The Health and Safety Executive has received a concern regarding the design of Swansea Bay Tidal Lagoon’s impounding wall, specifically it’s rock armour/concrete composition. I am the Construction Inspector who is dealing with the matter.

I would be grateful if you could provide me with a steer as to where in the planning process design issues such as the efficacy, and stability of the lagoon wall structure would be considered.

This will enable me to contact the relevant persons to discuss this matter further.
Statutory parties including the Health and Safety Executive were consulted amongst others, before the application was submitted to the Planning Inspectorate and given the opportunity to influence the design and the many other aspects of the project.

During the pre-examination stage of the process the opportunity was provided for anyone who wished to register by way of making a Relevant Representation to put their case on the Tidal Lagoon Swansea Bay application. These representations assisted the Examining Authority in identifying the Principal Issues to be examined. Following a six month examination of the Tidal Lagoon Swansea Bay project which concluded on 10 December 2014, a recommendation was submitted to the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change. The Secretary of State made the decision to grant the Development Consent Order on 9 June 2015.

Design issues would have been considered by the Applicant and evidence supplied in the application documents, which would have subsequently been examined by the Examining Authority during the examination stage of the process. I have included for your information a link to the Recommendation Report and a link to the Development Consent Order which you may find useful:

Recommendation Report
[attachment 1]

Development Consent Order
[attachment 2]

All application documents; including the Design and Access Statement and Environmental Statement which may be of interest and documents submitted by interested parties and statutory parties during examination are published on the project specific webpage under the ‘Documents’ tab and can be found at the following link:
[attachment 3]

With regards to the detail you require you may wish to consider contacting Natural Resources Wales as they would be the licensing authority. The certified documents which may also be of interest can be inspected free of charge at the offices of the City and County of Swansea Council, Civic Centre, Oystermouth Road, Swansea SA1 3SN.

Health and Safety Executive - Phil Nicolle

Discussion and feedback in relation to the Tidal Lagoon Swansea Bay examination

Alex Herbert

Please see your reply (attached) to my enquiry (below) about the "capacity"
of generating stations for the purposes of the NSIP provisions of the Planning Act 2008.

I have to say that I didn't find your reply very convincing, so I covered the point in our Written Representation to the Examining Authority considering the DCO application for the Swansea Bay tidal lagoon (extract attached). I asked the ExA to make a ruling on the point but heard nothing - the examination proceeded without comment by the ExA.

I have now come across the Digest of UK Energy Statistics (2014 DUKES
attached) and would appreciate your observations on paras 5.79, 5.80, 6.50 and 6.115. Similar points are made in the corresponding paragraphs in the
2013 DUKES.

Were you aware of these points when you sent me your reply in August 2013?

If replying now, would your reply still be the same?
I am glad that you were able to participate in the examination of the Swansea Bay Tidal Lagoon. The Examining Authority, and then Secretary of State, will have regard to all the matters which they consider both important and relevant.

I was not aware of the content of the Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics 2014 when I replied in August 2013, however, it does not change the advice given.

In the intervening period the Planning Inspectorate has issue similar advice for a different case which you may find pertinent: [attachment 1]

You will notice that the Renewables Obligation Order quoted in the advice contains the following within the definitions, which is consistent with Inspectorate practice:

?declared net capacity?, in relation to a generating station, means the maximum capacity at which the station could be operated for a sustained period without causing damage to it (assuming the source of power used by it to generate electricity was available to it without
interruption) less the amount of electricity that is consumed by the plant;"

Phil Jones

A document described on the PINS website as "Note addressing mitigation actions and management plans-OEMP (panel item 11) Submitted 4 November 2014 for Deadline V (Replacement due to formatting error)." has appeared on the PINS website with a publication date of 12th November.

When downloaded the document is found have a filename of "Tidal Lagoon Swansea Nay PLC Note addressing mitigation actions and management plans - AEMP (Panel item 11).pdf".

The document does in fact relate to the AEMP, not OEMP.

Can you please indicate why it has been necessary to republish this document? What was the "formatting error" and where was it? I don't want to have to compare it line by line with the previous document to see if there is a significant difference.
The documents were republished as the applicant felt that the tables with their previous formatting were hard to read. The columns were narrow and therefore text was spread over a number of pages. Therefore the applicant re-submitted these documents. We sought clarification from the applicant that the content was unchanged. Had the contents changed, these would have been published as new, late submissions. A decision was taken to make clear that these were published at a later date so as to ensure that interested parties could see that they have been re-published.

Your email however highlighted that there was an error in this republishing. Whilst the right documents were published, one had been given the wrong description naming it OEMP rather than AEMP. This was an admin oversight. Thank you for bringing this to our attention, this has now been rectified.

Phil Jones

Mr Youle requested clarification on matters currently under consultation as part of the Tidal Lagoon Swansea Bay application. The query related to the potential changes set out in the applicant's ?Paper of alternative DCO drafting? and the implications of such changes.
The applicant has put forward, in the paper entitled ?Paper of alternative DCO drafting?, options for a reduction to the onshore and offshore buildings and removal of the boating facilities. The Examining Authority, in a procedural decision issued on 31 October 2014, requested the applicant to undertake external consultation outside of the examination.

There are ongoing discussions between Local Authorities and the applicant in relation to the content of a development consent obligation.

Applicants are not bound to deliver all development consented under a development consent order. This is common to all planning permissions.

Should a development consent order be granted with the options that are currently being consulted upon being present, there is no requirement for the applicant to pursue further development under any other regime unless this can be secured through a development consent obligation. It should be noted that the applicant?s preference is for the development consent order to consent that which was originally applied for.

The Planning Act 2008 sets out the legislation within which Examining Authorities are to examine applications for Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects. Examining Authorities are unable to consent associated development in Wales, however applicants are able to include, within their development consent orders, principal and ancillary development. Any associated development would require a separate planning application, made to the relevant body. This matter has been discussed throughout the examination and has led to the recent consultation.

South West Evening Post - Richard Youle

Mr Burgess called to seek clarifiation on the relationship between s106 agreements and Development Consent Orders in delivering development
Mr Burgess was advised that the Planning Inspectorate and Examining Authority are unable to advise on s106 agreements as these are agreements between Councils and applicants.

Should development be removed from a development consent order (DCO), it would be for a Local Authority, if it was within their juristiction, to decide whether to grant planning permission if an application was submitted.

The DCO cannot compel applicants to deliver development and should this development require another permission outside of the DCO, this cannot be prejudged as being able to receiving consent.

B Burgess

Dear sir please could you provide me with clear information on the environmental impact on basking sharks porpoise etc. Also bass herring. I think we need a clear understanding as to the survival rate of these species. Either I am looking in the wrong ...
Thank you for your email to the Planning Inspectorate regarding the impacts on marine species of the Swansea Bay Tidal Lagoon. The Inspectorate is examining the project on behalf of the Secretary of State, and is not responsible for promoting the scheme. For specific information about the proposals and their likely environmental impact I suggest that you correspond directly with the applicant. Contact information is on the applicant's website at [attachment 1].

