Meeting with SSE Group
Please see attached

SSE - anon.

As requested to be sent in writing before the 19th January 2015. The request came from the Planning Inspectorate Committee and Mr Rynd Smith made the request.
I state the following; the land at Black bridge farm facing Redcar Road, TS11 8LE. This land was purchased in approximately 1980 and was purchased after receiving expert advice as future development land, being the next open field at Marske facing Redcar road.
It was advisable to purchase the land as a future pension for myself and my wife. Since the meeting on 13/1/2015, I have asked for expert advice again.
Ward Hadaway, a large company of planning advise lawyers based in Newcastle have been paid a retainer every year for 16/17 years, in which they have been in contact with the Local authority and every year it has been positive in that it is getting closer to develop.
1) We confirm that Taylor Wimpey had wished to have a contract with ourselves which we had signed, to develop the land. Then within approximately two weeks, they had written to our solicitors, basically stating that they were not going ahead , and stated that the reason for this was ?Forewind. The impending Forewind planning application for the off shore wind farm and associated infrastructure has potential to sterilise a significant portion of your site reducing its developable area and therefore its attractiveness as an opportunity.?
2) The solicitor dealing with this was Thorpe Parker, who wrote to ourselves, see quote further on.
3) Confirm that planning approval has been given for a large entrance for large articulated lorries and for a volume of traffic as if the land is already developed for domestic or commercial use.
4) The NFU have advised us the following; that since April 2014, the government have given us the 56 day rule which states that any agricultural buildings can be turned into domestic dwellings without any planning approval needed. Further to this, since April 2013, the government gave us the 56 day rule which means that any agricultural building can be turned into any industrial or commercial building, again without planning permission being needed, meaning that this land is now not agricultural.
5) Confirm to what I stated at the meeting on January 13th 2015 that a new developer was going to put in for planning permission shortly.
6) The land has been previously intruded upon twice by Northumbrian Water, for main sewerage pipes, which caused major disruption. In hindsight this makes the land more viable for development but it has been at great cost to ourselves. (Northumbrian water confirms that these pipes can be used for all sewerage for residential development on the field.)
7) We have had expert advice since the meeting about the land development. Since it is near the sea it is ideal for seaside bungalows, first time housing or even a holiday park to replace the one that use to be in Marske many years ago.
8) The land is in a prime position with excellent views facing south, looking over the Cleveland Hills.
9) ?Forewind. The impending Forewind planning application for the off shore wind farm and associated infrastructure has potential to sterilise a significant portion of your site reducing its developable area and therefore its attractiveness as an opportunity.?
10) The NFU, to which we are a member, have given a lot of expert advice concerning this particular field over the last few years.
Many thanks for your email, a copy will be published next week and forwarded to the Examining Authority (panel of Inspectors) along with all other Deadline VIII documents.

In the meantime, please note the full action points have now been published and the link to these has been forwarded to you in a separate email from the project mailbox by my colleague, Richard White. I would like to draw your attention particularly to 1.1 and 1.3, if you are unable to send any attachments to your submissions by email, please submit these by post as a matter of urgency in order to meet Monday's deadline.

If you have any queries regarding this or any other matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Kevin Keddie

Further to the inspectorate meeting on 4/12/2014, which I was unable to attend due to ill health, but when Mr Keddie reported to me, I felt that it was a waste of time, as the meeting could not progress any further as time ran out.

This is a very costly process to a private individual such as getting myself legal advice which can cost up to £250 per letter and also getting independent advice from experts that cost from £250 to £500 per letter and I have paperwork pertaining to this case that is over 2 foot thick.
As a private, retired individual I cannot claim anything back from my tax and I am trying to look after my possible investment as a private pension.

It was also brought to my attention that other land was inspected on Thursday afternoon and Friday, yet no-one thought to come and inspect my land. I understand that this will be corrected at the next hearing on the 13th/14th January 2015.

Can you please tell me, as this is a new, previously unscheduled hearing, can we submit documentary evidence prior to the hearing appertaining to our case for consideration by the panel?

Thank you for your assistance so far.
Thank you for your email.

