3/18 Eagle Wing - National Infrastructure Planning by National Grid Electricity Transmission plc for the proposed North London Reinforcement Project (‘the application’) ... Following

www.planningportal.gov.uk/infrastructure

Your Ref:

Our Ref: EN020009

Date: 30 April 2013

Dear Sir/Madam The Planning Act 2008 (as amended) (‘PA 2008’) and Rule 8 of the Infrastructure Planning (Examination Procedure) Rules 2010 (‘EPR’) Application by National Grid Electricity Transmission plc for the proposed North London Reinforcement Project (‘the application’) Rule 8 (EPR) Notice of procedural decisions made following the Preliminary Meeting Following the Preliminary Meeting held on Wednesday 24 April 2013 at Tottenham Hotspur Football Club, Bill Nicholson Way, 748 High Road, Tottenham, London N17 0AP, I am writing to inform you that the examination for the above application has commenced. I am grateful to all those who attended the Preliminary Meeting, for the clear commitments to cooperation evident there and for all views expressed about the examination procedure and the draft timetable. I have considered all of the matters raised with care in arriving at my procedural decisions and the timetable for the examination. This letter sets out my procedural decisions made in the light of the discussions at the Preliminary Meeting and provides you with some guidance on the next stages of the examination procedure. Annexes set out the approved timetable, requests for the preparation of statements of common ground and contributions to a Report on the Implications for European Sites and my written questions. These annexes replace equivalent draft annexes to my earlier correspondence. An audio recording of the Preliminary Meeting has been published on the National Infrastructure pages of the Planning Portal website. A written note of the Preliminary Meeting is under preparation and will shortly be available on our website and made available for inspection at the venues listed in Annex A.

3/18 Eagle Wing Temple Quay House 2 The Square Bristol, BS1 6PN

Customer Services: e-mail:

website:

0303 444 5000 [email protected] http://infrastructure.planningportal.gov.uk/projects/ london/north-london-electricity-line-reinforcement/

mailto:[email protected]

http://infrastructure.planningportal.gov.uk/projects/

www.planningportal.gov.uk/infrastructure 2

1. Persons who made ‘statements of representation’ The persons that submitted statements of representation are also statutory parties. As such, they now have the opportunity to notify me in writing that they are to become interested parties (see item 15 below for more information). 2. Approved timetable The changes made to the draft timetable respond closely to suggestions made during the Preliminary Meeting; but all interested parties are urged to check the approved timetable at Annex B carefully and ensure that the dates are included in their diaries. The approved timetable at Annex B sets out my procedural decisions in respect of all matters for which timetabled arrangements are required and specifically in respect of the number and type of hearings anticipated. Given the widespread agreement to the timetable demonstrated at the Preliminary Meeting, I do not anticipate needing to change it, unless relevant new circumstances emerge. I will be grateful for your efforts to adhere to it at all times. If I need to vary it for any reason, I will write to you and inform you of the changes, except in circumstances identified in items 3 (hearings) and 5 (site inspections) below, where I may notify minor changes either orally or on the National Infrastructure pages of the Planning Portal website. 3. Hearings The timetable reserves time for Issue Specific Hearings to address the effect of the application proposals on the Lee Valley Regional Park generally and on the ‘showground’ site and the relationship between the proposed programme of works and the programme of public and sporting events in the park. There will also be an Issue Specific Hearing on the provisions and effect of the proposed Development Consent Order. I have yet to receive an indication that any person wishes to make representations at an Open Floor Hearing or at a Compulsory Acquisition Hearing. However, the timetable reserves a short period of time for these purposes in case they are required. Notice of your request to be heard at any hearings must be provided by Friday 31 May 2013. 21 days notice (prior to the hearings) will be provided of the detailed arrangements for any hearings which will be held between Monday 8 and Friday 12 July 2013. Hearing agendas will also be provided. Once a hearing is in session, I may adjourn it orally, without written notice to persons who are not present. Should it be that I receive no requests to be heard at an Open Floor Hearing or at a Compulsory Acquisition Hearing, I may cancel them by posting a notice on the National Infrastructure pages of the Planning Portal website. The timetable also reserves time for such hearings as may be required to accommodate special procedures (see item 4 below), but arrangements for these will be notified separately. It should be noted that this reservation of time is for information only and is not a formal procedural decision.


4. Special procedures The applicant has indicated its possible need to apply for a certificate from the relevant Secretary of State in respect of compulsory acquisition proposals affecting statutory undertakers land1. Similarly, it has indicated its possible need to apply for certificates from the relevant Secretary(ies) of State in respect of compulsory acquisition proposals affecting common, open space or fuel or field allotment land2. Any examination including any hearing, public local inquiry and reporting process that may be required for these special procedure applications would remain distinct from my examination of the application for a Development Consent Order currently before me. Any possible appointment of a person to examine in those prospective processes would be at the relevant Secretary of State’s or their delegate’s discretion. Provision has been made within the timetable with a view to enabling any such procedures as prove to be necessary to be carried out within the timescale for the examination I am currently undertaking. However, such coordination will only remain possible to the extent that the applicant takes early action to progress such applications for certificates as may be required. The applicant is requested to contact the casework team at the Planning Inspectorate (correspondence for the attention of Ms Kathryn Powell) to discuss this. 5. Site Inspections If you consider that I should inspect a location to observe a feature relevant to my deliberations in this examination, please write to me by close of business on Thursday 16 May 2013 to nominate and describe it, to identify its location and to indicate the reason(s) why an inspection is relevant. If your nominated location can be viewed from the public domain, please indicate that this is the case and I will consider it for inclusion within my schedule of unaccompanied site inspections. In the interests of ensuring my understanding of the physical setting of the application site, I have decided that the currently scheduled unaccompanied site inspections will proceed, whether or not I receive any nominations. If your nominated location cannot be viewed from the public domain and particularly if it forms part of premises subject to access restrictions in the interests of operational safety, health or hazard management, please provide the name, address and contact details of the person responsible for decisions about access to it as part of your nomination. I will then consider it for inclusion within my proposed accompanied site inspections undertaken between Tuesday 25 and Thursday 27 June 2013. Further to agreement at the Preliminary Meeting, any accompanied site inspection will be undertaken in the company of a representative of the applicant, a representative of the Lee Valley Regional Park Authority and such persons representing the owner, occupier or operator of the site as may be necessary to ensure safe access. If no nominations are made, please note that accompanied site inspections may be cancelled by posting a notice on the National Infrastructure pages of the Planning Portal website. Note that I will only visit a nominated location where it appears necessary to do so to understand the application or representations that have been made to me. I may

1 PA 2008 s127. 2 PA 2008 ss 131 and 132.


decide not to visit a nominated location where the action necessary to secure health and safety during an inspection appears to me to be disproportionate to my need for information about the location. There may also be circumstances in which (having regard to the hazardous nature of some operational land) it is not appropriate to enter a nominated site. A note of any site inspection that I undertake will be published on the National Infrastructure pages of the Planning Portal website. 6. Local Impact Reports As foreshadowed in my letters of 14 December 2012 and 27 March 2013, section 60 PA 2008 provides that relevant local authorities and (in Greater London) the Greater London Authority can prepare a Local Impact Report, giving details of the likely impact of the proposed development on the authority's area (or any part of that area). I note from the Preliminary Meeting that the Greater London Authority intends to produce a Local Impact Report and that it may also be willing to include local impact material arising from other relevant local authorities within the Greater London area. This does not preclude the submission of an individual Local Impact Report from any relevant London local authorities. Relevant local authorities outside Greater London will need to produce their own Local Impact Reports. All Local Impact Reports from relevant local authorities must be received by Thursday 23 May 2013, following which the timetable provides opportunities and deadlines for comments on them to be submitted. 7. Procedural Decisions: Statements of Common Ground Annex C contains the Examining authority’s procedural decisions. The topic areas for Statements of Common Ground are identified in Annex C(i). The draft procedures for Statements of Common Ground set out in my letter of 27 March 2013 sought multi-party involvement in some statements. Whilst progress on the topic areas is noted, I also acknowledge submissions from the applicant at the Preliminary Meeting that it may not prove possible to secure multi-party approval to all anticipated statements. Whilst I hope that the applicant will complete multi-lateral statements where possible, my decision is to accept the provision of bi-lateral statements on the basis that subject matters identified in Annex C(i) are covered. Annex C(i) also records the need for engagement between the applicant and the Environment Agency. It includes minor revisions to the public transport statements (SoCG A), made in response to submissions at the Preliminary Meeting about the effect of the withdrawal of a relevant representation by Arriva. Those responsible for the drafting of statements are asked to take note of these changes. All Statements of Common Ground must be produced by Thursday 23 May 2013, following which the timetable provides opportunities and deadlines for comments to be submitted. 8. Procedural Decisions: Matrices contributing to a Report on the

Implications for European Sites (RIES) Annex C(ii) provides that the applicant is to provide draft matrices summarising the


implications of the application for European Sites3 by Thursday 23 May 2013, following which the timetable provides opportunities and deadlines for comments to be submitted. 9. Examining authority’s written questions I have asked written questions and requested further information about matters considered relevant to the application. These questions are set out in Annex D At this stage, I only intend to issue a single round of written questions. On this basis, parties at the Preliminary Meeting were asked to provide full and clear answers to all questions relevant to their circumstances. I will be most grateful for your commitment in this regard. Nevertheless, should it become necessary for me to write to interested parties again as the examination progresses with further questions or requests for more information I am able to do so4. The answers to written questions must be provided by Thursday 23 May 2013, following which the timetable provides opportunities and deadlines for comments on answers to be submitted. 10. Written representations All interested parties are invited to submit written representations and supporting evidence on matters concerning the application, and on relevant representations and statements of representation already submitted in accordance with the timetable set out in Annex B. Please send your written representation (including any supporting evidence) by Thursday 23 May 2013, following which the timetable provides opportunities and deadlines for comments on answers to be submitted. Written representations can deal with any relevant matter. They are not restricted by the scope of the matters set out in my initial assessment of principal issues which was discussed at the Preliminary Meeting, nor restricted to my questions as set out in Annex D. As indicated in response to questions raised at the Preliminary Meeting, where circumstances have changed and new issues have arisen since the making of a relevant representation or statement of representation, written representations can address this change. Please note, if you are submitting a written representation, you must identify those parts of the application or specific matters with which you agree and those parts with which you do not agree. You must state the reasons for your disagreement. There is no prescribed form for written representations. However, “DCLG Guidance for the examination of applications for development consent” (April 2013) advises that participants should provide “any data, methodology and assumptions used to support their submissions” with their written representations, in the interests of fairness and to avoid delay5.

3 Further guidance is available in the Planning Inspectorate’s Advice Note 10: http://infrastructure.planningportal.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Advice-note-10-HRA.pdf 4 Rule 17 EPR 5 See paras 70 and 71


For ease of reference, any written representation that exceeds 1500 words should also be accompanied by a summary, not exceeding 10% of the original text. The summary should set out the key facts of the written representation and must reflect the submissions made. However, I will take the full written representation into account in making my report and recommendation to the Secretary of State. 11. Guidance for the submission of written representations and

other documents Timely submissions in advance of the deadlines set in the timetable are encouraged and welcomed. All submissions should quote reference EN020009 and your unique reference number if you have one6. It is requested that interested parties send, where practicable, electronic copies of their documents as email attachments, to:

[email protected] Electronic attachments should be clearly labelled with the subject title and not exceed 12MB for each email. Should electronic submissions include technical information of 300 pages or more, interested parties are advised to send an additional full paper copy of their submission by post. Paper documents should be sent to the postal address at the top of this letter. The applicant is asked to supply seven paper copies of their written representation(s) for the Examining authority7 to use and make available for public inspection8 at the locations specified in Annex A. It would also be helpful if respondents could provide duplicate electronic copies of their submissions from which their signature and contact details have been redacted, as these submissions will need to be published on the National Infrastructure pages of the Planning Portal website (see item 12 below). Written requests to attend hearings should be forwarded separately to the Planning Inspectorate Case Team, at the above email or post addresses. 12. Availability and inspection of representations and documents Relevant representations, written representations, any notice, report or other document required or authorised to be sent or prepared under the EPR or the PA 2008 will be made available to all interested parties and to anyone who requests an opportunity to inspect and take copies of them. In order to meet this obligation, all interested parties should note that at each stage of the examination set out in the timetable at Annex B, and as soon as practicable, I will make these available by publishing them on the ‘North London (Electricity Line) Reinforcement’ project area in the National Infrastructure pages of the Planning Portal website. I shall also provide an opportunity for inspection and copying of the documents at the deposit locations in Annex A.

