Dogger Bank Creyke Beck

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
response has attachments
Project update meeting
See attached document

17 May 2018
SSE Group - anon.
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Meeting with SSE Group
Please see attached

07 November 2017
SSE - anon.
Enquiry received via email
Advice issued following re-submission of representation from 18 March 2014
Thank you for your email copying your original representation, please note the email address this was first sent to was recorded in error and having sent a tester email, I received an ?undeliverable auto message? which is attached for information.

I can however confirm that your representation has now been safely received and I have forwarded a copy to the Examining Authority for their consideration, should they exercise their discretion to accept this into the examination we will notify you shortly. You may wish to note any material accepted into an examination will also be made publicly available.

04 July 2014
Lissett & Ulrome Parish Council - anon.
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Query made at Accompanied Site Visit on 2 July 2014 in relation to submission of representations
I would be most grateful if you could forward this email to the Lissett and Ulrome Councillors who attended yesterdays accompanied site visit;

Thank you for attending the accompanied site visit yesterday on behalf of Lissett and Ulrome Parish Council. Further to our discussion, for your information please see the following link; [attachment 1] which will take you to the original examination timetable (Annex B) issued by the Examining Authority (ExA) on 25 February 2014 and sent to all those who were invited to attend the Preliminary Meeting which was held at Hull City Hall on 17 February.

On 6 June 2014, the ExA issued a variation to that timetable and I would strongly encourage you to familiarise yourself with the deadlines as set out at Annex B at the following link; [attachment 2].

You may also wish to note, two rounds of written questions have already been issued by the ExA along with other written material which has been submitted to the examination by interested parties and includes responses to those questions along with comments on responses. As well as written submissions, a number of hearings have also taken place throughout the examination, details of which can be found in the examination timetable at the above link along with audio recordings.

All examination documentation has been made publicly available and can be found on the project webpage; [attachment 3] should you have any queries regarding the navigation of the website for this documentation, please do not hesitate to contact us.

During our discussion yesterday, you implied that Lissett and Ulrome Parish Council submitted a representation by email to this examination at some time around February or May 2014, I have been unable to locate this so it would be very much appreciated if you could confirm the date of its submission and similarly, it would be helpful if you could forward me a copy so we can ensure it is put before the ExA.

In addition, with the close of examination being on or before 18 August 2014, if you intend to submit a representation it would be helpful if you could do so as soon as possible to enable the ExA to take these into consideration and allow interested parties an opportunity to comment.

To prevent any delay in your representation reaching the ExA, please ensure you also send this to the project mailbox: [email protected] so a member of the case team can action it accordingly should I not be available.

03 July 2014
Lissett & Ulrome Parish Council - R Turner
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Thank you for your e mail of 13th May and for keeping us informed.

The verbal discussions referred to occurred in November last year, by telephone, before we sent the e mail below ? initially with a gentleman whose name we do not have who told us he considered the matter serious, and then further discussions took place with Kay Sully who advised us to put details in writing with documentary evidence which we have done comprehensively.

We wondered whether the Planning Inspectorate were made aware of our case by the applicant before the project was accepted for examination and if not should you have been informed at this stage by them that there were and still are unresolved ongoing issues?
Thank you for your email of 15 May in response to our letter of 13 May regarding the proposed Dogger Bank Creyke Beck Offshore Wind Farm.

The previous advice I issued regarding your representation was due to the fact that your original representation submitted was initially deemed not relevant as it solely referred to the way in which Forewind accessed your land, rather than providing comments on the proposal itself. In order for a representation to be deemed relevant, it must meet certain criteria set out by legislation. One of these criteria is that your form should include an outline of the principal submissions which you propose to make in respect of the application (Part 3 of the form). This information enables the Examining Authority, when appointed, to identify the principal issues to be examined.

As advised in our previous letter, whilst your correspondence has been accepted into the examination, the issue raised regarding the manner in which Forewind Ltd accessed your land is something that the Examining Authority may not be able to take into consideration when making their recommendation to the Secretary of State.

In support of our openness policy, the application and its supporting documents which Forewind submitted to the Planning Inspectorate for consideration are published on our website and can be found at:

[attachment 1]

It is appreciated this may not provide an answer to your concerns. However in light of the above, it is for these reasons why we would advise you to obtain professional advice regarding this issue.

In addition, the Examining Authority issued a letter on 23 May requesting further information regarding a proposed accompanied site visit so if there are any particular points you wish to point out to the ExA, I would encourage you to respond to this by 3 June 2014 which they will then consider.

