Wylfa Newydd Nuclear Power Station

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

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

Preview
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
What is the process for considering the aggregate impact of non material change requests that may, in aggregate, become material?

Many thanks
Jonathan
Dear Mr Dean

Thank you for your email.

In relation to your query, there is no legal definition of ‘material’ but the tests to apply are whether the change is substantial or whether the development now being proposed is not in substance that which was originally applied for. The former constitutes a material change which – provided there is sufficient time remaining in the Examination stage - can be accommodated as part of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) process. The latter constitutes a different project for which a new application would be required.

Whether a proposed change falls within either of these categories is a question of planning judgment which may be based on criteria including, for example, whether the change would generate a new or different likely significant environmental effect(s). Similarly, whether (and if so the extent to which) a change request involves an extension to the Order land, particularly where this would require additional Compulsory Acquisition powers eg for new plots of land and/ or interests. Further information about making a material change request can be found in paragraphs 109 to 115 of the Examination Guidance.

[attachment 1]

The submission of new or revised information before the Examination starts or during the Examination does not necessarily constitute a request to materially change an application. For example, following a decision to accept an application for examination, applicants are often issued with advice by the Planning Inspectorate which may identify errors, omissions and qualitative issues relating to the submitted application documentation. In response applicants may submit errata, amended application documents, plans or environmental information. During the course of the Examination the Examining Authority (ExA) may also request further information or written comments from an applicant or any Interested Party; new information may also be provided in response to an ExA’s written questions. Changes to the application documents may not necessarily result in changes to the underlying project.

The ExA is ultimately responsible for deciding whether new information submitted into the Examination by an applicant constitutes a material change to the application.

Further information about change requests can be found in the Inspectorate’s Advice Note Sixteen: How to request a change which may be material

14 November 2018
Jonathan Dean
There is an Ofgem publication that says the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy is the decision maker only for projects in England.
As the North Wales Connection and Wylfa Newydd applications fall under section 14 of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended) jurisdiction to determine the applications lies with the Secretary of State for Business Energy and Industrial Strategy.

18 June 2018
Jonathan Dean
Can I ask about how the decision will be made for both these projects (Wylfa Newydd and North Wales Connection). As both are essentially components of a single programme, will the decisions be made simultaneously as one is pointless without the other? Which SoS will (the decision maker) be? Wales or BEIS?
The Planning Inspectorate will examine the applications separately and make its recommendations to the Secretary of State within the statutory timeframes. While the Secretary of State has three months in which to determine the projects ultimately it will be for him to decide when to issue his decisions for each project. The recommendation reports will be sent to the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy.

31 May 2018
Jonathan Dean
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Nodyn Cyfarfod - 17 Mai 2018 / Meeting Note - 17 May 2018

17 May 2018
Horizon Nuclear Power - anon.
Enquiry received via email
Please can I inquire about the application of the Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy (EN-1). Section 4.6 concerns combined heat and power, and in particular section 4.6.6 notes ...

"any application to develop a thermal generating station under Section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 must either include CHP or contain evidence that the possibilities for CHP have been fully explored to inform the IPC’s consideration of the application. This should be through an audit trail of dialogue between the applicant and prospective customers."
Can I also share an extract from recent correspondence with the Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy ...

" ... explore the idea of using waste heat from the power station. This is because this waste heat will be of sufficient temperature ... and it can be piped a considerable distance from the power station to the surrounding environment."
Can you confirm that examination of the above referenced audit train will form part of the DCO examination?
We confirm that the Examining Authority will assess the application against the policy requirements in EN-1 and EN-6 and any other polices that the Examining Authority considers to be relevant.

11 May 2018
Jonathan Dean
Enquiry received via email
I should like to register as an interested Party in the present planning application for the Wylfa power station. My principal interest is as Project Director for the current EU funded Acclimatize project and I wish to assess the extent to which the Wylfa development could impact on the sustainability of present water quality modelling being used to provide real-time forecasts of bathing water quality at Cemaes Bay bathing water. We are in receipt of Welsh European Funding Office support to produce the models for this site. Could you please forward relevant forms so I can register.
The proposed DCO Application for the Wylfa Newydd Development has not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate.

Upon receipt of a DCO Application, the Planning Inspectorate has 28 days to assess whether an Application can be accepted for Examination. When the Planning Inspectorate accepts an Application for Examination, it is the Applicant’s duty to advertise the Relevant Representation period and provide details about how to register to become an Interested Party. The Relevant Representation period is the time you have to register to become an Interested Party and this is when the form will be made available on the Wylfa project page of our website.

The publicity notice will tell you when the deadline is however you can also find out about the registration period via Twitter or email alert if you have signed up for this service on the Wylfa project page of our website.

09 May 2018
David Kay
Enquiry received via email
On behalf of Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board I am seeking advice on how to register as an interested party for the Inspection of the DCO submission to be made by HNP imminently.

I have accessed your web site but cannot find the online portal to register, could you please advise.
The proposed DCO Application for the Wylfa Newydd Development has not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate.

Upon receipt of a DCO Application, the Planning Inspectorate has 28 days to assess whether an Application can be accepted for Examination. When the Planning Inspectorate accepts an Application for Examination, it is the Applicant’s duty to advertise the Relevant Representation period and provide details about how to register to become an Interested Party. The Relevant Representation period is the time you have to register to become an Interested Party and this is when the form will be made available on the Wylfa project page of our website.

The publicity notice will tell you when the deadline is however you can also find out about the registration period via Twitter or email alert if you have signed up for this service on the Wylfa project page of our website.

11 April 2018
Wyn Thomas
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Nodyn Cyfarfod - 19 Mawrth 2018 / Meeting Note - 19 March 2018

19 March 2018
Isle of Anglesey County Council - anon.
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
See attached letter
Thank you for your letter, copied to us on 16 February 2018. As the project has not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate (the Inspectorate), we have no formal powers to intervene on consultees behalf. I note that you have sent this to the developer and they have a statutory duty to take your views into account. However, if you feel your comments are not being taken into account, I would advise you to write to your local authority. Your comments should be taken into account when the local authority sends the Inspectorate its comments on whether the Applicant has fulfilled its consultation duties. The local authority’s comments on the Applicant’s consultation will be taken into account when the Acceptance Inspector makes their decision whether to accept the application for Examination.

When deciding whether to accept an application we will check whether the Applicant’s section 48 notice complies with the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009. Your concerns regarding Tre’rGof SSSI and retention of hardstanding on the coast are matters which, if the application is accepted, may be examined by the Examining Authority.

A copy of your correspondence has been placed on our records and will be presented to the Inspector at Acceptance, together with the application documents and local authorities’ comments on the Applicant’s consultation.

After the decision has been made regarding whether to accept the application for Examination all documents used to inform the decision will be published on our website. If the application for development consent is formally accepted you will be able to submit your views in relation to the project which will be considered by the Examining Authority during the Examination. The Inspectorate has published a series of advice notes which explain the Examination process, including information on how to get involved; of particular interest are advice notes 8.1 to 8.5. These are available at: [attachment 1]

We have also published a Frequently Asked Questions document regarding Pre-application consultation and this can be viewed on our website here: [attachment 2].