6 If you have a unique reference number, it will be included in this letter head. 7 Rule 10(6)(a) EPR 8 Rule 21 EPR


13. Compliance with deadlines for receipt of documents and requests for hearings

It is important to note that if any requested written representations, responses to questions or further information are received after the date, or the expiry of the period, specified for their receipt in the timetable, the Examining authority may disregard them9. If no requests to be heard are received by the identified deadline for Open-floor hearings or Compulsory Acquisition hearings, then the Examining authority may take steps to cancel any such hearings. 14. Award of costs I also draw your attention to the possibility of the award of costs against any party who behaves unreasonably. You should be aware of the relevant Costs Policy that applies to National Infrastructure Projects, which is available on the National Infrastructure pages of the Planning Portal website10. 15. Future notifications Unless you are registered with the Planning Inspectorate as an interested party you will not automatically continue to receive notifications from us about the examination of this application and will not receive any further communication from us relating to this application. You can, however, visit the dedicated project page on the Planning Portal website to stay informed of the progress of the examination. If you are: • a statutory party11; or • a statutory party who has informed the Planning Inspectorate of the intention to

become an interested party before the issue of this letter; • a statutory party who submitted a statement of representation; • a person within one or more of the categories set out in s102B PA 2008, but you

were not notified by the applicant of the acceptance of the application12; or • an adjoining local authority13; please note that you will not automatically be an interested party (and therefore not have a statutory entitlement to participate further in the examination) unless either: • you have already submitted a relevant representation14, or • you notify me, following receipt of this letter that you wish to become an

interested party15.

9 Rule 10(8) EPR 10 See http://infrastructure.planningportal.gov.uk/application-process/costs/ 11 See Infrastructure Planning (Interested Parties) Regulations 2010 (IPR) Reg 3. 12 Under PA 2008, s56(2)(d) 13 A local authority whose area adjoins that of a local authority in which the proposed development is situated – see PA 2008, ss 88(3)(d) and 88A 14 Please note that in this respect a statement of representation is not a relevant representation. 15 PA 2008, s89(2A)(b) and s102A.

http://infrastructure.planningportal.gov.uk/application-process/costs/


If you are in any doubt about your status as an interested party, please telephone the Planning Inspectorate’s Customer Services on 0303 444 5000, and ask to speak to the North London (Electricity Line) Reinforcement Case Team. Finally, please let me know if you are an interested party and for any reason, you no longer wish to be involved in the examination procedure, so that you need not receive any further correspondence from the Planning Inspectorate about this examination. Yours faithfully,

Rynd Smith Rynd Smith LLB MA MRTPI FRSA Examining authority ANNEX A Availability of relevant representations and application

documents ANNEX B The Examination Timetable ANNEX C Procedural Decisions regarding an application for the proposed

North London (Electricity Line) Reinforcement Project: (i) Statements of Common Ground (ii) Matrices supporting a Report on the Implications for

European Sites (RIES) ANNEX D The Examining authority’s written questions and requests for

information Advice may be given about applying for an order granting development consent or making representations about an

application (or a proposed application). This communication does not however constitute legal advice upon which you can rely and you should obtain your own legal advice and professional advice as required. A record of the advice which is provided will be recorded on the Planning Inspectorate website together with the name of the person or organisation who asked for the advice. The privacy of any other personal information will be protected in accordance with our Information Charter which you should view before sending information to the Planning Inspectorate.

EN020009: 30 April 2013 ANNEX A: PAGE 1 OF 2

Annex A Availability of relevant representations and application documents On the National Infrastructure pages of the Planning Portal website at: http://infrastructure.planningportal.gov.uk/projects/london/north-london-electricity-line-reinforcement/ For inspection and copying: Waltham Abbey Town Council Town Hall Highbridge Street Waltham Abbey Essex EN9 1DE Opening times: Monday - Friday 09:00 – 17:00 Copying charges: 10p per A4 sheet (Black and White)

15p per A4 sheet (Colour) 15p per A3 sheet (Black and White) 20p per A3 sheet (Colour)

Edmonton Green Library 36-44 South Mall Edmonton Green London N9 0TN Opening times: Monday - Thursday 09:00 – 19:00

Friday 09:00 – 17:30 Saturday 09:00 – 17:00 Sunday Closed

Copying charges: 10p per A4 sheet (Black and White)

20p per A4 sheet (Colour) 20p per A3 sheet (Black and White) 50p per A3 sheet (Colour)

Epping Forest District Council 2nd Floor Planning Reception Area Civic Offices 323 High Street Epping Essex CM16 4BZ 15 Opening times: Monday - Friday 09:00 – 13:00 (Interested parties are requested to come to the 2nd Floor Planning Reception Area to view the documents) Copying charges: 20p per A4 sheet (Black and White)

£1.00 per A4 sheet (Colour)

http://infrastructure.planningportal.gov.uk/projects/london/north-london-electricity-line-reinforcement/

http://infrastructure.planningportal.gov.uk/projects/london/north-london-electricity-line-reinforcement/

EN020009: 30 April 2013 ANNEX A: PAGE 2 OF 2

50p per A3 sheet (Black and White) £1.50 per A3 sheet (Colour) £2.00 per A2 sheet £5.00 per A1 sheet £6.00 per A0 sheet

North Chingford Library The Green Chingford London E4 7EN Opening times: Monday – Friday 09:00 - 19:00

Saturday 09:00 – 18:00 Sunday 12:00 – 16:00

(Interested parties are requested to arrive no later than one hour before the advertised closing time) Copying charges: 10p per A4 sheet (black and white)

20p per A3 sheet (black and white) Waltham Forest Council Waltham Forest Town Hall Forest Road Walthamstow London E17 4JF Opening times: Monday - Friday 09:00 - 17:00 (Interested parties are requested to arrive no later than one hour before the advertised closing time) Copying charges: Please note there are no photocopying facilities available at this location. The Planning Inspectorate National Infrastructure Directorate Temple Quay House 2 The Square Bristol BS1 6PN Opening times: Monday – Friday 10:00 – 16:00 Copying charges: 10p per A4 sheet (black and white), other sizes on request at additional cost. Copying charges quoted are indicative costs as of November 2012.

EN020009: 30 April 2013 ANNEX B: PAGE 1 OF 4

Annex B The Examination Timetable The Examining authority is under a duty to complete the examination of the application by the end of 6 months beginning with the day after the start day16.

Item

Matters

Due Dates

1

Preliminary Meeting

Wednesday 24 April 2013

2

Issue by ExA of:

• Examination timetable; and • Written questions.

Tuesday 30 April 2013

3

DEADLINE I Deadline for receipt of:

• Nominations of locations to be inspected during site inspections and the features to be observed there, with reasons for each nomination;

• For locations not accessible from the public realm - nominations for an accompanied site visit (ASV nominations);

• For ASV nominations, contact details of the person from whom the ExA should seek permission to enter the land.

Thursday 16 May 2013

4

DEADLINE II Deadline for receipt of:

• Comments on relevant representations (RRs) and Statements of Representations (SoRs);

• Summaries of all RRs exceeding 1500 words; • Written representations (WRs) by all interested

parties; • Summaries of all WRs exceeding 1500 words; • Local Impact Report (LIR) from any relevant local

authorities; • Statements of Common Ground requested by ExA

(see Annex C); • Responses to ExA’s written questions (see Annex

D); and • Applicant’s draft matrices summarising effects on

European sites.

Thursday 23 May 2013

5

DEADLINE III Deadline for receipt of:

• Notice of wish to be heard at an Open-floor Hearing;

• Notice of wish to be heard at a Compulsory Acquisition Hearing (affected persons only);

Friday 31 May 2013

16 s98 PA 2008 (as amended).


Item

Matters

Due Dates

• Notice of wish to be heard at Issue-Specific Hearings; and

• Comments on ASV nominations.

6

DEADLINE IV Deadline for receipt by the ExA of:

• Responses to comments on RRs and SoRs; • Comments on WRs; • Comments on LIRs; • Comments on responses to ExA’s written

questions; and • Comments on Applicant’s draft matrices

summarising effects on European sites.

Thursday 20 June 2013

7

Reserved for possible Accompanied Site Visits (ASVs). • If ASV nominations are received and acceded to by

the ExA, arrangements will be made to carry out ASVs on these dates.

• Attendance at ASVs is limited to: o representatives of the applicant; o representatives of the Lee Valley Regional

Park Authority; and o representatives of the owner, occupier or

operator of the site together with such persons as may be necessary to assure the health and safety of those visiting any operational land.

• If no ASV nominations are received the ExA may cancel the ASV programme through a notice placed on the National Infrastructure Planning Portal.

Tuesday 25 – Thursday 27 June 2013

8

DEADLINE V

Deadline for receipt by the ExA of: • Responses to comments on WRs; • Responses to comments on LIRs; • Responses to comments on answers to ExA’s

written questions; and • Responses to comments on draft matrices

summarising effects on European sites.

Wednesday 3 July 2013

9

Reserved for possible Open-Floor Hearings:

• If no requests to be heard are received by Deadline III the ExA may cancel this hearing through a notice placed on the National Infrastructure Planning Portal.

Monday 8 July 2013 from 13-00

10

Reserved for possible Compulsory Acquisition Hearings:

• If no requests to be heard are received by Deadline III the ExA may cancel this hearing through a

Monday 8 July 2013 from 15-30


Item

Matters

Due Dates

notice placed on the National Infrastructure Planning Portal.

11

Reserved for Issue-Specific Hearings:

• The impact of the application proposals and work programme on the Lee Valley Regional Park, the public and sporting events programme in the park and on the ‘showground’ site; and

• The draft Development Consent Order.

Tuesday 9 July – Thursday 11 July 2013

12 Reserved for possible hearings or public local inquiries under parallel processes pursuant to ss127, 131 and/or 132 of the Planning Act 2008 if required (presided over by a relevant appointed person):

• Note that arrangements for any such parallel hearings or public local inquiries will be subject to them having been caused by applications having been submitted, decisions by the relevant Secretary of State or their delegate about the need for and appointment of a person to conduct them and to separate procedural arrangements by a relevant appointed person.

• Their inclusion in this timetable does not form part of the procedural decisions of the ExA. It is for information only and is not a commitment that they will be carried out.

Friday 12 July 2013

13 DEADLINE VI Deadline for receipt by the ExA of:

• Written summaries of submissions and evidence provided during hearings;

• Responses to questions on notice raised by the ExA during hearings;

• Any additional evidence requested by the ExA during hearings; and

• Applicant’s revised draft DCO (taking account of issues raised in hearings and WRs into account).

To ensure the provision of due process and fairness to all participants in the examination, the ExA will not consider submissions by the applicant or other parties requesting new changes to the draft Development Consent Order or examination documents after the expiry of this deadline, other than as specifically provided for in the remainder of the timetable or in questions from the ExA.

Friday 26 July 2013

14

Issue by ExA of: • A Report on the Implications for European

Sites (RIES) taking issues raised and comments into account; and

• Revised draft DCO taking issues raised and comments into account.

Friday 9 August 2013


Item

Matters

Due Dates

15

DEADLINE VII Deadline for receipt of: • Comments on ExA’s RIES; and • Comments on ExA’s revised draft DCO.

