issues to the Panel in writing by 16th March, indicating if they would like to speak at the Preliminary Meeting.

09 March 2012
Susan Goss
Enquiry received via email
Would it assist the host parish of Stogursey and the hamlets to be similarly recognised as a ?Principle Issue? if we were also permitted to send a delegation to lobby the IPC in person?
I believe you are referring to meetings that took place between the IPC Casework team and Otterhampton PC, and possibly also Stockland Bristol PC, during the pre application period. If so, I can assure you that none of the Panel members were at these meetings or had even been appointed to the Hinkley project. The Panel was appointed at the end of January this year. I reiterate that the Panel of Commissioners and not the casework team made the initial assessment of principal issues.

These meetings were at the request of these Parish Councils and only procedural matters were discussed. The meeting notes are published on our website if you would like to look at them. There was certainly no lobbying going on and even if there had been I would have quickly put an end to it. The Casework team is not permitted to discuss the merits of an application with any party at any stage of the process. We are restricted to providing advice about the process.

Now that the application has been submitted your opportunity to put your views to the Panel will be at the Preliminary Meeting and during the examination. It would not be appropriate for the IPC casework team or the Panel to have meetings with any interested party outside of these fora. All contact between the Panel and interested parties will be in public to prevent any actual or perceived impropriety.

Your email and this response will be published on our website in accordance with section 51 of the Planning Act 2008 and our policy of openness and transparency.

09 March 2012
Susan Goss
Enquiry received via phone
response has attachments
Ms Meskell called on behalf of Royal and Sun Alliance to ask how they could identify an land intrests over which it the applicant was seeking Compulsory Aquisition powers.
The areas of land over which the applicant is seeking Compulsory Acquisition powers in relation to the proposed Hinkley Point C nuclear generating station and its associated development can be found in the land plans that accompanied the application. These plans are published on our website, here:

[attachment 1]

Further, the application includes a Book of Reference which lists those who the applicant has identified as having an interest in each plot described on the land plans. This document is published on our website, here:

[attachment 2]

Affected persons may identify their interests by referring to these documents.

08 March 2012
Royal and Sun Alliance - Christina Meskell
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Query regarding status as an interested party and as an affected person for the Hinkley Point C application.
As stated in the IPC's Rule 4 / 6 procedural decision dated 10 February 2012, I can confirm that you are an Interested Party for the Hinkley Point C with the unique reference quoted in your email (10014817).

As an Interested Party you will receive notification of all the procedural decisions made by the Panel of Commissioners; will have the opportunity to submit further written representations during the application?s examination and participate in the examination hearings.

Those with an interest in land affected by the application are legally defined as "affected parties" for the purposes of this examination. As mentioned previously, EDF has provided us with a list of all the individuals and organisations in this category. Affected persons have additional rights, over and above those of "interested parties" and are able to cause a compulsory acquisition hearing to take place and attend them. If you think that your land would be affected by compulsory acquisition, and as a result that you are an "affected party", I can only re-iterate that you should seek legal advice and try to resolve this issue directly with EDF.

A link to our website showing the compulsory acquisition information submitted to the IPC for the Hinkley Point C application is provided below. This includes a Book of Reference detailing all those with an interest in land who may be affected by compulsory acquisition. You, or your legal representative, may wish to check this.

[attachment 1]

Our email of 30 January 2012 related directly to your query regarding compulsory acquisition matters and your stated attempt to register your interest in the application by email. I apologise if this response caused any confusion with your earlier successful registration using our online submission facility.

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to ask. Our Helpdesk is available for queries on 0303 444 5000.

07 March 2012
Jason Gunningham
Enquiry received via email
Query whether their relevant representations would be considered during examination proceedings and whether attendance at the Preliminary Meeting would be required to allow the opportunity to make an oral presentation later.
The Panel of Commissioners have read all relevant representations submitted to the IPC during the registration period. The relevant representations will continue to be part of the Panel's consideration throughout the examination. You can choose to rely on your relevant representation throughout the examination; however, you will also have the opportunity to submit further written representations in response to the deadlines set out in the examination timetable. The timetable will be published following the Preliminary Meeting.

The Panel may disregard representations that they consider vexatious or frivolous; which relate to the merits of policy set out in a national policy statement, or which are regarding compensation for compulsory acquisition of land (or of an interest in or right over land).

As an interested party you will receive all procedural decisions made by the Panel in connection with the Hinkley Point C application, including full details of any open floor or issue specific hearings where you could request the opportunity to speak. You do not need to attend the Preliminary Meeting to attend and be able to speak at any hearings set out in the examination timetable.

07 March 2012
John Busby
Enquiry received via email
Query regarding correspondence received by household in connection with the Hibkley Point C application.
I have double checked regarding your missing correspondence and can confirm that your original Rule 4 / 6 procedural decision letter was despatched via email to this address on 10 February 2012.

I have attached another copy of the letter for your convenience. Please make note of your unique reference [****], which is confirmed here rather than as stated on the letter itself, as this will be needed for registration purposes at the Preliminary Meeting if you wish to attend.

In regard to the other matter you raise, I appreciate your concern about your household receiving unwarranted correspondence, but the IPC does not send out general circulars to members of the public or use the electoral roll to gather contact details for any reason.

Our procedural decisions are only sent out to those parties who have either registered their interest with us regarding a specific application by making a relevant representation or who have acquired interested party status through other means, such as by being a statutory consultee or an ?affected person?.

An affected person is defined under the relevant legislation as a party who has interest in land affected by the development consent order. For example, interest could be where you own, lease, rent, or occupy the land, or have some other legal right over or in relation to it.

EDF have supplied us with details of all those with an interest in land, in relation to their application for development consent at Hinkley Point C. As identified, your name does not appear on this list but your household is noted as an address of two affected persons ? [****] & [****].

The onus is on developer to provide the IPC with up to date and accurate information about those with an interest in land affected by the application. If you feel that your land would be affected by compulsory acquisition, then you should seek legal advice and contact EDF directly to resolve this issue as a matter of urgency.

If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to ask. Our Helpdesk is also available for queries on 0303 444 5000.

05 March 2012
Tim Moss
Enquiry received via email
The lack of a scheduled site visit to the Stogursey area was queried in relation to the Hinkley Point C application.
Thank you for your recent email regarding the above application.

The letter dated 10th February that was sent to interested parties included a draft examination timetable and an initial assessment of principal issues. While I appreciate your frustration that you consider these did not reflect your concerns adequately, they are a starting point for discussion, rather than the final word.

The Preliminary Meeting will present an opportunity for interested parties to put forward their views to the Panel of Commissioners about how the application is to be examined, and this will include the locations and timings of the site visits as set out in the meeting agenda (see annexe B of the IPC?s letter mentioned above).

Your written views, as set down in your email, will be made available to the Panel of Commissioners prior to the meeting. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to ask. Our Helpdesk is also available for queries on 0303 444 5000.

02 March 2012
David Cross & Ms Joan Leeks
Enquiry received via phone
Lesley Flash called during a West Hinkley Action Group meeting to ask the following questions:
1) How to make submissions to the Preliminary Meeting on the timetable for the examination.

The IPC explained that they cannot advise on how best to present an argument, but confirmed that the preliminary meeting was the correct forum to make submissions on the timetable for the examination. We advised that it was important to be clear about the submissions they wished to make, and what requests they wished to make of the Panel. We also suggested that they may wish to produce a written summary of their submissions to the meeting and offer it to the Panel on the day, if they were concerned about missing anything.

The IPC advised that they should focus on the content of their submissions. If they intended to make their submissions in a dramatic or unconventional way, the IPC advised that they should write to the IPC Secretariat in advance of the meeting and explain their intentions.

2) Numbers, and the timing of submissions.

The IPC advised that the process was an examination, and that it was the quality of submissions rather than the number of times that they were made that was important. Anybody attending the meeting is free to bring friends if they wish (though priority for access will be given to registered Interested Parties in the event of oversubscription) but it is not necessary to repeat submissions that have already been made. The Panel can decline to hear repeated submissions that are the same in substance.

There is no set time limit for submissions. The examining authority will retain control of the meeting, and might ask parties to bring their submissions to a close; or afford more time to parties making important and relevant submissions. However, it is best not to plan to speak for more than a few minutes.

28 February 2012
West Hinkley Action Group - Lesley Flash
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Councillor Bannister sent an enquiry whether possible amendments to the Hinkley Point C application would be an infringement of the IPC process and how this could be reconciled with the need for public consultation.
Thank you for your recent email regarding your concerns about possible post-submission changes to the Hinkley Point C application by the applicant.

In certain circumstances it may be possible for an Examining Authority to consider changes to an application. This would depend on the scope and effects of the proposed amendments and such decisions are made on a case by case basis.

There are a number of legal principles which the Examining Authority would need to take into account when deciding whether it could consider a change to an application. It would need to consider whether the proposed change would result in the application becoming substantially different and also if any interested party or member of the public who may be affected by the changed application would be deprived of an opportunity to express their views, and have them taken into account.The Examining Authority may also need to consider what publicity has been carried out to enable all those who may be affected to become aware of the proposed change.

There is no particular procedure within the Infrastructure Planning (Examination Procedure) Rules 2010 which sets out how any changes to an application must be examined. The Examining Authority has general powers to extend the examination timetable if it considers this to be necessary in order to ensure further consultation on any changes. It could do this to allow further time so that interested parties are consulted on the effect of the proposed change. This will enable interested parties and others to make further representations.

In assessing any proposed change to an application that has been accepted for examination, the Examining Authority will need to act in accordance with the principles of natural justice which include fairness and reasonableness.

This approach is supported by the ministerial advice from Bob Neil MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for the Department of Communities and Local Government. His letter on this subject can be found on our website by using the link provided below.

[attachment 1]

The IPC?s decision on amendments to the application for the energy from waste scheme at Brig y Cym, which is referenced in Bob Neil?s letter, may also be of interest.

[attachment 2]

24 February 2012
Val Bannister
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Can you please advise me what are the legal obligations imposed upon an applicant, with regard to carrying out public consultations, the action they need to take in response to the consultations and the method of reporting these consultations to the IPC. In particular, where they have not acted on public opinion.
The Infrastructure Planning process is intended to be heavily frontloaded. As you may be aware, there are obligations upon applicants to undertake consultation, both with certain prescribed bodies and with the community, before submitting an application; in particular s42, s47 and s48 within Chapter 2 of Part 5 of the Planning Act 2008. S49 of the Act states that the applicant must have regard to the responses from consultation.

