Meeting Note File reference EN010002 Nant-y-Moch EN010014 Dyfnant Forest EN010020 Mynydd-y-Gwynt Status FINAL Author Eleri Davies Meeting with Stakeholders Meeting date 18 October 2010 Attendees (IPC) Andrew Phillipson (pre-application Commissioner) Mark Wilson (Case Leader) Tom Carpen (Case Leader) Simone Wilding (Case Leader) Owain George (Case Officer) Amy Cooper (Assistant Case Officer) Eleri Davies (Case Officer) Attendees (non IPC) John Jones (Blaenrheidol Community Council) Aled Thomas (Blaenrheidol Community Council) Jillie Gardiner (Brechfa Forest Energy Action Group) Caroline Evans (Brechfa Forest Energy Action Group) Gwyn Lewis (Cadfarch Community Council) Ann West (Cambrian Mountains Society) John Morgan (Cambrian Mountains Society) Ruth Chambers (Campaign for National Parks) Cllr Rhodri Davies (Ceredigion County Council) Cllr Richard Owen (Ceredigion County Council) Cllr Paul James (Ceredigion County Council) Mr Briggs (Council for the Protection of Rural Wales) Michael Phillips (Dulas) Chief Inspector Mason (Dyfed Powys Police) Stephen Buckley (Forestry Commission Wales) Janet Dube (Grwp Blaengwen) Ms Morris (Grwp Blaengwen) Annwen Haynes (Llancynfelin Community Council) John Lewis (Llangurig Community Council) Wyn Williams (Montgomeryshire Liberal Democrat Candidate) Phillip Evans (Mynydd y Gwynt) Sue Balsom (Mynydd y Gwynt) Meilir Ceredig (Mynydd y Gwynt) Jacqui Fenn (National Grid) Jeremy Lee (National Grid) Page 1of 7 Christiane Kloos (North Ceredigion Bat Group) Wynne Jones (Pentir Pumlumon) Wyck Gerson Lohman (Ramblers Association) James Byrne (Royal Society for the Protection of Birds) Ruth Flahive (ScottishPower Renewables) Helen Peake (ScottishPower Renewables) Gareth Lloyd (Snowdonia National Park Authority) Madeline Cowley (SSE Renewables) Eluned Lewis (SSE Renewables) Alan Loveridge (St Harmon Community Council) Mr Huws (Talybont Community Council) Christopher Hodgson (Welsh Pony and Cob Society) David Reed (Ystwyth Cycling Club) Geraint Pugh Location Aberystwyth University Gogerddan Campus (Stapledon Suite) Meeting purpose Stakeholder meeting to discuss the IPC process Summary of Introductions outcomes and record of any IPC: advised on its policy of openness and transparency. advice given Issues discussed and advice given will be recorded and placed on the IPC’s website under Section 51 of the Planning Act 2008 (the 2008 Act). Any advice given under Section 51 of the 2008 Act does not constitute legal advice upon which applicants (or others) can rely. IPC advised that, under Section 51 of the 2008 Act, no advice can be given on the merits of an application. IPC: advised that Andrew Phillipson is the pre-application Commissioner for the Mynydd-y-Gwynt and Nant-y-Moch proposals. As such, he will not be involved in the Commission’s decision as to whether to accept any application that may be made for either of these proposals, or in their examination (if accepted). The Commissioner or Panel of Commissioners appointed to examine an application will be appointed following the ‘acceptance’ of a Development Consent Order (DCO) application. IPC Presentation (see attached) Question and Answer Session Pre-application Stage Q: What options are available when developers refuse to divulge information on proposals? IPC: The formal consultation process under Chapter 2 of Part 5 of the 2008 Act and related secondary legislation Page 2of 7 and guidance prescribes what the developer must do at the pre-application stage in terms of consultation, publicity and taking account of responses. It is the developer’s responsibility to provide sufficient information to LAs, statutory consultees and other interested parties (collectively referred to as stakeholders) on the proposed application at the pre-application stage. Q: Is the ‘principle of development’ inside or outside the scope of consultation by the developer? IPC: The IPC is unable to comment on what details should be included in the applicant’s consultation process. However, application documents will be assessed against Section 55 of the 2008 Act and related secondary legislation and guidance upon submission to the IPC. This includes an assessment of the “consultation report” which is defined in Section 37(7) of the 2008 Act as a report giving details of (a) what has been done in compliance with Sections 42, 47 and 48 of the 2008 Act; (b) any relevant responses; and (c) the account taken of relevant responses. Acceptance Stage Q: Will the IPC accept an application which may be subject to legal challenge? IPC: Section 118 of the 2008 Act prescribes when a DCO application may be legally challenged. There is no provision in legislation for the IPC to refuse to accept an application on the basis that it may be legally challenged. Q: How/when can interested