Tuesday 3 September 2013

EN020009: 30 April 2013 ANNEX C: PAGE 1 OF 5

Annex C The Planning Act 2008 (as amended by the Localism Act 2011) (‘PA 2008’) and the Infrastructure Planning (Examination Procedure) Rules 2010 (‘EPR’) Procedural Decisions regarding an application for the proposed North London (Electricity Line) Reinforcement Project C(i) Statements of Common Ground The ExA requests the preparation of Statements of Common Ground (SoCG) between the Applicant and certain interested parties and other bodies.

The aim of a SoCG is to agree factual information and to inform the ExA and all other parties by identifying where there is agreement and where the differences lie at an early stage in the examination process. It should provide a focus and save time by identifying matters that are not in dispute or need not be the subject of further evidence. It can also usefully state where and why there may be disagreement about the interpretation and relevance of the information. The reasons for the differences and the interpretation of the implications of a difference can then be expanded in the evidence. Unless otherwise stated or agreed, the SoCG should be agreed between the Applicant and the other relevant interested party or parties, and submitted by the Applicant. Whilst a SoCG can be prepared multi-laterally (between the applicant and several parties), should this not prove possible within the time allowed, the ExA will accept the submission of multiple bi-lateral SoCGs addressing the same subject matters. SoCGs are requested to be prepared to address the subject matters and involving interested parties as follows:17

Public Transport Services A. the Applicant, the Greater London Authority (GLA), TfL and relevant

London Borough Councils18 to include: • a clear position on the effects of the proposed development and particularly of

the construction programme on public transport; • progress on mitigation of these effects and means by which this can be

secured; and • a summary statement of matters not agreed or outstanding.

Crossrail 2

B. the Applicant, the GLA and TfL to include: • a statement of latest position on the TfL/CLRL Crossrail 2 (Chelsea – Hackney)

project, the extent to which it has been addressed in the application and to

17 A SoCG that was proposed between the applicant and TJX Europe in December 2012 is no longer proposed, on the basis that, further to correspondence on 16 January 2013, these parties have reached a shared understanding and TJX has withdrawn its relevant representation. 18 SoCG A proposed between the applicant and (amongst others) Arriva in December 2012 is amended, on the basis that, further to correspondence on 10 April 2013, Arriva has reached a shared understanding with the applicant and has withdrawn its relevant representation. SoCG A has been refocused on the effects of the proposed development and construction programme on public transport services to respond to discussion of my proposals at the Preliminary Meeting.


which changes to the draft Development Consent Order or other changes may be required; and

• a summary statement of matters not agreed or outstanding.

Deephams Sewage Works Upgrade C. the Applicant and Thames Water to include:

• a statement of the latest position on the Thames Water’s Deephams Sewage Works Upgrade project, the extent to which it has been addressed in the application and to which changes to the draft Development Consent Order or other changes may be required;

• the relationship between the Meridian Water proposal and the Deephams Sewage Works Upgrade project and any in-combination effects on the proposed upgrade to the extent that these exist (noting that it was foreshadowed at the Preliminary Meeting that there may now be no such effects)19; and


Landscape and Ecological Mitigation D. the Applicant, the Lee Valley Regional Park Authority (LVRPA), Natural

England and relevant Councils to include: • agreed approaches to ecological mitigation and enhancement, the locations at

and the means by which this will be secured; • agreed approaches to tree and landscape mitigation and enhancement, the

locations at and the means by which this will be secured; • Specifically, the approach to mitigating the visual and landscape impacts of:

the extent of apparently redundant hard standing in Waltham Cross substation (Epping Forest District); and

the proposed extension of Brimsdown substation (London Borough of Enfield); and


Lee Valley Regional Park E. the Applicant, the LVRPA, relevant Councils and any interested party

bodies/persons concerned with recreation within the park to include: • an agreed approach to coordination between the proposed construction

programme and public and sporting events programme within the park (and specifically at the ‘showground’20;

• agreed means of mitigating the effects of the project on walking, running, cycling, and other recreational uses of the park;

• agreed approaches to project programming to ensure most efficient and effective use of park facilities;

• agreed position on the suitability of land proposed for exchange where park land is proposed to be acquired; and

• a summary statement of matters not agreed or outstanding. Lee Valley Heat Network

F. the Applicant, the GLA and relevant London Borough Councils to include:

19 This element of SoCG C was amended to respond to discussion of my proposals at the Preliminary Meeting, noting views that there were now unlikely to be in-combination effects between the Deephams and Meridian Water proposals. 20 This element of SoCG E was not foreshadowed in my letters of 14 December 2013 or 27 March 2013. It has been added to respond to discussion of my proposals at the Preliminary Meeting.


• a statement of the latest position on the Lee Valley Heat Network and related projects, the extent to which district heat and energy can be addressed in the application and to which changes to the draft Development Consent Order or other changes may be proposed; and


Meridian Water G. the Applicant, London Borough of Enfield and Thames Water to include:

• a statement of latest position on the Meridian Water regeneration proposal, the extent to which it has been addressed in the application and to which changes to the draft Development Consent Order or other changes may be required;

• the effects of the Thames Water Deephams Sewage Works Upgrade project on the Meridian Water proposal to the extent that these are known; and


Public Rights of Way H. the Applicant, the GLA, TfL, LVRPA and relevant London Borough Councils

to include: • a position from the Applicant on the need (or otherwise) to affect the operation

of the public right of way (PROW) network and its use for walking, running, cycling and any equestrian activities;

• an agreed statement of the effect of the proposal on use of the PROW network for commuting, journeys to access services and facilities and for recreation;

• a statement of the extent to which identified PROW network uses can be protected and how this can be secured; and


Recreational Angling I. the Applicant and any interested party bodies/persons concerned with

angling21 to include: • a position from the Applicant on the need (or otherwise) for and possible

duration of the closure of fishing areas or access to fishing areas; • a clear position on whether closures can be mitigated by alternative provision; • a summary statement of matters agreed; and • a summary statement of matters not agreed or outstanding.

Strategic and Local Highways

J. the Applicant, the GLA, TfL and relevant London Borough Councils to include: • a position from the Applicant on the need (or otherwise) for the project to

acquire rights over the highway or affect the operation of the highway; • an agreed statement of the operational effect of the proposal on any particular

highway of concern; • a statement of the extent to which the proposal can be operationally

accommodated by the highway authority, any steps agreed to secure the safe and efficient operation of the highway network and how these are to be secured; and


21 Further to their letter of 2 April 2013, the dissolution of the Lee Anglers’ Consortium is noted. On 29 April 2013, the Kings Arms & Cheshunt Angling Society wrote to withdraw its relevant representation, indicating that the Lee Anglers Consortium and Fishers Green Consortium relevant representations were also withdrawn. This SoCG is only required to the extent that there are any outstanding matters of interest to recreational anglers.


Historic Built Environment22 K. the Applicant, English Heritage and relevant Councils to include:

• an agreed statement between the Applicant, English Heritage and the relevant Councils on the impacts of the project on Enfield Lock conservation area and the Royal Gunpowder Factory and the steps to mitigate these; and

• a summary statement of matters not agreed or outstanding. Statutory Undertakers, not provided for above

L. the Applicant and any statutory undertaker or operator of an electronic communications code network subject to proposals to acquire operational land or which affect interests in land necessary for operational purposes or access23 to include: • a position from the Applicant on the need (or otherwise) for a particular interest

in land to be acquired or for any other right (including a wayleave) to be extinguished;

• a statement from the undertaker of the operational effect of the loss of or change to the existing interest in land or other right;

• a statement of the extent to which the proposed acquisition or effect on other rights can be operationally accommodated by the undertaker and the steps proposed to secure its operation; and


Public and other service providers, not provided for above M. the Applicant and any other public service authority or other service

provider subject to proposals to acquire operational land or to affect interests in land necessary for operational purposes or access24 to include: • a position from the Applicant on the need (or otherwise) for a particular interest

in land to be acquired or for any other right (including a wayleave) to be extinguished;

• a statement from the undertaker of the operational effect of the loss of or change to the existing interest in land or other right;

• a statement of the extent to which the proposed acquisition or effect on other rights can be operationally accommodated by the undertaker and the steps proposed to secure its operation; and


At the Preliminary Meeting, the Environment Agency requested an opportunity to introduce additional issues to those it had addressed in its relevant representation, on the basis that its relevant representation had addressed its requirements from a property management but not necessarily from an environmental management or emissions performance perspective. It is requested to provide the earliest possible notice to the applicant of any additional issues to facilitate the following additional SoCG:

22 A SoCG on the historic environment was not foreshadowed in December 2012. It has been added in response to issues raised by English Heritage in their statement of representation. 23 Potential parties to SoCGs prepared in respect of this request include Cable & Wireless and are listed in Schedule 1 to the Book of Reference, to the extent that they are interested parties or the ExA has agreed that they may participate in the examination. 24 Potential parties to SoCGs prepared in respect of this request include the Environment Agency and any analogous public bodies with statutory functions.


Environmental management and emissions performance N. the Applicant and the Environment Agency to include:

• a statement of the extent to which the proposal can meet relevant environmental and emissions standards both in operation and under construction;

• a statement of an specific mitigation required to bring this about; and • a summary statement of matters not agreed or outstanding.

The dates by which completed SoCGs must be received and then by which comment on them must be provided are set out in the timetable. C(ii) Habitats Regulations 2010 (as amended)

The examination must include a process that provides sufficient information to enable the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change to meet his statutory duties as the competent authority under the Habitats Regulations 2010 (as amended) relating to European protected sites and species.

In order to inform the ExA’s report and recommendation to the Secretary of State on this application and to provide information for the Secretary of State, the Applicant is requested to complete two matrices, to:

A. summarise the screening for likely significant effects for each European protected site assessed; and

B. summarise the implications for the integrity of each European protected site assessed, where a likely significant effect either alone or in combination with other plans and projects has been identified.

Template matrices and guidance on their use are available to download from the National Infrastructure pages of the Planning Portal website http://infrastructure.planningportal.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Advice-note-10-HRA.pdf . The dates by which the completed matrices must be received and then by which comment on them is provided are set out in the timetable.

http://infrastructure.planningportal.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Advice-note-10-HRA.pdf




























































EN020009: 30 April 2013 ANNEX D: PAGE 1 OF 25

Annex D

The Examining authority’s written questions and requests for information

The following table sets out the Examining authority’s (ExAs) written questions and requests for information (ExQs). ExQs are set out using the issues-based framework from my initial assessment of principal issues25, augmented to take account of the policy framework for the application. Each question has a reference number in Column 1 which combines an issue number and a question number. For example, the first question on biodiversity is identified as 1.1 (issue 1, question 1). Please ensure that your answers clearly identify the question being responded to using its reference number. Column 2 indicates which persons the question is directed at. The ExA would be grateful if all named bodies could answer questions directed at them, providing either a substantive response or identifying that the question is not relevant to them for a reason. If the issue has been resolved, the response should provide evidence of that resolution or refer to a Statement of Common Ground (SoCG) where that is documented. This approach does not preclude an answer being provided to a question by persons to whom it is not directed, should the question be relevant to their interests. A number of the issues on which questions are raised are also the subject matters of Statements of Common Ground (SoCGs) (see Annex C above). Where possible, please cross-refer between your answers to questions and your contributions to SoCGs. It is acceptable and helpful to answer a question by referring to a place in a SoCG where it is answered. With the exception of questions necessary to resolve if or how a particular issue might be secured in the draft Development Consent Order (DCO), or might be secured by some other means, I have not included detailed questions about the approach to DCO drafting. You will note my proposal to hold an Issue Specific Hearing on the draft DCO. It is my intention to include such questions relevant to DCO drafting as I may have following my consideration of the answers to these questions in the agenda for that hearing when it is issued. I will call for such written responses to those questions as may be required following that hearing through submissions to meet Deadline VI in the timetable (‘responses to questions on notice’ and the provision of an ‘Applicant’s revised draft DCO’).