The IPC will not accept an application for examination unless we are satisfied that the applicant has conducted the required consultation and has had regard to any responses received; either by acting on them or by explaining why they have not. We ask Local Authorities for their views before making that decision.

The Act states that the way in which the applicant demonstrates they have had regard to any responses received is through the preparation of a Consultation Report (s37(3)(c) and s55). Each application must be accompanied by a Consultation Report, which sets out how the applicant has undertaken consultation, the results of that consultation, and how the applicant has had regard to responses.

I note that you are particularly interested in the Hinkley Point application; you can see the applicant?s Consultation Report on our website via the ?Application Documents? tab on the Hinkley point project page here: [attachment 1].

This is the applicant?s document. The Commissioners appointed to decide whether the Hinkley Point C application should proceed to examination, in reviewing all the relevant information, have decided to accept the application for examination. They would not have done so were they not satisfied that the applicant had met the minimum legal requirements for consultation. Their decision and the checklist that informed it is also on our website, in the "Procedural Decisions" tab on the Hinkley Point project page.

The IPC has published an advice note, ?Advice note 8.2: How to have your say on a major infrastructure proposal ? the developer?s consultation? which explores this issue in more detail. You may also wish to read ?Advice note 8.1: How the process works ? opportunities to be involved.? The government has published guidance called ?Planning Act: Guidance on pre-application consultation,? which is more technical in nature, and the IPC?s ?Advice note 14: Compiling the consultation report?, which is targeted at applicants, may also be of interest to you. Part 5 of the Planning Act 2008 and regulations made under it set out the legal obligations. All these documents can be found in the Legislation and Advice section of our website here: [attachment 2]

22 February 2012
Tom Boyd
Enquiry received via email
I note from the IPC web page that the preliminary meeting will be held in public and also that interested parties will receive an invite.

I would like to request that myself and Steve Smith (interim Manager of Nuclear & Energy) be added to the list of interested parties. Copeland is at the early stages of the DCO process and we feel that it would be beneficial to monitor the process of the Hinkley Point C application.

If this is possible could you confirm that we will be added to the mailing list for future meetings etc.
Thank you for your recent email.

The term Interested Party has a statutory definition within the IPC process and is accorded to people or organisations that make a relevant representation regarding the merits of the scheme. It also encompasses statutory consultees and affected parties with a legal interest in the land that is directly affected by the application.

A relevant representation must be made on the prescribed form during the specified registration period. As the period for an organisation such a Copeland Borough Council to register for the Hinkley Point C application closed on 23rd January 2012, we are unable to consider you as an Interested Party for the scheme.

However the Panel of Commissioners that constitute the Examining Authority may exercise their discretion and permit other parties to participate on a case by case basis during the different parts of the examination.

Your representation asking to participate in parts of the process will therefore be made available to the Examining Authority. You should also be aware that the Preliminary Meeting is a meeting held in public. General members of public and other bodies can therefore attend, subject to the venue's capacity and the numbers present. Interested Parties will get priority in terms of seating.

I trust this answers your query. If you have any further questions, our Helpdesk is also available for queries on 0303 444 5000.

15 February 2012
Copeland Borough Council - Denice Gallen
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
To discuss procedural arrangements for the Preliminary Meeting and the Examination between IPC and EDF.
Notes of this meeting are attached below:

25 January 2012
EDF - Tim Norwood
Enquiry received via phone
response has attachments
Can I still register as an interested party? I may wish to attend the Preliminary Meeting and would like to keep up-to-date with the Hinkley Point C New Nuclear Power Station project. How can I do this?
The deadline for submitting relevant representations (and therefore the opportunity to become an Interested Party) has now closed.

Although you have not registered as an Interested Party you may be able to attend and participate at the Preliminary Meeting at the discretion of the Commissioner(s), although priority will be given to those who have registered. It would be helpful if you could notify us in advance if you wish to attend the Preliminary Meeting, which will be about the procedure for examining the application only, including, setting the timetable for making more detailed written representations. It is not an opportunity to discuss the merits of the application or make your case. Please see the attached advice note concerning the Preliminary Meeting for further details.

Following the meeting, any decisions made including the timetable for examination will be made available on the Hinkley Point C New Power Station project page (see link attached). This page will be updated throughout the process.

[attachment 1]

[attachment 2]

24 January 2012
Susan Holt
Enquiry received via phone
I have submitted a relevant representation form. I am not an interested party in a legal sense but I am interested in how this application is examined. How can I ensure I am kept up to date with the progress of this project?
The advisor clarified that once a member of the public submits a complete relevant representation form (before the deadline) that person becomes an Interested Party. The IPC will send correspondence relating to the examination (including a draft timetable) to all interested parties.

Interested parties will be invited to make further representations either in written format or orally at the preliminary meeting, an open floor hearing or issue specific hearing.

23 January 2012
Civil Engineer
Enquiry received via phone
Mr Clubb requested that the relevant representation form for the Hinkley Point C project in Somerset was made available in Welsh. He commented that, in his opinion, not to provide it in Welsh would contravene the Aarhus Convention.
Mr Clubb was informed:

That the IPC would not be making the Hinkley rel rep form available in Welsh. The IPC won't be making any of the procedural decisions in respect of the Hinkley examination in Welsh. Mr Club was invited to make his relevant representation in Welsh on an English form and we would have it translated internally. The IPC considers that this approach in relation to Hinkley complies with the Welsh Language Act and the commitments set out in our Welsh Language Scheme. The IPC also considers that this approach to Hinkley is consistent with the Aarhus Convention. Mr Clubb should obtain his own legal advice on these matters, upon which he can rely.

18 January 2012
Freinds of the Earth (Wales) - Gareth Clubb
Enquiry received via email
Following an EDF roadshow, Mr Bullen wished to enhance his summary on the community impacts of the project and speak at any open floor hearing. He enquired to the best method for updating the infomation supplied as part of his relevant representation to reflect the above changes.
Exercising our discretion on this matter is subject to the number and timing of such requests. In this instance we are able to accept an amendment to your relevant representation via email or post

When submitting your revised text, you should clearly mark your submission as an amendment to an existing relevant representation; supply your unique reference number and note whether your enhanced summary supplements or entirely replaces your previous submission. Please do not re-send your revised information using the online relevant representation form as this will generate a duplicate reference that may make tracking your submission more difficult.

Please note that the deadline for the IPC to receive relevant representations for Hinkley Point C application is 23:59 on 23 January 2012 and your revised representation would therefore need to reach us before this point.

As an interested party, you will also get the opportunity to expand upon your relevant representation later in the examination process by making a further written representation. The Examining Authority will set out the timetable for examination, including the time period for making written representations, after the forthcoming Preliminary Meeting.

I hope this answers your query. If you have any further questions, you can also call our Helpdesk on 0303 4445000

10 January 2012
Anthony Bullen
Enquiry received via phone
Does the MMO have to use the IPC's online relevant representation form?
As a general approach we are encouraging all prescribed consultees to provide us with a relevant representation so that the Examining Authority, when appointed, will have the benefit of your views about what you see as the significant issues in relation to this application, which will in turn inform their initial assessment of issues ahead of the examination.

As a general rule of thumb we ask statutory bodies to use our online registration form where possible; however, we recognise that given the scale and complexity of this application, the MMO's summary of key issues is still likely to be of a significant size which may not easily be transcribed into our online form and as such we are hapy to receive it in a format which is easier for you.

Please send us an electronic and hard copy version of your relevant reps. The IPC will assign you a unique reference number when we confirm receipt of your relevant representation. Please also make sure that your key issues are clearly indicated on your representation so that the Examining authority can easily identify them.

19 December 2011
Marine Management Organisation - Jonathan Peters
Enquiry received via email
Does the Environment Agency (EA) have to use the IPC's online relevant representation form? What format can EA use to submit its relevant representation?
EA is a prescribed consultee and therefore automatically an interested party for the purposes of this examination. There is no requirement for you to register a relevant representation at this stage in order to take part in the examination. However, as a general approach we are encouraging all prescribed consultees to provide us with a relevant representation so that the Examining Authority, when appointed, will have the benefit of your views about what you see as the significant issues in relation to this application, which will in turn inform their initial assessment of issues ahead of the examination.

As this step in relation to the EA is just advisory we are content to receive your "relevant representation" in whatever form is easiest for you. As a general rule of thumb we ask statutory bodies to use our online registration form where possible. However,we recognise that given the scale and complexity of this application, the EA's summary of key issues is still likely to be of a significant size which may not easily be transcribed into our online form.

07 December 2011
Environment Agency - Louisa McKay
Enquiry received via phone
When should electronic copies of the application be made available to the public?
From 2 Dec - 23 January 2012 you may request from EDF for an electronic copy of the application documents.

Hard copies of this information should also be available at the following locations:
- EDF Energy Bridgewater office
- West Somerset Council
- Sedgemoor District Council
- Taunton Library

06 December 2011
Marriot
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Comments were supplied regarding EDF's pre-application consultation and scheme for Hinkley Point C New Nuclear Power Station.
Thank you for your recent correspondence.

The Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC) accepted the application for the above development for examination on Thursday 24 November 2011.

At this point it is not possible for us to consider any representations on the merits of the application. There will be an opportunity to register your views as an interested party by making a relevant representation on the prescribed form once the application?s acceptance has been published by the developer.

Under the Planning Act 2008 it is for the developer to decide when the period to register as an interested party starts and ends, but they must allow at least 28 days for people to make their representations. The registration period will be advertised in the local and national press, by site notices, and on our website very soon.

By making a relevant representation at the appropriate time you will become an ?interested party?. Interested parties will receive all of the IPC?s general correspondence regarding the project; will be notified of the application?s key milestones; will have the opportunity to submit further written representations during the application?s examination and participate in the examination hearings.

Further information on the registering as an interested party can be found in our ?Advice note 8.3: Putting your case to the IPC?. A link to this information is provided below.

[attachment 1]

The IPC will also arrange a number of events in the local community to inform people how to register as an interested party. These events will be publicised in the local press, through posters displayed locally and on our website

I trust this response is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact us on 0303 444 5000.