Remo Rossi

The attached letter dated 8th September has appeared on the PINS website with a publication date of 13th November and a description of "Representation accepted by the Examining Authority in to the examination".

Can you please explain why the Examining Authority is accepting submissions:

1. from persons who have not registered an interest;

2. at a point in the examination when other interested parties cannot respond effectively to them?

What does "accepted in to the examination" mean please?

The letter refers to a 62 page report which, as far as I can tell, has not previously been mentioned during the examination. Are we to assume that the report is also "accepted in to the examination"? If so, how are we expected to absorb and respond to such material at this stage? We respectfully submit that, unless the report has been properly introduced at an earlier stage, it should be disregarded by the ExA. It is not "independent" as claimed in the letter - a disclaimer on page 4 says "This study has been commissioned by Tidal Lagoon Power Ltd (TLP) ..."
Further to your query, there is provision under the Planning Act 2008 for the Examining Authority to accept written representations by parties other than interested parties under the Infrastructure Planning (Examination Procedure) Rules 2010, Rule 10(3) in to the examination.

There is an opportunity for all parties to comment on this submission at the next deadline.

As noted in your comment, the report is referenced in the representation but is not before the Examining Authority or interested parties. Should you have comments on this representation, the opportunity to put these to the Examining Authority will be by 25 November 2014.

I hope that this information is of assistance.

Phil Jones

Comments were made in relation to the procedural decision taken by the Examining Authority on 4 September 2014. The Examining Authority has not yet taken a view as to whether to accept this representation. Comments were also made in relation to the draft Statement of Common Ground (SoCG) submitted by the applicant, the Case Team have offered advice in relation to this point.
Thank you for your email. A number of the points raised in your email relate to examination issues for which I am unable to comment. However in relation to the removal of the SoCG from the Planning Inspectorate website. This document has been submitted into the examination and therefore cannot be deleted. Furthermore, should this document be removed, the request would have to come from the Applicant who submitted the document and the Examining Authority would have to consider this request.

Phil Jones

I write to query an entry on the Hearing Agendas ?Issue Specific Hearings? Day 2, ( Item 10.) Fish and Recreational Fishing (i) 2impacts on migratory fish ? Trends in salmon and sea trout populations in Rivers Tawe and Neath?
Please can you tell me why the River Afan has been omitted from the above?
Thank you for your email. Unfortunately I am unable to provide an answer to your query. The agenda has been set to ensure that the Examining Authority (ExA) are able to receive oral evidence on matters that they have identified as requiring further discussion. The ExA are not required to provide a reasoning for any question or agenda item. May I suggest that if you wish to put this query to the ExA, that you do this at the hearings scheduled.

Lennard Powell

Request on behalf of Royal Mail to submit a brief written representation to the Examination and become an Interested Party.
Thank you for your email. The Examining Authority (ExA) have reviewed your request and accepted Royal Mail as an interested party. Your email address will be added to the mailing list and you will receive all future correspondence. The next deadline in the examination is 7 October 2014.

Daniel Parry-Jones

Query regarding reviewing the timetable and reallocation of topics discussed to better suit client.
Thank you for your email. Unfortunately it is not possible to rearrange the agendas at this time as this may well cause problems for other interested parties. I appreciate the difficulties that all parties will have in dealing with the unpredictability of the length that agenda items may take however it is for the Examining Authority to decide the order in which to deal with the item on the agenda. May I suggest the you raise any issues at the beginning of the hearing.

Brian Greenwood

Enquiry regarding the opportunity to raise any concerns at hearings.
Thank you for your email. I appreciate that you wish to have it confirmed that you will be able to speak but I am unable to provide this. My advice would be for you to attend the hearing and the usual format is that the Examining Authority to request those who wish to speak to identify themselves at the beginning of the hearing. You will then be able to discuss your points.

Tim MacIver

I write to express my strong support for this proposed scheme. I have been involved in environmental matters many years, partly as Director of a Community Group taking action to reduce CO2 emissions, partly simply as a concerned citizen. My connection with Swansea is as a regular holiday maker in the area over nearly 30 years.
Not only do we need to minimise our energy consumption but also we need to meet our society's demand for electricity by sustainable means. The rate of environmental degradation from increasing atmospheric CO2 is increasing and we are faced with a situation where there is a time lag between cause and effect, so that our actions - or lack of action - will have a far greater effect on generations to come.
Changes to the natural environment are happening and will happen at an increasing rate. Yes, creating something like this lagoon will cause certain losses and we have to look at the longer term picture and see that the gains far outweigh the losses, although they will be experienced sooner.
Please, please, please give this scheme your approval.
It appears that you did not complete a relevant representation and register to become an interested party prior to the start of the examination of the application. As a result the Examining Authority will be notified of your submission and it will be at their discretion as to whether they accept it. If it is accepted it will be publicly available and published to the Tidal Lagoon Swansea Bay project pages of the National Infrastructure pages of the Planning Portal website which can be viewed here: [attachment 1]

If you believe you also have a legal interest in land affected by the application, then you can make a request to the Examining Authority to become an interested party under s102A of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended) either in writing to the address details below or by referring to the National Infrastructure pages of the planning portal website:

[attachment 2].

If you do not have a legal interest in the land but would like to follow the progress of the application you can sign up for email updates on the right hand side of the page here: [attachment 3].

If you would like more advice about how the Planning Act 2008 process works please see our suite of advice notes here: [attachment 4]. Alternatively, if you have any further questions please do not hesitate to contact us.

Kaye Chambers

Enquiry regarding oral representations made at the Open Floor Hearing held on 29 July 2014
It is not possible to bring matters to the Examining Authority?s (ExA) attention outside of the examination. Should you wish to make comments to the ExA following the Open Floor Hearing on 29 July, please be advised that you can make a submission for Deadline III of 5 August, which will be then published on the project page.

Phil Jones

Mr Jones raised some concerns regarding the publication of documentation.
Thank you for your email and your comments concerning the website.

The Planning Inspectorate continually reviews our website and works to make improvements. Your feedback will be passed to the team who are responsible for administration the website for information. Please note that there is currently work underway to ensure that documents are numbered and a list continually updated as the examination progresses but unfortunately this is not available yet, and as an interim measure, we are currently working on updating the banner to assist you and other interested parties.

Regarding your specific queries I will address your comments in turn.

?Post ?Application changes folder?
Regarding the folder under application entitled 'post submission changes' I agree that this is not an ideal title. I will liaise with our website team to consider the naming of this folder. The documents within this folder were not submitted by the applicant as changes to the project but as documents in response to the s51 advice that the Planning Inspectorate issued following acceptance. Within this advice, the applicant was requested to provide larger diagrams to assist with the reading of the Environmental Statement. The folder was created to identify the documents separately, but as part of, from the original submission. A link to this folder was available in the banner prior to Deadline 2 to enable comments to be put forward for Deadline 2.

