Advice to Cornwall Council
Back to listEnquiry
- From
- Cornwall Council
- Date advice given
- 17 July 2013
- Enquiry type
Draft documents submitted by Cornwall Council for comments on 4th and 5th July 2013
Advice given
Thank you for your emails of the 4th and 5th July 2013 in which you request the Planning Inspectorate?s comments on the following draft application documents submitted with the emails, namely:
· Draft DCO (received by email 4th July)
· Explanatory Memorandum (received by email 4th July)
· Book of Reference (received by email 5th July)
· Land plans (received by email 5th July)
[LP1] Land Plan (Sheet 1 of 5) (Doc TRXCP311_PA_2.02_01)
[LP2] Land Plan (Sheet 2 of 5) (Doc TRXCP311_PA_2.02_01)
[LP3] Land Plan (Sheet 3 of 5) (Doc TRXCP311_PA_2.02_03)
[LP4] Land Plan (Sheet 4 of 5) (Doc TRXCP311_PA_2.02_04)
[LP5] Land Plan (Sheet 1 of 5) (Doc TRXCP311_PA_2.02_05)
· Works plans (received by email 4th July)
[WP1] Works Plan (Sheet 1 of 5) (Doc TRXCP311_PA_2.03_01)
[WP2] Works Plan (Sheet 2 of 5) (Doc TRXCP311_PA_2.03_02)
[WP3] Works Plan (Sheet 3 of 5) (Doc TRXCP311_PA_2.03_03)
[WP4] Works Plan (Sheet 4 of 5) (Doc TRXCP311_PA_2.03_04)
[WP5] Works Plan (Sheet 5 of 5) (Doc TRXCP311_PA_2.03_05)
Works Plans Key Plan (Doc TRXCP311_PA_2.03_00)
· Draft HRA (received by email 5th July)
· Consultation Report (received by email 5th July)
· Street Plans (received by email 5th July) The applicant should note that sections A to D (incl) below highlight significant issues to be addressed by the applicant in the application documents prior to formal submission while sections E to H (jncl) highlight other issues of lesser significance, including typos, clarity issues etc., which would be helpful to address prior to your formal submission.
Please note that the following advice is not intended to be prescriptive, and it is for the applicants to determine the content of their applications. We must also stress the decision of whether or not to accept the application will be taken by an Inspector who has had no involvement at pre-application stage for this proposal. All advice PINS provides at this stage does not prejudice or prejudge the decision of the inspector regarding acceptance or non-acceptance of an application.
A. Explanatory Memorandum (13 June 2013; Version 2) (Doc TRXCP311/P1/X.X) and
Draft Development Consent Order (13 June 2013; Version 4) ((Doc TRXCP311/P1/X.X)
(i) As previously advised (meeting with PINS on 10/06/2013) the applicant is advised that at paragraph 3.1 the EM defines the project as an improvement of a 4.5km section of the A30. At paragraph 3.5 the EM refers to Work No. 1 as the construction of a permanent highway. The applicant is advised that the EM should clearly explain the apparent inconsistency between paragraphs 3.1 and 3.3 of the EM which refer to the project being the improvement of the highway and an NSIP in accordance with section 22(1)(c) and (5) of the Planning Act 2008 (which relate to the improvement of a highway); and paragraph 3.5 and Work no 1 in the DCO which describes the NSIP as being the construction of a highway
(ii) The Explanatory Memorandum assumes that the Highway and Railway (NSIP) Order 2013 has come into effect ? it is expected to at the end of July. The applicant is advised to ensure that it has come into effect before submission. If it has not, the EM will need to be altered to reflect this.
B. Book of Reference
(i) In accordance with Section 7 (1)(d) of The Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedures) Regulations 2009 Part 4 of the Book of Reference (BoR) should contain all Crown interests in the land which is proposed to be used for the purposes of the order for which the application was made. The applicant is advised to list the owner of any Crown interest in this section.
(ii) There appears to be a lot of plots listed in Part 4 but there are no articles in the DCO in relation to Crown interests. Crown interests owned by the Crown cannot be compulsorily acquired (s.135) For compulsory acquisition of an interest in Crown Land held otherwise than by or on behalf of the Crown and for any other provision applying in relation to Crown land or rights, s 135 requires express Crown consent. The applicant is advised to seek this express consent as early as possible if necessary. If Crown Rights are to be affected it is advisable to include an Article in the DCO protecting Crown rights and preventing their interests from being affected by any of the provisions of the order.