29 November 2011
Andy Andrews
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Discussion of outreach and Preliminary Meeting arrangements with local authorities and EDF.
Notes of this meeting are attached below:

29 November 2011
EDF - Tim Norwood
Enquiry received via post
response has attachments
Correspondence dated ?November 2011? has been received from ?The Power Trust? without an address for return correspondence. The correspondence is titled ?Advance Briefing for IPC Commissioners and Assessing Staff? and is attached. The Correspondence relates to the Hinkley Point C application.
The correspondence was unsolicited. The Power Trust does not have a role in briefing Commissioners or IPC staff. The correspondence did not provide a return address, and so this response is being recorded on our advice log as an informative.

The correspondence asks that we decline to accept the above application for examination on the basis that it is ?premature? in the absence of parallel consents, and makes representations on the merits of the proposals.

The tests that must be satisfied before an application can be accepted are set out in S55(3) of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008). They do not include any requirement that all required parallel consents have been secured.

The application was accepted for examination on 24 November 2011. An examination will consider the merits of the proposals. The Power Trust may make representations to, and participate in, that examination by registering as an Interested Party.

The correspondence cannot serve to register The Power Trust as an interested party because it is not made on the prescribed form, does not supply the prescribed information, and is not made within the prescribed period. S102 of the PA 2008 and Regulation 4 of the Interested Parties Regulations (2010/102) apply.

The applicant will advertise the acceptance of the application and will set a deadline for the submission of relevant representations. The Power Trust may register as an interested party at that time.

29 November 2011
The Power Trust - Name Not Supplied
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Comments were supplied regarding EDF's pre-application consultation and scheme for Hinkley Point C New Nuclear Power Station.
Thank you for your recent correspondence.

The Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC) accepted the application for the above development for examination on Thursday 24 November 2011.

At this point it is not possible for us to consider any representations on the merits of the application. There will be an opportunity to register your views as an interested party by making a relevant representation on the prescribed form once the application?s acceptance has been published by the developer.

Under the Planning Act 2008 it is for the developer to decide when the period to register as an interested party starts and ends, but they must allow at least 28 days for people to make their representations. The registration period will be advertised in the local and national press, by site notices, and on our website very soon.

By making a relevant representation at the appropriate time you will become an ?interested party?. Interested parties will receive all of the IPC?s general correspondence regarding the project; will be notified of the application?s key milestones; will have the opportunity to submit further written representations during the application?s examination and participate in the examination hearings.

Further information on the registering as an interested party can be found in our ?Advice note 8.3: Putting your case to the IPC?. A link to this information is provided below.

[attachment 1]

The IPC will also arrange a number of events in the local community to inform people how to register as an interested party. These events will be publicised in the local press, through posters displayed locally and on our website

I trust this response is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact us on 0303 444 5000.

29 November 2011
Jackie Ayres & Mr David Ayres
Enquiry received via post
response has attachments
Comments were supplied regarding the scheme and EDF's consultation. It was also queried why the IPC was to consult Exmoor National Park Authority, but not Cannington Parish Council.
Please see attached letter for the IPC's response, which details our approach to comments received during the Acceptance stage; information on the IPC's consultation for adequacy of consultation representations and Cannington Parish Council's role in the Hinkley Point C application process.

23 November 2011
Judith Finsland
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I wish to register my Parish Councils' interest in this project
Thank you for your recent email.

Please be aware that both East Huntspill and Puriton Parish Councils fall within the definition of a relevant parish councils under Schedule 1 of the Applications: Prescribed Form & Procedure Regulations 2009 for the Hinkley Point C application. This makes your parish councils statutory consultees and they are therefore already considered ?interested parties?.

Interested parties will receive all of the IPC?s general correspondence regarding the project; will be notified of the application?s key milestones; will have the opportunity to submit further written representations during the application?s examination and can participate in the examination hearings.

If the IPC accepts the application for examination, you may still make a relevant representation via our prescribed form. We encourage people or organisations that wish to make a representation to do so at this stage so that the Examining Authority can take them into consideration when carrying out an initial assessment of the issues in preparation for the Preliminary Meeting.

Details about how and when to make a relevant representation will be publicised by the developer for two successive weeks in one (or more) national and local newspaper and via site notices near the main site and the associated development sites. The IPC will also offer details through the Hinkley Point C project page on our website.

[attachment 1]

I trust this response is helpful. If you have any further questions, our enquiries line is also available on 0303 444 5000.

23 November 2011
East Huntspill & Puriton PCs - Bruce Poole
Enquiry received via email
Query regarding the Royal Mail's status as a statutory consultee and the process relating to making an objection to the IPC regarding the Hinkley Point C scheme.
The Royal Mail is a prescribed consultee as defined in the Application Prescribed Forms and Procedures Regs 2009, Schedule 1. Although not named explicitly in Schedule 1 , I have received advice that Royal Mail would fall under the heading of "Relevant Statutory Undertaker".

This means that Royal Mail is automatically regarded as an interested party for the purposes of taking part in the Hinkley Point C examination, if the application is accepted. This also means that Royal Mail would not have to register a relevant representation in advance of the examination.

However, we would encourage you to do so using our online registration form, once the registration period opens, so that the Examining Authority can be made aware of any issues that Royal Mail would like to raise. This will enable the Examining Authority to take them into consideration when carrying out an initial assessment of issues in preparation for the Preliminary Meeting.

22 November 2011
BNP Paribas - Daniel Parry-Jones
Enquiry received via email
I must say that I find it entirely unsatisfactory that you are unable to inform individuals when the registration process opens, and that one is required to scan all the national and local papers on a daily basis (even if one does not live in the local area), or to wander up to the gates of the plant, or check your website on a daily basis in order to extract this elusive information. Anyone would think you wanted as few people as possible to register to make submissions.
Thank you for your reply.

The Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC) aims to run an inclusive examination process and we would encourage anyone with an interest in a project to register as an interested party. This allows individuals or groups to participate fully in the examination process.

If an application is accepted for examination, under the Planning Act 2008 it is for the developer to decide when the period to register as an interested party starts and ends, but they must allow at least 28 days for people to make their relevant representations. We therefore cannot provide dates for the registration period in advance as this is not within our direct control.

As detailed in my previous email, the developer must publicise if the application has been accepted along with the period for registration. This information will also be available on the Hinkley Point C project page on the IPC?s website. As the window for making relevant representations runs for a minimum of 28 days, it would not be necessary to check the website on a daily basis.

Additionally, should the application be accepted for examination, the IPC will at this point establish a dedicated Twitter newsfeed for the project. This would inform you of all major application milestones, such as information regarding relevant representations, at the appropriate times.

Finally the IPC would arrange a number of events in the local community to inform people how to register as an interested party. These events will be publicised in the local press, through posters displayed locally and on our website.

I trust this response is helpful. If you have any further questions, our enquiries line is also available on 0303 444 5000.

22 November 2011
Daniel Viesnik
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I wish to register and make representations in regard to the application for development at Hinkley Point. I appreciate that I cannot do this until the IPC has accepted the application but (assuming that it does so) I shall wish to register then.

Despite statements in guidance issued by the IPC, and despite a search of the website, I have been unable to find the online registration form which is said to be available. Can you please direct me to it?
Thank you for your recent email. You are correct in stating that the registration period for the Hinkley Point C application has yet to open.

If the Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC) does accept the application for examination, our Hinkley Point C project webpage will be updated to reflect the application?s current status and you will be able to register online directly from this page during the relevant time period (or use it to request a hard copy of the prescribed form).

The direct link to the registration form will appear near the top of page in its own clearly labelled box. A link to the specific Hinkley Point C project page is provided below:

[attachment 1]

If the application is accepted for examination the developer will publish details about registration, including the relevant deadlines, in one or more local newspapers, as well as a national newspaper. Site notices offering the same information will be placed in the vicinity of the main site and the various associated development sites.

I trust this response is helpful. If you have any further questions, our enquiries line is also available on 0303 444 5000.

15 November 2011
Richard Oerton
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Further to your joint letter from SCC, SDC and WSC dated 5th October regarding the above we would like to register our interest and be kept informed of developments. I have tried to register online on the IPC website following their link but have been unable to do this.
Thank you for your recent email.

Please be aware that Williton Parish Council falls within the definition of a relevant parish council under Schedule 1 of the Applications: Prescribed Form & Procedure Regulations 2009 for the Hinkley Point C application. This makes your parish council a statutory consultee and it is therefore already considered an ?interested party?.

As an interested party, you will receive all of the IPC?s general correspondence regarding the project; will be notified of the application?s key milestones; will have the opportunity to submit further written representations during the application?s examination and can participate in the examination hearings.

If the IPC accepts the application for examination and Williton Parish Council wishes to put forward its views on the scheme at this stage, you may still make a relevant representation via our prescribed form at the appropriate time.

Details about how and when to register will be publicised by the developer in local newspapers and via site notices near the main site, and also at the associated development sites. The IPC will also offer details about how to register and other project information on our website.

Further information on how to participate in the application process can be found in our advice notes. Advice note 8.3: Putting your case to the IPC may be of particular interest. A link to the relevant section of our website is provided below:

[attachment 1]

I trust this response is helpful. If you have any further questions, our enquiries line is also available on 0303 444 5000.

15 November 2011
Clerk to Williton Parish Council - Jude Johnson-Smith
Enquiry received via phone
The caller queried their inability to submit a relevant representation for the Hinkley Point C application via the IPC website.
The caller was advised that the opportunity to make a relevant representation only arises after the IPC has received an application and accepted it to proceed to examination. It was explained that the application in question had been submitted to the IPC on 31 October 2011 and that the IPC must, by the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day after the day on which it received the application, decide whether or not to accept it.

In the event that an application is accepted to proceed to examination, the caller was advised that under section 56 of the 2008 Planning Act, the developer must publicise the application?s acceptance in the prescribed manner. A deadline for receipt of relevant representations will be set and made public, giving those who wish to have their say a minimum of 28 days to do so.

The caller was directed to IPC advice note 8.3 for further information on how and when to register to make a relevant representation.

14 November 2011
Marion Orton
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
It appears from the webpage below that the Hinkley C application has been accepted by the IPC for consideration. I would like to please be kept informed of the date from which one can register to make submissions, and the deadline for registration, as soon as these dates are known.

[attachment 1];utm_campaign=b80d9bd639-IPC_Newsletter_July_2010&utm_medium=email
Thank you for your recent email.