08 March 2018
J Chanay
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Nodyn Cyfarfod - 8 Chwefror 2018 / Meeting Note - 8 February 2018

08 February 2018
Horizon Nuclear Power - anon.
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Nodyn Cyfarfod - 1 Chwefror 2018 / Meeting Note - 1 February 2018

01 February 2018
Isle of Anglesey County Council - anon.
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Nodyn Cyfarfod - 11 Ionawr 2018 / Meeting Note - 11 January 2018

11 January 2018
Natural Resources Wales - anon.
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Nodyn Cyfarfod - 10 Ionawr 2018 / Meeting Note - 10 January 2018

10 January 2018
Horizon Nuclear Energy - David Palmer
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Nodyn Cyfarfod - 29 Tachwedd 2017 / Meeting Note - 29 November 2017

29 November 2017
Horizon Nuclear Energy - David Palmer
Enquiry received via post
response has attachments
Please see attached letter from the North Wales Wildlife Trust, dated 24 October 2017
Please see the attached letter from the Planning inspectorate, dated 23 November 2017

23 November 2017
North Wales Wildlife Trust
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update and draft documents review meeting
Please see attached meeting note

03 October 2017
Horizon Nuclear Power
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Cyfarfod Diweddaru Prosiectau
Gweler y nodyn cyfarfod sydd ynghlwm

03 October 2017
Horizon Nuclear Power
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Nodyn Cyfarfod - 26 Medi 2017/ Meeting Note - 26 September 2017

26 September 2017
Cyngor Sir Ynys Môn/ Isle of Anglesey C Council - anon.
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Meeting between the Planning Inspectorate and Natural Resources Wales to discuss the Wylfa Newydd Generating Station project
Please see attached meeting note

21 September 2017
Natural Resources Wales - Henry Aron
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Has the Inspectorate, at any time to date, advised the Developer to consider any potential for transboundary impacts of the Developers’ proposal for the construction and operation of a new nuclear power station (Wylfa Newydd) on Anglesey? Please identify as well justification and reasoning.
I can confirm that the Planning Inspectorate has discussed transboundary impacts with Horizon Nuclear Power on a number of occasions. In particular, please see the note of a meeting held specifically to discuss their approach to transboundary consultation, which is available here: [attachment 1].

I have also provided below a number of links to further meeting notes where transboundary issues have been discussed.
• [attachment 2]
• [attachment 3]
• [attachment 4]
• [attachment 5]
• [attachment 6]
• [attachment 7]
• [attachment 1]

In addition to meetings, transboundary impacts are considered within the EIA Scoping Opinion’s produced by the Planning Inspectorate on behalf of the Secretary of State. These are available on our website at the following links:
• April 2016 [attachment 9]
• June 2017 [attachment 10] .

07 August 2017
J Chanay
Enquiry received via email
I am writing to seek clarification regarding the environmental impact assessment (EIA) in respect of the examination of the application for an order granting development consent for a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP) for the Wylfa Newydd project. I seek clarification specifically in reference to paragraph 3.26 of the Scoping Opinion.

As you will be aware, NRW is considering applying an exception to the requirement for it to carry out EIA in respect of a marine licence application for marine works associated with the proposed Wyfla Newydd project pursuant to regulation 10(1)(b) of the Marine Works (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2007 (the 2007 Regulations). In order to apply regulation 10(1)(b) of the 2007 Regulations, NRW has to be satisfied that the assessment of any effects on the environment of the project in question has already been, is being or is to be carried out by another consenting authority; and, that such assessment is (or will be) sufficient to meet the requirements of the EIA Directive in relation to that project.

Therefore, please can PINs confirm that the examination of the DCO application will consider whether the applicant’s Environmental Statement adequately assesses the likely significant effects of the development on the environment from the project as a whole, and not just those activities that would be authorised by the DCO?

We are aware that it is the role of the marine licensing process to identify and secure any appropriate mitigation for marine works, and are only seeking clarification on the consideration of the assessment of potential environmental effects.
Your letter requests confirmation from the Planning Inspectorate with regards to
matters in respect of the examination process. As previously advised, the Planning
Inspectorate confirms that it will be for the Examining Authority to decide how to
examine the application (Section 87(1) of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended));
however, this must be done in accordance with relevant legislation and policy. As I am
sure you will appreciate, the decision to apply the exception in accordance with
Regulation 10(1)(b) of the 2007 Regulations is a matter for NRW.

Paragraph 3.26 of the Secretary of State’s Scoping Opinion (June 2017) is consistent
with the responsibilities of the Secretary of State for projects located within Wales.
These responsibilities do not extend to consenting licensed marine works, which are
the responsibility of NRW. The Planning Inspectorate can confirm that ES adequacy
and the examination of environmental information will be undertaken by the
Examining Authority. The examination will be primarily concerned with the works that
the DCO, if granted, would authorise.

04 August 2017
Natural Resources Wales - Adam Cooper
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Good afternoon, I would note from the minutes of the June 2017 meeting you are the case officer for PINS for the Wylfa Newydd NSIP Case. Please find attached the response from National Trust to Pre application 3 for the project, in which National Trust expresses concern about the nature of pre application taken forward by Horizon, and the timeline currently being proposed for submission of the Development Consent Order. A2.1 in our response to PAC3 makes reference to PINS Guidance on Effective Pre application advice. We would wish to discuss this matter further.

Could you confirm acknowledgement of this communication and also confirm a contact at PINS for the project if this is possible at this stage.

We met previously with PINS to discuss matters of interest between National Trust and PINS in relation to NSIP Projects, and we were encouraged to provide copies of pre application commentary, hence my email.
Please see attached

28 July 2017
Ymddiriedolaeth Genedlaethol / National Trust - John Pearson
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached meeting note

26 July 2017
Horizon Nuclear Power
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Observations on
Wylfa Newydd DCO PAC 3, Exhibition Events and Consultation Bus, May/June 2017


1. Potentially material flaws in the Public Notice published 19.05.2017

1.1.1 Horizon Nuclear Power and Hitachi Limited published a Public Notice in The Guardian newspaper on 19th May 2017, regarding their Proposed Application for a Development Consent Order (DCO) for Wylfa Newydd. The Notice stated, in numbered paragraph 3, an intention to submit a DCO Application for a new nuclear power station on Anglesey in the third quarter of 2017. Hitachi intend to install two newly modified UK Advanced Boiling Water Reactor (UK ABWR) design nuclear reactors at Wylfa. It would be the first ever deployment of this reactor design in the UK.

1.1.2 Potentially material flaws may exist in that Public Notice. Six notable flaws are explored below, under numbered subsections and relevant headings.


1.2 Interim storage buildings for radioactive waste and spent fuel

1.2.1 In the first instance, at numbered paragraph 4(a)(ii)(A) of the Public Notice, Horizon-Hitachi have indiscriminately lumped together materially discrete elements of the buildings (purposed with distinctly differing functions) proposed for the storage of nuclear waste at the Wylfa Newydd site.

a. Indecipherable amalgamation of discrete elements in a Public Notice has the effect of obscuring matters of significant public interest, which should otherwise be readily identifiable by the wider public. The Applicants propose the construction of essentially two different types of nuclear waste storage buildings, for distinctly different purposes. In the interest of convenience, the following extracts summarise chapter B14 in PAC 2 Preliminary Environmental Information (dated August 2016).

(i) A primary radioactive waste building, located in or adjacent to the main reactor island, which would be designed to house:

? buffer storage tanks, plus packaging facility for wet-solid Intermediate Level Waste (ILW: Table B14.3);

? spent fuel pool for dry solid High Level Waste (HLW: Table B14.4), and for the spent fuel assemblies periodically discharged from each reactor (Table B14.5);

? facility for packaging HLW into stainless steel canisters, after cooling for 10 years (Table B14.4); and,

? facility for packaging spent fuel assemblies into spent fuel casks, after cooling for 10 years (Table B14.5).

The radioactive waste building would be constructed at the same time as the main reactor island. The radioactive waste building would be emptied following permanent reactor shutdown at the end of planned 60-year reactor operating life span, and decommissioned alongside the twin reactors within 20 years of end of electricity generation by Wylfa Newydd (paragraph B14.70).

(ii) Separately, possibly two interim waste storage buildings, located elsewhere on the Wylfa Newydd site, which would be designed to house:

? ILW storage facility, to receive and hold packaged ILW (Table B14.3);

? HLW decay storage facility, to receive and hold HLW steel canisters (Table B14.4); and,

? spent fuel storage facility, to receive and hold spent fuel casks (Table B14.5).

The construction of interim waste storage buildings would commence after the reactors have started operating, and are expected to become available for use within 5 to 10 years of the twin UK ABWRs starting up at Wylfa Newydd. The interim waste storage buildings would be designed accommodate the entire lifetime inventories of packaged radioactive wastes. The buildings would be designed to be safely operated and maintained for appropriate management of the accumulated radioactive waste and spent fuel inventories for an interim period, while awaiting final removal to a geological disposal facility elsewhere (as and when available). The Applicants envisage interim storage for a further period of up to 140 years, following the end of electricity generation by Wylfa Newydd, until a geological disposal facility becomes available and ready to accept the accumulated radioactive waste inventories. The interim waste storage buildings would be decommissioned only when eventually emptied, in around two centuries’ time.

b. Plainly, on the face of it, lack of clarity on materially discrete significant development elements in a Public Notice risks confusing and misleading the wider public. Clarity and transparency should be paramount in a Public Notice, not something deducible only by the reasonably informed or upon reading through highly complex supporting documents.

c. Considering the circumstance and context in this instance, confusing or misleading information is arguably capable of rendering the Public Notice flawed.