(iii) The applicant is advised that Part 4 of the BoR (pg 197), specifies that the owner of any Crown Land where it is proposed to use for the purpose of the order of the application should be listed under this section. Upon review of the Land Plans and DCO it doesn?t appear that any Crown Land is associated with the application and therefore listing all parcels of land within Part 4 of BoR implies that Crown Land is associated to the application. The applicant is advised to review BoR, Land Plans and DCO and clarify whether if any Crown Land is associated to the application. If not, Part 4 should be left blank or make clear ?that no Crown Land is associated to the application.?
(iv) The applicant is advised that Part 5 of the BoR (PG 250), refers to Special Category land. See reg 7(1)(e) of The Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009. The DCO under requirement 30 refers to Special Category land, however it is interpreted as though ?Special Category? land to date have not yet been identified, this is also evident as none of the land plans depict any Special Category to be CA. Part 5 of the BoR should only include land parcels which the applicant has identified to be Special Category land and this should also be reflected on the Land Plans.
C. Works Plans
(i) The EM in paragraph 7.6 refers to ?limits of deviation shown on works plans? but no such limits have been indicated on these plans. In accordance with Section 5 (2)(j)(ii) of The Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedures) Regulations 2009 the applicant is advised to indicate the Limits of Deviation on the works plans
(ii) In accordance with Section 5(j) of The Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedures) Regulations 2009 the applicant is requested to clearly indicate all existing features
(iii) The applicant is advised to clearly label all those works set out in Schedule 1 of the draft Development Consent Order on the works plans
D. A30 Temple to Carblake Habitat Regulations Screening Assessment: No Significant Effects Report (July 2013)
(i) Should the application be accepted for examination, the examining authority will likely seek assurances from Natural England (NE) that the correct sites, features and potential impacts have been identified, and that they agree with the outcome of the screening assessment, alone or in-combination with other projects. The draft HRA report (paragraph 1.5.1) states that a meeting was held with NE on 9 April 2013 to discuss the scope of the HRA, where it was agreed that the project would be unlikely to result in significant effects. It is recommends that evidence of this meeting, for example a meeting note or meeting minutes, is appended to the submitted HRA report.
E. Explanatory Memorandum (13 June 2013; Version 2) (Doc TRXCP311/P1/X.X) and
Draft Development Consent Order (13 June 2013; Version 4) ((Doc TRXCP311/P1/X.X)
(i) Paragraph 7.1: The EM states ?to temporarily remove a grade 11 listed milestone during the authorised development.? Perhaps this should read ?during the construction of the authorised development? as it is intended to be a temporary measure. The applicant is advised to clarify.
(ii) Work 1(h) of the DCO refers to ?the temporary removal of the grade II listed milestone east of Glenavon (Listing ID 1142395). The applicant may wish to consider including a requirement to address how and when it will be removed and reinstated.
(iii) Sections 131 and 132 of the Planning Act 2008, as amended by the Growth and Infrastructure Act 2013, apply as the application includes compulsory acquisition of common land. S.131 & 132, as amended, state that an order granting development consent is subject to Special Parliamentary Procedure (SPP) unless the Secretary of State is satisfied that the tests set out in those sections are met AND that fact and the subsection concerned are recorded in the Order or otherwise in the instrument or other document containing the Order. At present the Order does not explicitly record that the Secretary of State is satisfied that the requisite test are met and set out the specific subsections applicable. As these provisions are new there is no precedent for how this should be recorded in the Order and it is for the applicant to decide how best this can be done. Some applicants have dealt with this matter in the preamble to the Order. Alternatively consideration could be given to amending Article 31 of the DOC which refers to special category land not vesting in undertaker until replacement land has been acquired and the Local Planning Authority has certified that a scheme for provision of replacement land has been implemented to its satisfaction. The applicant will also need to ensure that somewhere in the application documents, for example, in the statement of reasons, detailed information is given to satisfy the Secretary of State that the tests are met.
(iv) Article 39 of the DCO refers to documents certified by the Secretary of State. The environmental statement and landscape plans should be included in this article as they are defined in Article 2 of the DCO as being documents certified by the Secretary of State and reference is made in Schedule 2 to the environmental statement being the document certified in accordance with article 39(1) of the DCO.