Further to my telephone discussion yesterday afternoon with Mr Keddie in relation to the points you raise below, I can confirm the following;

Regarding the timing and usefulness of the hearing on 4 December 2014, please note that the timetable and arrangements for hearings were published in draft on 11 July 2014 and an opportunity was given to parties to comment on the proposed timetable. This was followed by the issue of the finalised timetable on 11 August 2014 with a deadline of 3 September 2014 which allowed parties to request a hearing or site visit on matters that concerned them. Both yourself and Mr Keddie were notified of these arrangements on each occasion.

Throughout the examination every effort has been made to adapt the timetable to take into account any late representations and requests to be heard, however this is often logistically challenging and in the case of the hearing in early December, the panel of Inspectors (Examining Authority) indicated that it would endeavour to hear all persons requesting to be heard within the notified hearing, but also made clear that it would prioritise the hearing of those who had requested to be heard in accordance with the timetable. As matters transpired, not all persons requesting to be heard on 4 December could be heard on that date.

In relation to the site visit, consideration was given to viewing your land after the hearings in early December, however the Examining Authority had made prior commitments to view land belonging to other parties who had made requests within the allocated deadlines. Similarly, it could not be accommodated that day due to lack of time and poor light conditions. Fairness required us to adhere to the existing plans rather than disrupt this to carry out an unscheduled inspection. As you say time has now been allocated next month to inspect your land and will take place on Wednesday 14 January, subject to completion of the hearing on Tuesday 13 January as should the Examining Authority be able to close the hearing at a reasonable time, the accompanied site inspection will take place on the Tuesday afternoon.

In respect of submitting any documentary evidence prior to the January hearings, you must ensure this is submitted to the Planning Inspector for the attention of the Examining Authority by 29 December 2014 as indicated in the revised timetable; [attachment 1]

If you require further clarification or assistance please do not hesitate to contact us.

I will be on leave from Friday 19 Dec ? Tuesday 6 January so please ensure you copy any emails to the project mailbox ? [email protected] (which is also cc-d into this email).

C Jowsey

We keep receiving letters from you regarding the development consent for the Dogger Bank Teesside. I have left 4 messages for someone to call me back to explain what response is required from us, but no one has returned my calls.

Could you please either stop sending the letters, or call me on the number below to explain what you require from us.
Apologies that you?ve been unable to get in contact with us and that no one has returned your calls.

I thought rather than call I would respond by email as this will allow me to give you links to documents. This will hopefully allow you to appreciate why we are in contact with you.

The applicant ?Forewind Ltd? is proposing to construct an offshore wind farm in the Dogger Bank zone of the North Sea, which then has a subsea cable and an underground onshore cable connecting it to the National Grid at the Lackenby substation adjacent to the Wilton Industrial Complex.

As part of the construction and operation of that underground cable route the applicant is requesting compulsory acquisition powers that would enable it to acquire land, or rights over land, along that cable route. The applicant has identified that your company has an easement or right of way within the Wilton Complex that will need to be extinguished suspended or interfered with in order to facilitate construction or maintenance.

All rights and interests that are being compulsorily acquired are detailed in the table within this document (you will note that your interest is detailed on pg 129):

[attachment 1]

The numbers in the far left column (48, 49A etc) correspond to plots on Sheet 4 of the land plans, which can be found at the link below:

[attachment 2]

No response is required from you, however we do have a legal duty under the Planning Act 2008 to notify you along with all other affected persons. If you do wish to comment on the affect that these proposals have on your operations or interests then you may do so, however please be aware that we are now some way through a 6-month examination period which will close on or before 5 February 2015. This means that any comment should now be submitted as a matter of urgency.

The examination timetable and project website can be found here:

[attachment 3]

I hope this is helpful, but if you need any clarification I would be happy to discuss. My direct line is set out below.

DuPont (U.K.) Limited - Alison Geddes

Thank you for your unbelievably prompt reply in relation to the email that was sent to you on Thursday 27th November at approximately 15:15, and had many points that we required answers to.

It would be greatly appreciated if you could help me once again. As you know, the meeting is only a few days away and is a great concern. I know that you are travelling up to the area at some point today, but it is of urgent importance that I get a reply to this email as soon as possible, so that I know fully what I am discussing. It is stated on your website, the wording being ?It is a compulsory acquisition hearing?, and Forewinds was given permission, the only permission that was granted, by your organisation, the planning inspectorate, to come onto that land at Marske that belongs to Mr Jowsey and gave them the rights to undertake all their requirements on this registered field.

