Source: https://infrastructure.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/projects/yorkshire-and-the-humber/hornsea-offshore-wind-farm-zone-4-project-one/?ipcsection=advice
Timestamp: 2020-02-17 19:36:18
Document Index: 131350798

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 1', 'art 3', 'art 1', 'art 3', 'art 1', 'art 3', 'art 1']

Meeting regarding (Non-Material) Change request.
Meeting with DONG Energy concerning a potential change application.
Natural England asked for clarification of the Examining Authority's Second Question No. EO18 e which asked: "What possible contingent or other mitigation or compensation measures would Natural England think necessary to ensure an appropriate degree of confidence in outcomes?"
The Examining Authority was asked if this question related to the possibility to apply conditions, or put in place mitigation or compensation provisions in order to provide confidence that there will not be an adverse impact on the integrity of European Sites?
The Examining Authority has confirmed that options you described are not exclusive alternatives and so both can be considered.
Natural England - Jamie McPherson
Seeking clarification to one of the questions posed within the ExA's second round of written questions. The relevant question is EO 18(c) which is as follows: ?What further work on the derivation of appropriate behavioural factors for specified species would be necessary??
Further to your query below we can confirm that questions EO 18(b), (c), (d) and (e) apply specifically to Band Model 4. Question EO22 seeks comparison of Band Model 1 and Band Model 4 in various respects.
The Examining Authority does not think it is appropriate to give any further guidance on this as the questions are precise.
Further to our earlier conversations, I set out below an overview of the position:
?	The Ex. A notified through its letter of 18 December 2013 (the Rule 8 Letter) the procedural timetable for the examination of the Project, which included the dates of the proposed hearings. In particular the Rule 8 Letter noted that dates had been reserved for further hearings on Tuesday 29 April 2014, Wednesday 30 April 2014 and Thursday 1 May 2014;
?	Accordingly, pursuant to Rule 13(6) of the Examination Procedure Rules (EPR), the Applicant advertised and erected site/public notices to publicise the hearing dates (including the reserved dates). Pursuant to Rule 13(10) of the EPR - this included the time of the proposed hearings, which was stated to be 10.00am (consistent with the start time of the hearings held on the Project to date); and
?	The Ex. A notified through its letter of 20 March 2014 (the Second round of written questions) a variation to the proposed times of the Hearings on the reserved dates, noting that these will now instead commence at 9.30am.
On the basis of the above, it is our understanding that:
?	we do not require to further advertise the dates of these upcoming Hearings as they were included in our original advertisements/notices; and
?	we do not require to advertise the variation to the start time of these Hearings, as the Ex. A has already done this in its letter of 20 March 2014 (pursuant to Rule 13(4) of the EPR).
I would be grateful if you would confirm in writing ASAP that our understanding is correct and that we do not require to re-notify.
On 18 December 2013 the Examining Authority (ExA) notified all interested parties of the procedural timetable for the examination of the Hornsea Offshore Windfarm Project One, which included the dates reserved for further hearings on Tuesday 29 April 2014, Wednesday 30 April 2014 and Thursday 1 May 2014 and a start time of 10am.
The applicant is required to advertise the hearing by posting and maintaining notices and by publication in a local newspaper at least 21 days before the hearing in accordance with the provisions of Rule 13(6) of the Examination Procedure Rules (EPR).
You have confirmed that the applicant has complied with the requirements set out in Rule 13(6). This notification has been published on the project pages of the National Infrastructure pages of the Planning Portal website.
Rule 13(4) of the Infrastructure Planning (Examination Procedure Rules) 2010 (EPR) permits the ExA to vary the date, time and place for any fixed hearing with as much notice as appears to be reasonable. In accordance with this power the ExA have varied the time of the hearings on Tuesday 29 April 2014, Wednesday 30 April 2014 and Thursday 1 May 2014 to 9.30am. Notice of this was given by letter to all interested parties dated 20 March 2014.
The Planning Inspectorate does not consider that this invalidates compliance by the applicant with Rule 13(6). However, please note that the interpretation of the EPR rules is ultimately a matter for the Court and this e-mail does not constitute legal advice on which you can rely.
SMart Wind - Ian Mack
Request at a hearing on how to submit representations to the Hornsea examination
As requested, I have attached the hearing notification letter, which details where and when the hearings are taking place.
I have also attached the hearing agendas: [attachment 1]
As discussed, these may get updated after this week?s hearings and the next submission deadline, if they do, they will appear on our project page of the National Infrastructure pages of the Planning Portal Website: [attachment 2]
All the deadlines and hearings for the examination are detailed in the examination timetable which is appended to the Rule 8 Letter: [attachment 3]. This letter also provides further information on the examination and how to participate.