25 Annexes C(i) and C(ii) to my letter of 27 March 2013.


Examining authority’s questions

Question to:

Question:

1 Biodiversity, Ecology and Natural Environment

1.1 Natural England Natural England’s Statement of Representation (SoR) identifies (at para 3.1) that it has no objection to the project and highlights that “all protected species issues […] can be addressed by the modification of the proposed draft DCO…”. It then recommends that the protected species mitigation, habitat creation and enhancement commitments set out in the Environmental Statement (ES) Volume 6.2, table 9.6 and para 9.5.3 should be protected by a “suitably worded requirement” in the draft DCO. Natural England is asked to: a) confirm the particular mitigation, habitat creation and enhancement commitments that should be secured; and b) indicate if it has any preference as to how these should be secured (eg through a DCO requirement or a planning

obligation under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended)). 1.2 Bodies responsible

for planning and management of natural environment protected sites or species

Please review ES Volume 6.2, table 9.6 and para 9.5.3 and indicate: a) if you agree with the existing mitigation, habitat creation and enhancement commitments set out there; b) if not, how those commitments should be amended; c) whether there are additional commitments that should be entered into by the applicant on these sites; d) whether any additional sites should be the subject of additional commitments and what those might be; and e) indicate if you have any preference as to how commitments should be secured (eg through a DCO requirement or a

planning obligation under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended))? 1.3 Natural England Natural England’s SoR identifies (at para 2.2) that “bats” are a “European protected species” which may be affected

by the proposed project. a) Which bat species does this refer to? b) Is this species a qualifying feature of a European site and if so, which site? c) Is Natural England satisfied that a requirement or obligation it recommends in its response to question 1.1 above will

address the conservation needs of this species? d) Is lighting during project construction or decommissioning, or permanent lighting at any substation site relevant to

impacts on this species and, if so, how might any impact be managed and mitigated? 1.4 Natural England Are there any effects on any other European protected species, or species assemblages, natural or artificial features that

form qualifying features of Lee Valley SAC, Epping Forest SAC or the Wormley Hoddesdonpark Woods SAC (European protected sites) to which the ExA should have regard under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended)?

1.5 Natural England Can Natural England confirm that it is satisfied beyond reasonable scientific doubt that the project will cause no likely significant effect on the integrity of the Epping Forest SAC or the Wormley Hoddesdonpark Woods SAC?

1.6 Natural England and Lee Valley Regional Park Authority (LVRPA)

Natural England’s SoR identifies (at para 5.1), “further surveys for protected species may be required prior to the commencement of the works…” a matter in which Lee Valley Regional Park Authority (LVRPA) have also expressed interest in its relevant representation. At present, these are not provided for in the draft DCO and the Natural England SoR only points to generic guidance on what work might be relevant and hence should be required. a) Arguably, it would not be appropriate for a DCO to issue, if there is a reasonable prospect that such surveys


Question to:

Question:

undertaken after issue but before the commencement of works could disclose the presence of and/or potential significant effects on species that were qualifying features of European sites, or where the disclosed adverse effect could otherwise give rise to a reason for refusal. To this extent Natural England is asked if it can confirm that such an outcome is beyond reasonable scientific doubt.

b) If it can confirm this, can Natural England also confirm whether the justification for additional survey work is exclusively to address species that are not qualifying features of European Protected Sites?

c) Natural England is asked to: • indicate what additional surveys may be needed in terms of which target species (bats, badgers, otters?), survey

timing and reporting requirements; • liaise with the LVRPA in identifying these needs; and • indicate how surveys and action flowing from survey outcomes might be secured (by DCO requirement or planning

obligation). 1.7 Natural England/

bodies responsible for management of European protected sites or species

The use of water and wetland areas within European protected sites by wintering Bittern, Gadwall, Shoveler and other water/wetland bird species is relevant. The applicant proposes the management of this issue by ensuring that works are not carried out over winter. Is draft DCO requirement 10 (providing for an ecological management strategy and the delivery of the proposed project in accordance with an implementation timetable) sufficient to ensure that the project will not lead to adverse seasonal effects, with particular reference to wintering birds?

1.8 Natural England Natural England’s SoR does not raise any concern in respect of the effects of the application proposal on Turnford to Chesham Pits Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) or Chingford Reservoirs SSSI (ES Volume 6.2, section 9.9 and 10). The applicant identifies that birds will be disturbed at Chingford (due to winter vegetation clearance and pylon steel repairs and summer disturbance to moulting due to pylon climbing activities) but that this will not affect the status of the population. Although it is stated that there is plenty of alternative habitat for birds to use, is there any reason for a specific monitoring and mitigating provision secured by the draft DCO or some other means?

1.9 Natural England The water vole is a legally protected species under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). Should any additional specific provision be made in the draft DCO or elsewhere to secure the mitigation of effects upon it?

1.10 Natural England and LVRPA

a) In respect of which if any SSSIs are particular additional measures required in order to ensure that the integrity and value of the site is maintained?

b) Please specify the name of the site and any particular measures sought that have not already been proposed? c) Please indicate how any measures might be secured?

1.11 Bodies responsible for designating regional and district / borough tier wildlife sites

a) In respect of which designated regional or local tier sites of importance for nature conservation are particular additional measures required in order to ensure that the integrity and value of the site is maintained?

b) Please specify the name of the site and any particular measures sought have not already been proposed? c) Please indicate how any measures might be secured?

2 Compulsory Acquisition (CA)

2.1 The applicant With regard to Application Volume 4.1, Compulsory Acquisition Statement of Reasons, paras 6.11 – 6.20, please explain the necessity for the extent of Compulsory Acquisition (CA) proposed in respect of land which is not


Question to:

Question:

required to form a permanent site for a piece of constructed infrastructure, a secure compound necessary to provide for the safe operation of infrastructure, or a parcel of replacement land to be given in exchange: a) In circumstances where the applicant has achieved or can feasibly achieve a contractual agreement to obtain

temporary possession or temporary rights over land for purposes such as laydown, scaffolding, protection or winching, is there still a compelling case in the public interest for CA?

b) With reference to Application Volume 4.1, Compulsory Acquisition Statement of Reasons, para 16.15, assuming that voluntary agreement has been or can be achieved, please explain how the following contribute to a compelling case in the public interest for CA:

• The risk that an agreement to acquire or to enter land or an option might fail; • The convenience and/or cost effectiveness of the applicant’s capacity to make a general vesting declaration; or • The enforceability of CA provisions?

2.2 The applicant With regard to Application Volume 4.1, Compulsory Acquisition Statement of Reasons, section 8 (paras 8.6 - 8.13): a) please provide a table summarising your progress in negotiations with the owners and occupiers of land proposed to

be subject to CA since the application was submitted; b) with regard to the issues addressed in ExQs 2.3 – 7 below, please confirm and list the parcels of land currently

proposed to be subject to CA where a statutory undertaker has made a representation that is un-withdrawn and that may require to be the subject matter of a special procedure under s 127 PA 2008. (You do not need to answer this question if you have already made a special procedure application and the answer to it would be clear from the documents provided with that application.)

2.3 LVRPA Application Volume 4.1, Compulsory Acquisition Statement of Reasons, section 8 (para 8.6) identifies that your agreement to permanent CA is contingent on replacement land not being contaminated. a) Please set out your latest understanding of progress on the survey of proposed replacement land and indicate

whether it can or is likely to meet your conditions for acceptance? b) Are there any outstanding matters which may mean that your representation cannot be withdrawn and what are

these? c) Please identify what measures the applicant could take to secure your satisfaction.

2.4 LVRPA Application Volume 4.1, Compulsory Acquisition Statement of Reasons, section 8 (para 8.6) suggests you have reached agreement in principle in respect of temporary possession. a) What (if any) progress has been made since then? b) Are there any outstanding matters which may mean that your representation cannot be withdrawn and what are

these? c) Please identify what measures the applicant could take to secure your satisfaction.

2.5 Environment Agency Application Volume 4.1, Compulsory Acquisition Statement of Reasons, section 8 (para 8.8) suggests that “negotiations continue” on proposals for cable bridges and underground cables at Tottenham. a) Are there any outstanding matters which may mean that your representation in respect of these cannot be

withdrawn and what are these? b) Please identify what measures the applicant could take to secure your satisfaction.


Question to:

Question:

2.6 Transport for London (Tf)L

Application Volume 4.1, Compulsory Acquisition Statement of Reasons, section 8 (para 8.9) suggests that a permanent easement has been completed for a number of highway crossings. a) Are there any other proposals the subject of outstanding discussions not reported in Volume 4.1 or dealt with in ExQ

2.7? b) Are there any outstanding matters not addressed in ExQ 2.7 which may mean that your representation cannot be

withdrawn? c) Please identify what measures the applicant could take to secure your satisfaction.

2.7 The applicant Transport for London’s (TfL’s) relevant representation includes an objection to the extent of rights sought over the following plot numbers understood to be operational highway land: 303 (highway); 304 (footpath); 305 (traffic island); 307 (roundabout); 308 (roundabout); 309 (roundabout); 310 (roundabout); 314 (highway); 315 (highway); 316 (highway); 318 (highway); 319 (highway); 320 (footpath); 321 (roundabout); 322 (roundabout); 324 (roundabout). a) What progress has there been in negotiations? b) Can temporary and/or voluntary arrangements be made for any of these plots that would be satisfactory to both the

applicant and TfL? 2.8 London Borough of

Enfield (LB Enfield) Application Volume 4.1, Compulsory Acquisition Statement of Reasons, section 8 (para 8.10) identifies ongoing negotiations in respect of a laydown area at Prince of Wales Playing Fields in Brimsdown, temporary access rights and a permanent footpath diversion. a) Are there any outstanding matters which may mean that your representation in respect of these cannot be

withdrawn and if so, what are these? b) Please identify what measures the applicant could take to secure your satisfaction.

2.9 The applicant With regard to Application Volume 4.1, Compulsory Acquisition Statement of Reasons, section 10, please identify: a) whether there are any parcels of land that may require to be the subject matter of a process under ss 131-132 PA

2008 other than Book of Reference and Land Plans parcels 10, 206 and 388, owned by LVRPA; and b) if so, what steps have you taken to engage with the persons interested in those parcels of land? (Note that you do not need to answer this question if you have already made a special procedure application under s 131 and/or s 132 and the answer to it would be clear from the documents provided with that application.)

2.10 LVRPA and any other persons potentially subject to special procedure applications under ss 131 – 132 PA 2008

Are you aware of any factors or considerations that may cast doubt on the ability to grant the relevant certificate(s) in respect of parcels 10, 206 and 388 pursuant to ss 131-132 PA 2008 and what are those?

2.11 The applicant Application Volume 4.2, Funding Statement provides general assurances that the cost of CA associated with the proposed project is eligible to be treated as a recoverable expense by the applicant under Ofgem’s RIIO funding model (Revenue = Incentives + Innovation + Outputs). a) How is the RIIO recoverable expense mechanism likely to work: when will the applicant receive the funding and will

this affect its ability to make or the timing of CA payments?


Question to:

Question:

b) Has the applicant quantified the quantum of CA liability generated by the application proposal and made provision for its being met in whole or substantial part, including at times when the need to meet it may not immediately be anticipated?

c) Would the applicant be in a position to make early payments following the possible issue of a DCO, to respond to (say) the service of any notice under s 150(1)(b) Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) out of general revenue, before the drawdown of funding via the RIIO?

d) Would the applicant be in a position to continue to make payments up to a point when disputed claims to the Upper Chamber of the Lands Tribunal are finally determined, which in a worst case may be in the region of 15 years after a DCO might be granted?

e) Is there any need or basis for an additional security or performance mechanism to underpin the availability of funding for the necessary duration, such as formal guarantees or the establishment of a specific fund?

3 Construction

3.1 All interested parties directly affected by the construction programme

a) To the extent that you have not been able to do so in a SoCG or in a response to another question, please identify whether you are subject to any outstanding adverse effects arising from the construction programme?

b) What are those effects and what (if anything) should be done differently to manage or mitigate them?

