The Planning Inspectorate received a query by letter from the Applicant. This letter can be found under the documents tab of the South Hook CHP project on the planning portal, entitled 'Additional submission from QPI Global Ventures Ltd relating to section 106 agreements' published 16 April 2014.
Please see the attached letter from The Planning Inspectorate to the Applicant to read the advice given

South Hook CHP - Lyn Powell

Could the developer for South Hook CHP be given access to unredacted relevant representations relating to visual impact so the developer could respond to them individually?
Dear mr Powell

Since the project is now in pre-examination any issues relating to the project can only be investigated during the examination and not by direct contact between yourself and the Interested Party (IP)

Any issues raised in the relevant representation can be addressed by commenting on the specific relevant representations. A deadline for commenting on relevant representations will be issued by the Examination Authority (ExA) in the Rule 8 letter. The developer can also request at the Preliminary Meeting that the ExA add these specific visual impact issues to the timetable, but it would be up to the ExA to decide whether to seek clarification through questions. If the ExA decides to examine these issues, the Rule 8 letter will set out how yourself and the IP can inform the ExA about the issues.

Lyn Powell

Advice given to Milford Haven Town Council regarding their relevant representation. The same advice was also given to St Ishmaels Community Council on 10 September 2013.
Thank you for completing an online representation form on behalf of Milford Haven Town Council. In that submission you indicate that your members wish to be kept informed of developments on behalf of the people of Milford Haven and that the Council may wish to participate in various stages of the examination process.

However the Town Council did not provide a view on the application. For a representation to be 'relevant' as defined Under Regulation 4 of the Infrastructure Planning (Interested Party) Regulations 2010 it must, amongst a number of requirements, provide an outline of the principal submissions which the person proposes to make in respect of the application. Please see link to the Regulations below;

[attachment 1]

I note that Milford Haven Town Council is a Statutory Consultee for this application. However, following amendments made to the Planning Act 2008, Statutory Consultees are no longer deemed as interested parties unless they make a relevant representation during the period set by the developer during the pre-examination stage of the process.

As your representation did not include this information it is not classified as a relevant representation and you are not registered as an Interested Party.

However, you may also wish to note that a Statutory Consultee that does not make a relevant representation may inform the Examining Authority of their wish to become an interested party following receipt of the 'Rule 8' letter (a procedural decision that sets out the examination timetable which is published after the Preliminary meeting). As a statutory consultee you will also be sent a copy of the Rule 6 letter which gives details of the Preliminary Meeting date and Examination timetable. This will be sent out in mid September.

Moyra Galliford Milford Haven Town Council

Can we comment on s.42, s.47 and s.48 including the consultation material when responding to the Planning inspectorates request for an Adequacy of Consultation response.
Yes. Under s.49 of the 2008 Planning Act the applicant has to demonstrate how they have complied with s.42, s.47 and s.48 of the Act. S.49 also states that the applicant has to have regard to any relevant responses it received. This means that when the Local Authority comments on the Adequacy of Consultation under s.55 it may comment on how the applicant has consulted under s.42, s.47 and s.48 of the Act and on any of the consultation material provided to the consultees.

Pembrokeshire Cost NPA - Vicki Hirst

Enquiry regarding Associated Development and the Development Consent Order application process in Wales.
Associated development is dealt with at Section 115 of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended).


In England associated development can be made part of the application to the Planning Inspectorate whereas in Wales in most cases a separate application would have to be made to the authority who normally consents such development. This could, for instance, include consent deemed to fall under the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 or the Planning Act 2008 (the 2008 Act).

DCLG Guidance on associated development applications for major infrastructure projects (April 2013) (see attached) advises that associated development can include development in England and in waters adjacent to England. However it may not include development in Wales, except for surface works, boreholes or pipes associated with underground gas storage by a gas transporter in natural porous strata.


Associated development is defined in the 2008 Act as development which is associated with the principal development. Sub-sections (2) to (4) of section 115 of the 2008 Act set out other requirements relating to associated development, as summarised below:


- Section 115 (Development for which development consent may be granted) of the 2008 Act at sub-section (1) states that development consent may be granted for development which is (a) development for which development consent is required, or (b) associated development;

- Sub-section (2)(c) states that associated development means development which is within sub-section (3) or (4);

- Sub-section (3) relates only to England;

- Sub-section (4) relates to Wales and states that development is within this subsection if it is the carrying out or construction of surface works, boreholes or pipes or if it is development within section 17(3) of the Act which relates to underground gas storage facilities.