The application for a new nuclear power station at Hinkley Point C is still within the Acceptance stage of our process. This is a 28 day period where the Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC) checks the application documents submitted by the developer to see if they meet the statutory requirements laid out in the Planning Act 2008 and other relevant legislation.

It should be noted that being shown as undergoing ?Acceptance?, as per the IPC newsletter that you refer to in your email, is different from having an ?accepted? status. No decision has yet been reached whether the Hinkley application will be accepted for examination. The IPC must make a decision about whether or not to accept the Hinkley Point C application by 29th November 2011.

If the IPC does accept the application there will then be the opportunity to register your views once the application?s acceptance has been published by the developer. I am afraid we are unable to notify people individually of when the registration period opens for making relevant representations.

However, our Hinkley Point C project webpage will be updated to reflect the application?s current status and you will be able to register online directly from this page during the relevant time period (or use it to request a hard copy of the prescribed form). A link to our webpage is provided below:

[attachment 2]

Details about registration will also be publicised by the developer in one or more local newspapers, as well as a national newspaper. Site notices offering the same information will be placed in the vicinity of the main site and the various associated development sites.

Further information on how to participate in the application process can be found in our advice notes. 'Advice note 8.3: Putting your case to the IPC' may be of particular interest. A link to the relevant section of our website is provided below:

[attachment 3]

I trust this response is helpful. If you have any further questions, our enquiries line is also available on 0303 444 5000.

14 November 2011
Daniel Viesnik
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I have been asked by many residents who are not on line to seek clarification that, now that EDF have submitted their application and, if accepted by the IPC in the 28 day period, is it during this 28 day period that any person wishing to write or apply to attend and speak at meetings must register?

As Cannington is near Hinckley Point but perhaps not considered "in the vicinity of the main site" then site notices may not be seen, also notices in national press can be overlooked.
The Hinkley Point C New Nuclear Power Station application is still within the Acceptance stage. This is where the submitted documents are checked to see if they meet the statutory requirements laid out in the Planning Act 2008 and other relevant legislation. The merits of the scheme are not being assessed as part of this decision. We must make this decision within 28 days, but this is not the same 28 days you refer to in your email.

The chance for the local community, organisations and other members of the public to register their views with the Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC) regarding the scheme will arise if the application is accepted for examination. This is done by making a relevant representation at the appropriate time and on a prescribed form available via our website or as a hard copy upon request.

The opportunity to make a relevant representation will start when the developer has publicised that the application has been accepted, and will run for a minimum of period of 28 days. This notice will include the relevant time period and other details about making a relevant representation and will be published in one or more local newspapers, as well as a national newspaper.

Site notices containing the same information will be posted at the sites of the associated development, such as around Cannington, as well as in the vicinity the main site.

Our Hinkley Point C project webpage will be updated to reflect the application?s current status and you will be able to register online directly from this page during the relevant time period. A link to this page can be found below.

[attachment 1]

Correctly completed relevant representations give individuals or organisations interested party status. Interested parties will receive all of the IPC?s general correspondence regarding the project; will be notified of the application?s key milestones; will have the opportunity to submit further written representations during the application?s examination and can participate in the examination hearings.

Further information on the registering as an interested party can be found in our ?Advice note 8.3: Putting your case to the IPC?. A link to this information is provided below.

[attachment 2]

I trust this response is helpful. If you have any further questions, our enquiries line is also available on 0303 444 5000.

09 November 2011
Sheila Allen
Enquiry received via phone
response has attachments
Can you provide me with information on how to register Durleigh Parish Council's interest in this project?
If the IPC accepts the Hinkley application for examination, Durleigh Parish Council can make a relevant representation to register as an interested party at the appropriate time via our prescribed form available online or as a hard copy on request.

Details about how and when to register will be publicised by the developer in local newspapers and via site notices near the main site, and also at the associated development sites. The IPC will also offer details about how to register and other project information on our website.

As an interested party, you will receive all of the IPC?s general correspondence regarding the project; will be notified of the application?s key milestones; will have the opportunity to submit further written representations during the application?s examination and can participate in the examination hearings.

Please be aware that Durleigh Parish Council may fall within the definition of a relevant parish council under Schedule 1 of the Applications: Prescribed Form & Procedure Regulations 2009 for the Hinkley Point C application. This would make your parish council a statutory consultee and therefore it would be automatically considered an ?interested party?.

To check whether Durleigh Parish Council is deemed a statutory consultee at this stage, the easiest option would be to send a query to our helpdesk email address at [email protected]

Further information on how to participate in the application process can be found in our advice notes. Advice Notes 8.1 & 8.3 may be of particular use in this instance. A link to these is provided below:

[attachment 1]

I trust this response is helpful.

09 November 2011
Clerk to Durleigh PC - Chris Sidaway
Enquiry received via email
Ms Valerie Bannister of Cannington Parish Council telephoned; she asked whether the Parish Council and other interested parties could write directly to the IPC with regards to the adequacy of consultation during the acceptance stage.
Ms Bannister was informed that the Relevant Local Authorities have been invited to submit an adequacy of consultation report to the IPC by the 14th November 2011. Should Ms Banister or other interested parties wish to comment on the adequacy of the promoter's consultation, their first course of action should be to contact their local authority who may reflect those comments in their adequacy of consultation report. The IPC is not inviting comments from the public about the adequacy of consultation at this time, however, any correspondence of this nature that is received will be kept on file and made available to the Commissioners appointed to make the acceptance decision.

08 November 2011
Cannington Parish Council - Valerie Bannister
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Advice sought regarding EIA regulation 24 Transboundary Impacts
Dear Richard

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

HINKLEY POINT C (?the proposed Development?)
EDF ENERGY (?the Developer?)

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

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

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

With regards

Sheila Twidle
EIA and Land Rights Manager

24 October 2011
EDF - Richard Mayson
Enquiry received via phone
The Council would like to have a full copy of the application at the same time as it is submitted to the IPC, to enable it to make an adequacy statement.

What would happen if the Council was not able to make a decison about the adequacy of consultation?
The IPC has no power to require an applicant to submit a full copy of the application to another party. The IPC encourages developers to share documents with local authorities as early as possible. The IPC will make a copy of the Consultation Report, submitted as part of the application, available to local authorities at submission to assist their preparation of their adequacy statements.

Local authorities are not required by the Planning Act 2008 to submit an adequacy statement. If a local authority was not able to submit an adequacy of consultation statement, or were not able to make a decision in this regard, then the appointed acceptance commissioner(s) would make a decision based on the information before them.

20 October 2011
Sedgemoor District Council - Claire Pearce
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I would like to register to be able to put my views when an application for Hinkley Point C is submitted or if it has already been submitted.
Although we expect its arrival shortly, Hinkley Point C New Nuclear Power Station has yet to be submitted to the IPC and is currently still at the pre-application stage.

The decision whether or not the application will be accepted for examination will happen following a 28 day period from the day it is submitted. If the IPC accepts the application there will then be the opportunity to register your views by completing a relevant representation form. Making a relevant representation on the prescribed form allows an individual or organisation to participate in the examination.

Details about how and when to register will be publicised by the developer in local newspapers and via site notices near the main site, and also at the associated development sites. The IPC will also offer details about how to register and other project information on our website.

Further information on how to participate in the application process can be found in our advice notes. Advice Note 8.2: How to have your Say on a Major Infrastructure Proposal may be of particular interest. A link to the relevant section of our website is provided below.

[attachment 1]

If you any further questions, they can be directed to our enquiries line on 0303 444 5000 as well as [email protected]

17 October 2011
Tim Jones
Enquiry received via phone
Mr Silk called to ask which part or parts of the book of reference a party with a very specific intrest in land would best be included in.
The IPC advised that regulation 7 of the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedures) Regulations 2009 sets out the definition of a book of reference and describes what should be included in each part.

The IPC cannot give legal advice. The interpretation of that regulation as it applies to specific parties is a matter for the applicant, and they should take their own legal advice upon which they can rely.

13 October 2011
TLT Solicitors - Christian Silk
Enquiry received via phone
Are developers required to submit a full copy of the application to a local authority at the same time as it is submitted to the IPC?

Is it appropriate for local authorities to publish the application before it is accepted for examination by the IPC?
Applicants are not required by the Planning Act 2008 or Regulations to supply any other party with the application documents when they are submitted to the IPC. Upon submission of the application, the IPC will provide a copy of any consultation report submitted, via a web link to the relevant local authorities, to assist them in making their adequacy of consultation statement.

If local authorities are supplied with the application documents by the applicant prior to any acceptance decision and then choose to make them publicly available they should be aware that the application may not ultimately be accepted for examination and this may prove confusing to the public. The public will not be consulted about the application by the IPC during the acceptance stage.

13 October 2011
NNB Genco (EDF) - Richard Mayson
Enquiry received via email
Will the time we can register/write to the IPC regarding Hinkley Point C be published in local newspapers for those without computers?
If the Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC) accepts the Hinkley Point C New Nuclear Power Station application for examination, the developer will publicise this fact twice on successive weeks in one or more local newspaper. This is a statutory requirement under Regulation 9 of the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009.

Under the same regulations there will also be a notice published in a national newspaper.Site notices are also required to be erected in the vicinity of the main site and the associated development sites.

All notices will include the deadline for the receipt by the IPC of relevant representations to register as an interested party, as well as a summary of the application proposals and further details on how to register. There will be a minimum period of 28 days after the notice is last published to submit relevant representations.

I hope this answers your query. If you have any further questions, you can also call our Helpdesk on 0303 4445000

11 October 2011
Sheila Allen
Enquiry received via phone
Mr Ensor telephoned the IPC to ask how representatives of Parish Councils can make relevant representations on behalf of their organisations.

Our response was by telephone.
The caller was thanked for his enquiry and our response included the following.

If the application for Hinkley C is submitted to the IPC, and if it is accepted, individuals will be invited to register their interest in the application by making a relevant representation to the Commission, commenting on the proposed scheme. The period for making relevant representations will be published on the IPC website.

In respect of an individual wishing to make relevant representations on behalf of one or several Parish Councils, the same individual is able to do so providing that the name of the organisation is included on the prescribed form and that the appropriate tick box for representations made on behalf of an organisation is completed in question 1. This is to assist the IPC in effectively handling and understanding who has made the representation. The same person can complete a seperate relevant representation form for each organisation. A unique ID number is generated for each form made. Once registered, the interested party can request an open floor hearing and also attend the Preliminary Meeting in which the Commissioner or Panel of Commissioners will set the timetable for examination.