3.2 London Borough of Haringey (LB Haringey) and the applicant

London Borough of Haringey (LB Haringey) relevant representation identifies that you need additional information to enable you to respond to the construction proposals? Please specify what this is. (The applicant is requested to accede to a reasonable information request by response).

4 Draft Development Consent Order (DCO)

4.1 All interested parties Further questions will be provided as required in the agenda for the proposed Issue Specific Hearing on the draft DCO.

5 Debris and Waste (including Land Contamination)

5.1 All interested parties Please highlight any respect in which the proposed approach to waste management does not accord with relevant policies and what (if anything) should be done differently?

5.2 The applicant Environmental Statement (ES) Volume 6.2, section 13 refers to geotechnical and geo-environmental desk studies conducted by SEESA (see footnotes 109 – 111 on page 247). These documents do not appear to have been included in ES Volume 6.4 (Technical Appendices). Can they please be put in as Examination Documents?

5.3 The applicant and the Environment Agency

ES Volume 6.2, section 13 suggests that whilst desk and ground investigations were undertaken at the Waltham Cross and Brimsdown substation and proposed works sites, the same has not been completed at: • Pylon ZBC19; and • Tottenham Marshes, due to “difficulties in obtaining access to the sites” and “the need to agree survey protocols with the E[nvironmment] A[gency]”. a) Can the applicant and the Environment Agency please confirm whether these difficulties have been overcome? b) If they have been overcome, can the applicant provide an update on progress, submitting any finalised reports as


Question to:

Question:

Examination Documents and summarising any implications flowing from their findings for impact assessment and the draft DCO?

c) If they have not been overcome, can the applicant and the Environment agency identify what needs to be done to secure progress?

d) Can both also address what additional provision to manage this issue might appropriately be made in the draft DCO? e) What should happen if disclosed ground contamination effects turned out to be too severe to address through

measures currently proposed to be included in the Foundation Works Risk Assessment (FWRA) and the Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) (see ES Volume 6.2, section 13, paras 13.8.9-13.8.10)?

5.4 Environment Agency Having regard to the need for groundworks and piling, with potential effects on both groundwater and run-off identified

in ES Volume 6.2, section 13, Are you satisfied that the proposed measures will provide sufficient protection for water quality and control against the mobilisation of possible ground contamination? What (if anything) should be done differently?

6 Electric and Magnetic Fields (EMFs)

6.1 All interested parties Noting the withdrawal of the Kings Arms and Cheshunt Angling Society relevant representation, where this topic was raised, the ExA has no questions on this topic.

7 Historic Environment

7.1 LB Enfield Please confirm the location of the 9m wall enclosure at Brimsdown which is the subject of concern in your relevant representation - is this within or adjacent to the Enfield Lock Conservation Area (ELCA)?

7.2 The applicant Please provide a written assessment of the effects of the proposed works on the character and appearance of the Enfield Lock Conservation Area (ELCA), supported by photographs of the current condition of the ELCA and sketch illustrations and /or photomontages showing the effect of the proposed project on it, with specific reference to: a) the effect of the proposed sealing end compounds and associated structures and security enclosures on the ELCA, in

association with existing pylon ZBC19 in terms of siting, scale and appearance; and b) the effect of the siting and appearance of the proposed access road from Mollison Avenue to ZBC19.

7.3 English Heritage and LB Enfield as relevant local planning authority

Unless already accomplished in SoCG K, English Heritage and LB Enfield are asked to: a) indicate what additional mitigation measures should be considered to ensure that the effect of the proposed project

on the ELCA is appropriate; and b) indicate how these might be secured (by DCO requirement or planning obligation).

7.4 English Heritage and relevant local planning authorities

English Heritage and relevant local planning authorities are asked to indicate: a) what form of advance field archaeological evaluation should be undertaken in areas proposed to be the subject of

ground works; b) which (if any) areas should be subject to this (noting the extent of proposed ground works at and adjacent to

Tottenham Marshes substation, Brimsdown substation and at Waltham Cross); and c) what archaeological monitoring protocol should be applied to works in progress?


Question to:

Question:

8 Lee River and Navigation

8.1 Canal & Rivers Trust, LVRPA and Environment Agency

Having regard to the need for groundworks and piling, with potential effects on run-off (see ES Volume 6.2, section 13), Are you satisfied that the proposed measures will provide sufficient protection to watercourses and waterways both in terms of their environmental value and their recreational use? What (if anything) should be done differently?

8.2 The applicant Whilst flood risk related to the Lee has been taken into account, the possible risk of flooding associated with the containment failure of an artificial waterbody in the Lee valley has been rated as low (Application Volume 5.3, Flood Risk Assessment)? Given the extent of reservoir infrastructure in the valley, is this an appropriate risk and does it require re-consideration?

9 Lee Valley Regional Park (LVRP)

9.1 LVRPA and all park users

ES Volume 6.2, section 11.6 identifies the park user or recreational receptors of the application proposal as: • recreational anglers; • boat users/canoeists; • allotment holders; • walkers; • cyclists; • runners; • bird-watchers; • other naturalists; • horse-riders; and • other visitors to the park. Paragraph 11.6.4 identifies that there is “no established methodology for assessing the effects of developments on recreational users and the scope of this assessment is therefore based on professional judgement…” Whilst the availability of alternative sites has been considered, apparently no attempt has been made to prioritise impact limitation or mitigation having regard to the quantity or level of use of particular recreational opportunities. a) Has professional judgement delivered robust and defensible assessments? b) If not, in respect of which particular recreation type(s) and which locations are there adverse impacts that have not

been identified or appropriately characterised in the ES? c) Are any changes to the application proposal and or additional mitigations required to respond to these, and if so,

where and what might these be? 9.2 The applicant The use of a water taxi service is proposed as a means of responding to the temporary closure of footpaths and off-road

cycle-ways in the vicinity of pylons ZBC 28 – 33. a) Describe how this will operate and maintain the recreational experience? b) Is there any likelihood of significant commuter cycle use in this locality and if so, what effect will the proposed taxi

service have on the running speed of typical commuter routes? c) If the water taxi service cannot maintain the recreational experience (eg through not being operational on particular

days or at particular times) or a reasonable running speed for commuter use, what alternative routes exist and have the effects of diverting to these on the recreational or commuter experience been assessed?


Question to:

Question:

9.3 LVRPA The LVRPA relevant representation is concerned that insufficient detail has been provided to be certain of the impacts on its ability to manage open spaces and facilities during the proposed construction works. Effects on anticipated sporting and recreational activities in the park are possible. a) What are the potential effects of the project on the delivery of individual programmed sporting and recreational

events? b) What are the potential effects of the project on the generic use of open spaces and facilities for sports training? c) Does the ES sufficiently identify these and propose appropriate mitigation? d) To the extent that you say this mitigation has not been secured in the draft DCO and ask for the construction

programme to appear within it, how might that be done? e) What additional mitigation is required and how should it be secured?

9.4 LVRPA The Lee Valley White Water Centre has been selected as the host for the International Canoe Federation Slalom World Championships 2015. a) What are the potential effects of the project on the delivery of this world sporting event? b) Does the ES sufficiently identify these and propose appropriate mitigation? c) If so, is this mitigation secured in the draft DCO? d) If not, what additional mitigation is required and how should it be secured?

10 Noise

10.1 The relevant local planning authority

a) Are there any locations in respect of which particular mitigation for the effects of construction noise is required but is not yet provided?

b) Please describe any necessary mitigation and the means by which it might be secured? 10.2 The relevant local

planning authority a) Are there any outstanding concerns about operational noise at any location? b) Please describe any necessary mitigation and the means by which it might be secured?

11 Option Development

11.1 All interested parties Questions relating to option development are set out with reference to the policy framework (see ExQs 17-20 below).

12 Other Strategic Projects and Proposals (Including In-Combination and Cumulative Effects)

12.1 The applicant a) Please confirm whether the in-combination and the cumulative effects of the application proposal together with programmed works on the permitted reinforcement of the National Grid ‘VC’ transmission line remain as assessed in the ES?

b) If not, please identify and assess any new issues that have arisen, or indicate how changes to either project have reduced or eliminated in-combination or cumulative effects.

12.2 The applicant a) Taking account of discussions during the SoCG process, please summarise whether the in-combination or the cumulative effects of the application proposal together with the TfL / Cross London Rail Links Ltd. (CLRL) Crossrail 2 project (Crossrail 2) give rise to any change to the assessment in the ES?

b) If so, please identify and assess any new issues that have arisen, or alternatively indicate how changes to either project have reduced or eliminated in-combination or cumulative effects.


Question to:

Question:

12.3 TfL a) Please provide an up-to-date description of the ways in which Crossrail 2 could potentially interact with the application project, accompanied by extracts from any relevant policies, safeguarding directions and plans, highlighting locations and times at which issues would arise?

b) Please confirm whether there are any other outstanding issues relating to the effect of the application proposal on the design or delivery of Crossrail 2 that you have been unable to address through the SoCG process?

c) If there are such issues, please describe them and indicate what action the applicant could take to mitigate them? d) Please identify if any protective provisions would be necessary to safeguard your interests in delivering Crossrail 2?

12.4 The applicant a) Taking account of discussions during the SoCG process, please summarise whether the in-combination or the cumulative effects of the application proposal together with the Thames Water Deephams Sewage Works project (Deephams) give rise to any change to the assessment in the ES?

b) If so, please identify and assess any new issues that have arisen, or indicate how changes to either project have reduced or eliminated in-combination or cumulative effects.

12.5 Thames Water a) Please describe your current proposals for the Deephams project and indicate whether it has any likely interaction

with the application proposal. b) Please confirm whether there are any outstanding issues relating to the effect of the application proposal on the

design or delivery of the Deephams project that you have been unable to address through the SoCG process? c) If there are such issues, please describe them and indicate what action the applicant could take to mitigate them?

12.6 The applicant a) Taking account of discussions during the SoCG process, please summarise whether the in-combination or the cumulative effects of the application proposal together with the LB Enfield Meridian Water (Meridian Water) proposal give rise to any change to the assessment in the ES?

b) If not, please identify and assess any new issues that have arisen, or indicate how changes to either project have reduced or eliminated in-combination or cumulative effects.

c) Specifically, please confirm whether access arrangements south of William Girling Reservoir have been or could be amended to enable flood storage for this proposal to proceed as planned?

d) If they have been or can be changed, what are the alternative access arrangements? 12.7 LB Enfield a) Please provide a summary description and extracts from your Development Plan Documents including any relevant

Supplementary Planning Documents and site or development briefs, from which the most up-to-date understanding of relevant policy and proposals for Meridian Water can be appreciated.

b) Please confirm whether there is any outstanding issues relating to the effect of the application proposal on the design or delivery of flood storage for the Meridian Water proposal (or any other aspect of the proposal) that you have been unable to address through the SoCG process?

c) If there are such issues, please describe them and indicate what action the applicant could take to mitigate them? 12.8 The applicant a) Taking account of discussions during the SoCG process, please summarise whether there are any in-combination or

the cumulative effects of the application proposal together with Greater London Authority (GLA) and relevant London Borough Councils (LB Councils) district heating proposals that require to be assessed?

b) If so, please identify and assess any issues that have arisen, or indicate how changes to either the application proposal or the district heating proposals could reduce or eliminate in-combination or the cumulative effects.


Question to:

Question:

12.9 Greater London Authority (GLA) and/or relevant London Borough Councils (LB Councils) with district heating projects or proposals

a) Please confirm whether there are any outstanding issues relating to the effect of the application proposal on the design or delivery of district heating projects or proposals that you have been unable to address through the SoCG process?

b) If there are such issues, please describe them and indicate what action the applicant could take to mitigate them?

