Advice to Bill Temple-Pediani
Back to listEnquiry
- From
- Bill Temple-Pediani
- Date advice given
- 4 October 2010
- Enquiry type
Infimation copied to you was not with the intention of IPC influencing LB of Newham in any way on its LDF. It is the IPC which advised me earlier this year, which you are repeating in today's e-mail, that a proposed generation project in the national interest should be entered into the LDF of the local planning authority. It is my company which is heavily criticising the Council for not allowing my company to access the LDF planning process.
However, there is an outstanding question which you have yet to answer. We have outlined to statutory consultees a proposed 60m high-rise cloaking building for the CHP station which would render the latter invisible. Is it the IPC which would be responsible for approving the cloaking building as "additional development"?
All copyees want to know.
Advice given
Dear Dr Temple-Pediani,
Thank you for your email. I am attaching to this email a copy of the CLG guidance note "Guidance on Associated Development: Applications to the Infrastructure Planning Commission."
It is the responsibility of promoters to decide whether their proposal is an NSIP or could be considered Associated Development for the purposes of an NSIP application. If promoters are unsure we advise them to take their own legal advice upon which they can rely.
Yours