I assume that the compensation is for this field and not for any other land belonging to Mr Jowsey in any other shape or form.

I have been made aware on your website that the inspectors will be conducting an accompanied site inspection of the direct current cable alignment across agricultural holdings represented by Strutt and Parker who represent:

A) Old Hall Farm, Old Lackenby, Eston TS6 8DN
B) Turner Arms Far, Yearby, Redcar TS11 8HH
C) Thrushwood Farm, Yearby, Redcar TS11 8HD
D) Grewgrass Farm, Grewgrass Lane, Marske-by-the-sea TS11 8EB
E) Pontac Farm, New Marske, Redcar TS11 8LD

Can you please tell us why the inspectorate are not also visiting Mr Jowsey?s site?

An answer to this by 10am tomorrow morning would be greatly appreciated.
You are correct that authorisation was granted under s53 of the Planning Act 2008, allowing the applicant Forewind Ltd to enter Mr Jowsey?s land for the purpose of taking surveys. It should be noted that this authorisation in no way grants the applicant powers of compulsory acquisition over the land. The process for granting compulsory acquisition powers is as follows.

The examining authority will make a recommendation to the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, and part of that recommendation will be concerned with whether the applicant should be granted powers of compulsory acquisition over the land and rights that it has set out in the Book of Reference and Land Plans that accompany the application. The Secretary of State, taking account of the examining authority?s recommendation, will then make a decision to either grant or refuse compulsory acquisition powers, in full or in part.

It may assist you to familiarise yourself with the Book of Reference found at the following link:

[attachment 1]

As you will see. it sets out that the applicant is proposing to compulsorily acquire Mr Jowsey?s interests in plots 19A, 19B, 20A and 20B (as shown in the first column of the table). These plots correspond to the numbered plots shown on the Land Plans, which can be found at this link:

[attachment 2]

With regards to a site visit to Mr Jowsey?s land, I should point out that an opportunity was given within the examination timetable (Deadline III on 3 September 2014) for interested parties to request site visits to their land or any other relevant land. This deadline was set out in the letter sent out by the examining authority on 11 August 2014 (the ?Rule 8? letter). Our understanding is that no such request was received from Mr Jowsey or yourself. However the examining authority does have discretion to amend the timetable, and on that basis can I ask whether your email below constitutes a formal request for an accompanied site inspection? In your response it would be helpful if you could set out whether the features you would wish the examining authority to see might be viewable from public land, if so they may wish to carry out the visit unaccompanied.

In any event the examining authority will wish to discuss these matters on Thursday at the compulsory acquisition hearing. If you have any further queries before then, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Kevin Keddie

Protocol for the meeting on Thursday 4th December 2014-11
1) Mr Jowsey will wish to speak and hand over letters to the three panellists.
2) I, Kevin Keddie, Mr Jowsey?s assistant, would like to speak and hand over papers to the panellists.
3) Mr Jowsey is a private individual and therefore does not wish for his name and address the be made public knowledge. When presenting papers and speaking to the panellists can he please leave these details out of the public domain.
4) I, Kevin Keddie, am also a private individual and ask for my name and address to be kept out of the public domain.
5) Do we start the proceedings by being asked questions by the panellists and then present our case?
6) Are Forewinds being represented by a professional body such as a solicitor or barrister?
7) Will Forewinds be questioning either Mr Jowsey or myself?
8) Can we question Forewinds?
9) Or do both parties just present their cases?
10) We have been informed that the panellists (being planning inspectors), have three months to put in their report to the Secretary of State. The Secretary will then make a final decision after a further three months.
11) At the end of the three months is the file with the decision and recommendations available for Mr Jowsey to see.
12) Or is it a case that the Secretary of State will inform us of the decision before Forewinds and is so how much time will Mr Jowsey have before Forewinds are informed?
14) Once they have made a decision can it then be challenged?
15) Mr Jowsey has spent a great amount of time and expense getting involved in this matter, even just coming here today, are there any expenses that we would be able to claim?
Thank you for your email, I have responded to the points in the order you raise them;