If an organisation makes a relevant representation to the IPC, this does not preclude those affiliated with that organisation from making their own relevant representation if they wish to do so. In this respect, the IPC encourages that both organisations and individuals avoid duplicating points already covered by others.

The caller was referred to our Advice Note 8.3 for further information and, if he wished to receive further advice and guidance in completing the form, was invited to contact the IPC enquiry line again.

06 October 2011
Nether Stowey Parish Council - Ainslie Ensor
Enquiry received via email
Mr Gillam asked to be kept advised of the submission date of the forthcoming application for a generating station at Hinkley Point, and the period for making relevant representations.
We are expecting an application for this project in the next few weeks, but we do not have a precise date at this point.

When an application is submitted, we will indicate that on our website. We will then have 28 days to decide whether or not to accept it for examination.

If the application is not accepted, it will go no further. The developer will be sent a report written by an appointed IPC Commissioner which sets out why the Commission has decided not to accept the application for examination. It will then be up to the developer whether or not to submit another application at a later date.

If the application is accepted, EDF will be required to publicise that acceptance in a prescribed way, including local and national newspaper adverts; it would also be reported on our website. (Since it is a large project, I imagine it would also be reported quite widely in the media.)

The period for relevant representations would be advertised at that time. The date from which a relevant representation can be made will depend upon EDF; there is a prescribed minimum period, but it is for them to set the dates.

You can keep up to date on the submission and progress of any application by checking our website.

03 October 2011
David Gillam
Enquiry received via post
response has attachments
DCW Johnson commented on concerns about the development of Combwich Wharf during the proposed Hinkley Point C project.
Please see attached link for our letter that gave advice on the pre-application process and how people can register their concerns and become interested parties for applications that are accepted.

03 October 2011
D C W Johnson
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Meeting held to discuss the proposed Hinkley Point 'C' project
Please see attached note

27 September 2011
Nick Matthews
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
meeting to provide advice about the process and making a representation.
Meeting note attached.

20 September 2011
Stockland Bristol Parish Council - Michael Caswell
Enquiry received via phone
Mr Adieze, a legal adviser at Avon and Somerset Police,(ASP) called to ask whether any submissions on the detail of planning obligations accompanying any application for a generating station at Hinkley Point C should be made to the IPC, or to EDF.
The IPC advised that the IPC will not be a party to or become involved in drafting any obligations that may accompany an application. If an application is accepted for examination, ASP and others can make representations to the examination on what they consider to be the impacts of the proposal and whether or not any mitigating actions proposed to address those impacts, such as planning obligations, are felt to be adequate.

However, the 2008 Act process is a front-loaded one; the application cannot be substantially changed once it is submitted. It is important that anyone who wishes to influence the form of the application and any planning obligations that may accompany it, engages with the applicant prior to submission.

15 September 2011
Avon and Sommerset Police - Adieze
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Meeting with Somerset County Council, West Somerset District Council and sedgemoor District Council to disucss the proposed Hinkley Point 'C' project
Please see attached advice note

14 September 2011
Alyn Jones
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
The IPC chaired a tripartate meeting between various stakeholders to discuss the forthcoming appilcation for a generating station at Hinkley Point in Somerset.
Notes of this meeting are attached.

14 September 2011
EDF - Tim Norwood
Enquiry received via email
1. Would the IPC require an application for a direction deeming Hazardous Substances Consent (HSC) to have been granted to be made at the same time as submission of the application for development consnet?
2. If initial information relating to the application to deem HSC is submitted with the application for development consent, would the IPC accept the submission of additional information at a later stage on the basis that such information would not materially alter the preliminary ?best estimate inventory? of substances provided at submission stage?
3. If the IPC took that view that the new information supplied appeared to be materially different relative to preliminary information already provided, would the IPC refuse to accept the submission of this information, and if so, could EDF Energy then withdraw its request for an HSC direction without compromising the main development consent application process?
4. If the IPC, after examining the hazardous substances information, decides for whatever reason that it cannot issue a direction deeming HSC to have been granted, will this in any way affect the IPC's ability to grant the DCO or could it affect the timetable for examination and determination of the DCO application?
? The power for the decision-maker to direct in relation to hazardous substances consent is contained in s12 of the Planning (Hazardous Substances) Act 1990; the power arises 'on making an order granting development consent'. There are no prescribed regulations concerning the form or content of any request to include a direction that hazardous substances consent be granted on making a development consent order.
? The footnote at paragraph 4.12.1 EN-1 suggests that an application for hazardous substances consent can be applied for either at the time of submitting the DCO application or subsequent to it, however it also advises that the HSE should be consulted about the application at the PA 2008 pre-application stage. There are no regulations nor any other guidance that we are aware of which set out when an application for such a direction should be made.
? In view of EN-1 guidance, it is likely the IPC would consider that a request for hazardous substances consent would be a separate, and therefore severable, part of the DCO application. This means that it would be entirely open to the IPC to grant development consent but on the facts of the case consider it should refuse to direct that hazardous substances consent be deemed to be granted. However, it is clear that the decision-maker's assessment of the request for a direction must be carried out at the same time as the consideration of the DCO application.
? When considering the request for hazardous substances consent the IPC would need to have available to it all necessary information. For guidance on the required information the applicant should refer to existing Circular guidance and the form and content of an application for express consent.
? Where the environmental impacts of a proposed project have been assessed in an environmental statement, the applicant must ensure it complies with relevant law and guidance on EIA. In particular, the applicant would need to demonstrate that any further information submitted did not affect the results of the significant impact assessment carried out. Clearly, there may be published information the applicant would wish to call on to explain why the proposed variations in hazardous substances information were not significant and feed that into the EIA carried out.
? With regard to IPC process, the applicant should consider the extent to which submitting further information in relation to the hazardous substances request during the examination would cause interested parties difficulties. The IPC's examination timetable will provide dates by which written representations should be submitted and comments made on such written representations. If an applicant wishes to delay submitting information on the matter of the hazardous substances consent, it should explain in its DCO application the reasons for this, and the likely timetable so that these matters could be taken into account by the examining authority when setting the timetable for the examination. It is possible the ExA might set a deadline for submission of such additional material to coincide with the deadline for submission of written representations, for example.

30 August 2011
Nick Lloyd-Davies
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
The IPC case team met a team from EDF Energy to discuss the forthcoming application at Hinkley Point in Somerset, and particularly the consultation being undertaken regarding the junction 24 site and highways improvement proposals, and the progress of parallel consents.
A note of this meeting is attached.

20 August 2011
EDF Energy - Richard Mayson
Enquiry received via phone
Mr Steve Crago, of Avon and Somerset Police, made an enquiry by telephone with regard to drafting s106 obligations under the Planning Act 2008 regime; relating to the Hinkley C generating station proposal by EDF energy.

Our response, which was sent by email, is set out below:
Thank you for your phone query, received by my colleague on Friday 5th August, with regard to drafting s106 obligations under the Planning Act 2008 regime.

Section 174 of the Planning Act 2008 (PA 2008) amends Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (TCPA 1990) to allow for development consent obligations to be entered into in connection with an application for an order granting development consent. Effectively, Section174 PA 2008 transcribes Section 106 TCPA 1990.

Whilst the obligation would not form part of the draft Development Consent Order, they are important as they will affect the overall impact of the proposed development.

It is advised that a promoter should agree the heads of terms of any development consent obligation with the local authority or relevant authority before an application is submitted and that ideally a fully drafted agreement (or unilateral undertaking) which has been consulted upon and referenced in the consultation report should be included with the application. In this respect I would advise considering the advice given in IPC Guidance Note 2 (para 25-26). In terms of the mechanics of how negotiations are conducted I would advise that it is for the relevant authority and developer to enter into discussions at the earliest opportunity prior to the submission of an application. The IPC encourages constructive dialogue on this matter, but cannot mediate or otherwise intervene in negotiations between applicants and local authorities or other authorities.

The tests in Circular 05/2005 which relate to s.106 agreements also apply to s.174 obligations, the tests are that the planning obligation must be (a) necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; (b) directly related to the proposed development; and (c) fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.

If s.174 obligations have not been agreed prior to the submission of an application the Examining Authority can set a deadline for completion after the end of the Preliminary Meeting.

For an example of s.106 and s.174 agreements which have been submitted, please see the Rookery South Energy from Waste Generating Station project page on our website and view under project documents ? Development Consent Order ? ?Covanta ? Final draft DCO & s.106 agreements?.

08 August 2011
Avon and Somerset Police - Steve Crago
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
To discuss the role of the Infrastructure Planning Commission and opportunities for engagement with the application process under the 2008 Act, with particular reference to the forthcoming application at Hinkley Point in Somerset.

This meeting was held at the request of Otterhampton Parish Council
A note of this meeting is attached.

05 July 2011
Otterhampton Parish Council - Paul Gripton
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Meeting between EDF, IPC, Sedgemoor DC, West Somerset DC, Somerset CC, Environment Agency and Highways Agency to discuss emerging issues arising out of the proposed application for Hinkley C.
[attachment 1]

26 May 2011
EDF - Ian Bryant
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Meeting with EDF Energy, West Somerset District Council, Sedgemoor District Council, Somerset County Council, Environment Agency and Highways Agency to discuss the proposed Hinkley Point 'C' project.
Please see attached meeting note

11 May 2011
Ian Bryant
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Meeting to discuss the proposed Hinkley Point 'C' scheme
Please see the attached meeting note

03 May 2011
Richard Mayson
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Pre-Application meeting between EDF Energy, and their legal advisers, and the IPC case team to discuss progress on the Hinkley C generating station project, preliminary works applications and forthcoming public consultation.
Notes of the meeting can be found here:

[attachment 1]

28 March 2011
EDF Energy - Richard Mayson
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
In relation to [attachment 1]
I have recently written to the developer questionning the adequacy of its current consultation and included in their reply is the statement: "The Planning Act 2008 requires a minimum statutory consultation period of 28 days. The IPC has very recently issued advice (on its register of advice) confirming that there is no obligation on the applicant to extend this minimum consultation period."

I am not doubting this, though given the large and complex nature of the projects concerned I would have thought a consultation period more in line with the Government's own Code of Practice on Consultations would be more appropriate.