The next deadline is 24 February 2014. This is the date at which, the Examining Authority have requested any written submissions following oral submissions given at the hearings this week to be submitted. In addition to any submission you make, the Examining Authority request you submit supporting documents produced by or relied upon by the LEP. This should include, but is not limited to the Hull and Humber City Deal document.
The Examining Authority may, during the course of the examination, vary the timetable, should this take place, a letter will be sent to all interested parties. As the LEP have not requested to become an interested party in this examination as yet, you will not automatically receive these, or any other communications.
Further general advice on examination under the Planning Act 2008 can be found in advice notes produced by the Planning Inspectorate, a full suite of advice notes are available online at: [attachment 4]. Advice notes 8.1 to 8.5 focus on the examination.
The Humber LEP - Emma Toulson
Post-Acceptance s51 advice to the applicant.
The ?s55 acceptance checklist?, published on our website, sets out the Inspectorate?s comments in respect of the tests that must be met under s55 of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended) (PA2008). The purpose of this letter is to provide advice under s51 of the PA2008, where the Acceptance Inspector has indicated on the checklist that it should be issued to the applicant.
SMart Wind Ltd is strongly advised to review the checklist, and to read it in conjunction with the following advice.
You will note that section 4.4(b) of the s55 checklist identifies the following:
?There appear to be transcription errors in the ?principal coordinates? provided for Work no. 6 and Work no. 5 at Schedule A Part 1 of the draft DCO, which are duplicated in the corresponding full coordinates provided appended to the Works Plans (Docs 5.1 ? 5.3).
It is noted that the numbering applied to the ?principal coordinates? provided in the draft DCO for Work no. 6 does not correspond with the numbering applied to the full coordinates provided appended to the Works Plans.
There is no explanation within the draft DCO or the Explanatory Memorandum as to why only principal coordinates have been provided.?
To expand on its observations, the Inspectorate strongly advises that the applicant now check the accuracy of all of the coordinates provided within the application documents; both the ?principal coordinates? detailed in the draft Development Consent Order (dDCO), and the lists of coordinates appended to the Works Plans. The Inspectorate further advises that the applicant amend the numbering of the principal coordinates within the dDCO to correspond with those appended to the Works Plans. The inclusion of an entry in the Explanatory Memorandum to explain the drafting of ?principal coordinates? in the dDCO is also advised.
Section 4.4(d) of the s55 checklist identifies the following:
?It is noted that persons listed within Part 3 of the Book of Reference do not appear to be included in Part 1. A person entitled to enjoy easements or other private rights over land 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 as set out in section 57 of the PA2008.?
The Inspectorate strongly advises that the applicant amend the Book of Reference (BoR) to include persons listed within Part 3 in Part 1; in advance of its notification under s56 of the PA2008. This is of critical importance to ensure that the applicant?s notification of the accepted application is compliant with the provisions of s56.
Section 4.4(i) of the s55 checklist identifies that:
?It appears from cross-checking the Land Plans with the Book of Reference (Doc 6.3) that plot number 268 is absent from the Land Plans. Plot 268 is described however on pages 384 and 385 of the Book of Reference. It cannot be ascertained from the information available whether or not the absence of plot 268 from the Land Plans affects the limits of land to be acquired or used i.e. the extent of the Order
It appears from cross-checking the Land Plans with the Book of Reference that plot number 396 has been inaccurately described. The land is described as ?Killingholme Power Station?. The corresponding plot on the Land Plans appears to be farmland or similar.
There appear to be inconsistencies in the descriptions of several plot numbers in the Book of Reference i.e. where some entries describe a particular linear feature, others do not.?
The Communities and Local Government ?Planning Act 2008 ? Guidance related to procedures for compulsory acquisition? states that ?There should be no discrepancy between the description of the land in the book of reference and the plan, and no room for doubt on anyone?s part as to the precise areas of land which are to be compulsorily acquired. Where uncertainty over the true extent of the land to be
acquired causes or may cause difficulties, the IPC may refuse to make the order until this is made clear?. The Inspectorate therefore strongly advises that the applicant make the appropriate updates to the BoR to identify the location of plot number 268, and to accurately reflect the nature of the land at plot number 396 and for all other inconsistencies in plot description.
SMart Wind Ltd is strongly advised to address these issues in the Pre-examination period, in preparation for the examination of the application. It is likely that the Examining Authority will set a deadlinfor receipt of the amended documentation early in the Examination timetable.
