Meeting Note - National Infrastructure Planning

Meeting Note
File reference
Status
Author
TR01002 – A556 Knutsford to Bowdon
Final
Kay Sully
Meeting with
Meeting date 2 February 2010
Attendees (IPC)
Highways Agency (HA) and Jacobs who are acting on
behalf of the HA
Kay Sully, Lynne Franklin, David Price and Simon
Butler
Attendees (non IPC) For part one of the meeting, there were the following
attendees:
HA
Anna Pickering
Mohammed Swapan
Sheena Crombie
Laura Pennington (Halcrow – working for HA)
Jacobs
Dan Johnston
Kate Oram
Simon Hayton
Simon Bird
Anna McFarlane
Sharon Woodruff
Simon Holden
Cheshire East Council
Beverley Wilders
Phil Mason
Conal Kearney
Jan Gomulski
Natural England
Kieran Preston
Kat Walsh
Sarah Warrener
English Heritage
Judith Nelson
1

Environment Agency
Catherine Hunt
David Astbury
David Turnbull
Sue Slamon
For part two of the meeting, the attendees were the HA
and Jacobs as listed above with the addition of Ashley
Stratford (Jacobs)
Location
Meeting purpose
HA’s offices – City Tower, Manchester
HA to provide a presentation on the Environmental
Impact Assessment (EIA) and background of the A556
major trunk road between North Cheshire and South
Manchester. The section of the A556 under
consideration is between the M6 junction 19 near
Tabley/Knutsford and the M56 junction 7 near
Bowdon.
IPC to answer queries in relation to the pre-application
process.
Summary of
outcomes
Part one of the meeting:
IPC advised on its openness policy as well as the IPC not
being able to discuss the merits of a project with any party.
Referred to s.51 of the Planning Act 2008 (Act) which sets
out the requirement for the IPC to publish advice. Also to
note that any advice given under s.51 does not constitute
legal advice.
HA provided background to the scheme which will involve
landtake and side road closures, and also discussed site
constraints including protected landscapes, sensitive water
receptors, listed buildings, air quality, water
habitats/ecology, noise and community facilities. There
were some requests for clarification and comments from
statutory consultees – English Heritage queried
interpretation of “significance” when assessing impact on
heritage assets and HA confirmed that the criteria in the
Design Manual for Roads and Bridges will be adopted; the
Environment Agency flagged the need to consider the
water habitat and environmental enhancements at junction
7; Cheshire East Council drew attention to the options
under consideration for de-trunking and handover.
IPC made reference to the EIA regulations; and also
Schedule 1 of the Applications: Prescribed Forms and
Procedure Regulations 2009 (APFP Regs) explaining to
the statutory consultees (stat cons) present that they will
2

e consulted on the information that should be included in
the environmental statement as part of the IPCs formal
scoping process. IPC emphasised front loading process;
as much information as possible should be made available
from the outset which will assist in engagement between
parties.
Clarified the 42 days for a scoping opinion is the deadline
for the IPC and not stat cons. Stat cons have 28 days to
respond to the IPC. HA raised concern that there is a
duplication of the consultation process as HA will be
consulting the stat cons on EIA (informally) and then they
will also be consulted formally by the IPC as part of the
scoping opinion process. IPC asked that when the HA are
submitting a request for a scoping opinion, could they
submit 4 copies of the scoping report, a CD copy and a link
to the scoping opinion on their website. English Heritage
asked how the scoping report will be sent; IPC confirmed
that a link is provided in the letter so these can be viewed
electronically. English Heritage raised concern with this as
they are not always able to download large documents; HA
confirmed they would send a hard copy to English
Heritage.
Part two of the meeting:
IPC clarified that where a National Policy Statement (NPS)
is still in draft and if the application is accepted for
examination the IPC will make a recommendation to the
Secretary of State who will become the decision maker.
Should the NPS be designated, the IPC will then make the
decision. HA asked for an update on the publication of the
National Networks NPS; IPC clarified that it is an
independent body and does not have responsibility for
policy making and referred HA to contact the Department
for Transport for further information. IPC also clarified that
if an application was received whilst a NPS was still in draft
but then designated during the examination process, the
IPC would be the decision maker.
IPC clarified it has 42 days to give a scoping opinion and
are not under any obligation to take into account
responses that are received outside of the 28 day
deadline. The IPC will however forward any late responses
received to the HA.
HA asked if they should take into account any late
responses, IPC confirmed that this will be at their
discretion. HA identified a risk that if late responses in
relation to the scoping exercise are submitted the issues
raised may not be taken into account and they could be
3

aised again during the examination stage. IPC clarified
that there will be further consultation opportunities at a
later stage of the process (for example when the
application is accepted) where stat cons (and others) can
make representations and raise their concerns and this
would be done before a decision is made.
HA asked for a best practice guide to what should be in
their statement of community consultation (SOCC). The
IPC is unable to prescribe what should be in the SOCC.
The local authorities (LAs) should be consulted (under s47
of the Act) about what should be in the SOCC and IPC
encouraged HA to engage with the local authorities (LAs)
as they will be best placed to advise on the local
community consultation. The LAs statement of community
involvement would provide a useful point of reference in
drawing up a SOCC. Also referred to the CLG guidance
on pre-application consultation as well as IPC guidance
note 1 on the pre-application stages.
HA asked if they were able to submit their application
under the transitional arrangements; as the consultation
began prior to 1 October 2007, the IPC confirmed that this
would not be possible if the consultation did not comply
with the conditions in Regulation 12 of the APFP Regs.
Regulation 12 applies if the applicant commenced
consultation on or after 1 October 2007 and includes the
requirement that the applicant should have first consulted
the local authority about how to conduct the consultation.
IPC explained that LAs will be invited to produce a local
impact report and encouraged HA to consider working
towards statements of common ground with relevant
parties. This could be done before the IPC’s procedural
decision (about how to conduct the examination) at the
preliminary meeting.
IPC and HA discussed the possibility of publishing the
SOCC at the same time as carrying out s48 notification.
No definitive view was reached.
It was clarified that the IPC can provide technical advice on
the draft DCO and HA was encouraged to submit a draft at
an early stage.
IPC explained intention of an outreach project where it
would hold an event inviting the appropriate LAs,
stakeholders and representatives of local groups. The
purpose of this would be to give a presentation setting out
what is expected throughout the process. Emphasised that
4

it would not be a public meeting or a consultation event; it
would be an informative session to assist parties in
improving their knowledge of the process. In principal, HA
agree this would be beneficial to the parties; further
thought will be given to this once back in the office.
Record of any
advice given
• Regarding the SOCC, IPC emphasised the
importance of engaging early with the LAs as they
will be best placed to advise on local community
consultation needs.
• If the requirements of Regulation 12 (APFP Regs)
cannot be met it will not be possible to make use of
the transitional provisions.
• Clarified IPC deadline of 42 days to give a scoping
opinion and 28 days for statutory consultees to
provide comments in relation to the information to
be provided in the environmental statement.
Specific
decisions/follow up
required?
Circulation List
• Outreach work to be considered.
• Arrangements to be put in place for IPC to carry out
a site visit in conjunction with both the promoter and
LA.
• HA to submit their list of stat cons to IPC, this action
has been carried out.
IPC - Tracey Page, Kathryn Powell, Lynne Franklin, Simon
Butler, Dave Cliff
Anna Pickering
Beverley Wilders
Kieran Preston
Catherine Hunt
Judith Nelson
5