12.10 The applicant Taking account of all issues discussed through the SoCG process, identify whether there are issues of in-combination and/or cumulative impact of the application proposal assessed in Habitat Regulations Assessment Volume 5.4 or ES Volumes 6.2 – 6.4 (the submitted ES and HRA documents), but where changes to the nature and timing of any other known proposals now mean that the assessed effects are either absent or significantly reduced. If you consider that these circumstances are relevant to any previously identified in-combination and/or cumulative impact issue: a) please identify each issue and the change that has reduced or eliminated its effect; b) please cross refer to the ES as necessary to ensure that the relevant original assessment can be compared and the

reduction in impact noted. 12.11 The applicant Taking account of all issues discussed through the SoCG process, identify whether there are any new issues of in-

combination and/or cumulative impact of the application proposal, which has not already been fully assessed in the submitted ES and HRA documents. If you consider that any additional issues have arisen: c) please identify and describe each issue; d) please provide an assessment of its effects, cross referring to the ES as necessary to ensure that any new

assessment and the relevant original assessment can be compared and changes noted.

13 Socio-Economic Effects

13.1 GLA, TfL and relevant local planning authorities

a) To the extent not identified in any Local Impact Report you may propose to submit, and noting the withdrawal of the Arriva relevant representation, please identify any remaining adverse social or economic effects of the application proposal which in your view have not been sufficiently mitigated.

b) What additional action could the applicant take to mitigate any such effects? 13.2 The applicant Five allotments are to be used as part of the proposed works (located adjacent to pylon VC2). The explanation in ES

Volume 6.2, para 11.6.4 is that effects resulting from the loss of the allotments are not likely to be significant as the works will generally last no more than 4-6 weeks in each year and the allotment holders will receive financial compensation for the loss. The types of works on the land are not described, nor is the method of delivering this compensation. a) Will the timing and effect of the works enable use of these allotments other than during the duration of works, or will

they be taken out of effective usability for a longer period (having regard to the relationship between the timing of works and the growing season)?

b) How is any compensation to be provided for and secured? c) Are these allotments potentially subject to special procedures (ss 131 – 132 PA 2008?)


Question to:

Question:

(Note: you do not need to provide this information if you have separately submitted any special procedures application(s) under ss 131 – 132 PA 2008 that provides it.)

13.3 Social, community and sporting organisations

a) Are there any remaining adverse social or economic effects of the application proposal which in your view have not been sufficiently mitigated that you have not addressed in responses to other questions?

b) What additional action could the applicant take to mitigate any such effects?

14 Statutory Undertakers

14.1 All affected statutory undertakers

Questions relating to the effects on statutory undertakers in respect of the taking of land through compulsory acquisition (CA) are addressed in topic 2 above.

14.2 All affected statutory undertakers and specifically the Environment Agency

Other than through CA: a) are there any remaining ways in which the application proposal will adversely affect your operations, access to your

operational land or your ability to manage equipment or facilities installed on that land (for example through obstruction of access, stopping up or diversion of public right of way access over land controlled by others, emissions of noise, dust etc.)?

b) What might be done differently to address these concerns? 14.3 All affected statutory

undertakers and specifically TfL and Cable and Wireless

a) Are there any additional protective provisions that you wish to see incorporated into the draft DCO? b) If so, in respect of what site and facilities and to achieve what outcome?

15 Townscape, Landscape and Visual

15.1 The relevant local planning authority and any local business or residents

With the exception of designated built heritage assets and the Lee Valley Regional Park (which are the subject of other questions), please provide your general view of the townscape, landscape and visual effects of the proposal? What (if anything) could or should be done differently?

15.2 The relevant local planning authority and any local business or residents

Are there any particular locations other than designated built heritage assets and the Lee Valley Regional Park (which are the subject of other questions) where the townscape, landscape and visual effects of the proposal are deemed to be unacceptable in their current form? a) If you answer in the affirmative, please list the locations; and b) ensure that the policy basis for your answer is made clear in your answers to relevant policy questions from question

17 onwards; and c) identify any additional mitigation that could be provided; and d) consider how that might be secured via the draft DCO or another mechanism.

15.3 The applicant, LVRPA and the relevant local planning authorities,

Woodland in the settings of the existing substations makes a significant contribution towards the reduction of their visual impact. To this extent it appears relevant to ensure that the net reduction in woodland cover is limited. ES Volume 6.2, paras 10.8.8 – 10.8.12 describe the approximate extent of woodland that would be felled/cleared from each substation site during the construction phase as follows:


Question to:

Question:

any local business or residents

• Waltham Cross substation: 4.5ha • Brimsdown substation: 0.2ha • Tottenham Marshes substation: 0.3ha a) How accurate are these figures? b) Could they appropriately be used in a DCO requirement to limit the loss of woodland cover by reference to a

maximum clearance figure? c) If not, what other performance measure might be used to manage the landscape impact due to the loss of existing

woodland cover? 15.4 LVRPA and the

relevant local planning authorities, any local business or residents

ES Volume 6.2, table 10.2 provides a summary of the environmental measures that have been incorporated into the development proposals in order to avoid, reduce or compensate for potential adverse landscape and visual effects on receptors identified within the table. As effects identified as ‘moderate’ or ‘slight adverse’ are not regarded within the ES as significant (see ES Volume 6.2, table 10.11 ‘Summary of significance of adverse effects’) so no mitigation is provided for such effects. The nature of the adjacent landscape can be such that the presence of an individual mature tree or small group can significantly limit the local landscape effects of existing infrastructure elements. a) Are there any particular locations which might justify additional minor environmental measures in the interests of

further mitigating landscape impacts? b) If so, where might these be, what measures might be provided and why?

15.5 The applicant Epping Forest District Council relevant representation expresses concern that the land take for the Waltham Cross substation could be reduced and its landscape impact further mitigated if land apparently left within the operational compound after the decommissioning of 275kV equipment could be returned to the public domain or alternatively be subject to the breaking up of redundant hard standings and the implementation of a soft landscape treatment. Would such outcomes be possible? If not, why not?

15.6 The applicant LB Enfield relevant representation is concerned about the landscape and visual effects of a proposed 9m wall enclosure at Brimsdown substation. Are you content to make this subject to a requirement for a plan to be prepared to the satisfaction of that authority? Please cross refer your answer to topic 7 (Historic Environment) above if this feature is located in or adjacent to the Enfield Lock Conservation Area.

16 Transportation and Traffic

16.1 TfL Please identify whether the approach to strategic road crossings (M25, A406) has been finalised. a) if so, what if anything additionally needs to be secured through the DCO or by other means? b) If not, what remains to be done?

16.2 TfL, LBs of Haringey, Waltham Forest and Enfield

Following the withdrawal of the Arriva relevant representation, are there any remaining public transportation effects that in your view have not be adequately identified or managed? Are there any particular matters that need to be secured through the draft DCO?

16.3 Relevant local planning and highway authorities

ES Volume 6.2, section 6 identifies limited measures necessary to manage traffic and transportation effects in table 6.10. A Temporary Construction Traffic Management Plan is proposed. Are there any particular measures that this should contain that need to be secured through the draft DCO, or is it sufficient that a draft plan is produced to the satisfaction of the relevant local planning authority?


Question to:

Question:


Cycling and walking network effects are responded to in questions relating to the Lee Valley Regional Park area (topic 9 above). If you consider that any of the matters raised there are relevant to networks outside the park area, please respond to them under this reference.


Is there a basis for a requirement that the applicant should submit a detailed plan and programme of proposed cycling and walking network diversions and closures to you for approval before the commencement of works?


a) Does the particular standard of any proposed works to the road, cycling or walking networks need to be specified, other than as currently provided for in the draft DCO?

b) If so, in respect of which works might standards be specified and how might these be secured? c) Is there any basis for a planning obligation under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) to secure a

financial contribution to works from the applicant?

17 National Policy Statements (NPS)

17.1 The GLA, relevant local planning authorities and LVRPA

NPS EN-1 policy response (landscape - designated regional park) Application Volume 7.1, Planning Statement at para 5.3.10 considers NPS EN-1 paragraph 5.9.8 and the effect of the application proposal on the existing character of the local landscape, its current quality, how highly it is valued and its capacity to accommodate change. The aim should be to minimise harm to the landscape, providing reasonable mitigation where proper and appropriate. a) How should the landscape character and the designated status of the Lee Valley Regional Park be taken into account

in considering the application of this policy? b) In the circumstances, does the application proposal sufficiently respond to policy having regard to the current

quality, value and capacity of the Park landscape? c) Does it minimise harm to the landscape? d) If not, what should be done to secure policy compliance?

17.2 The GLA, TfL, relevant local planning authorities, LVRPA and English Heritage

NPS EN-1 & EN-5 policy response (good design – alignment and pylons) Application Volume 7.1, Planning Statement at section 4.3 concludes that the application proposal is consistent with NPS EN-1 paragraph 4.5 (good design), whilst highlighting that the applicant may have little or no choice in respect of the appearance of particular infrastructure components. In this case, the major design components (alignment siting and the appearance of pylons) have been driven by the location and appearance of the existing ZBC transmission alignment and pylons within it. Having regard also to NPS EN-1 paragraph 3.7.10 and NPS EN-5 Part 2 and the Holford Rules’, ES Chapter 2 and the ‘Strategic Optioneering Report’: a) has this resulted in a satisfactory design outcome, compliant with NPS policy; and b) if not, please provide reasons and refer to relevant NPS policy in support of your position; and c) please cross refer this answer to the answers to any other topic-related questions above.

17.3 The applicant NPS EN-1 & EN-5 policy response (good design – consideration of alternatives) Further to question 17.2 and to NPS EN-1 paragraph 3.7.10, NPS EN-5 Part 2 and the ‘Holford Rules’, ES Chapter 2 and the ‘Strategic Optioneering Report’, to what extent could good design in respect of the function of the proposed alignment upgrade have been provided or better provided by the following approaches, taking the matters in NPS EN-5


Question to:

Question:

para 2.8.8 into account: a) the development of a wholly new alignment (siting design); b) the reinforcement of a different existing alignment elsewhere in London but to serve the same need (siting design); c) the replacement of existing pylons with pylons of a different design (including the newly developed Bystrup ‘T’, New

Town Studio ‘Totem’ or Ritchie ‘Silhouette’) (major component design); and/or d) the placing of more or all of the existing alignment underground (major component design)?

17.4 The GLA, TfL, relevant local planning authorities, LVRPA and English Heritage

NPS EN-1 & EN-5 policy response (good design – substations, compounds, access, security, landscape) Further to question 17.2, if the siting and major design components of the ZBC alignment t are taken as a given, the applicant has a moderate level of choice in respect of the siting of components such as extensions to substations, or new compounds and a high level of choice in terms of the selection of materials, finishes, colours and the application of landscape treatments to and around new buildings, the design of security enclosures and of access arrangements. a) Has this resulted in a satisfactory design outcome, compliant with NPS EN-1 & 5; b) if not, please provide reasons and refer to relevant NPS policy in support of your position; and c) what additional specific design interventions would you identify as being necessary and which locations should they

be provided to ensure compliance with NPS policy? 17.5 The GLA, relevant

local planning authorities, LVRPA and Environment Agency

NPS EN-1 & EN-5 policy response (climate change) a) Are you satisfied that the alignment as proposed to be reconfigured responds robustly to risks associated with

climate change, including changes to the risk of flooding? b) If not, what specific actions might be taken to manage down relevant risks?

17.6 The GLA, TfL, relevant local planning authorities, LVRPA, Environment Agency and (as relevant) English Heritage

NPS EN-1 & EN-5 policy response (sustainable development) Application Volume 7.1, Planning Statement at section 4.2 concludes that the application proposal is consistent with NPS sustainability policy requirements relating to: • air quality and emissions; • biodiversity and geological conservation; • historic environment; • landscape and visual impact; • noise and vibration; and • traffic and transportation. a) Are you satisfied that (subject to the proposed mitigation being provided where necessary), these policy

requirements have been met? b) If not, please provide reasons and refer to relevant NPS policy in support of your position. c) Please cross refer this answer to the answers to any other relevant questions above.