Project update meeting on Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm (Zone
4) ? Projects 1 and 2
Please see attached meeting note for details
To discuss the emerging applications for the proposed Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm (Zone 4) ? projects One and Two
Does the requirement under APFP Reg 6(1)(b)(i) to provide 'details of the proposed route and method of installation for any cable' mean that applicants have to submit a separate 'Cable Statement' document or would there be any problem with providing these details elsewhere within the application documents such as within the project description chapter of the Environmental Statement?
We cannot see any reason why the information required under APFP Regulation 6(1)(b)(i) must be presented as a stand alone document. It could therefore be possible for an applicant to include these details within, for example, the Environmental Statement (ES) provided that it is clear exactly where this information can be found within the ES and that all the information required by Reg 6(b) is included. To avoid any confusion at the accepatnce stage, the applicant may wish to specify in the application form precisely where in the ES this information can be found.
Shepherd and Wedderburn - Patricia Hawthorn
Further to the meeting between SmartWind and the Planning Inspectorate on 12 December 2012, some updated drafting in relation to transfer of the DCO and the effect on deemed Marine Licences was provided to the Inspectorate for comments.
Thank you for sending your amended draft DCO and Marine Licences further to our discussions, I have now reviewed these and make the following comments.
At the meeting you explained that it is Smart Wind?s intention to draft the Marine Licences and DCO in such a way as to enable the Marine Licences to transfer to another party who has obtained the benefit of the DCO, without the need for a separate application to the MMO. To achieve this you have amended the definition of undertakers in your Marine Licences to include persons to whom the benefit of the DCO is transferred. I have some concerns that this may not produce the desired result.
s.72(7) Marine and Costal Access Act 2009 states that a Marine Licence may be transferred on application to the MMO by the licencee. s.72(8) provides that a licence may not be transferred accept in accordance with subsection 7.
In principle, if the MMO agree and the provisions are sufficiently clear, it could be possible to modify the provisions of the Marine and Costal Access Act in the DCO in accordance with s.120 planning Act 2008. However, the amended DCO you provided does not appear to contain any provision purporting to disapply or modify these provisions. Consequently any transfer of the Marine Licences must be made in accordance with s.72 of the Marine and Costal Access Act 2009 and cannot pass automatically with the transfer of the DCO.
In addition, the DCO transfer provisions in article 35 permit transfer of part of the benefit of the Order. There is no power to transfer part of the benefit of a Marine Licence under the Marine and Costal Access Act, to do this the DCO would need to modify the provisions of the Marine and Costal Access Act to specifically permit this.
It may interest you to know that the possibility of surrendering a Marine Licence and re-granting it has been explored on another case. It has been concluded that this would not legally be possible.
I note that you have already contacted the MMO seeking their views on this matter and I suggest that you await their response before finalising any documentation.
Please note that the advice contained in this letter is given under s.51 Planning Act 2008. It will be published on our website in accordance with our openness policy and does not constitute legal advice upon which the applicants (or others) can rely.
I?m writing to you just to follow up my telephone message. We?ve noticed that there is a difference in the advice given in the original Project One scoping opinion (Dec 2010) and the updated opinion (May 2012) in response to the addendum submitted earlier this year.
In the May 2012 Scoping Opinion PINS have advised that a cumulative impact assessment would consider built and operational projects in the baseline. In the Dec 2010 Scoping Opinion PINS have advised that cumulative impacts should be assessed against the baseline position however built and operational projects should be included in the list of other major developments to be considered. I would be grateful if we could discuss ? just to clarify the agreed approach and to understand the basis for the change.
For ease of reference I?ve copied out the relevant section from the Dec 2010 and May 2012 Scoping Opinion below provided for the addendum earlier this year.
EC2Y 5DN, UK
Tel: +44(0) 207 776 5562
Mobile: +44 (0) 7711376279
Dec 2010 Scoping Opinion states:
?Cumulative impacts should consider both onshore and offshore major and relevant developments. The Commission recommends that other major developments in the area should be taken into account for the purposes of assessing cumulative impacts through consultation with the local planning authorities and other relevant consenting bodies on the basis of major developments that are:
? Built and operational;
? Under construction;
? Permitted application(s), but not yet implemented; Submitted application(s) not yet determined;
? Projects on the Commission?s Programme of Projects;
? Identified in the relevant Development Plan (and emerging Development Plans - with appropriate weight being given as they move closer to adoption) recognising that much information on any relevant proposals will be limited; and
? Sites identified in other policy documents, as development reasonably likely to come forward.?