It may be worth noting that in some instances where a Grid Connection qualifies as a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP) in its own right a single application for a DCO can be submitted for more than one NSIP (for example - a Generating Station and its Grid Connection). However it is for the applicant to decide on this.

Natural Resources Wales - Louise Edwards

Request for comments on the grid connetion statement and further information regarding submission of the draft Development Consent Order
Please find attached comments by the Planning Inspectorate on the draft Grid Connection Statement.

Also, below I clarify points discussed with you this morning regarding the number of submission documents required:

On submission you are required to provide three paper copies of the full application along with six electronic (e.g. DVD, memory stick) copies.

The remaining copies as set out in Advice Note 6 are those that the applicant may be requested to provide following acceptance.

The Planning Inspectorate will provide the relevant Local Authorities with a link to the Consultation Report when requesting Adequacy of Consultation comments during the Acceptance stage. You may wish to note however that other applicants have in the past provided Local Authorities with copies of the Consultation Report upon submission however it is for you to decide whether to do this.

South Hook CHP - Lyn Powell

Advice given to South Hook CHP in regards of Adequacy of Consultation and the length of the examination.
Adequacy of Consultation
You refer to an 'Adequacy of Consultation' document bundle that was submitted as part of the North Killingholme. I have looked at the application documents that were submitted, however, have not seen an "Adequacy of Consultation" document. I can only think that you are referring to the 'Adequacy of Consultation' responses that the Planning Inspectorate (Pins) have received back from the relevant local authorities with regard to the North Killingholme application.
When deciding whether or not to accept an application for examination under s55 of the Planning Act, Pins, must, amongst other matters, have regard to any representations received from any local authority consultees about the adequacy of the consultation and publicity undertaken by the developer at the pre-application stage under s42, 47 and 48 of the Planning Act. We request these statements in writing and given the short 28 day timescale allowed for the acceptance stage the Planning Inspectorate will usually set a 14 day deadline to receive the requested adequacy statements. Please refer to Pins Advice Note 14 for further information.

[attachment 1]

Fees
Your ask for clarification on what triggers the start and end of the examination period.
May I refer you to s98(1) of the Planning Act which states that 'the Examining authority is under a duty to complete the Examining authority?s examination of the application by the end of the period of 6 months beginning with the day after the start day.'
The examination starts on the day the Preliminary Meeting is held. However, the six month examination period to complete the examination begins on the day after the final day of the Preliminary Meeting. The Ex authority then has (in principle at least) until the end of the last day of the 6 month period to complete the examination.
Under Regulation 8 of the Infrastructure Planning (Fees) Regulations 2010, following the Preliminary Meeting, Pins must , as soon as reasonably practicable, give the applicant notice in writing of the number of estimated relevant days the examination will last; whether the examination will be handled by a single Examining Inspector or a Panel and the fee for the initial payment in respect of handling the application.
This is in conjunction with the Rule 8 letter in which the Examining authority sets the timetable for the examination of the application. Please note that under Rule 8 (3) the Examining authority subsequently may vary the timetable, and as soon as practicable, notify all interested parties and those invited to the Preliminary meeting of the variation

South Hook CHP - Lyn Powell

Request for review of the South Hook draft HRA Screening Report.
1. Project description

1.1 Table 1.1 of the draft HRA Report identifies four main modes of operation, and assigns each one a scenario number. However, Appendix B (Screening of aerial emissions on SPAs/SACs and assessment of total Nitrogen mass balance) refers to two different scenarios; ?A? and ?B?. It is recommended that the operating scenarios are consistently referred to throughout all application documents.

2. The study area

2.1 The draft HRA Report states that the list of sites to consider in the HRA was agreed with CCW and EAW (paragraph 2.1.1). Evidence of this agreement should be provided.

2.2 It is recommended that Figure 2.1 uses colours which make it easier to differentiate Castlemartin Coast Special Protection Area (SPA) from Skokholm and Skomer SPA.

3. Appendix A ? Screening Matrices

3.1 For ease of reference, it is recommended that each matrix includes a descriptor of the effect, rather than ?Effect 1?, ?Effect 2?, ?Effect 3? etc.

3.2 The matrices key states that the grey shading refers to effects ?not applicable to a particular feature?. This description is misleading given that further consideration has been given to these features within the Matrices and the draft HRA Report, and footnotes have been provided. The description of the grey shading provided within paragraph 3.5.2 of the draft HRA Report is more applicable and should be inserted into the matrices to avoid confusion.

3.3 Each effect that has been screened out of the matrices should have a footnote providing a justification to this conclusion.