Publishing of documents
All other documents, when submitted to the examination will be found either in their document type (i.e. responses to ExA questions) or by deadline (e.g. deadline 2).

In relation to the deadline 2 submissions from the applicant, you will find the applicant's written representation in the folder of that name and any supporting/referenced information. We have endeavoured where possible to add descriptions to all documents to assist.

In relation to the responses to Examining Authority's questions, the applicant referenced these sections to correlate with to the relevant section in the questions. They also provided appendices.

Further information on which appendices link to which question/document is explained in the applicant?s ?Guide to the application?, which we will endeavour to highlight on the website: [attachment 1].

Where updated application documents have been submitted, these can currently be found in the written representation folder for this submission, this includes a Flood Risk Assessment, Construction Environmental Management Plan and Operational Management Plan. The DCO is currently within the application documents folder. We are looking, to assist with navigating the site, setting up an ?updated application document folder? and therefore this may change in the coming days. I appreciate that this is inconvenient but may assist in the longterm.

I appreciate that the way in which the website orders documents is not ideal but prior to publishing, we try where possible to provide clarity.

Referencing
In relation to referencing within documents, this is up to the interested party submitting the representation. The Planning Inspectorate is unable to check all referencing prior to publishing.

Submission of new information
Finally, you are correct that new information cannot simply be submitted to the examination; however, it is an accepted practice that documents be updated during an examination, this is often as a result of ongoing discussions with interested parties and/or addressing concerns of the examining authority. Should you feel that any information submitted constitutes a change to the application, you are advised to bring this to the Examining Authority?s attention.

Whilst I appreciate that this email will not have solved the issues that you have raised, however, I hope that the explanation is of some assistance.

Pontardawe and Swansea Angling - Phil Jones

Query relating to the concerns about new material submitted during the examination.
There are a number of ways that comments can be made to the Examining Authority about the application during the examination. This could be via the open floor hear and followed up a summary of case for the following deadline. Alternatively you could wait and submit a written representation at the next deadline which would the time to comment on the documents submitted for deadline 2.

Pontardawe and Swansea Angling S - Phil Jones

With reference to the latest letter from the PI giving details of the Preliminary Meeting.
I believe that I wrote to you giving my apologies in advance for not being able to attend the meeting.
I noticed that the PI letter gave details of all organisations present at the meeting.
Sadly however no details were given of organisations who sent their apologies. Can these details be added to the relevant correspondence?
I have requested an answer to this question previously.
How can the PI panel give a recommendation of acceptance of the Tidal Lagoon project to the relevant Secretary of State (SoS), and following on how can the SOS grant permission for the project to be accepted, when the UK Government have a Infringement Action against them from the EU, over not designating SAC sites for the Harbour Porpoises in UK waters?
In one instance specifically, the OUTER BRISTOL CHANNEL.(Read PET's letter).
Refer to letter sent with Porthcawl Environment Trust's (PET)Relevant Representation.
Surely the PI and the Secretary of State could face an action of Contempt of Court. Current legal action by the EU still ongoing.
Would someone give an answer to above questions please Ewa?
Regards
Brian Saunders. PET.
Apologies for the delay in responding to your email of 17 June 2014.

The Planning Inspectorate has a template for the taking of meeting notes for the Preliminary Meetings which are held in every examination. This template does not include the inclusion of apologies sent. Your apologies were made known to the Panel of inspectors and published on the National Infrastructure pages of the Planning Portal website [attachment 1]. Furthermore, the meeting note cannot be amended.

In relation to your question regarding the outer Bristol Channel and the concerns raised in the Porthcawl Environmental Trust?s relevant representation, this is a matter for the examination to address and therefore would be inappropriate for me to comment at this point. Any concerns that you have should be raised through your written representation which should be submitted for Deadline II of the examination by 9 July 2014.

Portcawl Environment Trust - Brian Saunders

Rhossili Working Group made a Freedom Of Information request asking the Planning Inspectorate to supply a copy of a report into harbour porpoises, referenced in the applicant's Environmental Statement.
Thank you for your email. The Planning Inspectorate has published all documents that it has received for this examination to date. As such, to my knowledge, we do not have a copy of of the Pierpoint, C. 2008a. A two year pre-construction baseline of harbour porpoise activity at Scarweather Sands Offshore Wind Farm. Report to E.ON Renewables and DONG Energy by RPS Group.

This is a document referenced in the Environmental Statement submitted by the applicant and therefore it may be possible to obtain a copy from Tidal Lagoon (Swansea Bay) Plc. Furthermore, it is my understanding that it is a publically available document and available via this link: [attachment 1];aid=2183144&fileId=S0025315408000507 subject to conditions.

Apologies that I cannot assist you further with this matter.

Carl Johnson

Mr Parry - Jones queried on behalf of Royal Mail as to their status in Development Consent Order examinations.
The Planning Inspectorate explained that Royal Mail would be identified as a "universal service provider established under the Postal Services Act 2000" and directed Mr Parry -Jones to section 1F of Advice Note 3 on the Planning Inspectorate's National Infrastructure Pages on the website for further information.

on behalf of Royal Mail - Dan Parry Jones

Mr Jones asked if the applicant's submissions prior to the Preliminary Meeting,mentioned in their lawyers letter dated 3 June 2014, had been published.
Thank you for your email. The applicant's response to the s51 advice issued by the Planning Inspectorate was discussed at the Preliminary Meeting, the Examining Authority was required to review these and make a procedural decision as to whether to accept these into the examination. The Chair at the Preliminary Meeting suggested that a decision was likely to be made in the Rule 8 letter which is sent out following the Preliminary Meeting and includes the final examination timetable.

This letter has been issued today and can be viewed on the project webpage. As a result of the decision taken, the documents received from the applicant have also now been published. The Examining Authority have also set a deadline for comments on these documents.

I hope that this clarifies the situation

Phil Jones

Mr Powell on behalf of Afan Valley Angling Club made several queries in a submission prior to the Preliminary Meeting on 10 June 2014. The full submission is published.
Thank you for your submission. It will be published along with other submissions that the Planning Inspectorate have received in relation to the Preliminary Meeting and will be put before the Examining Authority.

Your submission deals with very similar issues of those stated in the letter by Mr Phil Jones, representing Pontardawe and Swansea Angling Society Ltd. Please see the following documents: [attachment 1] and [attachment 2];ipcadvice=e2178b9d33.

The advice given to Mr Jones is relevant in this case and I therefore reiterate the main points to you here:

The preliminary meeting is held to discuss the running of the examination and not to discuss specific issues of merit which will need to be covered subsequently in writing and if relevant at hearings. At the Preliminary Meeting the Examining Authority (ExA) therefore is likely to adopt a listening rather than inquisitorial role.