27 May 2014
John Beaumont Jill Lazenby
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
See advice below/attached
Thank you for your email of 24 April setting out your disagreement with the manner in
which the applicant Forewind Ltd has accessed your land in order to carry out surveys.
We also note that we have received previous correspondence concerning this issue,
including within your relevant representation and written representation. These
representations have been accepted into the examination and published to our
website.

Your email below has been accepted into the examination by the Examining Authority
and will be published in the same manner. You should note however that when
making their recommendation to the Secretary of State about this application, the
Examining Authority are concerned amongst other matters with whether to authorise
the compulsory acquisition of land. If you wish to see the conditions under which land
or rights can be compulsorily acquired they are set out at Section 122(2) of the
Planning Act 2008, which is available at the following link:
[attachment 1]

The issue you have raised concerning the manner in which Forewind Ltd has accessed
your land, is not directly related to the above tests in s122, nor is it related to the
merits of the proposed development. Therefore it may be the case that the Examining
Authority is unable to give your representations about this matter any weight as a
relevant and important matter when making their recommendation.
If you continue to have concerns regarding the manner in which the applicant carried
out surveys or accessed your property it is recommended that you take professional
advice.

With regards to Point 3 of your email of 24 April, based on our records it is our
understanding that you have not attended any oral hearings to date and we therefore
have no record of any oral representations. However there are further Compulsory
Acquisition hearings timetabled for the week commencing 30 June 2014 where you
may wish to raise matters relating to compulsory acquisition of your interests. Further
details of those hearings including an agenda will be published at least 7 days prior to
the hearing.

13 May 2014
John Beaumont Jill Lazenby
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Letter addressed to the Director of Major Applications & Plans from the RSPB attached.
Response from the Director of Major Applications & Plans attached.

22 January 2014
RSPB - Gwyn Williams
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
During a meeting on Tuesday 3rd December 2013 I had with Forewind in Haugesund, Norway, I found that I have missed the deadline to register my interest for relevant representation in Dogger Bank Creyke Beck. I hope it may still be possible register.
Thank you for your email in relation to the proposed Dogger Bank Creyke Beck application by Forewind which has recently been accepted for examination in accordance with the Planning Act 2008.

I can confirm the deadline for registering as an Interested Party ended on 8 November 2013 however you may write to us at the Planning Inspectorate setting out the issues you wish to put before the Examining Authority. Please ensure your representation relates specifically to the application and explain what you agree and/or disagree with and why, upon receipt the Examining Authority will consider whether to exercise their discretion and accept your submission into the examination. It should be noted however, if the Examining Authority agree to accept your submission, we will still be unable to give you an Interested Party status as you will have no legal entitlement to participate like a party who has registered within the statutory time limit.

You may also wish to note that under Regulation 24 of the Environmental Impact Regulations 2009, we have written to the Norwegian Ministry of Environment Department (Regional Sector for Impact Assessment and Community Development) addressed to Mr Jørgen Brun and Mr Harold Noreik inviting them to participate in the examination of Dogger Bank Creyke Beck so you may wish to contact that department with any comments you have about the proposed development. A copy of Advice Note 12 on 'Development with significant Transboundary consultation' may be of use to you and can be accessed at the following link;

[attachment 1]

Parties who have not registered as an interested party can also consider grouping together with an individual or organisation which has already registered and become an interested party, where they have similar views to your own, so that they can express your views on your behalf. A list of the registered interested parties can be found at the following link;

[attachment 2]

If you choose to do this, you may also wish to ask this person or organisation to keep you informed regarding the progress of the application, as the Examining Authority only writes directly to interested parties about the progress of the application although you will also be able to track the progress by monitoring the project web page which you will be able to access at the following link;

[attachment 3]

Should you decide to submit your late representation, please send this to [email protected]

If you have any further queries on the above or any other matter, please do not hesitate to contact me