(1) Noted, it will be at the Examining Authority?s (ExA) discretion whether to accept them on the day
(2) Noted, as above in point (1)
(3) As this is an open and transparent process, we are unable to withhold the publication of material showing the name of the sender however I can confirm all other personal details will be redacted and not placed in the public domain, please do note the hearing will be recorded and the audio recording will be published to the website
(4) As above in point (3)
(5) The process is inquisitorial so the ExA will be asking you questions to which you will then be able to answer/present your case as necessary. Please note, should matters be raised which are not within the ExA?s remit, the ExA will alert parties to this so the discussion can be brought back to the matters relevant to the hearing
(6) We have not yet received an attendance list from Forewind however based on past experience they do generally bring a solicitor and barrister
(7) There will be no cross examination unless there is a formal request which the ExA accepts or whereby they feel it is necessary however this is not common practice meaning only the ExA will be asking Mr Jowsey questions
(8) As there will be no formal cross examination (unless the ExA considers it necessary) you will also not be able to ask the developer direct questions as these will need to be directed to the ExA. There is however often an opportunity before the hearing commences and during the break for parties to talk with the developer so if Mr Jowsey or yourself wishes to speak with Forewind separately, the developer will usually have a representative available on the day
(9) As above in point (7) and (8)
(10) This is correct, the deadline for the ExA?s recommendation to the Secretary of State is 5 February 2015 and then Secretary of State will have a further three months to make a decision
(11) The recommendation will not be in the public domain until after the Secretary of State has made its decision
(12) The decision will be sent back to the Planning Inspectorate who will then notify all parties, including Forewind and a copy will be published to the website
(13) This number appears to be missing
(14) There will be a challenge period of 6 weeks following the issue of decision
(15) When applications for nationally significant infrastructure projects (NSIPs) are examined, some parties may incur significant costs when they take part in the process. In planning decisions, the general rule is that each party bears its own costs: you do not have to pay another party?s costs if you ?lose?. The same applies to examinations into NSIP applications. Guidance issued by the Secretary of State; [attachment 1] explains in detail how such an application for an award of costs will be treated, and gives examples of unreasonable behaviour. It also gives examples of good practice which will help avoid the risk of other parties obtaining an award.

In addition to the above, you may find it useful to watch this short video on how the process in general works; [attachment 2]

I will be also be available before the start of the hearing if you wish to discuss this in more detail, alternatively as we just discussed on the telephone I will be back in the office on Monday morning.

Kevin Keddie

Phonecall regarding receipt of information regarding application
Email response:

In relation to our discussion yesterday, as I am awaiting the link to be published please find attached the agendas and site visit itinerary for next week in a PDF document. The Compulsory Acquisition hearing will be taking place on Thursday 4 December 2015, details of which can be found in the third agenda of the document.

Furthermore, with regard to you not receiving any written material or notification from the Planning Inspectorate throughout the examination, I have looked into this and can confirm the following;

? Mr Jowsey?s was sent by post to: Heystones Manor, Aislaby. No post has been returned to this office
? Mr Keddie?s was sent by email to: '[email protected]? No emails have bounced back
? Attached to this email are copies of the ?sent items? confirming the material was issued from our servers

Whilst I appreciate this may not assist you at this stage, the procedural decisions which have been issued and/or published by the panel of Inspectors (Examining Authority(ExA)), are available at the following link; [attachment 1];stage=4&filter=Procedural+Decisions

As explained on the telephone, during a compulsory acquisition hearing, affected persons will be able to make oral representations regarding the compulsory acquisition however if you wish to make a written submission on the day of the hearing, the ExA may decide to exercise their discretion to accept it there and then, although there is an opportunity to submit written submissions of oral submissions by Deadline VII in the examination timetable. Alternatively should you wish to submit any written material in advance of the hearing, the ExA may decide to exercise their discretion to accept it beforehand. Please note as this is an open and transparent process, material which is accepted as part of the examination will be made available on the website.

Once you have had an opportunity to read the agenda and any other material, if you have any queries please do not hesitate to contact us. In the event you are unable to reach me, John Pingstone who is the case officer can also be contacted on 0303 444 5038.

Please note, if you submit any correspondence via email, please ensure you copy the project mailbox (cc-d into the email) in case I am not available.