An overall point would be that the 'Principal Issues' are a snapshot in time. They are written very early on in the pre-examination period. The issues identified could be argued to be applicable under a number of headings (as have been identified in your submission). They are not an exhaustive list of issues but are a vehicle to communicate to all interested parties issues which the ExA have identified to date. The examination is able to evolve and cover any issues that the ExA deem appropriate, as such the principal issues will not be revised. The ExA can probe any issue raised in the application documents and other examination documents and representations submitted.

I note your comments on the draft timetable in relation the topics identified for hearings. The reasons for identifying issues is to enable all interested parties to have some indication of when they may wish to attend hearings. This is a reflection of feedback that the Planning Inspectorate has received in previous examinations and is deemed good practice. This is not exhaustive and of course is subject to change as representations are received. At this stage, the hearings topics are provided as guidance.

Further information will be provided in the hearing notifications and again in agendas which will be published prior to the hearings. It should be noted that the Planning Act 2008 is based upon a process to follow written representations supplemented by oral hearings and therefore hearings are not required on all topics.

You queried if the applicant can submit new information during the examination for example in respect of its environmental impact assessment. There is some provision within the legislation for an applicant to submit supplementary information relating to the environmental statement during the examination period. Supplementary information may also be requested by the ExA. I would refer you to the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2010 (as amended). In practice, this enables proposals for, for example, mitigation or monitoring measures, to be agreed between parties during the course of examination. If relevant, the ExA will be able to advise on how this may be achieved within the bounds of the legislation as the examination progresses.

Afan Valley Angling Club - Lennard Powell

Mr Jones on behalf of Pontardawe and Swansea Angling Society Ltd made several queries in a submission prior to the Preliminary Meeting on 10 June 2014. The full submission is published.
Having read your submission, I thought it appropriate to email you prior to the Preliminary Meeting to give some advice under s51 of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended) in relation to some of your queries. The preliminary meeting is held to discuss the running of the examination and not to discuss specific issues of merit which will need to be covered subsequently in writing and if relevant at hearings. At the Preliminary Meeting the Examining Authority (ExA) therefore is likely to adopt a listening rather than inquisitorial role.

An overall point would be that the ?Principal Issues? are a snapshot in time. They are written very early on in the pre-examination period. The issues identified could be argued to be applicable under a number of headings (as you have identified). They are not an exhaustive list of issues but are a vehicle to communicate to all interested parties issues which the ExA have identified to date. The examination is able to evolve and cover any issues that the ExA deem appropriate, as such the principal issues will not be revised. The ExA can probe any issue raised in the application documents and other examination documents and representations submitted.

In relation to the applicant?s compliance with s56 and the inclusion of category 3 persons, s51 advice has previously been issued on this point and therefore I would refer you to that.

I note your comments on the draft timetable in relation the topics identified for hearings. The reasons for identifying issues is to enable all interested parties to have some indication of when they may wish to attend hearings. This is a reflection of feedback that the Planning Inspectorate has received in previous examinations and is deemed good practice. This is not exhaustive and of course is subject to change as representations are received. At this stage, the hearings topics are provided as guidance. Further information will be provided in the hearing notifications and again in agendas which will be published prior to the hearings. It should be noted that the Planning Act 2008 is based upon a process to follow written representations supplemented by oral hearings and therefore hearings are not required on all topics.

To provide some advice on the ability for the applicant to submit new information during the examination for example in respect of its environmental impact assessment. There is some provision within the legislation for an applicant to submit supplementary information relating to the environmental statement during the examination period if requested to do so by the ExA. I would refer you to the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2010 (as amended). In practice, this enables proposals for, for example, mitigation or monitoring measures, to be agreed between parties during the course of examination. If relevant, the ExA will be able to advise on how this may be achieved within the bounds of the legislation as the examination progresses.

Phil Jones

Mr Rayner raised several points for consideration prior to the Preliminary Meeting on 10 June 2014.
Some of the points have at his suggestion been replied to under this S51 advice. However the full content of his submission is published.
This submission, along with others that have been received by the Planning Inspectorate during this period have been published on the Tidal Lagoon Swansea Bay project page.

You raise a number of queries in your submission and I agree that a some may fall under s51 advice which can be provided by the case team rather than being considered as part of the examination. Therefore, I have aimed, where I can, to address some of your queries. Your queries will however remain part of the examination and before the Examining Authority (ExA) should they wish to respond further.

Local Issues Statements
As you note in your email, the ExA did invite Cornwall Council to the preliminary meeting, they have since declined. There is no requirement for the ExA to request Local Issue Statement and on this case, the ExA have chosen not to do so. As a result of this, I am unable to answer question number four of your email in relation to weight given to LISs as this is not relevant to the examination.

Examination Principles
I note your point in relation to the s46 notification identifying the project as having a nominal capacity of 240MW and the Scoping Opinion indicating a capacity of 250-350MW. The s46 notification is a snapshot in time and project can vary to some degree between the notification provided under s46 and submission. It will be for the examination to ensure that the Development Consent Order is drafted in a way reflect the permission sought.

Additional Statements of Common Ground (SoCG)
In relation to your request for the ExA to seek SoCGs from the European Commission and DEFRA, this is matter that I am unable to advise on, however your submission is before the ExA for their consideration.

Use of Section 106 (s174) Agreements
I can confirm your understanding that s106 agreements are to be negotiated outside the examination is correct. There is no requirement for a deadline for the submission of signed s106 agreements to be present in the timetable. Should the ExA become aware through the examination of the presence of s106 agreements, the submission of these can be scheduled. It is not the role of the ExA to prompt s106 agreements to be sought.

Alan Rayner

The Planning Inspectorate noticed that a document referred to by Usk Fishing Association as attached to their Relevant Representation had not been published as the online form did not capture it.
I am contacting you about a document you have referred to in your Relevant Representation submitted in relation to the above project, which we did not receive from you. A copy of your representation can be found through the following link: [attachment 1];relrep=164

Reference is made to an attachment, which you describe as an independent expert fisheries analysis, commissioned by Fish Legal. Unfortunately this was not visible via the internet form and therefore was not published with your Relevant Representation.

The Planning Inspectorate advise that if you wish the Examining Authority to consider the attachment, it would be helpful if this could be submitted with your Written Representation for Deadline 2 of the Examination.

You should have received a letter from the Examining Authority dated 15 May 2014 inviting you to the Preliminary Meeting. A provisional timetable for the Examination was set out in Annex D of this letter. The provisional deadline for receipt by The Planning Inspectorate of Written representations is Tuesday 8 July 2014.

If you have any further queries, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Usk Fishing Association - Harry Legge-Bourke

Query regarding 'whose responsibility is it to investigate and prosecute alleged offences under the Planning Act 2008?'
Thank you for your email of 23 May 2014.
I have looked into your question about whose responsibility it is to investigate and prosecute alleged offences under s58 of the Planning Act 2008.
The advice I have received is that it would be for the police and the Crown Prosecution Service to investigate and to prosecute offences under the Planning Act 2008 (PA 2008). I can confirm that this is not a responsibility of the Planning Inspectorate as the PA 2008 does not confer such powers.
I hope this answers your query.