However, I have - admittedly briefly - skimmed through your advice notes 1 and 2 issued this month and cannot explicitly see the comment EDF refers to. Have I missed something? Perhaps you could direct me to the weblink which will enable me to see the advice that EDF is quoting?
Thank you for your email. I apologise for the delay in replying to you.

Firstly, I should say that the advice being quoted by EDF is correct. There is no obligation on the applicant to extend the minimum consultation period. However, the IPC will consider whether or not pre-application consultation has been adequate when an application is submitted, and we will consider whether or not the applicant has complied with published guidance when making that decision. We will also seek the views of the local authority, so you may wish to make any concerns known to them.

The 2008 Act requires the IPC keep a register of advice that we give, to any party. We call this our ?advice log?, and it is accessible via our website at [attachment 2]. It contains a significant amount of information and so I cannot be certain which advice EDF is quoting, but the issue of the minimum period for consultation was raised in our meeting with Stop Hinkley Group on 1 December 2010. It is recorded on page 6 of the notes, which can be found at [attachment 3].

Yours,

09 March 2011
Jamie Robertson
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Dr Chris Eaglen submitted three representations on the proposed Hinkley C Generating Station in West Somerset.

[attachment 1]

[attachment 2]

[attachment 3]

[attachment 4]
Our reply to Dr Eaglen can be found here [attachment 5]

25 February 2011
Chris Eaglen
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Re: [attachment 1]

According to your website:
"The application is expected to be submitted to the IPC Winter 2010/11. The IPC has 28 days from the day after submission (known as the acceptance stage) to review the application and decide whether or not to accept it."

It then says what happens if you decide to accept an application, but not what happens if you decide not to accept it.

I guess it may depend on the grounds for non-acceptance, e.g. whether the developer has not provided sufficient information, or has not conducted pre-application consultation.

Can you enlighten me please?
Dear Mr Robertson,

If, after careful consideration during the acceptance stage, the IPC decides not to accept an application then a Commissioner will write to the applicant on behalf of the Commission and explain our decision. This is called a ?Section 55 decision?. You can see an example of such a letter on the project page for the Maesgwn electrical connection at [attachment 2]. The IPC takes no further action on the application.

It is then for the developer to decide how to proceed. The applicant can legally challenge a decison not to accept an application in the High Court. Alternatively, the developer could attempt to correct the application to address the issue and submit it again. As you say, that decision is likely to depend upon why the application was not accepted, but it is not a decision the IPC will make. We will give advice on procedure to the developer (or to any other party) if requested to do so.

The acceptance stage is not a judgement on the merits of a proposal; only on whether or not the application is adequate to proceed to examination. There is nothing to prevent a developer from making amendments and submitting the application again as many times as they wish until they produce an application that is suitable to proceed to examination. However, the applicant would have to pay a submission fee with every submitted application.

24 February 2011
Jamie Robertson
Enquiry received via meeting
Whether the proposed temporary accommodation campuses can lawfully be included within the Hinkley
Point C application as associated development under s115(2) of the Planning Act 2008 (the Act) .
Further to your request for s51 advice the IPC has carefully considered whether the
proposed temporary accommodation campuses can lawfully be included within the Hinkley
Point C application as associated development under s115(2) of the Planning Act 2008
(the Act) .
We have previously explained that IPC staff are unable to provide a definitive ruling on
whether the accommodation campuses comprises associated development, however, we
have considered the legal position and are providing you with advice under s51 of the Act
without prejudice to any subsequent decision on the application for development consent
to be made either by the IPC or the Secretary of State in due course.
Under the terms of s115(6) when deciding whether development is associated
development a Panel or the Council of the IPC must have regard to any guidance issued
by the Secretary of State. The DCLG Guidance on associated development (the Guidance)
cannot provide a definitive interpretation of the statute , however we consider that the
guidance in paragraph 10 sets out matters which are reasonably within the range of the
meanings of 'associated', having regard to the statutory words and context .
We consider on the facts available to us set out in your Draft Accommodation Strategy for
the project that it would be reasonable for the IPC to conclude that the accommodation
campuses are:
? not an aim in themselves and are subordinate to the nationally significant infrastructure
project (NSIP) development;
? are necessary for the development on the basis that the campuses can reasonably be
regarded as necessary rather than comprising a free-standing development being
promoted under the cover of an NSIP; and
? in comparable local circumstances accommodation is normally brought forward with
large infrastructure projects generally and nuclear generating stations in particular.
We have also considered the test in s115(2)(b) of the Act and consider that the
accommodation campuses are not 'dwellings' within the meaning of that subsection but
are of the nature of hostels, or sui generis accommodation, of a temporary nature . The
temporary period is not a short one but it is clear that the campuses are not intended to be
permanent accommodation.
We have noted that the terms 'dwelling' and 'dwelling-house' are both used in the Act and
consider the difference is semantic rather than substantive. We have exercised caution in
considering interpretations given to the concept of a dwelling found in another context or
other legislation, however, we consider it is relevant that the Act is closely related to the
Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (TCPA 1990) and the concepts used there . It is our
view that Parliament intended to echo the meaning of the term within the general planning
legislation and that it would be desirable to take a consistent approach. Therefore on the
facts available to the IPC we consider it can reasonably be concluded that the
accommodation campuses here are not 'dwellings' and can be considered to be
associated development. In particular we note the description of the accommodation, the
provision of single rooms, and communal catering, laundry and leisure facilities.

16 February 2011
EDF Energy NNB - Richard Mayson
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Meeting with Pinsent Masons to discuss associated development.
View the meeting note
[attachment 1]

03 February 2011
Pinsent Masons - Pinsent Masons
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer requested that we inform EDF Energy and central government that a new road is vital (at Dunball), before any permission is granted for the proposed new build at Hinkley Point.
The following advice was given:
The proposed Hinkley Point C New Nuclear Power Station is going through the new process for obtaining development consent under the Planning Act 2008. As you may be aware, EDF Energy are currently within the pre-application stage of this process and are proposing to submit their application to the IPC this year.
If you have comments to make on the proposal at this (pre-application) stage, please contact EDF Energy directly and we also suggest that you once again copy your comments to the local authority. At this stage, the IPC does not process the comments on the proposals, the opportunity to make representations to the IPC and become an 'interested party' for this proposal will occur if the application is accepted upon submission. Becoming an interested party at this later stage will ensure that you are able to have a say about the examination procedure and make further representations at the examination.
Please note that this process is frontloaded and it is therefore encouraged that comments are made to the applicant at the pre-application stage. As stated above there will also be an opportunity to comment at the examination stage.
I have attached links to some of the available guidance regarding the IPC/Planning Act 2008 process for your information.
Leaflet introducing the IPC:
[attachment 1]

Link to IPC website providing an overview of the process:
[attachment 2]

CLG Guidance on Pre-application consultation:
[attachment 3]

IPC advice on having your say once an application has been submitted:
[attachment 4]

02 February 2011
David Templeman
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
The IPC case team met with delegates from Stop Hinkley Group on 1 December 2010 to discuss the IPC application process and how to participate, with referance to the forthcoming application at Hinkley Point C near Bridgwater.
A note of the meeting can be found at [attachment 1]

13 January 2011
Stop Hinkley - Crispin Aubrey
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Crispin Aubery, on behalf of Stop Hinkley Group, wrote to the IPC with questions in relation to the Hinkley Point C proposal.

Firstly, he wanted to know the IPC's relationship to the current application from EDF to West Somerset Council to carry out "preliminary works". His understanding was that the IPC had indicated that, provided it is properly formulated, this application should be appoved. Secondly,he could not find the location of the minutes of meetings between EDF and the local councils and other bodies about Hinkley C on the IPC website, and asked for help to locate them.
Thank you for your email of 5 January 2010.

In response to your first query, the IPC has no involvement in local development control matters. Your understanding of our position with regard to the applications currently under consideration by West Somerset is incorrect; we have expressed no view on these applications. The IPC has not and will not make representations upon applications for planning permission, which are a matter for the local planning authority.

The IPC maintains a register of advice, which can be found on our website, under ?legislation and advice?. The notes of meetings where advice is given are recorded on that register. Searching the register for an appropriate term (for example ?Hinkley?) will produce a list of entries that contain that term.

This is a short-term solution. Our website is still under development, and meeting notes will soon be directly visible from the project page. For an example of how project pages will look in the near future, you may wish to see the page for the Rookery South generating station in the Eastern region.

05 January 2011
Crispin Aubrey
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
The IPC case team chaired a tripartate meeting of stakeholders for the proposed Hinkley C power station on 11 November 2010, including the Highways Agency, the Enviroment Agency, West Somerset DC, Sedgemoor DC, Somerset CC and EDF.
Notes of this meeting can be found at [attachment 1]

21 December 2010
Richard Mayson
Enquiry received via email
Following any application for the proposed Hinkley Point C development consent order and following the examination, which minister makes the final decision whether or not the DCO is issued? If not the minister then who?
The Localism Bill was published in draft form yesterday (14/12/10) and states that the "Secretary of State" (SoS) will be the final decision maker. The decision about which SoS(s) will be the decision maker is a matter for Government and not the IPC. We have no information about this at the present time.

15 December 2010
Kevin Baker
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Dear Sir or Madam
I wish to draw your most urgent attention to the following facts:

The hamlets of Shurton, Burton and Wick are extremely close to the boundary of the proposed development.

EdF produced a consultation document on mitigation proposals for preliminary works (which will have an enormous impact on these communities) and offered a drop-in to discuss them, allowing one month, which is half over.

At the drop-in (which apparently few attended, most being already disenchanted with EdF and distrusting the dissipating effect of drop-in sessions) it was said that should the preliminary works mitigation be accepted it might well be rolled over to cover the full development period but that in any event there would be no second stage

Through the Parish Council members of the community requested a full public meeting with EdF so that all parties could be fully appraised of the nature of the works and thus what response each individual might make to the consultation paper.

At senior management level EdF have refused this request.

I submit that this is a travesty of consultation. Mr Cadoux-Hudson himself has admitted (at closed meeting with the Parish Council) that the parish will 'suffer grievously' and we know it all too well. The least we deserve is full engagement and discussion. I request your response.
Thank you for your email. I have read your comments on the consultation being undertaken by EDF in respect of preliminary works.

You will be aware that EDF have informed us that they intend to submit a Development Consent application for a nuclear generating station and associated development to the IPC. Generating stations with an output of over 50MW are Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIP), and require Development Consent under the Planning Act 2008. The IPC administers this process.