3.4 The draft HRA Report has considered the potential impacts of noise and vibration separately from lighting; it is therefore recommended that this is reflected within the matrices and these effects are presented separately.

4. The Scope of the HRA

4.1 Table 3.1 of the draft HRA Report identifies the potential direct, indirect or secondary impacts of the scheme (either alone or in combination with other plans or projects) on the relevant European Sites. The HRA Report should specify whether these impacts were agreed with Natural Resources Wales (NRW) (or their legacy bodies), and if so provide evidence confirming that NRW are content that all potential impacts, pathways and effects have been identified within the HRA Report.

4.2 It is unclear why the potential effects on Greater Horseshoe Bat and Lesser Horseshoe Bat differ significantly in Table 3.4 (Pembrokeshire bat sites and Bosherston Lakes SAC: Potential LSEs taken forward for further screening assessment). This should be explained within the submitted Report.

5. In-combination assessment

5.1 Paragraph 9.1.1 of the draft HRA Report states that ?the initial screening exercise (Appendix A) concluded that it was straightforward to screen out incombination effects on SACs and SPAs other than Pembrokeshire Marine SAC (habitats and species) and the migratory fish species features of Cleddau Rivers SAC (River Lamprey and Sea Lamprey)?. However, this is not explicitly stated within the matrices themselves. The matrices for all other sites do not contain footnotes for the in-combination effects during construction and decommissioning to justify this statement. To reiterate the point made above, each effect that has been screened out of the matrices should have a footnote providing a justification to this conclusion.

5.2 It would be useful for the HRA Report to include a figure identifying the location of the plans and projects that have been considered within the in-combination assessment.

5.3 We note from the draft Grid Connection Statement (GCS) (provided to PINS on 22 April 2013) that the decision on whether to cross the Milford Haven Waterway by subsea cable (i.e. trenching) or tunnel, and the route adopted, will be made after further surveys and environmental studies have been completed. The draft HRA Report has considered in-combination effects from a number of plans and projects, as identified in Table 9.1, but has not considered the grid connection. It is noted that paragraph 1.3.8 of the draft HRA Report states that the grid connection will not be considered within the HRA Report as the ?potential options for the grid connection are still being explored and it is not a formal plan or project that is available for analysis at this stage?.

5.4 It is understood that the Developer has previously agreed with the Countryside Council for Wales and Environment Agency Wales (now Natural Resources Wales) to include a high level analysis of the ecological impacts of the grid connection options currently under consideration within the separate GCS. The Planning Inspectorate notes that the draft GCS contains such an assessment, however has not considered the potential for in-combination impacts on European sites. Given that a grid connection is an inevitable requirement for the proposed development to operate, and that a high level assessment of the ecological impacts of the grid connection has been undertaken within the GCS, the Planning Inspectorate considers that the potential for in-combination effects of the grid connection should be included in the HRA Report and the Matrices. This should be considered on a worst case basis using the information presently available to the Developer. The Developer is warned that failure to include an in-combination assessment could result in an application not being accepted for examination, if the Developer does not provide enough information for the Secretary of State to undertake his or her duties under The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010.

5.5 It is also understood that the Developer intends to undertake habitat surveys of the Milford Haven Waterway in summer 2013. The Developer should be aware that there is potential for the examining inspector(s) to request further information in this regard during the examination.

5.6 Should the application be accepted, the Planning Inspectorate will update the Matrices throughout the examination, and may draw upon information from any of the application documents and any representations received from both the Developer and interested parties. The Matrices will form part of a Report on the Implications for European Sites (RIES) which will be submitted to the Secretary of State with the examining inspector(s) recommendation report.

6. Cross-reference to other documents

6.1 Where cross-reference is made to another document, it would be helpful to be provided with the paragraph / page reference to which the reader is directed.

RPS - Lyn Powell

Advise given relating to the South Hook CHP project.
Please see the attached note.

South Hook CHP - Lyn Powell

South Hook Combined Heat and Power Station update meeting to discuss draft Development Consent Order (DCO) and Explanatory Memorandum (EM)

South Hook Combined Heat & Power - Lyn Powell

South Hook CHP issues

South Hook Combined Heat & Power - Lyn Powell

Outreach meeting between the developer, Pembrokeshire Costal National Park Authority, Pembrokeshire County Council, Countryside Council for Wales,Environment Agency Wales and The Planning Inspectorate
See attached meeting note

South Hook Combined Heat & Power - Lyn Powell

Introductory project meeting between the developer's for the South Hook CHP power station and the Planning Inspectorate
Please see attached meeting note

South Hook Combined Heat & Power - Lyn Powel