Phil Jones

Query regarding the content of s58 notification and comments on application documents
Thank you for your recent email received on 13 May 2014, I will aim to address your points set out in your email.

In relation to consultation, as we have previously stated, the duty is on the applicant to identity Category 3 parties. As part of the acceptance procedure, the Secretary of State then considers whether or not the applicant has complied with its duties under the Planning Act 2008 (PA 2008), to consult the people it has identified. The Secretary of State?s role is not to manage the applicant?s consultation process or check whether the applicant has identified the correct persons for the purposes of consultation under section 42(1)(d) of the PA 2008 including those persons the applicant thinks fall within Category 3.

The applicant?s consultation report and the local authorities? adequacy of consultation report will be taken into account in coming to this decision. It was considered in this case that the consultation was of a satisfactory standard. If any discrepancies in the consultation process come to light after acceptance, the remedy is provided by s102A of the PA 2008. Any person who feels that they fall within any of the s57 categories but were not identified by the applicant prior to acceptance, have an opportunity to request, under s102A of the PA 2008 to become an interested party and therefore participate fully in the examination. Also if the Examining Authority (ExA) thinks that a person might successfully make such a request, the ExA may inform that person about this. The ExA is not however under any obligation to make enquiries in order to discover who these persons might be (s102A(4)).

We note your comments on the ?laissez faire stance having practical implications?. The Secretary of State does not have a laissez faire stance but is concerned to ensure that any alleged defects which may come to light after acceptance are rectified by the use of procedures in the PA 2008 which have been specifically included for that purpose ie s102A. The ExA will wish to ensure that the examination is conducted fairly and that no prejudice is suffered by persons who wish to make representations whether they have previously been identified by the applicant or not.

In relation to your final comment, any successful prosecution under s58 of the PA 2008 would need to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the applicant?s certificate contained a statement which the applicant knew to be false or misleading in a material particular or the applicant recklessly issued such a certificate. Such a prosecution would need considerable evidence in order to support a successful outcome. We are not aware of any such evidence in this case which would support such a prosecution.

In relation to your points on the Environmental Statement and in particular the work that you commissioned on the Salmonoid impacts, we note your comments but advise, similarly to that above, that these points be made to the ExA during the examination via written and oral representations. This will enable the ExA to, if they see fit, to ask questions and examine the issue. Should you wish the ExA to consider your report, we suggest that this forms part of your written submission. It should be noted that this correspondence submitted during the pre-examination stage has not and will not be made available to the ExA.

Phil Jones

Query regarding the ?other person? status.
Following the close of the registration period on 11 April 2014 at 11:59 pm, we at the Planning Inspectorate were no longer able to register persons as ?interested parties? for the purpose of the application. There are no statutory powers to enable us to extend the deadline.

However, we always keep late submissions and requests on file and make the names of those who made them available to the Examining Authority (ExA) who, when appointed, are able to exercise a discretion to consider views and evidence from those who did not register a relevant representation on time. This does not mean that such persons will be regarded as ?interested parties? for the purpose of the examination. Under Section 88(3) of the Planning Act 2008 and Rule 6(1) of The Infrastructure Planning (Examination Procedure) Rules 2010 (EPR) the ExA can invite such persons and any other persons they consider it to be appropriate to invite, to the preliminary meeting. Any person who is invited to the preliminary meeting in this way will also be sent, for information purposes, the Rule 8 letter, confirming the examination timetable, and any amendments to the timetable under Rule 8(3) of the EPR 2010.

There is no automatic right for other persons to make representations during the course of the examination, as they do not have the status of interested parties. If, however, they wish to make representations then they can submit written representations to the ExA to meet the deadlines set out in the Rule 8 letter or request an opportunity to speak at a hearing. Under the EPR 2010 the ExA have a discretion to allow such representations, either written or oral, to be made as part of the examination.

Also, any person, whether they have been invited to the preliminary meeting or not, may make a request to become an interested party if they meet the criteria in s102A of the 2008 Act.

Phil Jones

Query regarding late registration as an interested party.
Please see attached link.

Martin Wood

Query regarding late registration as an interested party on behalf of Colin Chapman.
Please see attached link.

Ogmore Angling Association

Query regarding late registration as an interested party.
Please see attached link.

Peter Keith-Lucas

Query regarding to a late representation.
Please see attached link.

Climate Friendly Bradford on Avon

Query regarding suggestion for combining tidal power and wind energy.
Please see attached link.

Ian Ross

Query regarding an incomplete representation.
Please see attached link.

EEF - Paul Byard

Query regarding late registration as an interested party on behalf of Wyn Jenkins.
Please see attached link.

Seren Contract Publishing

Late Representation.
Please see attached link.

Maureen Wood

Query regarding late registration as an interested party on behalf of Alan Duthie.
Please see attached link.

Pleasure Anglers and Kayakers Association

Query regarding late registration as an interested party.
Please see attached link.

Peter Foreman

Query regarding late registration as an interested party on behalf of Roger Bassett-Jones.
Please see link attached.

Business In The Community

Further information required to automatically become an interested party.
Please see attached link.

Steve Bell

Query relating to the Certificates of Compliance and Book of Reference.
Thank you for your email of 17 April 2014 with regards to your concern in relation to the certificate of compliance submitted by the applicant Tidal Lagoon (Swansea Bay) plc (TLSB). I respond to your points in turn below.

Certificates of compliance with section 56 (your points 1 and 2)
The applicant TLSB has issued its certificates of compliance in relation to the application, under s56 and s59 of the PA 2008, and under Regulation 13 of the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2009. There is no requirement on the Secretary of State (SoS) to approve these certificates. It is for the applicant to be satisfied that these comply with the statutory requirements as any liability rests on the applicant if they have committed an offence under section 58 or Regulation 14 of the EIA Regulations.
In order for a criminal offence to have been committed under s58 a person must either have issued a certificate which contains a statement which the person knows to be false or misleading in a material particular or recklessly issues a certificate which is false or misleading in a material particular.
For this reason, if a s58 certificate is issued by reference to information set out in the Book of Reference and the information included in Part 2 is in effect disputed by another person that does not necessarily mean that the person who issued the certificate has committed a criminal offence.
The adequacy of pre-application consultation was a matter for the application acceptance decision. Following your EIR request and subsequent disclosure of information, Fish Legal were able to see the application documents on which they made a representation during the acceptance period. This submission was taken into account by the Secretary of State in making his acceptance decision.