1.2.2 In the second instance, there arises a question over inclusion of interim waste storage facilities in the proposed DCO Application.

a. Given the obvious direct and intimate connection with the main reactor island NSIP, it is plain why the radioactive waste building (paragraph 1.2.1(a)(i) hereof, referring) could be treated as part of a generating station NSIP, and could therefore be included in the proposed DCO Application.

b. However, Horizon-Hitachi would not appear to have identified (in the supporting documents) direct instruction in Government policy, or express requirement under relevant statutory measure, commanding the inclusion of interim waste storage buildings/facilities (paragraph 1.2.1(a)(ii) hereof, referring) in a DCO Application for a nationally significant electricity generating project, the location of facilities in question not withstanding (whether on- or off-site).


1.3 Marine works (cooling water system, marine off-loading facility and breakwater structures)

Numbered paragraph 4(a)(ii)(C) in the Public Notice states categorically that Horizon-Hitachi intend to seek consents for marine works under a DCO. The assertion is repeated at paragraph 1.6.5 in the PAC 3 Main Consultation Document (dated May 2017).

a. On the face of it, the Notice risks misleading the public as to appropriate consents jurisdiction for the marine components. All proposed marine works, including a marine off-loading facility (MOLF), would be situated in tidal waters, demarcated on the landward side by the Mean High Water Spring Tides.

b. Moreover, it is confounding to discover the Applicants’ submission on page 14 of the Overview Document in contradiction of the Public Notice. Namely, these works require separate marine licences from Natural Resources Wales.

c. Apparent failure to distinguish appropriate jurisdictions gives rise to manifest confusion in the public mind and, as such, is capable of rendering the Public Notice flawed.


1.4 Environmental Statement

In numbered paragraph 7, the Public Notice admits environmental impact assessments have still not been completed.

a. Consequently, even at PAC Stage 3, the public are left uninformed as to the full implication of all significant environmental effects, not withstanding Notice paragraph 8 regarding the Preliminary Environmental Information (published during PAC Stage 2).

b. It flouts the fairness principle for it to be acceptable for Horizon-Hitachi to magic final environmental impact assessment reports at the last minute (say, at the time of its formal DCO Application). And, it affronts legitimate public interest expectation. These assessments ought to be fully available amply in advance of a DCO Application. Otherwise, the public are deliberately denied sufficiency of time for proper consideration of complex assessments, at the same time as labouring under the constraints of DCO Examination time limits. While doubtless to the advantage of the Applicants, a drip-drip tactic comprises manifest disservice to the public.

c. In essence, paragraph 7 constitutes little more than a promissory note. It fails to confirm contemporary availability of the environmental statement. At the very least, such failure renders the Public Notice premature. And, may be said capable of tainting the Notice as potentially flawed.


1.5 Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and the designated North Anglesey Heritage Coast: the shoreline at Porth-y-pistyll

Horizon-Hitachi remain conspicuously silent in the Public Notice on direct physical damage, under the proposed DCO Application, to the shoreline sections of the AONB and the associated Heritage Coast designation at Porth-y-pistyll.

a. Given public sensitivity on such impacts, it is puzzling Horizon-Hitachi could not countenance bringing this expressly to public attention in their Public Notice.

b. By virtue of salient omission, the Public Notice may be rendered materially flawed.


1.6 Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI): Tre’r Gof

Horizon-Hitachi have also omitted from the Public Notice reference to risk of long term deterioration, and even complete loss, of the Tre’r Gof SSSI as a result of residual impact of the proposed DCO Application.

a. Information on this potential outcome lies buried in a pithy sentence on page 107 of the Stage 3 Main Consultation Document.

b. Such explicit omission of potentially severe direct risk to the integrity and sustainability of a protected site may be capable of rendering the Public Notice materially flawed.


2. Other deficiency

2.1 Stage 3 Exhibition Events: location, duration and content

2.1.1 There were no events arranged in towns and villages beyond North West Wales, despite numerous invocations of North Wales as a whole in the Overview Document (pages 7, 20, 21, 35, 36 and 39, referring). Horizon-Hitachi restricted all six venues to Anglesey (albeit, appearing twice in Cemaes). Even so, on the day of each event, additional publicity sign posts within reasonable vicinity of the venue were nowhere to be seen, to catch the public’s attention.

2.1.2 With the seven one off events lasting six hours each, is it any wonder Horizon-Hitachi’s enthusiasm for venturing into wide public spaces should seemingly resemble a fly-by-night sales pitch? The Applicants failed yet again to arrange prolonged displays of exhibition panels in prominent public places, in all the principal towns and villages across North Wales, presenting the full scope of information highlighted at paragraph 1.4 in the previous Comment (submitted in response to PAC 2 Community Exhibition Events, dated 13.10.2016).

Having attended one PAC 3 Exhibition Event, Horizon-Hitachi’s Events further warrant inclusion of the following additional display boards, presenting clear information on:

• radioactive waste production, storage packages, storage structures, on-site storage duration, storage risk, and the history of Wales/UK search for a final geological disposal facility;

• major nuclear incident emergency preparedness measures; seasonal wind directions and speeds; and, marine currents around Anglesey and the North Wales coast;

• truncation of an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and the North Anglesey Heritage Coast at Porth-y-pistyll; and,

• the precarious status of the Tre’r Gof Site of Special Scientific Interest, at Wylfa Head on Anglesey.

2.1.3 Anyone visiting the PAC 3 Exhibition Events would have witnessed excessively narrow selective information on large display boards, table maps and schematic landscape graphics on proposed alterations to roadways, the proposed workforce campus, site layout, and the like; as well as a 3-D bird’s eye view flight animation over the A5025 alterations, the proposed Nuclear Power Station layout, and the Wylfa Newydd Development Site.

Horizon-Hitachi did not display any large information boards for the visiting public, showing:

• the sections of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and the North Anglesey Heritage Coast impacted directly by the proposed marine off-loading facility at Porth-y-pistyll;

• modelled degradation states of the Tre’r Gof Site of Special Scientific Interest at Wylfa Head;

• site/area seismology, incidence history, event projections, and outcomes/implications;

• historical extreme weather events at the site, and outcomes;

• extreme weather event projections modelled for the site between the years 2025 and 2225 (based on a 60-year reactor life span, followed by a 140-year on-site radioactive waste storage period), and implications;

• meteorological and marine currents charts modelling footprints of radiation plumes in the event of serious breach in reactor containment, or serious incident in the interim storage facilities for the accumulated inventories of high level radioactive waste and spent fuel discharged from the twin reactors;

• emergency preparedness and public protection measures in the event of serious nuclear incident at Wylfa Newydd;

• indicative site appearance at various stages of reactor decommissioning;

• post construction photomontages of Porth-y-pistyll viewed from the sea; the site viewed from the Porth-y-pistyll coastal footpath; views from Tre’r Gof site; and the like;

• the identity of lead investor and status of any co-investors in the Wylfa Newydd project; the primary reason for reactor choice; the level of guaranteed capital finance currently in hand, and the amount of current shortfall; the status of proposals and certainty of timescales for bridging the shortfall;

• the identity of lead operator and any operating partner(s); the status of arrangements for any proposed operating consortium; and,

• Horizon’s business experience to date in reliably, safely and successfully managing and running any trade or enterprise (small or large), anywhere.


2.2 Stage 3 Consultation Bus and locations

2.2.1 Horizon-Hitachi have resorted to an ice-cream van sized “Consultation” Bus, featuring a customer service style counter on one side of the van, for face time with visitors. The Bus schedule totalled six locations in Anglesey, stopping for three hours each time, save for a five hour stop in Menai Bridge (at the Anglesey Farmers’ Market). The Bus also put in a three-hour appearance each in Bangor (out of town centre Tesco Extra Car Park), Caernarfon (town centre Castle Square) and the Conwy Quay.

a. Other than a novel Consultation stunt, does the duration and number of stops echo anything more than another fly-by-night sales pitch?

b. In any case, the nature and extent of information omission, highlighted in paragraph 2.1.3 hereof, is rendered even more acute in an ice-cream van sized Bus.