(v) In schedule 2 Interpretation, the ?approved development plans? are defined as the plans certified in accordance with article 38(1). This appears to be an incorrect reference. It would appear to be article 39(1).
(vi) The EM does not match up with the requirements in the DCO. At 11.5 the EM states that requirement 4 requires the development to be carried out in accordance with the certified plans and requirement 5 is the CEMP. In the DCO requirement 4 is the CEMP and requirement 5 states that the development must be carried out in accordance with the approved development plans.
(vii) It is recommended that the EM provide a correct explanation of Requirement 4 and an explanation of requirement 5 of Schedule 2 of the DCO.
(viii) In addition at Requirement 5(2) when referring to substituted plans it should refer to these being within the scope of the Environmental Statement and not just within the Order limits (see 5(2)).
(ix) There is no definition of development plans in the Part 1 (2) Interpretation of the DCO. It would be advisable to include a definition of approved development plans here to avoid confusion with use of the term ?development plan? being associated with LPA local plans.
(x) Schedule 2 (article 3) of the DCO defines ?the approved development plans? as the plans certified in accordance with article 38(1) (certification of plans etc.). This should refer to ?article 39(1) which refers to certification of plans.
(xi) Paragraph 3.3 of the EM states that the proposed development is an NSIP for the purposes of section 14(1)(h) and 22(1)(c) and (5) of the Planning Act. It is unclear what part (5) refers to.
(xii) Paragraph 8.2 of the EM refers to a list of streets to be altered as being found in Schedule 2; it would appear that this should refer to Schedule 3 ? Streets Subject to Alteration in Layout.
(xiii) Paragraph 8.12 of the EM refers to Paragraph (5) of article 13; it would appear that this should refer to Paragraph (5) of article 12.
F. Book of Reference
(i) The column headings in Part 5 are confusing, addresses are listed under category of land and it is not clear if all the land is common land or if there is other special category land.
(ii) It is noted that a schedule of statutory undertakers is included. This is not required by the regulations. The applicant is requested to confirm if all statutory undertakers in the list are in the BoR.
(iii) There are references to footnotes but there do not appear to be any footnotes in the document provided (?)
(iv) Some footnotes are incorrect e.g. footnote 3 reference in the main body of text (begins on page 85 of BoR) appears to be associated with footnote no. 4 (footnote 4 should be amended to footnote 3);
(v) In the interests of consistency footnote 4 in the main body of text should remain referenced throughout Part 3 (beginning on page 141 ? 196 incl) of the BoR; the same applies for Part 4 (beginning on page 197 ? 249 incl.) and Part 5 (beginning on page 250 ? 304 incl)
(xiv) The applicant is advised that Part 2 of the BoR (pg 85) has incorrect footnote. This should reference ?3. A person is within Category 3 if the Applicant thinks that, if the order as sought by the application were to be made and fully implemented, the person would or might be entitled-
(a) as a result of the implementing of the order,
(b) as a result of the order having been implemented, or
(c) as a result of use of the land once the order has been implemented, to make a relevant claim.?
See section 57 (4) of the Planning Act 2008.
G. A30 Temple to Carblake Habitat Regulations Screening Assessment: No Significant Effects Report (July 2013)
(i) Paragraph 2.1.3 of the draft A30 Temple to Carblake Habitat Regulations Screening Assessment: No significant Effects Report (the draft HRA report) refers to Figure 2. The applicant is advised that there is no such figure provided within the report. It is recommended to include this figure in the submitted HRA report.
(ii) Paragraph 3.1.1 of the draft HRA report refers to Figure 3. The applicant is advised that there is no such figure provided within the report. It is recommended to include this figure in the submitted HRA report.
(iii) Paragraph 4.3.1 of the draft HRA report refers to Appendix C. The applicant is advised that there is no such appendix provided within the draft HRA report.
(iv) It is recommended that the HRA report contains a figure identifying the location of the River Camel Special Area of Conservation (SAC) relative to the proposed development.
(v) The potential impacts identified in paragraph 4.3.1 of the draft HRA report do not include all of those listed in Table 4.1 (namely impacts on habitat and hydrological change). It is advised that paragraph 4.3.1 and Table 4.1 of the HRA report should reflect one another.