EDF have not yet made any application to the IPC and as such we are not sure whether or not the preliminary works to which you refer will also be applied for as part of EDF's application for Development Consent to the IPC. We are aware that EDF have and are seeking to bring forward the preliminary works as planning applications to the relevant local authority, ahead of any application to the IPC. Any comments you have about these applications or any related consultation activity should be addressed to EDF and / or the local planning authority responsible for determining those applications.

If the preliminary works you refer to are also included as part of a Development Consent application to the IPC, then EDF will be required to show us that they have consulted effectively with the local community at the pre application stage. The local authorities' views will be sought before a decision is made about whether or not the IPC can accept the application for examination; so you may still wish to make your views known to both EDF and your local authority.

We will keep a copy of your letter and make it available to the Commissioner when an application for Development Consent is submitted. We are not able to comment on the merits of any consultation activity undertaken by EDF, or the merits of any proposed project at Hinkley Point until an application is submitted to the IPC. We have been informed by EDF that they will submit an application to us early next year.

09 December 2010
Lesley Flash
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
As you are probably aware by now, it's not the building of a new power station that the people of Somerset are trying to stop.

EDF are planning to use existing roads for lorries, cars and coaches. These roads are already oversubscibed and, furthermore, it appears that the new bypass for Cannington will not be built until after the construction work has began. This means that all the extra transport will be coming through Cannington which is totally unacceptable.

We feel that a Bridgwater bypass is the only acceptable route, taking this traffic directly to Hinckley Point. EDF know this but continue to give vague excuses why this is not an option.

For the sake of the residents in Cannington and the surrounding villages PLEASE do not give EDF planning permission for their preferred route which will affect the whole of West Somerset for years to come.
Thank you for your letter of 2 November 2010 regarding the above proposal.

As the organisation which will consider any application, we cannot at this stage consider or express any views on the merits of the case. If the application is accepted for examination, then there will be an opportunity for interested parties to engage in the process. This will be a public process to which all those who register as interested parties at the appropriate time will have an opportunity to contribute.

If you would like your views considered at this pre-application stage you may wish to make them known to EDF Energy directly, and also let your local authority know. EDF has met its statutory duty to consult effectively with the local community. The local authority will be asked for their views on how effective EDF?s consultation has been at the time the application is submitted to us. We are happy to be copied into any correspondence of this nature.

08 November 2010
Mr & Mrs D Harvey
Enquiry received via post
response has attachments
Mrs Laird wrote to us regarding the merits of the proposed development, and the impacts she feels it will have upon the village of Combwich.
We explained that, as the organisation which will consider any application, we cannot at this stage express any views on the merits of the case. If the application is accepted for examination, then there will be an opportunity for interested parties to engage in the process. This will be a public process to which all parties will have an opportunity to contribute.

We advised her that if she would like her views considered at this pre-application stage she may wish to make them known to EDF Energy directly, and also let her local authority know. The local authority will be asked for their views on how effective EDF?s consultation has been at the time the application is submitted to us. We are happy to be copied into any correspondence of this nature.

04 October 2010
L A Laird
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
As requested at a recent meeting with the Stogursey Parish Council I forward to you a copy of my comments to EdF on their Stage 2 Consultation document for your information.
Dear Mr Laver

Thank you for your email. We are happy to be copied into correspondence of this nature.

Unfortunatly, we are not equiped to access .wps files as generated by Microsoft Works, and as a result I cannot read your letter. Microsoft Works can also save documents in the more widely adopted .doc format, which we are equiped to access, and Microsoft has published guidence on how to do this at [attachment 1]

Yours,

04 October 2010
Michael Laver
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
many thanks for your e-mail and I am quite happy for my comments regarding the adequacy of the consultation to be considered at the pre-application stage.
The letter has already gone to EDF and the local authorities involved as it was in fact my response to EDF's Stage 2 consultation, so they are well aware of my concerns.
For a number of years until I retired a few months ago, I was involved in stakeholder engagement/consultation around a number of closing or decommissioning nuclear sites, which is why I find it incomprehensible that in my opinion, EDF's consultation has been so poor.
I am attaching a copy of my response to EDF on Stage 1 on the consultation, which I submitted on 9 February this year, as it indicates how long ago I raised the standard of the consultation with EDF. Other than an automated acknowledgement, I received no other response from them.
If appropriate, I am happy for this to also be considered at the pre-application stage.

-----

Apologies
Just realised I didn't include the attachment I mentioned in my last e-mail - because I dont have it electronically! I will however, put a hard copy in the post to you in the next few days.
Thank you for your emails.

I apologise if my email was not sufficiently clear. We are happy to be copied into correspondence, but the IPC cannot consider any comments at the pre-application stage. This is why I suggested that you may wish to send them to EDF, who can consider comments at this stage. Developers have an obligation to consult the local community, and to have regard to responses to consultation and publicity when preparing their application to the IPC.

If an application is accepted for examination, there will be an opportunity for local residents to engage directly with the examination process. I am attaching to this email a copy of our publication, ?Advice Note 8: How to have your say about a major infrastructure proposal,? which goes into greater detail.

We will keep your letter on file, and it will be seen by a Commissioner when an application is submitted.

04 October 2010
Tim Jones
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I must protest at the way EDF are treating us at Combwich. They don`t seem to care about the residents at all. What they have planned for us in their stage 2 consultation proposal is ludicrous.

They started the stage 2 consultation with a visit to our village hall spreading out all the information so we could see for ourselves what they had planned. Now bare in mind that in stage 1 Combwich was just going to have the Wharf refurbished for the deliveries of AIL`s and some other materials!. Suddenly we have an 80 acre Freight logistics site next door to the village. Not only next door but within 200 metres of residential properties. This caused uproar amongst the villagers. All the information that was put out by EDF and the extra information I received via registered mail did not mention Fabrication Buildings . It was only the fact that one of the parish councillors painstakingly read through 9000 pages of what Arup called erroneous and misleading information that he discovered what EDF really had planned for us. How can that be right?. Why did they not show the Fabrication Buildings on any of the information they displayed in the village hall?. Why did they not mention anywhere in the information sent to me via registered mail anything about the Fabrication Buildings or the bus park. Surely they new what they were up to. If so they lied and tried to deliberately hide information from the public. You do not forget Fabrication Buildings of 120metres and 60metres. Why have such a huge logistics centre so close to a residential area? It is so unnecessary, The disruption to peoples lives will be horrendous and no amount of mitigation or compensation can make it right. There is plenty of room out on the coast for the Fabrication Buildings and for storage, It makes more sense security wise to keep things in a more confined space as opposed to spreading it all across the countryside. Also I don`t see any compelling evidence for not putting in place proper infrastructure in the way of roads or bypasses .Again the disruption to the local people of Bridgwater , Cannington, Combwich, Stogursey and Shurton will be horrendous and again no amount of mitigation or compensation will make it right . I have read through the information and can not see anywhere where EDF say how many lorries will be passing the Combwich junction on the c182. Nowhere can I see any studies looking at what would happen if there was a major incident at Hinkley C or on the A39. Traffic will come to a stand still with the slightest problem. Any new road or bypass should avoid populated areas it is possible the only thing that's stopping EDF doing the right thing is cost. I say if it costs too much to do the job right, then HINKLEY POINT isn`t the right place for the new power station. If you are going to build something like this on the cheap you are going to get problems and delays. Look at Flamanville and the problems they`re having.

EDF have failed to keep to the governments own guidelines and have therefore failed the consultation process. THEY MUST GO BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD .There are other places in England that are just as suitable as Hinkley point. Also lets not forget that the nuclear reactor that is planned has not yet been tried and tested . We are allowing a foreign nation to come over here and practice on us. We should wait until Flamanville is up and running before we commit to this new technology. If it all goes wrong it will be us that will pick up the bill.

Steve Chinn.
Thank you for your email of 28 September 2010.

I have read your comments regarding the impact that you feel the proposed development will have upon the village of Combwich, and they will be seen by a Commissioner when an application is submitted, but I regret I cannot add anything to the advice we gave you in our email of 15 September 2010.

01 October 2010
Steve Chinn
Enquiry received via post
response has attachments
Ms Evans wrote to us regarding the merits of the proposed development, and the impacts she feels it will have upon the village of Combwich. She also feels that the consultation being conducted by EDF is inadequate
We explained that, as the organisation which will consider any application, we cannot at this stage express any views on the merits of the case. If the application is accepted for examination, then there will be an opportunity for interested parties to engage in the process. This will be a public process to which all parties will have an opportunity to contribute.

We also noted her view that the consultation being conducted by EDF is inadequate. When an application is submitted, the Commissioner(s) will decide whether EDF has met its statutory duty to consult effectively with the local community. A copy of her correspondence will be placed on our file and seen by the Commissioner(s) before that decision is made.

We advised her that if she would like her views considered at this pre-application stage she may wish to make them known to EDF Energy directly, and also let her local authority know. The local authority will be asked for their views on how effective EDF?s consultation has been at the time the application is submitted to us. We are happy to be copied into any correspondence of this nature.

01 October 2010
Ina C Evans
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Mr Jones wrote to us regarding the merits of the proposed development, and the impacts he feels it will have upon the village of Combwich. He also feels that the consultation being conducted by EDF is inadequate
Thank you for your email of 29 September 2010, attaching your letter dated 27 February 2010, making representations regarding the above proposal.

I have read your comments regarding the merits of the proposed development, and the impacts you feel it will have upon the village of Combwich. As the organisation which will consider any application, we cannot at this stage express any views on the merits of the case. If the application is accepted for examination, then there will be an opportunity for interested parties to engage in the process. This will be a public process to which all parties will have an opportunity to contribute.

I also note your view that the consultation being conducted by EDF is inadequate. When an application is submitted, the Commissioner(s) will decide whether EDF has met its statutory duty to consult effectively with the local community. A copy of your correspondence will be placed on our file and seen by the Commissioner(s) before that decision is made.

If you would like your views considered at this pre-application stage you may wish to make them known to EDF Energy directly, and also let your local authority know. The local authority will be asked for their views on how effective EDF?s consultation has been at the time the application is submitted to us. We are happy to be copied into any correspondence of this nature.

01 October 2010
Tim Jones
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I understand that you are the person to contact with regard to concerns over process with respect to the EdF Hinkley Application.

