Advice to Dalton Warner Davis LLP
Back to listEnquiry
- From
- Dalton Warner Davis LLP
- Date advice given
- 19 May 2014
- Enquiry type
The Applicant - Multifuel Energy Limited - has submitted a draft of their 'No Significant Effects Report' for review. Please find the Planning Inspectorate's comments below.
Advice given
As previously discussed, the requirement for a ?No Significant Effects Report? within the Planning Inspectorate?s Advice Note 10 (HRA) is on the basis that European sites have been identified by an applicant and considered within stage 1 of the HRA process (screening), but that it has been concluded, in agreement with the relevant SNCBs, that the project is not likely to have a significant effect on any of the considered European sites. In this case, whilst you have provided a ?No Significant Effects? document, the intention of this document appears to be confirmation that no European sites have been identified as needing consideration under the HRA process, as supported by the ?final? Statement of Common Ground between the applicant and NE (the ?SoCG? dated 18 December 2013), and not that you have identified European sites for consideration in stage 1 of the HRA process and have concluded no likely significant effects on these projects either alone or in combination with other plans or projects. Therefore, the report you have submitted might be more appropriately referred to as a ?Screening Report? for the purposes of HRA. The Planning Inspectorate welcomes the submission of such a document, as it provides clarity on whether or not any European protected sites would be affected by the proposed development.
The Planning Inspectorate would draw your attention to a couple of minor points which it would be helpful to provide clarification on in the final version of the HRA document:
? Paragraph 14A.1.2, defines ?Natura 2000 sites? as ?European Sites?, which is the term used throughout the document when describing whether there is a need for a HRA. However, in Paragraph 14A.3.3, Ramsar sites are also referred to, including the statement that they are afforded the same protection under Government Policy as Natura 2000 sites. For the sake of clarity it needs to be made clear that when you are discussing effects on ?European Sites? you are also including consideration of Ramsar sites within this definition. It is up to you to consider how best to define this, whilst noting the difference between the Natura 2000 and Ramsar designations, which you have already done so in the aforementioned paragraphs;
? Paragraph 14A.4.1 states that any ?European Sites? within a 15km radius of the Proposed Development were considered as part of the study area (see comment above about the need for clarity of ?European Sites? in this context i.e. presumably Ramsar sites within 15km would also have been considered). It would be helpful to provide reference to relevant guidance as to how this 15km buffer ?accords with the precautionary approach required for undertaking HRA? (paragraph 14A.4.1), for example by referring to any relevant guidance which prescribes this study area;
? The Planning Inspectorate also notes that paragraph 3.3 of the ?final? SoCG with NE, states that ?there are no internationally protected Natura 2000 sites (European and Ramsar sites) within a 20km radius of the Application Site?. It would be helpful to clarify the reasoning for applying a 20km radius in the SoCG and a 15km radius within the ?Statement of No Significant Effects? document. Whilst the ?final? SoCG has been signed by NE, it has not been signed by the applicant. Therefore, the Planning Inspectorate is querying whether this is the final and completed version of the SoCG which will be submitted with the DCO application to support the applicant?s statements in the Statement of No Significant Effects document. Please can this be clarified?