The Book of Reference (your point 3)
As you have noted, Part 2 of the Book of Reference must include any person that falls under Category 3 (as defined in s57 of the PA 2008). A person is only within Category 3 if he/she is known to the applicant after making diligent inquiry.
Due to persons moving properties and changing their address or new persons being identified during the course of the application process, it is not unusual for applicants to have to update the Book of Reference and inform the ExA of any amendments made during the examination period.
The applicant will be able to make any necessary changes to the Book of Reference and submit any amended versions of the document during the examination. The Examining Authority will also be able to ask questions of the applicant and others on this matter.

Compensation (your points 4 and 5)
With regard to claims for compensation, this is a matter dealt with outside of the DCO application process under the Planning Act 2008. The issue of compensation will arise in the event that the development consent is granted and the applicant implements the development consent order. However, the adequacy of funding to meet any likely compensation future liabilities arising from the implementation of the DCO, and any mechanisms proposed by the applicant to secure the funding, are issues which will be considered by the Examining Authority as part of the examination.
It is a matter for the applicant to consider whether in their view a person would or might be entitled to compensation within the meaning of Category 3 in the event that the order sought were to be made and fully implemented. Unless and until the development is fully implemented it may not be possible to ascertain the identities of all those persons who will or might be entitled to such compensation. Any persons not included in Part 2 of the Book of Reference will still be able to make relevant compensation claims at that time. Whether or not a person is included in Part 2 of the BoR is not determinative of any rights to compensation they may have in due course.

Environmental Statement (your point 5)
We note your comments regarding the Environmental Statement and its contents. The likely significant effects of the project, how these are reported in the Environmental Statement and proposed to be mitigated in the draft DCO are matters for the examination. These matters can be considered in written representations and during any issue specific hearings.

Failure to notify of acceptance (your points 6 and 7)
We note your comment that a number of local angling clubs appear to have missed the deadline for registering an interest in this project by making a relevant representation. We have received two representations after the close of the relevant representations period. The Examining Authority has discretion to decide whether to accept these late representations in to the examination.
Should additional persons or groups feel they would or might be entitled to make a relevant claim and they therefore fall within s57, they may make a request to become an interested party and take full part in the examination. If this is the case, we would suggest they complete the form below:
[attachment 1]
Completing this form provides the information that is needed for the Examining Authority to decide whether parties can become an interested party in the examination. All such requests will be considered by the Examining Authority.

Phil Jones

I was unable to register by Friday due to being away from my computer but would very much like to register Ogmore Angling Association?s opposition to the construction of the Swansea Bay Tidal lagoon in its proposed location.
Thank you for your email in respect of your wish to register Ogmore Angling Association to become an ?interested party? to the above project.
Following the close of the registration period on 11 April 2014 at 11:59 pm, we at the Planning Inspectorate are no longer able to register persons as ?interested parties? for the purpose of this application. The fact that you have been unable to register your interest in time is not in any way meant to suggest that you are not interested in this application. We are not able to extend the deadline and have no statutory powers that would enable us to do so.
However, we will keep your request on file and make your name available to the Examining Authority who, when appointed, would be able to exercise discretion to consider views and evidence from those who did not register a relevant representation on time. However, this does not mean that you would be regarded as an ?interested party? for the purposes of the examination.
Please note this response constitutes s51 advice and will be published on the project page for Tidal Lagoon Swansea Bay; please see the attached link: [attachment 1]
If you have any other queries, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Ogmore Angling Association - Colin Chapman

Query regarding final date and time to register as an Interested Party
advised that registration closes at 11:59pm on Friday 11 April 2014

Public Health wales - Daniel Rixon

Tidal Lagoon Power Ltd to provide information on ambitions for future tidal lagoons and programme for delivery. This programme to be related to that of Tidal Lagoon Swanse Bay's forthcoming examination, recommendation and decision stages. Discussion as to where there could be procedural efficiencies.
See attached Meeting Note

Tidal Lagoon Power Ltd Tidal Lagoon Swansea Bay plc

Meeting with Local Authorities
See attached meeting note

City & County of Swansea Council Neath Port Talbot CBC

Tidal Lagoon Power Plc copied the Planning Inspectorate into email correspondence between themselves and Natural Resources Wales (NRW).
The Planning Inspectorate (the Inspectorate) have been copied into email correspondence between Tidal Lagoon Swansea Bay Plc (TLSB) and Natural Resources Wales (NRW). Whilst the Inspectorate have previously stated (by email on 25 March 2014) that it is not the role of the Inspectorate to get involved in discussions between parties during the pre-examination stage we have decided upon the receipt of your email of 25 March 2014 that s.51 advice may assist all parties.

It is common practice for the pre-examination stage to be used to prepare for the examination by applicants discussing issues with potential interested parties to ensure an effective examination, and the Planning Inspectorate encourages this. However, it is important that any information that may have a bearing on the examination or influence a representation, should be made available to all interested parties during the examination to ensure an open, fair and transparent examination.

Particular consideration should be given to the dissemination of environmental or other information to parties during the pre-examination stage which may have implications for information included in the Environmental Statement (ES). For example, such information may be additional to that included in the ES or otherwise render the ES unable to be read as a standalone document. Any information that was relied upon in producing the ES should have been referenced in the ES.

Where any information is being disseminated to parties during the pre-examination stage, for example to clarify points, its derivation, status and purpose should be made clear. How any such information relates to the ES and other application documents should also be made clear.

It is important that a clear paper trail is available for any party wishing to understand the application and participate in the examination. Any such information should be formally submitted into the examination at the earliest possible opportunity.

Tidal Lagoon Power Plc - Michael Baker

Asked for advice relating to Compulsory Acquisition of Statutory Undertaker's land.
Further to our telephone conversation on 26 March 2014, I can provide you with the following advice on s.127 of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended) (PA 2008), which relates to the proposed compulsory acquisition of statutory undertaker's land.

In summary, s.127 would be engaged where a person has made a representation about an application which relates to land acquired by a statutory undertaker and used for the purposes of carrying out their undertaking, and the representation has not been withdrawn.

Such a representation could be made at any time before completion of the examination of an application, and could include a relevant representation to the Planning Inspectorate. As you are aware, the relevant representation period for the application made by Tidal Lagoon Swansea Bay Plc is currently open and is due to close on 11 April 2014 at 11.59pm.

There is no prescribed procedure under s.127. Where an applicant considers that s.127 is engaged they may make an application to the Secretary of State responsible for the type of statutory undertaker whose land is proposed to be acquired. Such an application could be made at any time before completion of the examination of an application.

It is possible that any detriment caused to the statutory undertaker by the proposed compulsory acquisition of their land could be mitigated. For example, by the applicant including protective provisions in the draft Development Consent Order (DCO) which are agreed with the statutory undertaker, and result in the representation triggering s.127 being withdrawn.

Therefore, in relation to you representing your client in this matter, the Planning Inspectorate advise you to continue to discuss any relevant objections your client may have with the applicant, including the potential for protective provisions to be incorporated into the draft DCO. In addition, we would advise you, on behalf of your client, to submit a relevant representation through the project webpage setting out your clients position in this regard.