12 December 2013
Harald Oestensjoe
Enquiry received via email
Section 51 Advice in relation to the notification under Regulation 17 of the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2009 (as amended) ('the EIA Regulations')
Thank you for your letter dated 11 November 2013 enclosing copies of the compliance certificates for sections 58 and 59 of the Planning Act 2008 and Regulation 13 of the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2009 (as amended) ('the EIA Regulations').
In the above letter you also provided a document which you called a compliance certificate in accordance with Regulation 17 of the EIA Regulations in relation to the Ornithological Addendum (relating to the cumulative and in-combination assessment dated September 2013) ('the Addendum') provided to PINS on 9 October 2013. However, procedurally this is incorrect as the EIA Regulations do not make provision for a certificate to be provided by an applicant unless a Regulation 17 determination has been made by the Examining Authority.
Regulation 17 of the EIA Regulations applies only where an application has been accepted for examination and the Examining Authority has determined that an applicant's environmental statement is inadequate and should contain further information. Currently this is not the case and it will be for the Examining Authority to consider whether the information you have provided means that the ES was inadequate (and therefore whether the Addendum should be subject to statutory consultation under EIA Regulation 17 and the examination suspended). The Examining Authority will therefore need to make a procedural decision under s89(3) of the Planning Act about how to examine the application in the light of the supplementary Addendum you submitted and this may be communicated through the Rule 6 letter which will invite Forewind and other interested parties to the preliminary meeting. In the meantime PINS will hold this Addendum on file. It will not be published on the project webpage on the PINS' website until a procedural decision has been taken by the Examining authority.
However, as Forewind has published a notice under Regulation 17, we are concerned that the notification has the potential to confuse interested parties and the wider general public. You should of course take your own legal advice, but one option although not a statutory requirement, may be to publish a correction notice. This notice could clarify that the Addendum had not been provided in response to a Regulation 17 notification made by the Examining Authority; it could be published in the same newspapers that the Regulation 17 notice was published. If you decide to take this approach a copy of this new notice should be sent to PINS for information and this would be passed to the Examining Authority. Alternatively, you may consider it appropriate to write to the consultation bodies and any other person who responded to the newspaper notice in order to clarify the position. In the meantime, PINS will remove your cover letter dated 11 November 2013 referring to the Regulation 17 certificate and the copy of the certificate from the project page on the website.
We also note that Forewind, in the "Regulation 17 notice", requested responses to be provided by 8 November 2013. We suggest that if any responses are received, Forewind may wish to provide copies of these responses to PINS so these could be submitted to the Examining Authority, along with the Addendum. Again, whilst we recommend that you take your own legal advice, we would suggest that you also provide the information listed below which will help the Examining Authority to take a procedural decision about whether to accept the Addendum, and if so how it should be examined:
clarify the status of the Addendum and whether you consider it to be other information which is defined as "any other substantive information relating to the environmental statement" (as defined in Regulation 2(1) of the EIA Regulations);
identify any consequential corrections/updates to other application documents, including the ES and HRA Report; and
confirm that as a result of obtaining this other information there are no consequential changes to the authorised development and ancillary matters for which you are applying in the draft DCO submitted with the application.

I would be grateful if you could let me know how Forewind intend to proceed.

29 November 2013
Melissa Read
Enquiry received via email
The Civil Aviation Authority are not currently registered as an interested party for the Dogger Bank Creyke Beck proposed development. Is it possible register as an interested party at this stage? I am concerned that there are currently no registered parties to advise on aviation issues, for example NATS, MOD or the CAA.

Any advice would be much appreciated.
Kind regards,
Thank you for your email regarding the Dogger Bank Creyke Beck application.

As you may be aware the registration period for this project closed on 8th November 2013.

For your information, the Civil Aviation Authority has been identified as a 'statutory party' for this application and therefore will have an opportunity to request to become an interested party during the examination period. You will be notified by the Examining authority of the date Preliminary Meeting for this case (the date of which is yet to be decided) which will set out the draft examination timetable. You are not required to attend this meeting, but it would assist the Examining authority if you could inform us in writing/by email of your request to be considered an interested party after this meeting has taken place and the examination period has commenced.

Kind regards

27 November 2013
Kelly Lightowler
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Letter addressed to the Director of Major Applications & Plans from the RSPB attached.
Response from the Director of Major Applications & Plans attached.

04 October 2013
RSPB - Gwyn Williams
Enquiry received via meeting
Working draft application documents provided by the applicant prior to submission of the application.
Thank you to you and the team for meeting us on Monday in relation to the Dogger Bank projects. We promised to follow up with some written s51 advice for Dogger Bank Creyke Beck on the matters of Crown land, Book of Reference and statutory undertakers, which I now set out below.

Crown land

It is noted that there are no proposals to acquire any Crown interest compulsorily. However, notwithstanding article 43, as currently drafted article 24 would allow compulsory acquisition of interests in Crown land held by or on behalf of the Crown. This is not authorised by the Planning Act. Interests held by or on behalf of the Crown should therefore be excluded from compulsory acquisition. This can be effected by annotating the book of reference (in the relevant plot description) with the words "except interests held by or on behalf of the Crown".