(vi) Paragraph 4.4.2 of the draft HRA report states Cornwall Council (CC) has confirmed that there are no major developments within the vicinity of the proposed scheme. It is recommended that the applicant define the area covered by the term ?in the vicinity? and provided evidence of the confirmation from CC of no major developments in the vicinity in the submitted HRA report.
(vii) Paragraph 4.4.2 of the draft HRA report identifies two ?minor? planning permissions, the locations of these developments relative to the proposed development, and an explanation of what the ?work at Lyndhurst? comprises, should be included within the submitted HRA report.
(viii) In Table 4.1 the evidence supporting conclusions of the draft HRA report for the potential impact of increased light refers to the impacts of noise; this should be rectified within the submitted HRA report.
(ix) The applicant should note that Advice Note 10: Habitats Regulations Assessment was updated in January 2013 and now includes screening and integrity matrices; the checklists completed by the applicant as appendices to their draft HRA report comprise appendices to previous version of the advice note and are no longer relevant. The Planning Inspectorate expects the applicant to complete the applicable matrix/matrices in accordance with Advice Note 10 (January 2013), and to submit them with their DCO application in Word format. The information contained within Table 4.1 of the HRA report could be used to inform the matrices. Please note if the matrices are not submitted with the DCO application they will likely be requested by the examining authority if the application is accepted for examination.
(x) In paragraph 2.1.15 of the draft HRA report it refers to the fact that the impacts of lighting are considered in the Landscape and Ecology chapters. The applicant should clarify if this is a reference to the Landscape and Ecology chapters of the Environmental Statement or another document.
(xi) Paragraph 3.3.2 of the draft HRA report contains a number of footnote references; however there are no accompanying footnotes. The applicant is advised to rectify in the submitted HRA report.
(xii) The applicant should consider the inclusion of a glossary of technical terms and acronyms in the submitted HRA report.
(xiii) Paragraph 2.3.2 of the draft HRA report includes an incomplete sentence. In the interest of clarity the applicant is advised to complete this sentence / rectify in the submitted HRA report.
H. Land Plans
(i) The applicant is advised that whatever is indicated in the land plans is clearly indicated in the Book of Reference for each plot.
(ii) [Doc J] Additional plan submitted (Doc J:\13-14\CGD13)2 A30 ? Cornwall) titled Sheet 3 of 10. It is unclear what the purpose of this plan is, however the applicant should take special care to ensure that all plans submitted are consistent.
(iii) When comparing [Doc J] with [LP1] and [LP2] there are numerous discrepancies in terms of what is being acquired e.g. [LP1] depicts plot 01/22 as land rights to be acquired, however on plan [Doc J] it appears as though the land is to be compulsory acquired. It is advised that the applicant review all plans and ensure they are consistent.
(iv) The applicant is advised that in the following land plans submitted however it is unclear what rights are being sought or the plot to which rights apply to
LP1 ? 01/05; 01/08 and 01/26
LP2 ? 02/17
LP4 ? 04/42; 04/43; 04/66; 04/67 and 04/68
LP5 ? 05/06 refers to INSET A
Upon submission it should be clear to determine the associated rights being sought per plot.
(v) The applicant should take caution in ensuring that the ?cut line? for each of the sheets submitted particularly in reference to the Land Plans, reflects the overall scheme. It is advised that these sheets slightly overlap each other in order for a true reflection of the plots to be portrayed. The Works Plans represent a more consistent method in this regard.
(vi) The applicant may want to consider including an INSET on some of the Land Plans, especially where plot numbers are cluttered in order for PINS to have a clearer view. This potentially is something that is clearer on an A1 and if so this might not be necessary.
(vii) It appears on [LP2] that plot 02/45 is required for temporary use however plot 03/02 on [LP3], which appears to reflect the continuation of plot 02/45 is shown as land needed to be compulsory acquired. Again the applicant may want to overlay sheets to provide a clearer portrait of associated land rights.
(viii) It appears on [LP3] that plot 03/14 is required for compulsory acquisition however plot 04/03 on [LP4], which appears to reflect the continuation of plot 03/14 is shown as land needed to acquire permanent rights. Again the applicant may want to overlay sheets to provide a clearer portrait of associated land rights.