The Planning Inspectorate
TempleQuay House
2 The Square
Bristol
BS1 6PN
Help line: / 0303 444 5000
Fax No:
e-mail: /
Andrew Goodchild
West Somerset Council
West Somerset House
Killick Way
Williton
Somerset
TA44QA / Your Ref:
Our Ref:EN010001
Date:18 April 2012
Dear Mr Goodchild,
Application for development consent for HinkleyPointC Nuclear Power Station and associated development
Councils’ response to the procedural decision
I refer to your letter of 04 April sent to me as the lead member of the Panel. There are matters you raise to which we need to respond. References are to the paragraphs in your letter.
Paragraph at the foot of the first page. The Panel acknowledges that the Councils did not have copies of the actual application documents prior to the acceptance decision being made. Notwithstanding this we note (i) that the application documents have been available to you since 24 November 2011 (as your letter states) and (ii) that the Councils did not formally highlight their concerns regarding the volume of new material received prior to the paragraph referred to in the relevant representations (dated 23rd January 2012). We further note that at no time have the Councils complained that the scheme applied for is fundamentally different from that on which the consultation was based.
3rd paragraph of 2nd page. Whilst the Councils’ concerns regarding the date given for the submission of statements of common ground and other documents are noted, we would point out that the draft timetable for the examination was first made available under cover of my letter of 10 February. Further, as you were advised at the preliminary meeting, there is no impediment to the Councils providing material in advance of the programmed deadlines. It was also suggested at the preliminary meeting that those parties with multiple interests (such as the Councils) should consider entering into several smaller statements of common ground (as opposed to a single ‘omnibus’ statement).
5th and 6th paragraphs of 2nd page. Whilst we acknowledge receipt of your letter dated 23 March, we have no record of asking the Councils to highlight the availability of Council officers in the examination period as you assert. Moreover, given that the letter was sent after the preliminary meeting had closed, it would have been contrary to the principles of natural justice for the Panel to have had regard to it in preparing our report on the s98(4) request without first publicising the letter and allowing other parties time to consider and comment on it if they wished. Clearly, this would have resulted in a significant delay. It would furthermore have been impossible for the letter to have been taken into account by the Panel in reaching their procedural decision as this was taken on 21 March immediately following the preliminary meeting. I can only apologise that this was not made clear in our letter containing the procedural decision dated 27th March 2012.
7th paragraph of 2nd page. The Panel appreciates your concern that we should avoid holding certain events at times when key Councils officers are not available. We have taken note of the dates mentioned in your letter and will, so far as is practicable and in accord with our other obligations, seek to avoid problems in this regard.
Yours sincerely
Andrew Phillipson
Lead Panel Member
1