2.3 Stage 3 Consultation Overview Document (undated)

2.3.1 Horizon-Hitachi have distributed the Overview Document to public libraries in Anglesey, Conwy and Gwynedd, as well as respective Council Offices in Llangefni, Conwy and Caernarfon, and the Anglesey Business Centre in Llangefni. It was also available at Exhibition Events and from the Consultation Bus. Yet this key document stands out as excessively selective in the information communicated to the public. It omits a number of issues of significance and wide public interest, concerning the Horizon-Hitachi proposal for a new nuclear power station at Wylfa, as illustrated below.

2.3.2 It is disingenuous of Horizon-Hitachi to capitalise selectively on a single waste product from electricity generation. On pages 1 and 7 of the Overview Document, the Applicants boast low carbon electricity generation while patently refusing to headline simultaneously a corollary: high nuclear waste electricity generation by Wylfa Newydd. Horizon-Hitachi appear welded to perpetuating a false comforting headline message: the Hitachi nuclear reactors are low carbon – perfect! No worries!

2.3.3 Not a single structure is identified in the schematic graphic spread across pages 1 and 2.

2.3.4 No depiction whatever of removal of sections of the shoreline AONB and the North Anglesey Heritage Coast in the following graphics:

• the indicative power station site layout, on page 9;

• the existing baseline, on page 42;

• completion of earthworks for unit 2, on page 43; and

• permanent landscape setting, on page 44.

2.3.5 No information is provided on where the pre-constructed modular components for the entire Wylfa Newydd build will be sourced, pre-assembled, or built from scratch (page 10).

2.3.6 No information provided on expected date of application for a marine licence for the MOLF (page 14), or the expected MOLF construction commencement date (page 27).

2.3.7 There is no mention whatever of erasure of the shoreline AONB and the associated North Anglesey Heritage Coast, in the section headlined “Marine Works” on page 14. No sea views either of Porth-y-pistyll, pre- and post- MOLF and other structures.

2.3.8 No indicative illustration (aerial and side elevations) of the decommissioned site after 2085, on page 16. This was curiously also missing from the 3-D animation video! The omission contrasts with a Site Campus image produced on page 24.

2.3.9 No schematic graphics illustrating the interior of proposed radioactive waste and spent fuel storage facilities, on page 16, complementing the reactor building graphic on page15.

2.3.10 No accompanying illustrations of the packaged ILW, HLW canisters and spent fuel casks, on page 15.

2.3.11 No disclosure on page 15 of explicit instruction from the Government, or express statutory measure, commanding Horizon-Hitachi to install interim nuclear waste storage facilities on-site in Anglesey, for the purpose of holding 60 years’ accumulated output of spent nuclear fuel, intermediate level waste and dry high level radioactive waste, for up to a further 140 years after the Wylfa Newydd nuclear power station permanently stops generating electricity.

2.3.12 No information disclosed on page 15 on all the alternatives to on-site interim storage of nuclear waste (up until the year 2225), examined by Horizon-Hitachi to any extent. Nor is there disclosure of reasons for rejecting all other specific options.

2.3.13 No explanation provided on signal inconsistency between the duration of the Wylfa Newydd site nuclear licence persisting up to the year 2225 (60-year reactor life span, followed by 140-year on-site nuclear waste storage: pages 15-16), and an absolute assurance on page 2 of the Community Update Issue 19. Namely, that Horizon banks on leaving Anglesey by the year 2117: “We are proposing to be part of the community for around the next 100 years, …”


2.4 Stage 3 Main Consultation Document (dated May 2017)

2.4.1 Not in a position to comment. Lack the time commitments warranted for consideration.


3. Conclusions

3.1 An occurrence of potentially material multiple flaws in the Horizon-Hitachi Public Notice on their proposed DCO Application is one too many to be lightly dismissed. Individually arguable, collectively the flaws appear disquieting, the validity of the Public Notice notwithstanding.

3.2 Significant further apparent deficiency in documentation and relevant information arguably begs the acceptability of Horizon-Hitachi’s deliberate, and excessively, narrow consultation exercise. To what extent would a reasonably informed fair minded bystander expect the Infrastructure Planning Inspectorate to tolerate this state of affairs, at Stage 3?
See attached reply

05 July 2017
J Channay
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
1. Is the submission of one WFD Compliance Assessment to cover the DCO, environmental permit and marine licence applications acceptable to PINS?

2. If a case is to be made under Article 4(7) of the WFD, can the preparation of the Article 4(7) case can made post-submission?

3. If the WFD Compliance Assessment concludes that an Article 4.7 case will need to be made, please could you advise what the regulatory relationship is between NRW and PINS? Who will the ‘competent authority’ preparing the case for the DCO?

4. When will the WFD guidance note is likely to be published?
1. The Secretary of State (SoS) is the decision maker for determining any DCO application and as such would be the appropriate authority in respect of the WFD. The SoS has an obligation to ensure that the requirements of the WFD are met and Applicant’s need to provide suitable information to support the appropriate authority in meeting this requirement. If it is possible to do this through the submission of a single WFD compliance assessment then there is no obvious reason to prevent this from taking place. However, as with all other application documents, it will be important that the document is clear in describing the likely significant effects applicable to each consent sought. This is particularly important as the assessment undertaken by relevant appropriate authorities needs to be certain where necessary mitigation is required and how this will be appropriately secured.

2. The Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009 (as amended), require Applicants to submit ‘where applicable, a plan with accompanying information identifying… water bodies in a river basin management plan…together with an assessment of any effects on such sites, features, habitats or bodies likely to be caused by the proposed development’. There is therefore no specific requirement for an Applicant to submit supporting information to an Article 4(7) derogation with an application. However, the Planning Inspectorate is aware that a derogation in accordance with Article 4.7 requires significant and often complex evidence to be made available and assessed. The Planning Inspectorate considers that it is critical that the potential requirement for Article 4.7 derogation is considered as early as possible in the pre-application stage of the PA2008 process. Applicants should engage early with the appropriate agencies for WFD, NRW in respect of Wylfa. NRW should be able to provide advice on the necessary information that is required to inform the Article 4.7 derogation tests. The Inspectorate also strongly encourages Applicants to seek the comments of the appropriate agencies on draft documents where Article 4.7 tests are to be engaged during the pre-application process.

3. NRW is a statutory consultee under the DCO process and an appropriate agency in respect of WFD, they will no doubt provide their expert opinion to an examining authority during an examination. The examining authority will make a recommendation and it is ultimately for the SoS to make the decision on whether to grant development consent.

4. The advice note has been published today at the following link [attachment 1].

29 June 2017
(Atkins, on behalf of Horizon Nuclear Power) - Stuart Smith
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached meeting note

22 June 2017
Horizon Nuclear Power - anon.
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached meeting note

07 June 2017
Horizon Nuclear Power
response has attachments
Pins Teleconference with Isle of Anglesey County Council
See attached meeting note

24 May 2017
Isle of Anglesey County Council - anon.
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting and approach to the Rochdale envelope
Please see attached meeting note

03 May 2017
Horizon Nuclear Power
Enquiry received via post
As you may be aware, the Isle of Anglesey County Council is the host authority for two NSIP applications which are both due for submission later this year. It is expected that the examinations for these applications will overlap and as a result, the impacts of these examinations on the Planning Inspectorate and the Council will need careful planning, not least in terms of resources. I hope that by raising these issues now, both examinations will run smoothly.

1) I cannot overemphasise the importance of ensuring that suitable measures are in place to encourage and allow all Interested Parties to participate fully in the examination. Welsh is the first language for residents of Anglesey and Gwynedd and many relevant representations will be submitted in Welsh. Interested Parties will also wish to participate in the Preliminary Meeting and Open Floor Hearings in their own language.

2) In order to assist you in the organisation of the Examination hearings, it would be useful to understand the Planning Inspectorate’s requirements for access etc so that we may suggest the most suitable locations.