Kevin Keddie

In responding to Examiners 2nd questions, can the examiners clarify Question 14.1. The Question states:
?A plan from the original application (APP-023 2.8.2) identifies the location of the RIGS site north of the Teesside A&B landfall.
Please outline this site on the plan contained in Appendix A from your response to EXQ1, question 6.24?

The applicants response to question 6.24 of the 1st EXQ1 does not contain an Appendix A or a plan. Forewind did provide a plan at Appendix A in response to Question 14.3 of EXQ1 in regards to the geology of the offshore export cable corridor. Can PINS confirm if this is the plan they wish to see the RIGS boundary outlined or if not which plan they are referring to?

Note ? If it is the plan in response to Q 14.3, adding the RIGS boundaries to this would not be very informative due to the plans scaling (1:320,000). Forewind can prepare a plan with a smaller scaling at landfall.

Many thanks
The document referred to is 6.24.2, Environmental Statement, Chapter 24, Appendix B - Flood Risk Assessment and the plan referred to appears in Appendix A of that document and has a drawing number: T-DES-0149-01 and drawing Title: Figure 1: Dogger Bank Teesside A & B ? Landfall.

The drawing shows the cable landfall sites for Dogger Bank Teesside A&B and C&D and you are asked to locate and identify the RIGS site on that 1:28,000 drawing.

I hope this clarifies, if not please let me know.

Forewind - Andrew Guyton

Letter dated 30 July 2014 published on our website on 15 August 2014
Thank you for your letter of 30 July 2014 which was received in this office on 6 August
2014.

The Examining Authority (ExA) has accepted this into the examination and it will be
made available on the website page for this project as an examination document.
You may wish to note that, as your client Airvolution Energy Ltd are in the Book of
Reference, they are an interested party and an affected person giving them rights to
participate in the process including receiving examination correspondence and an
entitlement to be heard at a compulsory acquisition hearing and an open floor
hearing. It will be for you and your client to consider whether your client wishes to
take an active part in the examination. Should you wish to proceed on this basis, I
would recommend you submit any written representations and/or requests to be
heard at a compulsory acquisition hearing or any other event as set out in the
timetable by Deadline III (3 September). Copies will then be forwarded to the ExA for
their consideration.
The Rule 8 letter which was sent to your client, includes the examination timetable
was published on Monday 11 August 2014 and can be accessed at the following link;
[attachment 1]
ipc/uploads/projects/EN010051/2.%20Post-Submission/Procedural%20Decisions/Rule%208%20Letter.pdf
You may also wish to note on this page is the option to sign up to be notified of
updates on the project. To do this, you will need to input your email address into the
box under ?Email Updates? and click ?sign up?. This will take you to a new screen where
you need to input your name, confirm your email address again and click in the tick
box for ?All updates?
Further information about the process is available in the following advice notes:
[attachment 2]
8-1v4.pdf
[attachment 2]
8-5v3.pdf

If you have any further queries, please don?t hesitate to contact me.

Savills on behalf of Airvolution - David Palmer

Dear Kay,
Apologies for missing your deadline in regard to the Dogger Bank A&B application?s written representations. As the Local Enterprise Partnership, we would very much like to submit a supportive comment asserting the importance of this scheme to the local economy. In this regard, could you let me know how it is best to do this?
More than happy to discuss further (details below).
Best wishes,
Rory
Dear Mr Sherwood-Parkin

Thank you for your email.

The deadline within which to submit a relevant representation closed on 12 June. However, the Examining Authority (ExA) may exercise discretion to accept a late representation if one is made. Therefore if you wish to make a representation, I would recommend you submit this as soon as possible and preferably by Deadline I (22 August at 2pm) as set out in the examination timetable. A copy will then be forwarded to the ExA for their consideration, if they exercise discretion to accept your representation, please note a copy will be published to the project website page where you will be able to monitor the progress of this case.

You may also wish to note that on this page is the option to sign up to be notified of updates on the project. To do this, you will need to input your email address into the box under ?Email Updates? and click ?sign up?. This will take you to a new screen where you need to input your name, confirm your email address again and click in the tick box for ?All updates?.

The Rule 8 Letter which includes the timetable was published yesterday and can be accessed at the following link:

[attachment 1]

Further information about the process is available in the following advice notes:

[attachment 2]

[attachment 3]

If you have any further queries, please don?t hesitate to contact me.

