Advice to Zyda Law
Back to listEnquiry
- From
- Zyda Law
- Date advice given
- 21 August 2014
- Enquiry type
Request for advice on proposed amendments to the red-line boundary prior to statutory consultation
Advice given
In principle, the purpose of the pre-application stage is to allow applicants to refine proposals in response to consultation and technical work, and this is reflected in the government?s pre-application guidance from the Department Communities and Local Government. In my view, your approach is consistent with the spirit of the guidance on the basis that you intend to communicate the changes through the statutory consultation process.
Scoping
There is no statutory requirement to request a further scoping opinion and any decision on that lies with the applicant. On the basis that the changes will be reflected in your statutory consultation, rather than re-scope you have the opportunity to seek the views of all relevant statutory bodies directly. You may wish to alert them to / seek any comments they may have specifically in relation whether the changes affect their previous comments in relation to the scoping opinion.
I would advise that you reflect the changes and any correspondence through both the Environmental Statement and Consultation Report, with clear cross-referencing for ease / where applicable. Where you have not followed the advice in the scoping opinion due to the changes, I would advise that you clearly explain your reasoning in the Environmental Statement, with any supporting evidence from statutory bodies where applicable.
Pipeline changes
In terms of the pipeline area reduction, clarity in your statutory consultation that there has been a change from the non-statutory consultation may assist those who then refer to or come across earlier material such as the scoping request. In practical terms, the key on the plans should clearly explain what the purpose of the green and red lines are. At present this is not the case and the plans appear confusing to the lay reader.
Gas storage location changes
At our last teleconference, you explained that the purpose of removing properties within the wider red line area for the caverns was to focus on where the caverns would be located and to avoid any undue concern on the part of residents within the red line boundary.
There are two matters to consider:
- Clarity of the plans
As with the pipeline, the plan key will be central to providing clarity.
On the basis of the plans provided it is not clear how the proposed caverns relate to the land that is excluded.
In addition it is not clear that the properties are outside of the red line boundary rather than within it. Given the scale of the plans, this is currently hard to establish and I?d encourage you to consider how an explanation can be clearly provided / demonstrated.
Your statutory consultation period will provide you the opportunity to test the clarity of your material and you may wish to seek views on this matter.
- Certainty that no works will affect land being taken out
To continue with the proposed approach, you would need to be certain that the land would not in any way be affected by the proposed works. In particular a question in my mind is how will you ensure that the solution mining will avoid the land underneath the properties? As currently presented, without prejudice to any future examination, I consider that this could be an issue for examination.
Addition of Pearns Pumphouse
This appears to be a logical inclusion within the redline boundary for the reasons you set out.