Section 135 (1) does however allow Development Consent Orders (DCOs) to authorise the compulsory acquisition of land held other than by the Crown (for example a lease owned a third party over Crown Estate land) if the Crown authority consents to the acquisition. We are not sure whether it is proposed to compulsorily acquire an interest held by or other than by the Crown at the River Hull crossing (see s227 (3) - Crown land may be land in which there is an interest belonging to a government department or held in trust for Her Majesty for the purposes of a government department) or whether acquisition will be by agreement. If the consent of the appropriate Crown authority is required under s135 (1) (whether from the Crown Estate Commissioners or government department) you are strongly encouraged to procure relevant s135 (1) consents as soon as possible and at the very latest by the time the examination has concluded. When submitting your application you are also advised to provide information about the progress of discussions with the Crown authorities.

If a DCO contains provisions (not being compulsory acquisition provisions) "applying in relation to Crown land" Section 135 (2) prevents a DCO being made unless the appropriate Crown authority consents to the inclusion of the provisions. Notwithstanding article 43 protecting Crown rights, if provisions of the DCO (eg temporary use of Crown land) could be said to apply to Crown land it is recommended that in principle consent under s135 (2) to the draft DCO which you intend to submit with your application is sought from the relevant Crown authority before the application is submitted. At the least, the statement of reasons should provide information about the progress of discussions. If at decision stage there are any changes to the DCO provisions applying to Crown land, final s135 (2) consent can be sought at that stage.

In relation to each relevant plot within the Order land, it is recommended that the statement of reasons (or by cross reference to part 4 of the book of reference) is absolutely clear about the nature of interests in Crown land, how the interest is held and the appropriate Crown authority from which consent must be obtained (by reference to ss 135 and 227). If you do not consider that s135 (1) or (2) consent is required (because for example there is no compulsory acquisition of any interest held otherwise than by the Crown or because no provision applies in relation to Crown land) this should be explained in the statement of reasons, again with specific reference to ss135 and 227.

Book of Reference Part 3

It is considered that persons entitled to enjoy easements or other private rights which the applicant proposes to extinguish, suspend or interfere with identified in Part 3 should also be recorded in Part 1 as a person within categories 1 or 2.

Statutory undertakers

The Planning Act has been amended to remove the need for the Secretary of State to provide a certificate under s127 before (to paraphrase) authorising compulsory acquisition of statutory undertakers' land where a representation (made before the end of the examination) has not been withdrawn. The statement of reasons should nonetheless provide information to enable the Secretary of State to be satisfied that the tests in s127 (3) (and also the test of necessity in s138 (4)) can be met.

It is considered that applicants should not add any non-prescribed parts to a book of reference, for example schedules of statutory undertakers having or possibly having a right to keep equipment on, in or over the land within the Order limits. This is because diligent inquiry should enable applicants to know whether or not such undertakers have an interest or right in land for the purposes of s57 and if they are known the names and addresses should be contained in the relevant part of the book of reference. It would however be helpful (in the statement of reasons or where practicable) to identify which statutory undertakers (as defined in s127 (8) and 138 (4A)) have land or apparatus in the Order land and in relation to which the Secretary of State must be satisfied in relation to the tests in s127 (3) and 138 (4) as discussed above.

31 July 2013
Forewind - Melissa Read
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Comments provided on the draft Dogger Bank Creyke Beck HRA Report. See attached document.

11 June 2013
Melissa Read
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting on Dogger Bank Creyke Beck, including provision of consultation documents. Update on Dogger Bank Teesside.
Please see the attached document

16 April 2013
Forewind Ltd - Melissa Read
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
At our meeting on 15 November, we were told that it would not be possible for the Planning Inspectorate to confirm that our list of section 42 consultees was complete in advance of us submitting an application. For obvious reasons, Forewind is keen to reduce any risk that we should not comply with the pre-application consultation requirements of the Planning Act and has made best endeavours to keep the list up-to-date since the IPC provided us with our Regulation 9 list in November 2010.

As I am sure you are aware, this is a rather difficult task as there is no central repository of information about whether there is a successor body for those that cease to exist and similarly, in the case of CABE for example, when a body is re-instated as a statutory body. We are also finding it very difficult to determine which gas and electricity licence holders we must consult as the lists on Ofgem?s website are extensive and not geographically mapped.

Having taken legal advice, we believe that the Planning Inspectorate should support us in confirming that our list of section 42 (1) a consultees is complete and accurate as these consultees are prescribed by the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009 (the APFP Regulations). Could you please let me know whether the Planning Inspectorate?s position on this has changed? At the very least could the Planning Inspectorate provide an updated list of consultees as per the APFP Regulations that we can cross reference our list with?

