Stafford Area Improvements – Norton Bridge Railway

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.

Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Advice on removing a plot of land from the order land where Network Rail considered that a plot would no longer be required to implement a proposed project
Please see attached letter

06 August 2013
BDB on behalf of Network Rail - Ian McCulloch
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
What information are local authorities required to provide when asked for their views on the adequacy of the applicant's consultation?
Further to our earlier telephone conversation I can advise you that we will be asking you if you consider the developer has complied with sections 42, 47 and 48 of the Planning Act 2008. This includes the adequacy of consultation with your local authority and whether you consider the developer has complied with their Statement of Community Consultation.

Further information about consultation reports can be found here: [attachment 1]

You may also wish to look at other local authorities adequacy of consultation responses for previous applications. These can be found on the National Infrastructure pages of the Planning Portal website at: [attachment 2]

13 December 2012
Worcestershire County Council - Ben Horovitz
Enquiry received via post
response has attachments
Letter from Bircham Dyson Bell on behalf of Network Rail with regard to whether gas pipe-line diversions constitute an NSIP
Having reviewed the papers on this, we think that the approach suggested by Network Rail (NR) in this case, and your proposed wording regarding this in the draft DCO and EM, is generally acceptable. Our only comments on this proposed approach are:-

We think that NR will need to give careful consideration to how they describe the project in their pre-application, statutory and other, consultation/ publicity given the relative technical and legal complexities of what is being proposed in relation to consenting the pipeline relocation/construction. This will particularly be the case in relation to s.47 consultation and s.48 publicity, as it is important at the pre-application stage for local residents to fully understand the project to be able to comment on the proposals.

In the letter, NR note that they consider the project as a whole is EIA development. However, NR are not in a position to conclude whether the pipeline relocation/construction element of the project alone would be likely to have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, on a precautionary basis, it may be advisable for the likely environmental impacts of the pipeline relocation/construction works to be assessed as part of the EIA for the project as a whole, and for this to be included in the Environmental Statement submitted with the application.

15 October 2012
Bircham Dyson Bell - Ian McCulloch
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Overview of the project proposed by Network Rail and the pre-application process in relation to the scheme, the DCO, environmental issues and consultation.
Please see attached meeting note

03 October 2012
Malcolm Armstrong
Enquiry received via phone
response has attachments
At what stage during a proposed application can a developer use Section 53 of the 2008 Planning Act (PA 2008) to apply to the IPC for access rights? Does an application need to be formally submitted to the IPC for s. 53 to apply?
The recently revised IPC Advice Note Five: Rights of Entry (July 2011) (IAN 5) provides detailed advice on s.53 of PA 2008.

[attachment 1]

In accordance with s.53 (1) PA 2008, ?authorisation can only be granted for entry onto land for the purpose of surveying and taking levels in connection with:

? a proposed application for a DCO where the land for which entry is required will be used for a distinct project of real substance and the proposed application will seek authority to acquire the land, an interest in it or a right over it;

? an application for a DCO which has been accepted; or

? a DCO which has been granted and contains provisions authorising the acquisition of the land or an interest in or a right over it? (IAN 5, p.2).

In relation to a proposed application the IPC needs to be satisfied that the criteria listed under s. 53 (2) have been met. These are:

? ?that the proposed developer has complied with section 42 (duty to consult) in relation to the proposed application.

? that the developer is considering a distinct project of real substance which genuinely requires entry onto the land;

? that the proposed application is likely to seek authority to compulsorily acquire the land or an interest in it or right over it.? (IAN 5, p.3)

IAN 5 provides further advice on the information developers should provide to demonstrate compliance with s. 53 (2). It also indicates that ?the IPC expects a developer to demonstrate that all reasonable efforts have been made to obtain rights of entry to the land parcel(s) (?) to satisfy the IPC that the authorisation request(s) are a last resort? (IAN 5, p.7).

18 August 2011
Hinson Parry - Roger Bedson
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Query about the local authorities role in influencing any s174 obligations and issues over enforcability
The need for any s.174 development consent obligations should be discussed between the Local Authority and the applicant at the pre-application stage. Any financial contributions to Local Authorities should be made through development consent obligations. The 2008 Planning Act amends the 1990 TCPA so that development consent obligations (in effect s.106 obligations) can be entered into in connection with an application for an order granting development consent (s.174 of the Act). Whether it is appropriate for a Local Authority to seek s.174 obligations in relation to a particular proposed development would be one of the considerations which the Local Authority would need to consider in making their consultation response under s.42 of the Act and in drawing up their Local lmpact Report under s.60. The s.174 obligations do not form part of the draft order but are important as they will affect the overall impact of a proposed development on a local area. An agreement setting out the development consent obligations would need to be completed before the end of the examination process in order to be taken into account by the Examining Authority. As a minimum the Heads of Terms of such an agreement would need to have been agreed prior to submission of the application and for these to be submitted as part of the application documents. The Local Planning Authority remains the party who will enforce such obligations and would potentially be the beneficiary of financial contributions lawfully offered and sufficiently related to the development. See also IPC Guidance Note 2, para 25 ([attachment 1]) and IPC Guidance Note 1, para 39 and ([attachment 2].

08 February 2011
Stafford Borough Council Staffordshire CC
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Meeting Note of Inception meeting held on 24 January 2011 and copy of IPC presentation
[attachment 1]

[attachment 2]

24 January 2011
Staffordshire County Council - Network Rail Stafford BC
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Introductory project meeting on a proposed new rail link at Norton Bridge Junction, Stafford. To provide Network Rail (NR) with an opportunity to meet with the Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC) and ask any questions about the 2008 Planning Act process.
[attachment 1]

12 November 2010
Network Rail - Malcolm Armstrong etc