parties provide input on the consultation process undertaken by the developer? IPC: Relevant Local Authority(ies) (LAs) are invited to submit an “adequacy of consultation representation” under Section 55(4)(b) of the Act once an application is submitted. Interested parties may therefore wish to send comments on the consultation process directly to the relevant LAs. Pre-examination Stage IPC: If an application is accepted for examination, anyone can register as an interested party after notification of acceptance by the applicant under Section 56 of the Act. Once registered, interested parties are kept informed of the application process and are able to submit relevant representations. IPC Advice Note 8 ‘How to have your say about a major infrastructure proposal’ provides Page 3of 7 advice on this matter. IPC: As stated in Section 88 of the 2008 Act, the Examining Authority (ExA) (i.e. the Panel of Commissioners or Single Commissioner appointed to examine the application) must make an initial assessment of the principal issues and hold a meeting involving the applicant and each other interested party. One of the purposes of this ‘preliminary meeting’ is to enable invitees to make representations to the ExA about how the application is to be examined. At or after the meeting, the ExA must make a procedural decision about how the application is to be examined and set out the timetable for the examination. Interested parties will be informed of this decision (Section 89 of the Act). IPC: Unless the ExA determines that a hearing is necessary then the examination of the application will take the form of consideration by written representations. Written representations carry equal weight to oral representations. Regulation 10 of the Infrastructure Planning (Examination Procedure) Rules 2010 requires the ExA to provide all interested parties with the opportunity to comment in writing on any written representation relevant to the examination of the application. IPC: There are three types of hearing, namely hearings about specific issues, compulsory acquisition hearings, and open-floor hearings (Sections 91, 92 and 93 of the 2008 Act respectively). If the Commission receives a request from any interested party for an open floor hearing, then the ExA must cause an open-floor hearing to be held. Examination Stage Q: Will there be any difference in the weight afforded to relevant representations from people living in the vicinity of the proposed development and people living further away from the proposed development? IPC: The ExA will determine how much weight is afforded to representations/evidence. Q: The Countryside Council for Wales (CCW) refuse to comment on landscape value in the Strategic Search Areas (SSAs) identified in TAN8 Renewable Energy (2005) as they consider that this was assessed during the WAG consultation on TAN8. Will CCW be subpoenaed to give objective representations on landscape value? Page 4of 7 IPC: All statutory consultees (including the CCW) are invited to submit relevant representations. National Policy Statements Q: What weight will be given to other policies (e.g. Technical Advice Notes (TANs) in Wales)? Will Welsh Assembly Government policies be assessed objectively? IPC: The ExA will decide, on a case-by-case basis, the weight to be given to other material planning considerations (e.g. TANs). It is for the ExA and/or DM to decide, on a case-by-case basis, whether it is appropriate to assess the merits of policy set out in a TAN. Q: Is TAN8 a NPS? IPC: TAN8 is not a NPS. For NSIPs considered under the 2008 Act in Wales, the relevant NPSs apply to both England and Wales. TAN8 is a policy document relevant to Wales only and may be a material planning consideration in the determination of an NSIP under the 2008 Act. Associated Development Q: Can other developments associated with the proposal as well as other developments in the vicinity be considered at the same time as the individual proposals to the IPC? IPC: Section 115(1) of the 2008 Act makes provision for the granting of consent for (a) development for which development consent is required; and (b) associated development. The definition of what can be included as associated development in Wales is lees broad than in England (Section 115(4) of the 2008 Act) All development associated with the proposal, whether included within the DCO application or to be determined by another consenting body, should be considered in the ES. More information is available in the Communities and Local Government (CLG) Guidance on Associated Development (September 2009). Q: Who determines improvements to transport routes leading to wind farms? IPC: Where highway improvements are required but unable to be considered as part of the DCO application as associated