Kind Regards

Tees Valley Unlimited - Rory Sherwood-Parkin

Advice issued following request for information at Preliminary meeting
Following your request at the Preliminary meeting, I am writing to give you further information regarding accessing documents on our website. I include a link below to the front page of Dogger Bank Teesside AB:
[attachment 1]

There are four tabs on this page; the overview tab, which is continually updated throughout the examination process and gives a timeline of events taking place and shows what is happening next on the case; the S51 advice tab, which shows all advice issued by the Planning Inspectorate to various parties regarding the case; the documents tab, which displays all the documents published on the case; and the Relevant Representations tab, which displays the relevant representations made by interested parties.

Please note that, as an interested party, you will receive all letters relating to the examination by email. This will include notifications of hearings and site visits taking place and requests for information from the Examining authority. The Rule 8 letter, which has just been issued, sets out how the Examining authority intends to conduct the examination and also sets out the examination timetable, which will let you know when hearings will be taking place, and when documents must be submitted by.

Link to Rule 8 Letter:
[attachment 2]

Further information about the process is available in the following advice notes:

[attachment 3]

[attachment 4]

If you have any further queries, please don?t hesitate to contact me.

Kind Regards

Tees Valley RIGs Group - Alan Simkins

Advice issued by the Planning Inspectorate to the applicant concerning missing document

Forewind Limited Andrew Guyton

Advice issued by the Planning Inspectorate to the applicant regarding the Book of Reference

Forewind Limited - Andrew Guyton

Please see attached meeting note

Forewind - Andrew Guyton

Project update meeting with Forewind Ltd.
Please see attached meeting note.

Forewind Ltd - Andrew Guyton

Comments on the draft Dogger Bank Teesside A & B HRA Screening Report. Please see attached comments.

Forewind - Andrew Guyton

Please find attached Sec42 list for Dogger Bank Teesside A&B forthcoming statutory consultation ? any comments from PINS would be greatly appreciated.

In preparing this list, the Stakeholder team has taken into consideration Advice Note 3. I appreciate that the scope for PINS to sign off such a list was discussed previously at Creyke Beck (emails early February) ? but notwithstanding this ? I recall that providing PINS the opportunity to comment on the list was very much appreciated.
Thank you for providing us with your list of s42 consultees in respect of the Dogger Bank Teesside A & B project. Apologies for the slight delay in responding to you. We have made some detailed comments below in regard to specific parties however there is a general point that should be made first in regard to your interpretation of the Infrastructure Planning (Prescribed Consultees and Interested Parties) (Amendment) Regulations 2013 ('Amendment Regulations').

The Amendment Regulations specify that the amendments made to Schedule 1 of the Infrastructure Planning (Applications:Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009 ('APFP Regulations') do not apply where any of the following have taken place before 6 April 2013:

-a regulation 6 notification has been given to the Secretary of State, or
-a scoping request under regulation 8 of the EIA Regulations has been made to the Secretary of State, or
-the Secretary of State has been notified under section 46 of the Planning Act 2008.

For the Dogger Bank Teesside A & B project the s46 notification is dated 21 May 2012, and the scoping request under regulation 8 of the EIA regulations is dated 21 May 2012, therefore Regulation 3 of the amendment regulations does not apply and the Schedule provided in the APFP regulations should be applied in any future consultations.

It is noted that all of the bodies removed from your stage 2 consultation, based on your reading of the amendment regulations, have already been consulted via your stage 1 consultation. On the understanding that stage 1 of your consultation was statutory consultation under s42, this would appear to discharge your statutory duty to consult these bodies. However, you should be aware that the Dogger Bank Teesside A & B project does not appear to us to benefit from the above Amendment Regulations and therefore the consultee list against which this project will be assessed at the acceptance stage is the original list at Schedule 1 of the APFP Regulations. In the interest of continued wide-ranging consultation you may wish to consider adding back these bodies to your stage 2 consultation. Further information is set out in National Infrastructure Advice Note 3 and its annex.

Detailed comment in regard to specific bodies is provided below.