17.7 The GLA, TfL, relevant local planning authorities, LVRPA, Environment

NPS EN-1 policy response (other key topics) a) Is there any additional key respect (other than those addressed in question 17.2-6) in which you consider that the

application proposal should address policy in NPS EN-1? b) If so, do you consider that the application proposal is consistent with relevant policy in NPS EN-1?


Question to:

Question:

Agency and English Heritage

c) If it is not, please provide reasons and refer to relevant NPS EN-1 policy in support of your position. d) Please cross refer this answer to the relevant answers to any other questions above.

17.8 The GLA, relevant local planning authorities, LVRPA and Natural England

NPS EN-5 policy response (biodiversity and geological conservation) Application Volume 7.1, Planning Statement at section 4.4 identifies the application as consistent with NPS EN-5 section 2.7. a) Do you agree, and particularly do you agree that there is no change to bird collision risk? b) If not, please provide reasons and refer to relevant NPS EN-5 policy in support of your position. c) Please cross refer this answer to the answers to any other questions that are relevant.

17.9 The GLA, relevant local planning authorities, LVRPA and English Heritage

NPS EN-5 policy response (landscape and visual) Application Volume 7.1, Planning Statement at section 4.4 identifies the application as consistent with NPS EN-5 section 2.8, subject to relevant construction and operational mitigations being provided. a) Do you agree, and particularly do you agree that the appropriate steps are being taken to mitigate landscape and

visual impact? b) If you do not agree, please provide reasons and refer to relevant NPS EN-5 policy in support of your position. c) Please also itemise and describe the particular mitigating steps (if any) that could be taken to address your

concerns. d) Please cross refer this answer to the answers to any other questions that are relevant.

17.10 The GLA, relevant local planning authorities, LVRPA, Environment Agency and Natural England

NPS EN-5 policy response (noise and vibration) Application Volume 7.1, Planning Statement at section 4.4 identifies the application as consistent with NPS EN-5 section 2.9, subject to relevant construction and operational mitigations being provided. a) Do you agree, and particularly do you agree that the appropriate steps are being taken to mitigate the effects of

noise emissions on seasonal wildlife in nearby designated sites? b) If you do not agree, please provide reasons and refer to relevant NPS EN-5 policy in support of your position. c) Please also itemise and describe the particular mitigating steps (if any) that could be taken to address your

concerns. d) Please cross refer this answer to the answers to any other questions that are relevant.

17.11 The GLA, relevant local planning authorities, LVRPA, Environment Agency and Natural England

NPS EN-5 policy response (other key topics) a) Is there any additional key respect (other than those addressed in question 17.7-9) in which you consider that the

application proposal should address policy in NPS EN-5? b) If so, do you consider that the application proposal is consistent with relevant policy in NPS EN-5? c) If it is not, please provide reasons and refer to relevant NPS EN-5 policy in support of your position. d) Please cross refer this answer to the answers to any other questions that are relevant.

18 National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

18.1 The GLA, TfL, relevant local planning authorities and English Heritage

NPPF policy response (sustainable development and design) Application Volume 7.1, Planning Statement at section 4.2 concludes that the application proposal is consistent with the NPPF sustainable development policies and will particularly: • promote sustainable transport (NPPF paras 29-41); and


Question to:

Question:

• deliver good design (NPPF paras 56-68). a) Does your assessment concur with this conclusion? b) If it does not, please provide reasons and refer to relevant NPPF policy in support of your position. c) Please cross refer this answer to the answers to any other questions that are relevant.


NPPF policy response (core principles and detailed guidance) Application Volume 7.1, Planning Statement at section 5.2 and table 5.1 concludes that, with the relevant mitigation measures, the application proposal is consistent with the NPPF across the following range of policy topics: • strong competitive economy (NPPF paras 18-22); • good design (NPPF para 61); • flood risk (NPPF paras 100-103); • conserving and enhancing the natural environment (NPPF paras 109-119); and • conserving and enhancing the historic environment (NPPF paras 126-141). a) Does your assessment concur with this conclusion? b) If it does not, please provide reasons and refer to relevant NPPF policy in support of your position. c) Please cross refer this answer to the answers to any other questions that are relevant.

18.3 LVRPA and the relevant local planning authority.

NPPF policy response (Green Belt – Waltham Cross Substation) Application Volume 7.1, Planning Statement at section 5.2 and table 5.1 concludes in respect of Waltham Cross Substation (which is located in the Green Belt), the application proposal is not necessarily consistent with NPPF policy on the protection of Green Belt land (NPPF paras 79-92). It concludes that there will be ‘a slightly larger footprint’ in the Green Belt as a consequence of the proposed development, but that the additional space requirement is not disproportionate and that the use will remain the same, whilst reaching no clear conclusion as to whether the proposal is ‘inappropriate development’ in the Green Belt. a) Is the proposed development at Waltham Cross appropriate development in the Green Belt? b) If not, what are the ‘other considerations’ that clearly outweigh the harm caused to the Green Belt by reason of

inappropriateness and provide the ‘very special circumstances’ justifying approval of the proposed development? c) Is it operationally relevant to maintain the existing ZBC alignment in service for as long as possible whilst upgrade

works proceed and what effect does this consideration have on the land requirement at Waltham Cross? d) Have sufficient design and project management measures been taken to reduce the additional land take at Waltham

Cross Substation and hence harm to the Green Belt to its minimum? e) After the completion of the construction phase, can and/or should any land currently proposed to remain within the

operational compound of Waltham Cross Substation be returned to open land, for the purposes of mitigating harm to Green Belt? Please also consider question 15.5 which also refers to this issue.


NPPF policy response (other key topics) a) Is there any additional key respect (other than those addressed in question 18.1-4) in which you consider that the

application proposal should address NPPF policy? b) If so, do you consider that the application proposal is consistent with relevant NPPF policy? c) If it is not, please provide reasons and refer to relevant NPPF policy in support of your position. d) Please cross refer this answer to the answers to any other questions that are relevant.


Question to:

Question:

19 The Development Plan

London and Regional Plans and Strategies… 19.1A The GLA, TfL,

relevant local planning authorities in Greater London and LVRPA.

The London Plan (LP) policy response Application Volume 7.1, Planning Statement at section 6.3 and table 6.2 the London Plan policies considered to be relevant to the application proposal. a) Do you agree with the conclusions on policy relevance and compliance reached in that table? b) If not, with reference to specific policies, can you indicate your variance from the conclusions reached and the

reasons for doing so? c) The applicant concludes that mitigating actions are necessary to respond to some LP policies. If so, do you agree,

and are the proposed mitigations sufficient to achieve the desired policy effect? d) If not, with reference to specific policies, can you indicate where and what types of mitigation might be necessary to

deliver compliance? 19.1B The GLA, TfL,

relevant local planning authorities in Greater London and LVRPA.

The London Plan (LP) policy response (sustainability) Application Volume 7.1, Planning Statement at section 4.5 and table 4.4 provides a multi-factor analysis of the performance of the application against sustainable development policies set out in the London Plan. a) Do you agree with the conclusions of neutral and beneficial policy impact reached in that table? b) If not, with reference to specific policies, can you indicate your variance from the conclusions reached and the

reasons for doing so? c) The applicant concludes that mitigating actions are necessary to respond to LP policies in respect of transport (items

13-16), biodiversity conservation (item 18) and improved waste management (item 19). Do you agree, and are the proposed mitigations sufficient to achieve the desired policy effect?

d) With the exception of items 13-16 (travel plan), 18 (biodiversity) and 19 (waste management) in the table, the applicant concludes that no other mitigation is required to deliver LP compliance. Do you agree with this conclusion?

e) If not, with reference to specific policies, can you indicate where and what types of mitigation might be necessary to deliver LP compliance?

19.2 The applicant East of England Plan (RSS) revocation a) Further to The Regional Strategy for the East of England (Revocation) Order 2012 (SI No. 3046) which came into

force on 3 January 2013, please confirm your understanding that there are now no remaining policies from that Regional Strategy which have statutory force and are relevant to this application.

b) Please confirm the effect of this Order on the analysis in Application Volume 7.1, Planning Statement at section 6.2?

In Greater London… 19.3 The applicant The Development Plan in LB Enfield: NPPF consistency

Application Volume 7.1, Planning Statement at para 7.4.3 concludes in respect of Enfield that ‘the Local Plan policies are consistent with the national policy framework’. a) Please clarify whether this conclusion applies to the Enfield Plan – Core Strategy 2010, the Unitary Development Plan

1994 or to all documents comprised within the development plan?


Question to:

Question:

b) Having regard to NPPF paragraph 215, does this conclusion require to be amended in any way? 19.4 The applicant The Development Plan in LB Enfield: status of plan documents

Application Volume 7.1, Planning Statement at section 7.4 analyses both the Enfield Plan – Core Strategy 2010 and the Enfield Unitary Development Plan 1994. Please explain the degree to which the identified Unitary Development Plan policies are: a) still relevant (having regard to progress on the Enfield Plan, scope of proposed or adopted DPDs and any saved

policies); and b) weighty (having regard to NPPF para 215).

19.5 LB Enfield as relevant local planning authority and LVRPA to the extent that park relevant policies are invoked

The Enfield Plan – Core Strategy 2010 (LDF CS) Having regard to Application Volume 7.1, Planning Statement, table 7.3: e) Do you agree with the conclusions on policy relevance and compliance reached in that table? f) If not, with reference to specific policies, can you indicate your variance from the conclusions reached and the

reasons for doing so? g) The applicant concludes that mitigating actions are necessary to respond to some LDF CS policies. If so, do you

agree, and are the proposed mitigations sufficient to achieve the desired policy effect? h) If not, with reference to specific policies, can you indicate where and what types of mitigation might be necessary to

deliver compliance? 19.6 LB Enfield as

relevant local planning authority and LVRPA to the extent that park relevant policies are invoked

Enfield Unitary Development Plan 1994 (UDP) (Green Belt) Having regard to Application Volume 7.1, Planning Statement, table 7.4: a) Do you agree with the conclusions on policy relevance and compliance reached in that table? b) If not, with reference to specific policies, can you indicate your variance from the conclusions reached and the

reasons for doing so? c) The applicant concludes that mitigating actions are necessary to respond to some LDF CS policies. If so, do you

agree, and are the proposed mitigations sufficient to achieve the desired policy effect? d) If not, with reference to specific policies, can you indicate where and what types of mitigation might be necessary to

deliver compliance? 19.7 LB Enfield as

relevant local planning authority and LVRPA to the extent that park relevant policies are invoked

Other Post-2004 Reform Development Plan Documents (DPDs) in LB Enfield a) Are there any other adopted or emerging DPDs not comprised within the emerging Enfield LDF CS that are relevant

to the application proposal and of which I should be aware? (Please provide the adoption date and/or a statement of current progress.)

b) If so, do they contain policies relevant to the application proposal; and if so c) What are those policies; and d) to what degree does the application proposal comply with them?

19.8 The applicant The Development Plan in LB Haringey: status of plan documents Given that the submission of the Emerging Haringey Local Plan: Strategic Policies (LDF CS) may take place during this examination, please provide an update on its progress.

19.9 The applicant The Development Plan in LB Haringey: NPPF consistency Application Volume 7.1, Planning Statement at para 7.5.6 concludes in respect of Haringey that ‘the Local Plan


Question to:

Question:

policies are consistent with the national policy framework’. a) Please confirm that this conclusion currently applies only to the Haringey Unitary Development Plan 2006 (UDP)? b) Having regard to NPPF paragraph 215, does this conclusion require to be amended in any way?