3) The timing of the two examinations will be crucial as many of my colleagues are working on both NSIPs and responding to two Examining Authorities and, for example, differing rounds of questions at the same time, will need extremely careful forward planning in order to avoid undue pressure on Council, and presumably Inspectorate, staff.
It would be helpful to discuss these points with you as soon as possible and understand how the Inspectorate is planning to manage both examinations.
The Planning Inspectorate appreciates your concerns and I can assure you that we are making all necessary preparations to ensure that the two NSIPs can be conducted within the statutory timetable whilst keeping this manageable for all parties involved.

As you will appreciate, it is for an applicant to decide when to submit an application. The Inspectorate has, therefore, only limited influence over this key ‘trigger date’. However, setting the examination timetable including determining when to start the 6 months’ examination (within reasonable parameters set out in guidance) is within the power of the Examining Authority employed by the Planning Inspectorate. We will ensure that the Examining Authorities for both Wylfa Newydd and the North Wales Connection projects are informed by and take each other’s emerging timetables into consideration to avoid any timetable conflicts as far as possible.

To explore the above and any other relevant points more fully as you suggest in your letter, I propose a telephone conference between key personnel involved in the preparations for the two NSIPs from both our organisations. I would be grateful if you could liaise with Chris White, the infrastructure planning lead responsible for both these projects, about setting this up. His contact details are: [email protected] or telephone 0303 444 5107.

I am grateful for the support and advice you are offering to and seeking from us.

28 April 2017
Isle of Anglesey County Council - Dylan Williams
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Update meeting on approach to Development Consent Order (DCO), Cumulative Effects Assessment (CEA), and Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)
See attached meeting note and presentation

21 April 2017
Horizon Nuclear Power
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached meeting note

06 April 2017
Horizon Nuclear Energy - David Palmer
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Meeting between PINS and NRW to discuss the Wylfa Newydd Generating Station project
See attached meeting note

27 March 2017
Natural Resources Wales (NRW)
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Meeting to discuss PINS' comments on the applicant's draft HRA report.

07 February 2017
Horizon Nuclear Power
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Meeting between Pins and Horizon Nuclear Power
See attached meeting note

07 February 2017
Horizon Nuclear Power
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Request for comments on Applicant's draft HRA Screening Report
1 Project Description
1.1 The Planning Inspectorate is aware that the Wales Bill, which is currently at House of Lords Committee stage, includes clause 41 and introduces the ability to include ‘associated development’ for DCO’s in Wales. The extent to which various elements are included in the Applicant’s DCO application will influence the assessment. In particular that which is subject to direct assessment and that which is considered as other plans and projects and therefore part of the in-combination assessment.
1.2 Section 2.1– Paragraph 2 describes the current scope of the HRA as including the power station site and off-site power station facilities. In relation to the points raised above it is essential that there is clarity regarding the development that is included within the DCO and that which is not. In terms of the overall approach to HRA, the ExA will need to clearly assess the effects that are directly attributable to the Project being applied for in the DCO so that they can ensure that the necessary mitigation is appropriately secured.
1.3 Section 2.1 - Paragraph 3 should refer to the need for the separate grid connection which is being promoted by National Grid. It will need to be made clear how the grid connection will be considered in-combination with the Project.
1.4 We acknowledge that this is an initial draft report and detail will be forthcoming. However, Section 2.3 could be improved with the inclusion of a more detailed description of the likely timescales for aspects of the Project (eg the likely duration each aspect will take to construct and the likely duration applicable to the identification of temporary features etc). This could be addressed by a more detailed programme which could be included as part of section 2.4.
1.5 The Applicant should ensure that the Wylfa Newydd Development Area depicted on figures is consistent with the DCO application site depicted on any works plans to be submitted with the DCO (noting that the DCO works plans will need to include those off-site development areas that are part of the DCO).
1.6 Section 2.3.2.5:
• If piling is required to install the prepared sub-base of the MOLF or the cofferdam for the Ro-Ro berth construction, details of these works should be provided.
• The final HRA Screening Report should be clear as to whether dredging and marine disposal forms part of the DCO application. Information relating to the potential disposal site(s) should be considered to the extent that they are likely.
• Frequency and duration of maintenance activities relating to the marine works should be described and considered in the full assessment.
1.7 There is no reference to the decommissioning of the project as part of the description or in terms of how decommissioning will be approached within the assessment. The NPS is clear that effects arising from the decommissioning of the Project need to be assessed.
2 Scoping of European Sites
2.1 Table 4.1 (project screening categories):
• The third row states that “functional habitat loss (e.g. through disturbance or flooding) is not included” in the ‘Land-take’ screening category. The Planning Inspectorate considers that the potential for impacts on functional habitat should be considered within the HRA, or at further justification and evidence of agreement with Natural Resources Wales (NRW) will be expected as to its exclusion.
• The fifth row states that “Effects could result from increased inputs into, or abstraction from, the local water supply associated with the number of construction workers required”. Consideration should also be given to effects resulting from abstraction required during construction and operation.
• The final row considers physical interaction between species and project infrastructure but it is unclear if / how this would consider any potential displacement effects (or whether such aspects would be covered as part of the other screening categories).
3 Zones of Influence
3.1 Table 4.2 details the zone of influence (ZOI) for different screening criteria, habitats/species and hazards. The Planning Inspectorate welcomes that the results of ongoing assessments will be taken into account to help refine the ZOIs. Where this approach is taken, clear cross-referencing should be made to the relevant sections of the technical assessments. It should also be clear, once all of the ongoing works are complete and the ZOIs are fully defined, how the precautionary ZOIs have evolved through the detailed assessment work, particularly if they were initially wider and have been revised upwards or downwards.
3.2 The Planning Inspectorate has the following comments on Table 4.2:
• The use of 50db as a criterion to determine the ZOI of airborne noise and vibration from plant and machinery is noted, as is that the Applicant considers noise above 50dB would not occur further than 600m from the site boundaries. The Planning Inspectorate welcomes that this ZOI will be kept under review and expects that noise modelling would be used to determine where the 50db contours lie. The draft HRA Report confirms stakeholders agree with the ZOI but does not explain whether they agree with the use of 50dB as a threshold; this should be clarified. Variance in species sensitivity to noise should be taken into account and the HRA Report should detail for which receptors the 70dB(A) threshold would be applied and whether this has been agreed with relevant stakeholders. The screening report should also be specific in identifying which organisations agree to the approach (as opposed to ‘relevant stakeholders’). This section of Table 4.2 has not detailed how the ZOI for vibration will be determined; this should be detailed within the final HRA Screening Report.
• Noise disturbance thresholds for most ecological receptors have been set as the same level as for human receptors, as based on guidance from the British Standards Institution (2014). It is not clear which guidance this refers to. The Screening Report should indicate which standard is being relied on.
• In terms of underwater noise and vibration, the HRA Screening Report should indicate what noise level is considered to induce temporary threshold shift or behaviour effects to marine mammals and on what evidence this has been assumed (eg 5km and 83km thresholds are quoted). The same applies in terms of evidence for the noise level at which mortality or potential mortality of fish is predicted to occur (270m is quoted).
• In terms of blasting, and the definition of appropriate ZOI, it would be beneficial to understand more about the possible extent, frequency and duration of any blasting activities. Where this is not known, the assessment should consider a worst case scenario.
• Noise effects from road transport – it will need to be clear the extent of the road network that is included (this section implies it will be all roads within the transport assessment). Is this the project wide transport assessment or just that in support of the DCO elements (the relationship to the TCPA road improvements is not clear here)?
• For land-take, the ZOIs are defined as being within the development footprint or the WDNA footprint but it is not entirely clear what this means. Is this referring to the location of built development or the boundary of the WDNA? The HRA Screening Report should provide a clear definition of the ZOI.
• For marine benthic habitats (Changes in freshwater flow triggers ) the ZOI is based on a distance of 500m, however it is not clear where this distance is being measured from – is it the point at which the freshwater discharge enters the marine environment? The HRA Screening Report should provide a clear definition of the ZOI.
• Pages 28 and 29 refer to NRW’s approach to considering the effects of trade discharges greater than 100m3 on water quality. The HRA Screening Report should provide evidence of this approach ie a link to specific guidance.
• Page 31 refers to the Institute of Air Quality Management (IAQM) guidance (2014) in relation to road traffic emissions; however, it is unclear to what this guidance refers as the Planning Inspectorate understands the 2014 IAQM guidance is ‘Guidance on the assessment of dust from demolition and construction’. The HRA Screening Report should identify specific guidance documents that are referred to and contain a complete reference list.
3.3 There are a couple of references within Table 4.2 to ZOI’s having been agreed with relevant stakeholders during pre-application consultation. It would be useful at the point of submission to understand categorically and clearly where such agreements have and have not been reached in the context of all defined ZOI. Where professional judgement has been applied, justification should be provided in supporting the conclusions reached.
3.4 It is not always clear what the logic is behind the approach described in the HRA Screening Report. For some species, such as marine mammals, the approach appears to rely entirely on defining ZOI to establish which European site features could be affected by the Project while for others, such as lamprey and seabirds, the Screening Report refers to survey results. The HRA Screening Report must clearly explain the reasoning used to determine which features of European sites are likely to be affected by the Project.
3.5 Section 4.5.2 proposes to scope out river lamprey. The explanation in paragraph 2 of Section 4.5.2 is confusing. Is it implying that the river lamprey populations are separate from those of the nearest SAC populations? If this is the position being relied on then the HRA Screening Report should identify the evidence that supports this position.
3.6 Section 4.5.4 states that there is very little scientific research on the exact migration routes of salmon from natal rivers, but then goes on to exclude SACs located to the north of Anglesey for which salmon are a qualifying feature. This is on the grounds that salmon are likely to travel by the most direct route to their natal rivers. However, as there is limited research on this point it is not clear whether the approach outlined in Section 4.5.4 is sufficiently precautionary. The Applicant is strongly advised to agree the approach to identifying European sites where salmon are a qualifying feature with NRW.
3.7 For breeding seabirds, Section 4.6.2 states that the mean maximum foraging range plus one standard deviation will be used to determine connectivity with SPA or Ramsar sites. However, it goes on to state that where the data is not available to estimate the standard deviation or where the areas affected would be excessively large, the mean maximum foraging range will be used. It is not clear from the Screening Report why the mean maximum foraging range plus standard deviation was chosen in the first place; assessments undertaken for offshore wind farm developments have usually opted to use the mean maximum foraging range.
3.8 In section 4.6.2.2, there is an assumption based on the premise that where non-breeding sea bird populations are an SPA qualifying feature, they will be foraging within rather than outwith the SPA. No evidence has been presented to support this statement. The Applicant is strongly advised to agree the approach to identifying European sites with this type of feature with NRW.
3.9 The thresholds and the justification for their use in relation to wildfowl and waders are noted. The Applicant is strongly advised to agree their approach with NRW.
3.10 At section 4.7.4, there is a reference to sites that were included as part of the strategic HRA Site Report for Wylfa (alongside NPS EN-6) that are proposed to be excluded from the project level HRA (although noted that this to be kept under review). The Secretary of State will expect to see particular justification linking back to the ZOI’s as to why this approach is appropriate. In particular, reference is made to the Great Orme Head coastal zone in Section 4.3 of the report, whereas section 4.7.4 implies that the SAC itself will be scoped out.
4 LSE Screening
4.1 At paragraph 3 of section 5.1, reference is made to the definition of likely significant effects as given in the Welsh Assembly Government TAN 5. Reference should also be made here to the definitions and requirements set out in NPS EN-1 and EN-6 in the context of the DCO shadow HRA.
4.2 Note that on Table 5.1, row 5 refers to a potential for a LSE on Corsydd Môn/Anglesey Fens SAC and Corsydd Môn a Llyn/Anglesey and Llyn Fens Ramsar site. However, the SAC screening matrix also identifies a LSE for Cemlyn Bay SAC, Llyn Dinam SAC, and Holy Island Coast SAC. The Applicant should ensure consistency across the appendices and main text.
4.3 Table 5.1 row 6 refers to standard mitigation and management procedures for invasive non-native species. If such measures are to be relied upon to conclude no LSE, details of these measures and how they are secured should be provided within the HRA Screening Report.
4.4 Section 5.1 paragraph 2 notes that the LSE test is “the process of identifying potentially relevant European sites…and the likely impacts of a project upon the designated features of a European site, either alone or in combination with other plans and projects…” Section 1, paragraph 5 notes that as the extent of the ZOI is still being refined “it is not possible at this stage to undertake effective in-combination screening with respect to other plans and projects within the Project ZOI, because the study area for this exercise would be extremely large…”
4.5 We acknowledge the difficulty of undertaking the in-combination assessment before the ZOI have been refined but given the current timescales for this project, it is a matter of some concern that the approach to in-combination assessment has not yet been confirmed. The Screening Report should clearly explain how the in-combination assessment has been approached, particularly in relation to the extent to which the associated development and SPC has been considered.
4.6 Section 5.2.1, paragraph 3 states that the judgement as to whether a significant effect is likely needs to be based “on the best readily available information”. This does not seem to be in line with the relevant case law. Planning Inspectorate Advice Note 10, paragraphs 4.18 to 4.19 provides further detail on this point.
5 General
5.1 Section 3.2 paragraph 10 and section 3.3.1, paragraph 1– please note that the competent authority for the DCO application is the Secretary of State for Energy and Industrial Strategy, not the Planning Inspectorate.
5.2 For each of the screening categories and or categories of habitats and species identified within the report (sections 5.3.2 – 5.3.5), the use of figures and plans identifying the relevant ZOIs and Natura 2000 sites included within the assessment would be beneficial.
5.3 Section 3.3.1 – where agreements have been reached with Natural Resources Wales, Natural England and any non-statutory interest groups, these should be explained and evidence provided where possible. On a presentational matter, we suggest a more intuitive paragraph numbering system is used to enable easy referencing during the examination stage.
6 Matrices
6.1 The Applicant is reminded of the advice on completing matrices in accordance with ‘Planning Inspectorate Advice note ten: Habitat Regulations Assessment relevant to nationally significant infrastructure projects’ (January 2016 version 7) and its accompanying appendices ([attachment 1]