Geldards LLP - Tomas Phillips

Could you please advise if the Welsh Government will be a statutory consultee for this project.
I can confirm that the Welsh Government 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 automatically. There are two ways to become an interested party:

1. Make a relevant representation during the period (not less than 28 days) set by the developer during the pre-examination stage of the process. This period is now open and is due to close on 11 April 2014. Representations can be made through the Tidal Lagoon Swansea Bay project page on the National Infrastructure pages of the Planning Portal website: [attachment 1]. Anyone who registers with the Planning Inspectorate and makes a relevant representation about the application becomes an interested party in the application. I would strongly encourage this, as this enables the Welsh Government?s views on the application to be taken into account by the Examining Authority at the earliest stage.

2. If a Statutory Consultee does not make a relevant representation, they 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) but not before.

Welsh Government - Sharon Davies

Submission of representation during acceptance period
Please see attached letter

Fish Legal - Andrew Kenton

Tidal Lagoon Swansea Bay documents submitted for acceptance.
Please see attached advice issued at acceptance

Tidal Lagoon Swansea Bay plc - Alex Herbert

Query regarding the opening of relevant representations
Thank you for your email. As you will be aware, the Secretary of State (SoS) is due to make a decision on whether the accept the application made by Tidal Lagoon Swansea Bay (TLSB) by 7 March 2014. Therefore, I provide the following advice without making any judgment on that decision.

In relation to the duty upon an applicant under section 56 of the Planning Act 2008 (PA 2008) to notify persons of an accepted application, I can confirm the following. s.56(5) of the PA 2008 requires that the deadline by which persons can make representations must not be earlier than the end of the period of 28 days that begins with the day after the day on which the person receives the notice.

In addition, publicising an accepted application under Regulation 9 of the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009 (APFP Regs.) requires, amongst other things, an applicant to publicise acceptance in accordance with Regulation 4(2)(a) to (d) of the APFP Regs. The deadline for receipt by the SoS of relevant representations must not be less than 28 days following the day that the notice is last published (Reg. 9(4)(j)).

Therefore, both these pieces of legislation need to be considered prior to notifying persons of and advertising the start and end of the relevant representation period.

As a result of the legislation, depending on when TLSB sends out the s.56(2) notices, 10 March probably will be (but may not be) the start of the period for making relevant representations. In practice, given that the notices are unlikely to be sent out before 10 March, and in view of the s.56(5) deadline, persons will probably receive these after publication of the first newspaper notices.

TLSB may not send out the s.56(2) notices, place the newspaper notices or put up the site notices at the same time. As noted above, the deadline under s.56(2) is anyway related to when these notices are received rather than sent. However, it would be advisable for TLSB to specify the same deadline by which representations need to be made in each of these (i.e. in the s.56(2) notices, newspaper notices and site notices).

Furthermore, to assist in preparing for examination, where an application is accepted, s.51 advice is often provided. The content of this, may influence your view on when to notify persons of and publicise the period for making relevant representations or how long to make that period.

After considering the advice set out above, it would be very helpful for you to confirm to the Planning Inspectorate, should the application be accepted, the dates between which, you would wish the relevant representation form to be available on the National Infrastructure Pages on the Planning Portal. Further advice on the pre-application period will be provided should the application be accepted.

TLSB - Alex Herbert

At what stage is the project and how to submit a represenation to the Planning Insectorate.
The application is currently at acceptance stage. The opportunity for persons to register to become an 'interested party' will not arise until the application has been accepted by the Planning Inspectorate. If the application is accepted to be examined, the developer will be required to advertise in local and national press the period within which anybody will be able to make a 'relevant representation' and register to become an interested party. Notification of this period will also appear on the Planning Inspectorate's project webpage, here [attachment 1]

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

Ian Whisby

Query about making representations during acceptance
We note the statements in your email that "lack of access to these documents is hampering my ability to make representations to you about whether or not the application should be accepted for examination" and "you will frustrate my attempt to make meaningful representations to you before you take your acceptance decision".

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

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

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

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

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

Phil Jones

Update provided on submission of application
The Applicant informed the Planning Inspectorate (PINS) by email on 15 January 2014 that a small area of land over a high pressure gas pipeline was due to be removed from the application boundary.

The Applicant clarified via email on 3 February 2014 that they intend to identify on their Land Plans the area of land which will be omitted from the Development Consent Order (DCO) application, but do not intend to update the red line boundary of the remaining application documents, including the Environmental Statement (ES).

PINS advises that that the ES should include a clear statement, accompanied by a plan of the omitted land, which explains the differences between plans within the ES and the relevant Land Plan. This statement should also clarify how the change to the site boundary affects the assessment of impacts presented within ES.

Alex Herbert

Advice provided following the meeting of 24 October 2013.
Further to advice provided at the meeting of 24 October 2013, and following informal consultation that has been carried out as a result, the Planning Inspectorate (the Inspectorate) has been copied into responses from some parties.

Such exchanges of correspondence take place regularly throughout the pre-application stage, and the Inspectorate is often copied into these. The Inspectorate finds this helpful in keeping us appraised of matters, and enabling advice to be provided to assist all parties in preparing for the submission of an application. The Inspectorate does not intend to make any substantive response to the content of these letters because these are, at this stage matters for the parties concerned and this correspondence was not addressed directly to us, but rather we were copied into it.

The Inspectorate would like to reiterate advice previously provided under s.51 of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008). Any matters that have been raised through consultation, be it statutory or non-statutory consultation, and have or have not resulted in alterations in the application or application documents, should be explained in the consultation report.

Under s.55 of the PA2008, the Secretary of State may only accept an application if he is satisfied that the applicant has complied with the pre-application procedure set out in Chapter 2 of Part 5. This procedure includes an applicant's duty to take account of responses to consultation and publicity under s.49. This is best articulated through providing evidence of the iterative consultation activities which have taken place throughout the pre-application stage.

With regards the Environmental Impact Assessment, we would note that where matters have been scoped out or statutory consultee responses not followed the reasons for doing so must be adequately explained and justified in the Environmental Statement, which should be a standalone document.

A further point to note is that under Regulation 5(5) of the Infrastructure Planning (Application:Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009, the Inspectorate can, on behalf of the Secretary of State, request copies of all responses to statutory consultation and publicity. In view of this power, applicants should be ready to provide copies of these at short notice, preferably in both hard and electronic form, in the event of such a request.

Alex Herbert

Project update meeting with Tidal Lagoon Swansea Bay Ltd. Please see attached meeting note.

Tidal Lagoon Swansea Bay Ltd - Alex Herbert

Comments on the Draft Habitat Regulations Assessment Screening Report (July 2013)
Please see the attached note

Alex Herbert

Meeting held to provide a progress update and discussion of draft documents
Please see the attached meeting note

Alex Herbert

Asked how to register as an Interested Party
Unfortunately it is not possible to register The Swansea Bay Port Health Authority as an interested party prior to the application being submitted. In order to gain Interested Party status you will need to submit a 'relevant representation' within a period of at least 28 days that will follow shortly after the acceptance of the application (if the application is accepted for examination).