The Commission recommends that offshore wind farms should also take account of any offshore licensed and consented activities in the area, (if not already covered in relation to those major developments identified in paragraph 3.20 above) for the purposes of assessing cumulative effects through consultation with the relevant licensing/consenting bodies.
May 2012 Scoping Opinion states:
?The potential cumulative impacts with other major developments will need to be identified, as required by the Directive. The significance of such impacts should be shown to have been assessed against the baseline position (which would include built and operational development). In assessing cumulative impacts, other major development should be identified through consultation with the local planning authorities and other relevant authorities on the basis of those that are:
? permitted application(s), but not yet implemented
? submitted application(s) not yet determined
? projects on the National Infrastructure?s programme of projects
? identified in the relevant development plan (and emerging development plans - with appropriate weight being given as they move closer to adoption) recognising that much information on any relevant proposals will be limited, and
? identified in other plans and programmes (as appropriate) which set the framework for future development consents/approvals, where such development is reasonably likely to come forward.
Details should be provided in the ES, including the types of development, location and key aspects that may affect the EIA and how these have been taken into account as part of the assessment. The SoS recommends that offshore wind farms should also take account of any offshore licensed and consented activities in the area, for the purposes of assessing cumulative effects, through consultation with the relevant licensing/consenting bodies.?
Mainstream Renewable Power Limited is a private limited company registered in Ireland. Registered number: 453076. Registered address: Arena House, Arena Road, Sandyford, Dublin 18, Ireland. Mainstream Renewable Power Company Proprietary and Confidential Information. If you have received this message in error you should delete it from your system immediately and advise the sender.
This email was received from the INTERNET and scanned by the Government Secure Intranet anti-virus service supplied by Cable&Wireless Worldwide in partnership with MessageLabs. (CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.) In case of problems, please call your organisation?s IT Helpdesk.
Many thanks for your recent query regarding the scope of the environmental impact assessment for Hornsea Project One, particularly seeking clarification in relation to other development to be taken into account as part of the Cumulative Impact Assessment (CIA) and the approach with regard to the baseline for that assessment.
The paragraph to which you refer related to other major development in the area that should be identified. I can confirm that the wording in the most recent Scoping Opinion issued for Hornsea Project One sought to clarify the projects to be taken into account, and in terms of the description of the position at the baseline year, that this should include built and operational development.
This position is presented in our Advice Note 9 (Rochdale Envelope) and is our current position and should be applied by developers preparing EIA's for NSIP applications. I hope this clarifies the matter.
EIA and Land Rights Manager
Direct Line: 03034445055
Web: www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate (Planning Inspectorate casework and appeals)
Web: www.planningportal.gov.uk/infrastructure (Planning Inspectorate's National Infrastructure Planning portal)
A record of the advice which is provided will be recorded on the Planning Inspectorate website together with the name of the person or organisation who asked for the advice. The privacy of any other personal information will be protected in accordance with our Information Charter which you should view before sending information to the Planning Inspectorate .
Mainstream Renewable Power Ltd - Rachel Mills
Planning Inspectorate meeting with developer for a project update and draft Development Consent Order review.
SMart Wind - Chris Jenner, Paul Irving & Pat Hawthorn
A project update meeting was held to allow the promoter to advise the IPC of recent pre-application work.
Please see the attached meeting notes.
The promoter wrote to the IPC seeking advice on a draft letter, proposed to be issued to section 42 consultees, detailing a proposed change in the maximum rotor diameter (from 150m to 178m).
The letter recognised that the change would be different to the description of the development identified within their Scoping Report and thereby consulted upon in the course of producing the Scoping Opinion.
The IPC advised that the proposed change differs from the details presented in the scoping report and as such it may be necessary to consider whether this constitutes a "substantial" change to the development scoped and whether as a consequence it would be necessary to request a new Scoping Opinion (para 2.69 of our Scoping Opinion refers).
Project update meeting with promoter
Please see the following link for details of the meeting - [attachment 1]
a) Projects with on and offshore elements - approach to consultation, application and determination
b) IPC view on implications of OFTO for applications
c) Approach to international communities and transboundary consultation under DCO and EIA processes
d) Recommended narrative for IPC/MIU transition for public documents
e) Update on MMO role in DCO application with deemed Marine Licence ? MOU
f) Section 48 publicity under the multi-stage process
Shepherd and Wedderburn LLP - Patricia Hawthorn
Introductory meeting with SMart Wind regarding Hornsea Zone 4 offshore wind farm
Smart Wind - Zoë Crutchfield etc