Please find below an E-mail that I have sent to PPS Group requesting clarification over how the points that I made in my ( Jan 2010) Submission to the Stage One Consultation were addressed in the ( July 2010 ) EdF Report on Stage One.

For information, I also attach my ( Jan 2010 ) Stage One Submission.
Thank you for your email, addressed to my colleague Mr Gambles, and the attached correspondence which relates to the consultation being conducted by EDF. Developers have a duty to consider responses to consultation and publicity. When an application is submitted, the Commissioner(s) will decide whether EDF has met its statutory duty to consult effectively with the local community. A copy of your correspondence will be placed on our file and seen by the Commissioner(s) before that decision is made.

If you would like your views on the consultation considered at this pre-application stage then, in addtion to making them known to EDF Energy directly as you have, you may wish to let your local authority know. The local authority will be asked for their views on how effective EDF?s consultation has been at the time the application is submitted to us. We are happy to be copied into any correspondence of this nature.

01 October 2010
Rachel Western
Enquiry received via post
response has attachments
Mr Bulman wrote to us regarding the merits of the proposed development, and the impacts he feels it will have upon the village of Combwich. He also feels that the consultation being conducted by EDF is inadequate
We explained that, as the organisation which will consider any application, we cannot at this stage express any views on the merits of the case. If the application is accepted for examination, then there will be an opportunity for interested parties to engage in the process. This will be a public process to which all parties will have an opportunity to contribute.

We also noted his view that the consultation being conducted by EDF is inadequate. When an application is submitted, the Commissioner(s) will decide whether EDF has met its statutory duty to consult effectively with the local community. A copy of his correspondence will be placed on our file and seen by the Commissioner(s) before that decision is made.

We advised him that if he would like his views considered at this pre-application stage he may wish to make them known to EDF Energy directly, and also let his local authority know. The local authority will be asked for their views on how effective EDF?s consultation has been at the time the application is submitted to us. We are happy to be copied into any correspondence of this nature.

01 October 2010
M E Bulman
Enquiry received via post
response has attachments
Lynn Bunniss and Nick Carter wrote to us regarding the merits of the proposed development, and the impacts they feel it will have upon the village of Combwich. They also feel that the consultation being conducted by EDF is inadequate.
We explained that, as the organisation which will consider any application, we cannot at this stage express any views on the merits of the case. If the application is accepted for examination, then there will be an opportunity for interested parties to engage in the process. This will be a public process to which all parties will have an opportunity to contribute.

We also noted their view that the consultation being conducted by EDF is inadequate. When an application is submitted, the Commissioner(s) will decide whether EDF has met its statutory duty to consult effectively with the local community. A copy of their correspondence will be placed on our file and seen by the Commissioner(s) before that decision is made.

We advised them that if they would like their views considered at this pre-application stage they may wish to make them known to EDF Energy directly, and also let their local authority know. The local authority will be asked for their views on how effective EDF?s consultation has been at the time the application is submitted to us. We are happy to be copied into any correspondence of this nature.

30 September 2010
Lynn Bunniss and Nick Carter
Enquiry received via email
Are the IPC able to require a promoter to undertake a further stage of consultation?
The commission cannot compel a promoter to undertake a further stage of consultation. It is essential to the IPC's impartiality that we refrain from commenting directly on the form or content of the consultation exercise. As the legislation and guidance sets out, this is for the applicant to determine in consultation with the relevant local authorities and publish in their Statement of Community Consultation. The IPC will consider questions of adequacy only once the application has been submitted.

We can, however, reiterate and emphasise the requirements and duties set out in the legislation and guidance. We have recently had a meeting with EdF on this very topic, and the notes are due to be published shortly. The duty to consult is partly to help promoters develop a complete application that is ready to be examined and determined without significant alterations during the examination. In the meeting, we emphasised that EdF ought to keep this in mind when deciding on whether or not to undertake a further round of consultation. In general, the advice to promoters is that it is in their interest to take advantage of the pre application stage to agree and negotiate issues with consultees to minimise the number of issues that would otherwise need to be considered at the examination stage. If the application is accepted for examination and a significant area of disagreement remains between the applicant and a consultee on a matter of acknolwedged importance, this increases the risk and level of uncertainty for the applicant, that the application may be refused development consent.

27 September 2010
Anthony Trollope-Bellew
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
A meeting held on 16/09/10 between the IPC and EDF. Various matters were discussed, please see the attached meeting note.
[attachment 1]

16 September 2010
EDF - Richard Mayson
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Mr Chinn wrote to express dissatisfaction with the EDF consultation being conducted, and make representations on the merits of the case, particularly with reference to proposed logisitics developments in Combwich.
Thank you for your email.

I have read views on the merits of the proposed development, and your comments regarding proposed logistics facilities in Combwich. As the organisation which will consider any application, we cannot at this stage express any views on the merits of the case. If the application is accepted for examination, then there will be an opportunity for interested parties to engage in the process. This will be a public process to which all parties will have an opportunity to contribute.

I also note your view that the consultation being conducted by EDF is inadequate. When an application is submitted, the Commissioner(s) will decide whether EDF has met its statutory duty to consult effectively with the local community. A copy of your correspondence will be placed on our file and seen by the Commissioner(s) before that decision is made.

If you have any concerns about EDF?s consultation at this pre-application stage please make sure they are aware of your specific concerns, and also let your local authority know. The local authority will be asked for their views on how effective EDF?s consultation has been at the time the application is submitted to us. We are happy to be copied into any correspondence of this nature.

15 September 2010
Steve Chinn
Enquiry received via phone
Should individual members of a Parish Council register as interested parties separately to ensure that each will have an opportunity to submit representations?
Under s102 of the Planning Act 2008, a Parish Council could become an interested party either by virtue of it being a statutory party, in which case the Council will automatically be an interested party following application acceptance, or because it has made a relevant representation.

If the Council is a statutory party and the application is accepted by the IPC you will, shortly after acceptance, receive written notification of this from the applicant. This notification will set out the deadline for receipt by the IPC of the Council's interest in or objection to the application.

If the Council does not receive this notification from the applicant then it would be necessary for the Council to complete a form on the IPC website in order register as an interested party and make a relevant representation by the deadline specified. It is only possible to do this after an application has been accepted by the Commission.

I attach below a link to IPC Advice Note 8 below which sets out our advice on how bodies and individuals can have their say to the IPC. Up to date information on the progress of applications and proposed applications for nationally significant infrastructure projects is available on the IPC's website.

As an interested party, the Council will be entitled to attend the preliminary meeting and any hearings held during the examination of the application. Any interested party can call for an open-floor hearing to be held, although the scheduling of any hearing is at the Examining authority's discretion.

Likewise, the Council would be entitled to submit written representations during the course of the examination within the relevant deadlines. For example, by the deadlines set by the Examining authority at or shortly following the preliminary meeting.

Who in the Council would be entitled to complete the registration form or make any other written representation on its behalf would be a matter for the Council to determine. We would suggest that any individual Member(s) (i.e. Parish Councillors) wishing to submit a substantially different representation from the Council register separately as an individual or part of another group.

Although the Council, as a body would be registered as the interested party, this does not mean, for example, that only the person completing or named in the registration form (e.g. the Clerk) would be able to make representations at a hearing. Any Council Member or Officer, at the discretion of the Examining authority, could potentially do so. Again, it would be for the Council to determine whether any particular individual has the requisite authority to make representations on its behalf or is giving evidence just in an individual capacity.

14 September 2010
Peter Malim
Enquiry received via email
Correspondent wished to raise concerns as to the adequacy of EDF's consultation exercise
The IPC is unable at this time to comment on the adequacy of any consultation exercises undertaken. In line with CLG's Guidance on pre-application consultation (para 90), any such concerns ought to be raised with the applicant in the first instance, and then the local authority (who are entitled under s55 of the Planning Act to make an adequacy of consultation representation during the acceptance phase). The IPC is happy to be copied into any correspondence of this nature and will keep the comments on file and make them available to the Commissioner(s) at the acceptance stage following the submission of the application. The determination as to whether or not consultation duties have been adequately complied with will be made at this stage.

09 September 2010
Richard Cuttell
Enquiry received via post
response has attachments
T J Boyd wrote to us to express views on the merits of the proposal, with particular reference to highways issues.
We explained that, since we will consider any eventual application, we cannot comment on the merits of the case. We suggested that Mr/Ms Boyd write to EDF directly, and consider making representations when an application is submitted.

27 August 2010
T J Boyd
Enquiry received via post
response has attachments
Mr and Mrs Pope wrote to express concern that work may begin on the Hinkley C generating station project prior to the grant of a DCO, and to make representations on the merits of the case.
The IPC advised that DCOs cannot be granted retrospectively, and that it is an offence to carry out, or cause to be carried out, development for which a DCO is required where no DCO has been granted.

We explained that we could not comment on the merits of the case or the programme of construction that EDF may be considering, but set out how to make representations once an application was submitted.

We suggested that Mr and Mrs Pope may wish to write to EDF and their local planning authority with their concerns.

17 August 2010
George and Pauline Pope
Enquiry received via post
response has attachments
Mr & Mrs Randall wrote to express their views on the merits of the case and the adequacy of consultation being undertaken by the developer, and to describe their perception that they had been victims of crime.
We explained to Mr & Mrs Randall that we could not comment on the merits of the case or on the adequacy of consultation, but set out the procedure for making representations if and when an application was submitted. We suggested that they send their views on the project to EDF and the local planning authority. We also suggested that, if they felt they had been victims of crime, they should contact the Police.

20 July 2010
John Randall
Enquiry received via phone
DECC have recently announced that consultation on the Nuclear Power National Policy Statement (NPS) will be pushed back to spring 2011. What are the consequences of this if, as intended, the application for Hinkley C comes in December 2010?
If the NPS remains in draft when the Hinkley application is determined, then the IPC will make a recommendation to the Secretary of State, who will make the decison. If the NPS is designated whilst the application is being examined and before a decison is made, then an IPC Commissioner will make the decison.

Referred Mr Duffy to an earlier entry on the register of advice (16/06/2010 to Kimberley Jeakings - GVA Grimley) on the topic of a draft NPS's weighting as a policy document.

15 July 2010
Stop Hinkley - Jim Duffy
Enquiry received via post
response has attachments
See letter received from Richard Mayson.
See response letter to Richard Mayson.

23 June 2010
Richard Mayson