01 February 2017
Royal Haskoning DHV - Matt Simpson
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Meeting between Pins and Horizon Nuclear Power
See attached meeting note

23 January 2017
Horizon Nuclear Power
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please see attached letter from Dylan Morgan
Please see attached letter from PINS

24 October 2016
PAWB - People Against Wylfa B - Dylan Morgan
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Cyflwyniad a roddwyd mewn digwyddiad allgymorth cyhoeddus yn Llangefni ar 4 Hydref 2016.

Presentation given at a public outreach event in Llangefni on 4 October 2016.
Cyflwyniad ynghlwm.

Presentation attached

04 October 2016
anon.
Enquiry received via post
A summary of the questions and points raised by the enquirer as follows:

1. Doubt on the unemployment statistics used by the nuclear industry and others to promote the Wylfa Newydd project on Anglesey.

2. Reference made to Trweryn Dam project, opened in 1965. Points regarding foreign ownership of infrastructure developers and the compulsory purchase of land in Wales by them.

3. The threat to human life and residents' human rights posed by radioactive emissions from nuclear power stations.

4. Questions about the membership of the Horizon consortium, in particular the American Company Bechtel.
The Planning Inspectorate is able to advise on the Development Consent Order process. It isn’t our role to determine Government policy towards nuclear energy or other types of infrastructure. Government policy is set down in National Policy Statements, which are prepared by the relevant Government department and are designated following scrutiny by Parliament (Westminster). In that context, it is also the Government’s policy that the energy generating industry is open to private investors, including foreign owned companies. As such, if you have particular concerns or objections to the Government’s policy towards nuclear energy then you should raise these with your MP.

Any examination of the Wylfa Newydd application, that takes place as part of the Development Consent Process, will not deal with nuclear safety, security, protection of people and the transport of nuclear material. These are matters that are dealt with through separate processes related to environmental permits issued by Natural Resources Wales (NRW) and the Nuclear Site Licensing process that is the responsibility of the Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR). In due course there will be separate public consultation processes related to these applications in respect of Wylfa Newydd. The Development Consent process will focus on the other construction and operational impacts of the generating station on the local communities and the environment.

09 September 2016
E Jones
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Presentations about the DCO process were given to members of the public, Anglesey and Gwynedd Council members and Community Council members on 6th and 7th of September 2016.
Please see attached presentations.