19.10 LB Haringey as relevant local planning authority and LVRPA to the extent that park relevant policies are invoked

The Emerging Haringey Local Plan: Strategic Policies (LDF CS) Having regard to Application Volume 7.1, Planning Statement, table 7.5: a) Do you agree with the conclusion on policy relevance and compliance reached in that table? b) If not, with reference to specific policies, can you indicate your variance from the conclusions reached and the

reasons for doing so? c) The applicant concludes that mitigating actions are necessary to respond to some LDF CS policies. If so, do you

agree, and are the proposed mitigations sufficient to achieve the desired policy effect? d) If not, with reference to specific policies, can you indicate where and what types of mitigation might be necessary to

deliver compliance? 19.11 LB Haringey as

relevant local planning authority

Other Post-2004 Reform Development Plan Documents (DPDs) in LB Haringey a) Are there any other adopted or emerging DPDs not comprised within the emerging Haringey LDF CS that are

relevant to the application proposal and of which I should be aware? (Please provide the adoption date and/or a statement of current progress.)

b) If so, do they contain policies relevant to the application proposal; and if so

c) what are those policies; and d) to what degree does the application proposal comply with them?

19.12 LB Haringey as relevant local planning authority and LVRPA to the extent that park relevant policies are invoked

Haringey Unitary Development Plan 2006 (UDP) Having regard to Application Volume 7.1, Planning Statement, table 7.6: a) Do you agree with the conclusions on policy relevance and compliance reached in that table? b) If not, with reference to specific policies, can you indicate your variance from the conclusions reached and the

reasons for doing so? c) The applicant concludes that mitigating actions are necessary to respond to some UDP policies. If so, do you agree,

and are the proposed mitigations sufficient to achieve the desired policy effect? d) If not, with reference to specific policies, can you indicate where and what types of mitigation might be necessary to

deliver compliance? 19.13 The applicant Development Plan Documents (DPDs) or Unitary Development Plan (UDP) in Waltham Forest LBC

Having regard to the situation of some proposed works on land in the London Borough of Waltham Forest (Works Plan Sheet 9) and the proximity to its boundary of other proposed works (Works Plans Sheets 8 & 10), are there extant DPDs or a UDP prepared by that authority containing policies that are relevant to the application proposal? If such policies exist and are relevant, the applicant is requested to provide text and new table(s), based on Volume 7.1 (Planning Statement) Tables 7.3 and 7.4 as relevant and paragraphs 7.4.1-3 which identify: a) the name of the relevant policy document (in text); b) its statutory status and date of adoption (in text);


Question to:

Question:

c) a reference for each relevant policy; d) a brief description of each relevant policy; e) a view about the degree to which each policy is considered to be consistent with the NPPF (para 215) and hence to

carry weight in the Secretary of State’s deliberations; f) the relevance of the policy to the application proposal; g) the degree to which the application proposal complies with it; and h) any mitigation proposed in the application that will ensure compliance.

19.14 The relevant or adjacent local planning authority or the LVRPA to the extent that park relevant policies are invoked

Development Plan Documents (DPDs) or Unitary Development Plan (UDP) in Waltham Forest LBC Having regard to the applicant’s answer to question 19.13 (and hence a response is required at Deadline IV): a) Do you agree with the conclusions on policy applicability and weight reached in that table? b) If not, with reference to specific policies, can you indicate your variance from the conclusions reached and the

reasons for doing so? c) Do you agree with the conclusions on policy impact reached in that table? d) If not, with reference to specific policies, can you indicate your variance from the conclusions reached and the

reasons for doing so? e) The applicant may conclude that mitigating actions are necessary to respond to adopted development plan policies.

If so, do you agree, and are the proposed mitigations sufficient to achieve the desired policy effect? In Essex…

19.15 The applicant, Essex County Council (ECC) and/or Epping Forest District Council as relevant local planning authority

Essex County Council Development Management Policies (DMP) Application Volume 7.1, Planning Statement at section 7.2 and Table 7.1 refers to the ECC Development Management Policies (February 2011) for transport development. a) What is the statutory status of this document; and b) what relationship (if any) does it have to the development plan?

19.16 The applicant, Essex County Council (ECC) and/or Epping Forest District Council as relevant local planning authority

Essex County Council DMP (transport) Application Volume 7.1, Planning Statement at section 7.2 and Table 7.1 refers to the ECC DMP (February 2011) for transport development. It identifies transport mitigation measures to secure compliance with policies DM19 and 20. a) Do these measure secure adequate transport performance? b) If not, what additional transport mitigation measures might be required?

19.17 The applicant, Epping Forest District Council as relevant local planning authority

Emerging Epping Forest Local Plan (emerging EFLP) Application Volume 7.1, Planning Statement at section 7.3 identifies that the emerging EFLP is at an early stage of preparation. It foreshadowed at the time of writing that the emerging plan will not provide a developed policy framework for use in the assessment of this application. a) Please review current progress towards preparation of the emerging EFLP and confirm whether that remains the

case;


Question to:

Question:

b) Advise whether it is likely to acquire weight, taking account of the statutory timescales for this examination, my reporting period and the decision-making period for the Secretary of State.

c) If it is possible to do so, identify any emergent issues or policies of relevance to the application proposal and tabulate your view of impact on or compliance with these in a table based on Volume 7.1 (Planning Statement) Table 7.2

19.18 The applicant, Epping Forest District Council as relevant local planning authority

Existing Epping Forest Local Plan (1998) and Alterations (2006) (adopted EFLP) Is the adopted EFLP adopted under the 2004 Act or under previous legislation pursuant (in part) to transitional provisions?

19.19 The applicant Existing Epping Forest Local Plan (1998) and Alterations (2006) (adopted EFLP) Application Volume 7.1, Planning Statement at section 7.3 identifies that the adopted EFLP is now subject to NPPF policy set out in para 215 of that document. It foreshadowed at the time of writing that the adopted plan would “cease to be effective” from the anniversary of NPPF publication (which has now passed). NPPF para 215 does not render the adopted plan ineffective. Rather, it says that “due weight should be given to relevant policies in existing plans according to their degree of consistency with this framework (the closer the policies in the plan to the policies in the Framework, the greater the weight that may be given)”. To this extent, the applicant is requested to provide a new table, based on Volume 7.1 (Planning Statement) Table 7.2 which additionally identifies: a) when each policy identified in Table 7.2 came into effect; and b) the degree to which each policy is considered to be consistent with the NPPF and hence to carry weight in the

Secretary of State’s deliberations; and c) then to consider whether that analysis changes the conclusion about that policy reached in column 4 to Table 7.2

“compliance of NLRP”? 19.20 Epping Forest

District Council as relevant local planning authority or the LVRPA to the extent that park relevant policies are invoked

Existing Epping Forest Local Plan (1998) and Alterations (2006) (adopted EFLP) Having regard to the table in the applicant’s answer to question 19.19 (and so a response is required at Deadline IV): a) Do you agree with the conclusions on policy applicability and weight reached in that table? b) If not, with reference to specific policies, can you indicate your variance from the conclusions reached and the


reasons for doing so? e) The applicant may conclude that mitigating actions are necessary to respond to adopted EFLP policies. If so, do you

agree, and are the proposed mitigations sufficient to achieve the desired policy effect? f) If not, with reference to specific policies, can you indicate where and what types of mitigation might be necessary to

deliver LP compliance?


Question to:

Question:

19.21 Epping Forest District Council as relevant local planning authority

Other Post-2004 Reform Development Plan Documents (DPDs) in Epping Forest a) Are there any other adopted or emerging DPDs not comprised within the emerging EFLP that are relevant to the

application proposal and of which I should be aware? (Please provide the adoption date and/or a statement of current progress.)

b) If so, do they contain policies relevant to the application proposal; and if so c) What are those policies; and d) to what degree does the application proposal comply with them?

In Hertfordshire… 19.22 The applicant Hertfordshire transport development management policies

Having regard to the proximity of some proposed works to land in Hertfordshire County and Broxbourne District (Works Plans Sheets 2, 3 & 4) and referring to question 19.15 (Essex County Council Development Management Policies), are there any development management policies relevant to development affecting transportation and highways in Hertfordshire that should be considered? If such policies exist and are relevant, the applicant is requested to provide a new table, based on Volume 7.1 (Planning Statement) Table 7.1 which identifies: a) the name of the relevant policy document; b) its statutory status, date of adoption and relationship with the development plan (if any); c) a reference for each relevant policy; d) a brief description of each relevant policy; e) the relevance of the policy to the application proposal; f) the degree to which the application proposal complies with it; and g) any mitigation proposed in the application that will ensure compliance.

19.23 The relevant or adjacent highway authority and/or local planning authority

Hertfordshire transport development management policies Having regard to the table in the applicant’s answer to question 19.22 (and so a response is required at Deadline IV): a) Do you agree with the conclusions on policy applicability and weight reached in that table? b) If not, with reference to specific policies, can you indicate your variance from the conclusions reached and the



agree, and are the proposed mitigations sufficient to achieve the desired policy effect? 19.24 The applicant Development Plan Documents (DPDs) / Local Plans in Hertfordshire

Having regard to the proximity of some proposed works to land in Broxbourne District (Works Plans Sheets 2, 3 & 4), are there extant DPDs or Local Plans containing policies that are relevant to the application proposal?

If such policies exist and are relevant, the applicant is requested to provide text and a new table, based on Volume 7.1 (Planning Statement) Table 7.2 and paragraphs 7.3.1-5 which identifies:


Question to:

Question:

a) the name of the relevant policy document (in text); b) its statutory status and date of adoption (in text); c) a reference for each relevant policy; d) a brief description of each relevant policy; e) a view about the degree to which each policy is considered to be consistent with the NPPF (para 215) and hence to

carry weight in the Secretary of State’s deliberations; f) the relevance of the policy to the application proposal; g) the degree to which the application proposal complies with it; and h) any mitigation proposed in the application that will ensure compliance.

19.25 The relevant or adjacent local planning authority or the LVRPA to the extent that park relevant policies are invoked

Development Plan Documents (DPDs) / Local Plans in Hertfordshire Having regard to the table in the applicant’s answer to question 19.24 (and so a response is required at Deadline IV): a) Do you agree with the conclusions on policy applicability and weight reached in that table? b) If not, with reference to specific policies, can you indicate your variance from the conclusions reached and the



agree, and are the proposed mitigations sufficient to achieve the desired policy effect?

20 Lee Valley Regional Park Development and Management Plans and Policies

20.1 LVRPA (all parts) and park users ((e) and (f) only)

Lee Valley Regional Park Development Framework (PDF) a) Please provide an update on the progress of the PDF. b) Please identify any elements of its adopted vision and aims that are relevant to the application proposal; c) Please also identify any emerging policies that may have been developed since Volume 7.1 was completed and

provide a view on their applicability and weight; d) For each identified element of the vision, aims or emerging policy, describe the relevance of the policy to the

application proposal. e) Set out the degree to which the application proposal complies with the vision, aims or emerging policy. f) Identify any mitigation that could ensure compliance.

20.2 LVRPA and relevant local planning authorities

Lee Valley Regional Park Plan I understand that this plan is prepared under the Park’s own legislation, one effect of which is to require relevant planning authorities to adopt its relevant proposals into appropriate development plan documents (DPDs). Is this understanding correct and if so, are there particular development plan policies that I should have regard to as fulfilling that function?

20.3 LVRPA Lee Valley Regional Park Plan Given that this plan is prepared under the Park’s own legislation and is not itself part of the development plan, what are the implications for it of NPPF paragraph 215?


Question to:

Question:

20.4 LVRPA and/or relevant local planning authorities (all parts) and park users

Lee Valley Regional Park Plan Application Volume 7.1, Planning Statement at Table 7.7 and paras 7.6.2 – 7.6.5 identifies elements of the vision and objectives of the Plan that are relevant to the application proposal. a) Do you agree with the conclusions on policy applicability reached there? b) If not, with reference to specific elements of the Plan, can you indicate your variance from the conclusions reached

and the reasons for doing so? c) Do you agree with the conclusions on policy impact reached there? d) If not, with reference to specific elements of the Plan, can you indicate your variance from the conclusions reached

and the reasons for doing so? e) The applicant may conclude that mitigating actions are necessary to respond to adopted EFLP policies. If so, do you

agree, and are the proposed mitigations sufficient to achieve the desired policy effect?