I attach an updated list and would appreciate a statement from the Planning Inspectorate either confirming that the list is correct or detailing any amendments that need to be made.
Dear Nikki,
many thanks for your email dated 20 February - I have the following information for you which I trust will be of use:

As you will be aware, s51 of the Planning Act 2008 provides power to give advice about making an application. The position remains however that there is no duty imposed by the Planning Act to confirm that consultation is complete, in effect to certify that consultation has been carried out in accordance with the Planning Act before an application is submitted. This is because such a decision is the Secretary of State's when applying the tests under s55 (3) (e).

It is the applicant's duty to identify all those bodies who need to be consulted and as there is no prescribed list which applies in all circumstances an element of judgement will be required. PINS Advice Note 3 provides further advice and I would reiterate that where there is discretion to be applied (for example in the case of statutory undertakers) it is important to explain what approach has been taken to identifying such bodies in the consultation report. I have provided a link to the Advice Note below. If we have identified an alternative appropriate consultee we are of course happy to provide s51 advice in relation to specific bodies identified in the APFP Schedule which no longer exist.

[attachment 1]

08 March 2013
Forewind - Nikki Smith
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Forewind Ltd sought comments on its draft Consultation Report from The Planning Inspectorate. In addition to this, comments were also sought on the developer's proposed consultation list for the purposes of section 42 of the Planning act 2008 as amended, and upon the s48 Notice.
Please see attachment

23 November 2012
Forewind Limited - Nikki Smith
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Update on Dogger Bank Yorkshire (Creyke Beck) and Teesside Applications
See attachment

15 November 2012
Forewind Limited - Andrew Guyton
Enquiry received via post
response has attachments
Query regarding Model Clause 5 (3) - Please see attached letter from Forewind dated 10.11.11. for details
Please see attached response from the IPC dated 17.11.11.

17 November 2011
Forewind - Kim Gauld-Clark
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting and discussion of matters raised in Forewind?s letters of 26 July and 22 August 2011
See attached documents.

14 September 2011
Forewind
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Update meeting to discuss progress of the project.
View meeting note: [attachment 1]

04 February 2011
Forewind
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Advice given in reponse to the applicant updating the IPC on the progress of the SoCC.
When developing your SoCC further, you should ensure that you have had regard to the relevant guidance in IPC Guidance Note 1 Revision 1 on pre-application stages, specifically paragraph 29 in relation to providing reference to the positive benefits to the local community that would result from the development and the issues which could be considered negative elements of the proposal, to encourage public participation.

If you have not already done so, you may also wish to identify whether any other major consultation exercises are being undertaken in the area and aim to achieve a programme that minimises confusion and possible consultation fatigue (paragraph 31 of IPC Guidance Note 1 Revision 1).

Under the heading "Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC) consenting process" in the SoCC you state that the consultation "report will be considered by the IPC as part of its consideration of our application". To clarify, the consultation report will be considered by the IPC both when deciding whether to accept the application and also when examining the application.

The key legislation and guidance for Applicants and Local Authorities on the preparation and content of SoCCs have been listed below with the appropriate links:

- section 47 of the Planning Act 2008 (the Act) [attachment 1]

- IPC Guidance Note 1 Revision 1 on pre-application stages, paragraph 12 onwards [attachment 2]

- The Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2009, Regulation 10 (a) and (b) [attachment 3]

- CLG Guidance on pre-application consultation. Please note that paragraph 92 of this Guidance refers applicants to Regulations 9 and 10 (of the EIA Regulations), however it should read as Regulation 10 and 11 of the EIA Regulations instead [attachment 4]

- GLG Guidance for Local Authorities [attachment 5]

Please note that in accordance with section 55(4)(c) of the Act, when determining whether an application can be accepted, the Commission must consider the extent to which the applicant has had regard to any guidance issued under section 50. Therefore, if any guidance has not been followed, you may wish to justify this within your application, whilst also being aware of the statutory requirement to do this under section 55(3)(d) of the Act.

All advice the Commission provides at this stage does not prejudice or pre-judge the decision of the Commissioner regarding acceptance or non-acceptance of an application. We would strongly recommend that you always seek your own legal advice upon which you can rely.

30 December 2010
Mark Thomas
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting to discuss project details and
programme of work required to submit application to IPC.
[attachment 1]

30 June 2010
anon.
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting to discuss project details and programme of work required to submit application to IPC.
[attachment 1]

29 June 2010
FOREWIND - anon.