Advice to PCBA
Back to listEnquiry
- From
- PCBA
- Date advice given
- 11 February 2015
- Enquiry type
As the Examination progresses, we continue to notice the wide disparity in the assessment of the noise implications of the proposal as between the Applicant and PCBA and others. The topic is complex but, as you know, both PCBA (Dr John Yelland) and Challenge Navitus (Dr Andrew Langley) have carried out detailed analyses of the risks and have already shared results extensively with ExA. Both show that the officially recognised guidance in ETSU-R-97 (as updated) would be breached at the shore around the bays. Nevertheless, the Applicant has steadfastly refused to acknowledge that there is a problem. I write to ask whether, in light of the huge differences between the Applicant and at least two other IPs, the ExA has sought, or intends to seek, an independent report on noise risks together with a review of the IP evidence now available to ExA, to assist in making recommendations on the project to the Secretary of State in due course.
Advice given
Thank you for your email. The Examining Authority does not commission independent reports. The Examining Authority uses written questions to enable additional information required from any interested parties to be submitted at any stage of the examination process.
s100 of the PA2008 allows for the Secretary of state, at the request of the Examining Authority to appoint an assessor. The use of an assessor could be important in assisting the progress of the examination towards a quicker understanding of the more technical and specialised issues, however the Examining Authority does not feel that this course of action is required for this case.