06 September 2016
Public Outreach Events - anon.
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Meeting with NRW to discuss the Wylfa Newydd Generating Station
See attached meeting note

03 August 2016
NRW
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Discussed latest progress on the project
please see attached

13 July 2016
Horizon Nuclear Power - anon.
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Meeting between the Planning Inspectorate and Horizon Nuclear Power to discuss the proposed Wylfa Newydd Nuclear Power Station.
Meeting note attached.

05 May 2016
Horizon Nucelar Power - Trystan Mabbitt
Enquiry received via email
A query that?s been raised in respect of a category 3 ?person with interest in land? under s.44 PA 2008 who has indicated that they do not wish to receive consultation material from us.

The approach that we?re proposing is to write to them informing them that this decision could affect their statutory rights and that they may wish to reconsider. Assuming that they confirm again that they do not wish to receive communications from us are we able to rely on this initial exchange of letters to show compliance with the Act or should we send them consultation material during our s.42 consultation regardless of their wishes so that we can ensure that the requirements of s.42 are met?
The Planning Inspectorate provided the following advice:

Is it clear from the person?s response as to why they do not wish to receive the consultation, for example are they aware of what category 3 means and are they stating that they do not wish to be consulted, or that they believe they are not a category 3 person?

We would advise that you respond to the person to state that you will respect their wishes, but to also explain why they have been identified as a category 3 person, what this means, and that they may be included in the book of reference in the submitted application and that it may be in their best interest to be consulted. You should also explain the importance of engaging in the pre-application process. Horizon could then ask the person to confirm if they do not wish to receive the consultation information. Also it would be important to clarify if just one person has been identified at that address, or is it a group of people/family, if so you would need to seek evidence that each person does not wish to be consulted.

The request from the category 3 person won?t affect their statutory rights going forward, because they could still be included in the book of reference, and even if they were not included in the book of reference they may still be able to make a relevant claim. Horizon would want to consider again, following submission of the application and if the application is accepted for examination, whether to send them notification under section 56 of the Planning Act 2008.

Horizon should keep a log of all incoming and outgoing correspondence regarding this matter and include it (and explain it) within the consultation report.

19 April 2016
Trystan Mabbitt Horizon Nuclear Power
Enquiry received via email
A category 3 “person with interest in land” under s.44 PA 2008 has indicated that they do not wish to receive consultation material from us.

The approach that we’re proposing is to write to them informing them that this decision could affect their statutory rights and that they may wish to reconsider. Assuming that they confirm again that they do not wish to receive communications from us are we able to rely on this initial exchange of letters to show compliance with the Act or should we send them consultation material during our s.42 consultation regardless of their wishes so that we can ensure that the requirements of s.42 are met?
Is it clear from the person’s response as to why they do not wish to receive the consultation, for example are they aware of what category 3 means and are they stating that they do not wish to be consulted, or that they believe they are not a category 3 person?

We would advise that you respond to the person to state that you will respect their wishes, but to also explain why they have been identified as a category 3 person, what this means, and that they may be included in the book of reference in the submitted application and that it may be in their best interest to be consulted. You should also explain the importance of engaging in the pre-application process. Horizon could then ask the person to confirm if they do not wish to receive the consultation information. Also it would be important to clarify if just one person has been identified at that address, or is it a group of people/family, if so you would need to seek evidence that each person does not wish to be consulted.

The request from the category 3 person won’t affect their statutory rights going forward, because they could still be included in the book of reference, and even if they were not included in the book of reference they may still be able to make a relevant claim. Horizon would want to consider again, following submission of the application and if the application is accepted for examination, whether to send them notification under section 56 of the Planning Act 2008.

Horizon should keep a log of all incoming and outgoing correspondence regarding this matter and include it (and explain it) within the consultation report.

19 April 2016
Horizon Nuclear Power - Trystan Mabbitt
Enquiry received via email
Horizon Nuclear Power provided their draft Statement of Community Consultation (SoCC) for the Planning Inspectorate's comment and asked for the Planning Inspectorate's view on the timing of consultation.
The Planning Inspectorate provided the following advice:

You have asked for the Planning Inspectorate?s view on undertaking statutory consultation during the summer holiday months of July and August. As many people take holiday during these months, there is a chance that the consultees (both members of the public and those representing statutory bodies) may have less time to allocate to compiling a meaningful response, and they may feel disadvantaged as a result. Therefore we would strongly advise that you extend your summer consultation period to before and/or after the holiday months. We also recognise that holding consultation during the holiday season may enable tourists to comment on a proposal, which is beneficial.

We would also advise you to liaise with the Isle of Anglesey County Council (IACC) on the timing of the consultation as they will have local information which will assist you. We note that you are not intending to list the consultation dates and meeting/exhibition dates within your SoCC, we would therefore advise that you liaise with IACC (and Gwynedd
and Conwy where relevant) on the proposed dates and locations.

Comments on the draft SoCC dated December 2015:

Page 2

- Paragraph 3 ? whilst the current wording is helpful, you could also refer to the wording of the legislation under s47 of the PA 2008 which refers to consultation with those ?people living in the vicinity of the land?.

- paragraph 5 ? the Local Impact Report is submitted after the application is submitted (during the examination).

- Paragraph 6 ? under s47(6)(za) there is a duty on the applicant to make the statement available for inspection by the public in a way that is reasonably convenient for people living in the vicinity of the land. If hard copy consultation documents are being provided at certain locations, you would be advised to also include a hard copy of the SoCC.

Page 3

- Paragraph 3 - ?is? should be removed in the last line: The Planning Inspectorate must consider, and the Secretary of State must determine, our application for a development consent order is in accordance with the following National Policy Statements.


Page 4

- Paragraph 1 ? we would suggest you remove reference to the ?National Infrastructure Planning Unit?, therefore you may wish to re-word this. We are within the Major Applications and Plans Directorate, however I would suggest reference to the specific Directorate is not used as it may be confusing.

- To whom and how will the preliminary environmental information be provided? It could be helpful to include this information.


Page 5

- Paragraph 1 - the term Associated Development has been used to refer to development which falls outside of the PA 2008 regime earlier in the document. However we also note use of the terms ?associated buildings? and ?associated plants? in this paragraph, this may be confusing to readers as to whether you are referring to works integral
to the power station or ?Associated Development?.

- Paragraph 3 - last sentence, although we are keen to discuss this with you, we advise that ?The Planning Inspectorate? is removed and ?key stakeholders? remains.


Page 7

- This is more of a general comment, we have heard that consultees don?t always understand the terms ?formal? and ?informal? consultation, and they sometimes assume that ?informal? can be a waste of their time. Therefore you may want to consider other terms, an example is ?statutory, non-statutory and engagement?.

- Paragraph 2 last sentence, what is meant by ?local media?, the wording at the end of the fifth paragraph appears to be clearer.

- You may also wish to refer to the s48 publicity in the third paragraph.


Page 9

- Under the heading of ?Stakeholders, groups and organisations?, the use of the terms ?their membership? may be confusing.


Page 10

- ?Other Major Consultation? the final sentence isn?t complete.

14 January 2016
Andrew Mahon Horizon Nuclear Power
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Meeting held on 17 December 2015 between the Planning Inspectorate and Horizon Nuclear Power to provide a project update and to discuss some key issues relating to the consenting strategy and the DCO application.
Meeting note attached.

17 December 2015
Horizon Nuclear Power - Andrew Mahon
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Meeting held on 6 July 2015 between the Planning Inspectorate and Horizon Nuclear Power to provide a project update and to discuss some key issues relating to the consenting strategy and the DCO application.
Meeting note attached.

06 July 2015
Horizon Nuclear Power - Andrew Mahon
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
A teleconference to discuss the applicant?s approach to Habitat Regulations Assessment (HRA) transboundary consultation
See meeting note attached

15 May 2015
Horizon Nuclear Power
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Meeting to discuss Horizon's pre-application consultation
Please see attached meeting note

19 September 2014
Kieran Somers from Horizon
Enquiry received via meeting
Query on sections 14 and 15 of the Planning Act 2008.
Please see below advice regarding your query on sections 14 and 15 of the Planning Act 2008.

This is just to confirm the advice that we gave you at the workshop on 25 February in relation to an apparent inconsistency between s14(7)(b) and s15(2)(a) of the 2008 Planning Act as amended by the Localism Act 2011 (PA 2008) as s14(7)(b) only refers to waters adjacent to England.