6. The National Health Service Commissioning Board and the relevant clinical commissioning Group

If consultation on PEI1 was carried out prior to 1st April 2013 the Strategic Health Authority still existed. If it was the case that the SHA was consulted this should be made clear. It is noted that there is an intention to consult the NHS Commissioning Board and relevant clinical commissioning group in the second round of s42 consultation, this would fulfill the statutory duty to consult "the relevant strategic health authority" as set out in Schedule 1 of the APFP Regulations.

26. Scottish Natural Heritage

If you consider that the project could have any effects on land in Scotland, for example on European Sites in Scotland, it would be advisable on a precautionary basis to consult Scottish Natural Heritage under s42. Similar advice has been given for the Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm (project one) at the link below:

[attachment 1]

39. The Gas and Electricity Markets Authority (OFGEM)

Under stage 2 notes it is stated "removed by the 2013 APFP regulations, but due to the nature of the project will continue to be consulted", however in contradiction to this in the previous column it states "no" to the question of whether they will be consulted at Stage 2. In addition the general point above should be noted regarding the Amendment Regulations and their applicability to this project.

48. Redcar and Cleveland Primary Care Trust
48 Hartlepool Primary Care Trust

In regard to the above PCTs, it is correct that they have been abolished and cannot be consulted, however they have been replaced by CCGs (Clinical Commissioning Groups) and LATs (Local Area Teams), these bodies should continue to be consulted. Annex 1 of Advice Note 3 (specifically Table 2 regarding Statutory Undertakers) may assist in identifying these bodies.

53. The Secretary of State for Defence
(Non-statutory) The MOD

The Secretary of State for Defence should not appear in the Statutory bodies list. Prior to April 2013, the MoD was not a prescribed consultee for Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects. Although it was added by the Amendment Regulations those regulations do not appear to apply to this project for the reasons given above. The MOD was identified on the Regulation 9 list provided by the Inspectorate as a non-prescribed consultee and it is noted that the intention is to continue consulting with them which seems to us to be a sensible approach.

Andrew Guyton

Project update meeting with Forewind Ltd.
Please see attached meeting note.

Forewind Ltd - Andrew Guyton

I am writing to advise the Planning Inspectorate of the application strategy and programme for ?Dogger Bank Teesside?, including the proposed approach to cumulative impact assessment within the Environmental Statement.
Thank you for your letter dated 13 December 2012 providing an update on Forewind's application programme and consenting strategy. We note the points set out in your letter and make the following comments:

EIA Scoping:
We note that it is not Forewind's intention to submit a new scoping request for Dogger Bank Teesside C and D. This of course is at the developer's discretion - scoping is not mandatory - although we would encourage applicants to scope as circumstances do change and the purpose of scoping is to assist you with the preparation of your environmental statement. We also note the statement in paragraph 1.4.10 of the Dogger Bank Teesside scoping report (May 2012) that 'the offshore elements of Dogger Bank Teesside within the Zone will be wholly or partly located in Tranches A and B'. It now appears that Dogger Bank Teesside C and D will fall wholly outside of Tranches A and B. In the absence of a scoping exercise covering the area outside Tranches A and B you should be satisfied that your environmental assessment covers all the matters relevant to the application site. We also note that the grid connection point for Dogger Bank Teesside C and D has yet to be confirmed and it may assist you in the preparation of your environmental statement to have considered consultation responses regarding the possible location and its implications.

Cumulative impact assessment:
We note the proposed approach to cumulative impact assessment within the Environmental Statement for Dogger Bank Creyke Beck A and B and Dogger Bank Teesside A and B in respect of Dogger Bank Teesside C and D. We would encourage you to follow the approach set out in National Infrastructure Advice Note 9 ([attachment 1], see in particular page 8), including to acknowledge and cover in the cumulative assessment any major development that is reasonably likely to come forward. The environmental statement should not simply omit consideration of future projects, rather it should take an approach to the assessment that is proportionate to the level of detail available. On the basis that the DCO application for Dogger Bank Teesside C and D is anticipated to be submitted around one year after the application for Teesside A and B, it is reasonable to assume that a certain level of information would be available to inform a cumulative assessment at the time of the Teesside A & B application. The position should be clearly explained and form part of the cumulative impact assessment.

Forewind Ltd - Andrew Guyton

Please see attachment

Forewind Ltd - Andrew Guyton