The opening of the relevant representations period would be publicised by the applicant via a s56 notice, which would be a notice placed in one or more local newspapers and in a national newspaper. Obviously it cannot be guaranteed that you would have sight of one of these notices, and so I would suggest that you track the application via the relevant project page on our website (at the link below).

[attachment 1]

On this page we will notify of the submission of the application, and any important dates going forward, including the acceptance of the application and the opening of the relevant representations period. When the relevant representations period opens a form will be made available on the website that you will need to complete in order to submit a representation and register as an Interested Party.

Bill Arnold

Requested advice as to whether the Swansea Bay Port Health Authority was a prescribed consultee for the proposed Tidal Lagoon - Swansea Bay development.
The Planning Inspectorate (PINS) have considered whether The Swansea Bay Port Health Authority is a statutory undertaker against the relevant statutory provisions, and the criteria set out in PINS Advice Note 3: EIA Consultation and Notification. Section 42 of the Planning Act 2008 (the 2008 Act) and Schedule 1 of The Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009 (as amended) (the APFP Regulations) are the relevant statutory provisions in determining prescribed consultees.

The only potential category on the Schedule 1 list where a port health authority could potentially fall is that of a relevant statutory undertaker. For the purposes of the APFP Regulations ?statutory undertaker? has the same meaning as in s.127 of the 2008 Act which defines statutory undertakers as having the meaning given by s.8 of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 (?the ALA?).

Our understanding is that port health authorities are not prescribed statutory undertakers under s.8 or s.16 of the ALA. So far as we are aware they are not deemed to be statutory undertakers for the purposes of the ALA, and they are not one of the bodies which the Secretary of State (SoS) will treat as statutory undertakers within the dock/harbour sector because they do not have responsibility for national or regional public networks/infrastructure.

We do not think therefore that The Swansea Bay Port Health Authority can be classed as a prescribed consultee. Ultimately, this will not prevent the Authority from being involved in the examination of this proposed development should an application be submitted to, and accepted for examination by the SoS. Following acceptance of an application, a body can register to become an 'interested party' to the application and will have the opportunity to submit representations, and participate in any hearings that take place.

Bill Arnold

Project update meeting. To review draft documents, agree next steps and identify opportunities to align consents and licensing processes
Please see the attached meeting note

Tidal Lagoon Swansea Bay Ltd - Alex Herbert

Please let me know the current status of the above scheme's application.

I am very interested in its potential to combat global warming, to bring jobs to the area, and, of course, in the prospect of suitable investment opportunities.
Dear David,
thank you for your email dated 9 April - I have the following information for you which I trust will be of use:

An application for a Development Consent Order is expected to be made to the Planning Inspectorate in Quarter 3 of 2013 by the applicant Tidal Lagoon Swansea Bay Ltd.

Currently, the applicant is undertaking its statutory pre-application consultation exercises, prescribed by the Planning Act 2008. The applicant anticipates beginning its consultation with the local community in May, with consultation events running through June and July of this year.

As part of this pre-application consultation process, you will have an opportunity to submit your views to the applicant. Once this pre-application consultation has concluded, the applicant will submit its application to the Planning Inspectorate for examination.

If the application is accepted for examination, you will have a further opportunity to submit your views to the Planning Inspectorate and register as an Interested Party. This will allow you full participation within the statutory 6-month examination before a recommendation is made to the relevant Secretary of State.

I have included links to our website which I'm sure will prove useful in helping you understand the consenting regime for Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects and how to put forward your views:
How the process works: [attachment 1]

Responding to the applicant's pre-application consultation process: [attachment 1]

I have also provided a link to the website of the applicant Tidal Lagoon Swansea Bay Ltd, where you will find more specific information relating to upcoming consultation exercises. Until an application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, the applicant is best equipped to deal with any queries in relation to its proposal and can no doubt confirm the date, time and place of its proposed consultation events:

Tidal Lagoon Swansea Bay Ltd's Website: [attachment 3]

We are, however, more than happy to answer any queries you may have on the consenting process in the meantime.

David Bexton

Environment Agency Wales queried whether the changes to the scheme that have been made since their scoping response had been submitted, would place an obligation on the developer to revise their scoping report so that key environmental organisations within Wales such as EAW and the Countryside Council for Wales, could offer an updated comment on any amended scheme.
We note your comments that discussions with representatives of Tidal Lagoon Swansea Ltd are ongoing, and the concerns raised in your correspondence that the advice previously issued by EAW and CCW at the scoping stage could become irrelevant if the scheme were to change substantially from that which was submitted with a request for a scoping opinion in October 2012.

It is acknowledged that the EIA process is iterative, and therefore the proposals may change and evolve throughout the EIA process, for example, in response to the outcomes of the environmental assessment or consultation.

The Scoping Process

It should be noted that whilst there is no mandatory requirement for the Applicant to request another Scoping Opinion, should the scheme change substantially, prior to submission of the DCO application, from that which was considered in the preparation of a Scoping Opinion the Applicant may wish to consider the benefits of requesting a new Scoping Opinion from the SoS.

Consultation at the Pre-application stage

EAW may wish to note that the Applicant is yet to carry out formal consultation with prescribed consultees under Section 42 of the Planning Act, and as such there will be another formal opportunity for EAW and CCW to submit comments at the pre-application stage. It should also be noted that under the Planning Act the applicant has a duty to take account of responses to this formal consultation.

PINS encourage collaboration between all parties to support the resolution of issues at the pre-application stage. Where the scheme changes, the Applicant is encouraged to liaise with consultees to ensure that the scope of the EIA remains appropriate and that the main environmental effects of the scheme are fully assessed and where possible avoided or that appropriate mitigation is prescribed. It is in the Applicant?s interest to agree the scope and approach to assessment, along with the findings and mitigation with the relevant consultees in order to minimise areas of disagreement prior to submission of an application for a DCO. This is because there is limited scope to amend the DCO once an application has been submitted.

Whilst PINS welcomes and encourages regular dialogue between applicants and prescribed consultees, PINS recognises the resource requirements that this may place on consultees. The Applicant may wish to consider the benefit of agreeing a programme for consultation with the key consultees. This may incorporate key milestones in the preparation of the scheme, evidence requirements and timescales for responding to consultation during the pre-application process. This is in the interests of both the applicant and the statutory consultees and should facilitate the best use of resources and focussed and effective consultation that could minimise the risk of abortive work.

This advice will be forwarded to the Applicant along with the correspondence received from EAW.

Environment Agency Wales - David Watkins

Inazin to brief the IPC on details of the proposed Swansea Bay Tidal Lagoon (SBTL) with discussion of the application process for Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIPs).
Please see attached meeting note.

Inazin (Formerly Low Carbon Developers)