Skip to main content
Find a National Infrastructure Project

Beta This is a beta service - your feedback will help us to improve it

Advice to Robert Bird

Back to list

Enquiry

From
Robert Bird
Date advice given
10 March 2017
Enquiry type
Email

With regards to the s.53 access request, as the applicant was the US RiverOak entity, and 'authorised persons' are defined as the applicant and other person's authorised by the applicant, can you advise whether the permission remains extant now that the US entity no longer appear to have a connection with the DCO application.

If the permission does remain in force, presumably any person wishing to access the site under the permission will need to be formally authorised by the US RiverOak entity rather than the UK RSP Ltd?

Advice given

The s53 authorisation remains extant subject to the definition of "authorised persons" in Annex 1 of the authorisation.

Any person wishing to access the site under the terms of the authorisation will need to be authorised to do so by RiverOak Investment Corporation.