The purpose of s14(7) is to define the circumstances in which s14(3) can be excercised. In other words s14(7) provides that the Secretary of State (SoS) may only add new types of projects to the 2008 PA regime if they are located in any of the geographic areas set out in s14(7). As Wales or waters adjacent to Wales are not mentioned in s14(7) the SoS does not have any powers to add any additional projects to the regime in Wales.

S15(2)(b) on the other hand relates back to ss15(1) and 14(1)(a), i.e. a project type designated a 'nationally significant infrastructure project' in the Act by s14(1)(a) as long as it meets the criteria set out in s15(2) or (3).

As s14(7)(b) does not condition the definition of projects falling under ss14(1)(a) and 15(1) there is no discrepancy between the two.

05 April 2013
Horizon - Jon Cornelius
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Enquiry on Compulsory Purchase Powers in Wales
Further to the Wylfa workshop on 25 February 2013 I've looked into whether or not the 2008 Planning Act compulsory acquisition powers are also operable in Wales and what correspondence there has been on this matter with the Welsh Government.

I've located the attached exchange of letters relating to the now withdrawn Brig y Cwm application. However, this exchange only confirms that the exchange land certificate when common land is being aquired compulsorily is to be provided by the Welsh Government, not DEFRA (see WG letter on the last page of the pdf).

I've also consulted briefly with colleagues here regarding whether or not the compulsory acquisition powers in the Act apply also in Wales, and we can see no reason why these wouldn't apply.

22 March 2013
Teresa Davies
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Wylfa New Nuclear Power Station Update Meeting.
Please see Meeting note attached.

05 February 2013
Horizon Nuclear Power
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
A project update meeting between the Planning Inspectorate and Horizon Nuclear Power held by teleconference.
A note of the meeting is below.

26 July 2012
Horizon Nuclear Power - Kieran Somers
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
The situation with regard to pre-application consultation for the proposed new nuclear power station at Wylfa has changed since this meeting took place, with the news in March 2012 of the shareholders pulling back on this project. Horizon?s shareholders are currently seeking new owners for the business and as such the project timings are currently under review until further notice.
Please see attached meeting note.

16 March 2012
Horizon Nuclear Power Ltd - Kieran Somers
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Would like to know if the new power station will have to comply with the LAWS OF THE LAND or will they be allowed to cover-up incidents, falsify documents, lie in a court of law, withhold evidence and behave as if they are above the law, and will go even as far that they pressured/corrupted my so called solicitor/Barrister
The IPC is an impartial body whose role is to examine applications for Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIPs) in accordance with the Planning Act 2008 (the Act) and its associated legislation.

If a proposed development (or part of it) falls within section 14-30 of the Act, it is considered a NSIP and development consent is required. Whether a power station development falls within the definition of a NSIP depends on the facts. For generating stations, section 15 will also need to be considered and the conditions met if the proposed development is to be considered a NSIP.

The IPC cannot advise on whether a proposal constitutes a NSIP requiring development consent. It is for developers to take their own legal advice upon which they can rely. For further information on the IPC's policy on giving Section 51 advice please visit our website at [attachment 1]

For detailed information on the 2008 Planning Act process please see the advice and guidance section of our website ([attachment 2]). You may find Advice Note 8 particularly useful as it provides an overview of the whole process.

If you have any queries relating to procedural matters we are happy to advise.

24 January 2012
Cliff Rice
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Mr/Ms Chanay asked for clarification of some advice that the IPC had previously given. A copy of his/her email is attached.
Thank you for your email. I apologise if my earlier email was not clear.

The decision on whether or not any element of a proposal is or is not part of a nationally significant infrastructure project (NSIP), associated development or otherwise is not one on which the IPC can advice.
It is for developers to take their own legal advice upon which they can rely. The Commission is unable to give such legal advice or to comment on the merits of a proposed application (although this latter point will change with the Localism Act coming into force in April 2012). For further information on the IPC's policy on giving section 51 advice please visit our website at [attachment 1]

At acceptance stage the acceptance Commissioner will need to be satisfied that the test in s55 3 (c) of the Planning Act 2008 (PA 2008) is met i.e. that development consent is required for any of the development to which the application relates. Consent is required for development that is or forms part of an NSIP (s.31 PA 2008). If and when an application is accepted the Examining Authority (ExA) considers all the individual elements included in the draft DCO in detail throughout the pre-examination and examination stages before formulating their recommendation to the Secretary of State.

The ExA when considering whether any works are integral to the proposed NSIP or would constitute associated development must have regard to the DCLG Guidance on Associated Development. The Guidance states at paragraph 10 that development should not be treated as associated development if it is actually an integral part of the NSIP and that the decision maker must decide on a case by case basis as to whether elements should be treated as associated development. The ExA must look carefully at the facts available and the information provided by the applicant in the Explanatory Memorandum to be submitted with the application. It is for applicants to justify whether a particular element of a proposed NSIP can be considered to be integral to the NSIP and therefore what constitutes development for which consent is sought under PA 2008 and to express and explain their conclusion in the Explanatory Memorandum.

As the IPC cannot pre-empt or pre-judge the ExA?s decision, it is not possible to state at this stage whether the IPC would agree with the developer as to whether any interim radioactive waste storage facility is to be considered an integral element of the project. If the developer proposes that it is integral to the development he should set out a detailed explanation and specific justification in the Explanatory Memorandum as to why he considers that it can be properly regarded as being integral to the project. This should take into account the principles in the Guidance relating to associated development.

I note your comments about the scoping reports on other projects. A scoping report, which is submitted by the developer when requesting a scoping opinion from the IPC, sets out what the developer considers to be true. The IPC will not take a position on associated development in advance of an application, for the reasons given above.

13 January 2012
J Chanay
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please see attachment.

Questions are numbered 1 - 5
Please see attachment.

Answers numbered 1 - 5 to correspond with questions.

25 November 2011
J Chanay
Enquiry received via meeting
IPC briefing to Isle of Anglesey County Council elected Members on the Planning Act 2008 process.
See attached meeting note and presentations.

25 November 2011
Isle of Anglesey County Council - Elected Members and Officers
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
IPC update meeting with Isle of Anglesey County Council Energy Island Programme
See attached meeting note.

25 November 2011
Isle of Anglesey County Council - Energy Island Programme Officers
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting between the IPC and Horizon Nuclear Power
See note of meeting (attached)

07 October 2011
Horizon Nuclear Power - Kieran Somers and Tim Proudler
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Discussion included:
?
A project update including Horizon?s consultation process and Preliminary Environmental Information (PEI)
?
Associated Development
?
Welsh Translation
?
IPC outreach
Please see attached meeting note for advice given

22 March 2011
Horizon Nuclear Power - Tim Proudler
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
To discuss the Statement of Community Consultation and general consultation processes in relation to the proposed Oldbury and Wylfa projects.
Follow the link below to meeting notes.
[attachment 1]

08 July 2010
Horizon Nuclear Power - anon.
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
To discuss:
?Brief overview of the Energy Island Programme
?Introduction to IPC and its processes
?Future arrangements for IPC/ Major Infrastructure Planning Unit
?Local Authority?s role in IPC process
?Project programme
?Stakeholder involvement/consultation
?Other related applications/ consents
A site visit was also conducted to the existing and proposed nuclear power station.
[attachment 1]

07 July 2010
Horizon Isle of Anglesey County Council
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Meeting to discuss:
? Brief overview of the Energy Island Programme
? Introduction to IPC and its processes
? Future arrangements for IPC/ Major Infrastructure Planning Unit
? Local Authority?s role in IPC process
? Project programme
? Stakeholder involvement/consultation
? Other related applications/ consents
A site visit was also conducted to the existing and proposed nuclear power station
Follow the link to the meeting notes
[attachment 1]

07 July 2010
Horizon, Magnox North and Isle of Anglesey County - anon.
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Meeting to discuss IPC outreach programme
See attached meeting note

29 March 2010
Horizon Nuclear Power - A Smith, K Somers and M Gralewski
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Introductory meeting with Horizon Nuclear Power to discuss the IPC process and project timetable.
See note of meeting attached.

03 February 2010
Horizon Nuclear Power - Project Team