From: Mandy Wood Sent: 01 February 2016 17:48 To: '[email protected]' Subject: Triton Knoll Electrical System, Anderby Creek public hearing (ENV011.12) Dear Sirs Please find attached Lincolnshire County Council's response for Deadline 5. Due to IT technical problems, we have experienced a cyber-attack and have been without all IT, we have not been able to complete all of the document in particular para 68 and para 37 further information will follow shortly. With regard to the Statement of common Ground, we have been working upon this document all day as soon as our IT resumed and have forwarded a draft in progress document to the applicant for comment, but they have been unable to do so as yet. As soon as we hear from the applicant we will forward a copy to yourselves as soon as we are able to. Kind regards Mandy Wood Senior Solicitor Planning , Highways, Housing, Governance and Licensing Team Legal Services Lincolnshire County Offices Newland Lincoln LN1 1YL DX 7016880 Lincoln 5 Direct dial- 01522 552103 Email- [email protected] ----------------------------------------- Note: We are a Microsoft Office site. Our base version is 2010. Please make sure that files you send can be read in this format. Any form of reproduction, dissemination, copying, disclosure, modification, distribution and/or publication of this e-mail is strictly prohibited save unless expressly authorised by the sender. The information contained in this message is intended for the named recipients only. It may contain privileged and confidential information and if you are not the addressee or the person responsible for delivering this to the addressee, you may not copy, distribute or take action in reliance on it. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender(s) immediately by telephone. Please also destroy and delete as soon as possible the message from your computer. *************************************************************************** ****** *************************************************************************** ****** This email was scanned by the Government Secure Intranet anti-virus service supplied by Vodafone in partnership with Symantec. (CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.) In case of problems, please call your organisations IT Helpdesk. Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes. TRITON KNOLL ELECTRICAL SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CONSENT ORDER RESPONSE OF THE LINCOLNSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL TO MATTERS RAISED AT THE SECOND ROUND OF HEARINGS, SUBMITTED FOR DEADLINE 5 (01/02/2016) Introduction. 1. Lincolnshire County Council, “LCC”, has produced this document pursuant to the request made by the Examining Authority, “the ExA”, for matters raised at the Hearings to be addressed in writing. 2. LCC has to report that following the closure of the Hearings and prior to preparing this document it suffered a major and very disruptive IT failure that has adversely affected its ability to respond to the Hearings in a written form in the way that it would have wanted to. That IT failure, which has been widely reported in the press, resulted from a Hack from an unknown source which closed down LCC’s entire computer network. The result of that event is that LCC officers have not had access until today to any information contained within computer records and have had to produce information from the next best available source, including personal recollection. 3. In the light of that LCC would welcome the opportunity presented by the next round of questions to address any further matters or concerns the ExA may still have in respect of the Councils position. 1 4. This document will address the following matters:- - Considerations where the ExA asked for matters to be confirmed in writing. - The position following the Evidence Plan process which Counsel for the LCC indicated a written response would be prepared, including areas where agreement has now been reached. - Outstanding Highway Matters. - Outstanding Matters relating to the Public Open Space( POS) and the Lincolnshire Coastal Country Park (LCCP). - Outstanding Archaeological concerns. - Outstanding Tourism questions. - The CPO justification. - The Viking Link Considerations where the ExA asked for matters to be confirmed in writing. 5. LCC believes that the ExA asked for five matters to be confirmed in writing. If that recollection is incorrect and any additional consideration needs to be addressed LCC would welcome that being raised by way of additional questions. 6. LCC agree to the inclusion of the Lindsey County Council (Sandhills Act) 1932 within Article 6 of the DCO and is aware of the consequences of this inclusion. The inclusion was suggested by LCC to ensure that the matter was fully dealt with. 7. LCC confirm the alteration to condition 8(1) to change the reference from LCC to a different body and would indicate that the need for that arises from the fact that the County Council is not the body responsible for the 2 entire geographical area and that some other body would also need to be informed. The precise wording of that condition is, at the request of the Applicant, still being discussed with Historic England, discussions which are not yet complete, and will be reported to the Applicant and the ExA as soon as possible. 8. LCC’s position in respect of the Restrictive Covenant is now covered by the acceptance on behalf of the Applicants that no part of the covenant is capable of being applied to any land or interest held by the County Council when undertaking any of its Statutory Functions. Given that acknowledgement LCC remains of the view that the covenant cannot be applied to any of its landholding where it owns land pursuant to a statutory process and where no other interests are known to exist. In reality the POS should be excluded from that reference. The Applicants suggestion that it should remain to guard against any future alteration to land by means of the construction of beach huts or the like is without foundation as the land was acquired as open space and the future intention is for it to remain open and at all times undeveloped. 9. LCC has attached to this additional response a copy of the Skegness Vision Document as published by the consultants advising the local parties in respect of that matter. That demonstrates that the document itself and the indicative line of a potential western bypass to Skegness shown within it are not matters promoted by the County Council.( Appendix 1) 3 The Position following the Evidence Plan process which Counsel for the LCC indicated a written response would be prepared, including areas where agreement has now been reached. 10. The suggestion made to the Hearings that the LCC has modified or changed its position inappropriately is not one that the County Council can accept. The Applicants did carry out a process in respect of the evidence plan and officers from the Council were present and did take part in that process but that process does not prevent cases being presented to the ExA subsequently which raise relevant considerations. The ExA has a statutory power to disregard information it chooses to do when considered vexatious or irrelevant and LCC note that the ExA has not been invited to exercise any such power and further in seeking to respond to the various matters raised the County Council was responding to matters raised specifically by the ExA as matters to be considered. 11. There are four areas where it is inferred that the County Council position has changed following that Evidence Plan process; these are highways, archaeology, tourism and public open space/LCCP. 12. In respect of Highways the following is the position. In respect of the EIA Evidence Plan LCC were involved with the process and confirmed its acceptance or otherwise to the evidence plan in relation to highway issues in an email of the 21st April 2015 from Andy Ratcliffe. That acceptance is recorded shortly in the evidence plan and the areas where specific matters were raised. In general terms a number of matters were agreed as being relevant but where there was an ongoing requirement to bring forward sufficient information to address them. 13. At the same time specific matters were still being considered. At a meeting in May 2015 the parties discussed the project in general terms and 4 considered overall highway issues. The evidence plan did not therefore resolve all highway issues and the Applicants were not only aware of that but responded to meetings with the LCC to seek to address those aspects. 14. A further meeting in December 2015 was held in the context of the Statement of Common Ground where it became clear that the Applicants view of the highway issues was different to that held by the County Council; that is clear from the fact that the draft of the Statement prepared by the Applicants indicated that all matters had been agreed whereas the County Council held a different view as indicated by the fact that meetings took place after the evidence plan process. 15. At the meeting in December 2015 and then repeated again at the meeting in January it was made clear that there were outstanding issues. The January meeting took place at short notice at the request of the Applicants despite the fact that Andy Ratcliffe could not be present. That was reported to Mr Lloyd and he indicated via email that he would contact him directly. The reason for such contact being that Mr Lloyd was aware that there were outstanding issues and was aware of the nature of them. 16. Accordingly LCC has maintained a consistent approach throughout the process. The evidence plan indicated the matters where the information should be obtained and presented but the meetings which continued after that process identified and sought to address the outstanding issues.