IPC Disclosure Log – Response to Request Reference: FOI-2010 ...

IPC Disclosure Log – Response to Request 

Reference: FOI-2010-002 

Date of response: 5 October 2010 

Request: 

1. Please provide the report or meeting notes that sets out on what basis the 

application by Covanta for an energy from waste and materials recovery 

facility at Rookery South, Bedfordshire, has been accepted by the IPC. 

Response: 

We attach the Section 55 checklist and appendices which comprise the 

information setting out the basis on which the decision was taken (under 

Section 55 of the Planning Act 2008) to accept the application by Covanta for 

an energy from waste and materials recovery facility at Rookery South, 

Bedfordshire. 

(Refusal notice – disclosure exempt under Freedom of Information Act Section 

40: Legal Professional Privilege – part of document redacted). 

Page 1 of 1 

T:\FOI Requests\Disclosure Log\FOI-2010-002 Entry for Disclosure Log.doc

Section 55 Acceptance of Applications – Application Checklist 

Within 28 days (starting day after 

receipt) the Commission must decide 

whether or not to accept the 

application. 

Project Name Project Reference Date received 28 day due date Date of 

decision 

Rookery 

South EfW 

EN010011 5 th August 2010 2 nd September 2010 26 th August 

2010 

NB: See IPC Guidance Note No. 2 (the preparation of application documents) and CLG Application Form Guidance for guidance 

on how the form should be completed and what should be included with it. 

Section 55(3) – the Commission may only accept 

an application if it concludes that it:- 

Secretariat 

Comments 

Commissioner 

Note 

(a) Is an application for an order granting development consent 

1) The application must state on the face of it that it 

is an application for a development consent order 

(DCO) under the 2008 Act, or equivalent words 

Yes – Front page of covering letter 

References to the relevant numbered 

documents submitted as part of the 

application are indicated below as 

APP DOC REF 

I have reviewed all the Secretariat’s 

comments in this checklist and taken 

them into account in drawing together my 

conclusions which are set out at the end 

of this document, prior to the appendices. 

(b) Complies with section 37(3) (form and contents of application) and with any standards set under section 37(5) 

s37: Applications for orders granting development 

consent 

1) only if an application is made (is the application 

made?) 

2) must be made to the Commission. The applicant 

must give a brief statement which explains why 

the Commission is the appropriate body to 

receive this application, with reference to the 

relevant section of Part 3 of the Act. (has the 

application been made to the Commission and 

has this statement been included?) 

3) A brief statement must be given that clearly 

identifies the location of the application site, or 

the route if it is a linear scheme (is this 

included?) 

Yes – Application form is fully 

completed along with accompanying 

covering letter 

Yes – Statement in section 4 of 

application form and para 2 of 

covering letter (s14(a) & 15(2) of the 

Act. This includes the capacity of the 

proposed development (65MW). 

APP DOC REF 1.2 SECTION 4 

APP DOC REF 1.1 PARAGRAPH 2 

Yes – Section 6 of application form. 

Including Grid Reference. 


4) the application must: 

a) specify the development to which it relates (i.e. 

which category or categories in sections 14-30 

does the application scheme fall) . (does it?) 

Yes – s14(a) and s15(2) (section 4 of 

application form & para 2 of covering 

letter. 


APP DOC REF 1.1 PARAGRAPH 2 

b) Made in the prescribed form (is it?) Yes – Application form completed, 

signed and dated. 

APP DOC REF 1.2 

Prescribed form as set out in Regulation 5(1) and Schedule 2 of SI 2264 – The Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms 

and Procedure) Regulations 2009 (the APFP Regulations) 

c) Accompanied by consultation report (is it?) Yes – Ref 7.1 & 7.2 (2 folders of 

appendices) 

APP DOC REF 7.1 & APPENDICES 

7.2 

d) accompanied by documents and information of 

prescribed description (are there any?) 

Yes, see below. 

Refer to Table 1.0 (appended) for 

details on how each prescribed 

document complies with the 

standards set out in IPC Guidance 

T:\IPC\FOI Requests\FOI-2010-002 Fry\Documents used for pdf response\100826_EN010011_RookeryApplicationChecklist with redactions on p 3 & 22.doc 

1 of 22

Note 2 (Paras 8-10) 

Prescribed form as set out in Regulation 5 and 6 of the APFP Regulations 

Under Regulation 5(2) an application must be accompanied by:- 

(a) 

where applicable, the environmental 

statement (ES) required under the 

Infrastructure Planning (Environmental 

Impact Assessment) Regulations 2009 

and any scoping or screening opinions or 

directions; 

APP DOC REF 3.1-3.3 

APP DOC REF 3.4 (Technical 

Summary) 

Document references 3.1 – 3.4 

The ‘EIA Review Criteria’ (Appendix 

B) provides an initial assessment of 

the ES documents from which the 

Secretariat concludes that the ES is 

appropriate for acceptance purposes. 

ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT 

VOLUME I APP DOC REF 3.1 

Format: 

Non-tech Summary 3.4 

Paragraphed and paginated –640pg 

Title Page – Yes see above 

Author – Covanta Energy 

Date of Revision: August 2010 

Reg 5(2)(a) 

Contents page included 

Plans included – Please see 

spreadsheet. 


VOLUME II APP DOC REF 3.2 

Format: 


Paragraphed and paginated –9 page 

written document followed by 

photomontages. 


Author – LDA Design 

Date of Revision: 04/08/2010 

Reg 5(2)(a) 

Contents Page included 

Plans included 


VOLUME III APP DOC REF 3.3 

Format: 


Paragraphed and paginated – 



Date of Revision: 04/08/10 

Reg 5(2)(a) 

Each appendix has a sub-contents 

page. 

Plans included – Please see 

Appendix E. 

NB Appendices 6, 7, 10, 14 &15 are 

left as blank and are not included in 

the application details. 


2 of 22


NON-TECHNICAL SUMMARY APP 

DOC REF 3.4 

Format: 

No summary is included as part of 

this document. As the document is a 

summary itself, the Secretariat is of 

the view that a further ‘summary of 

the summary’ is not necessary. 


last para 14.1.2 



Date of Revision: 04/08/10 

Reg 5(2)(a) 


(b) the draft proposed order; APP DOC REF 1.4 

Format: 

No Summary. This is not considered 

to be necessary for the draft DCO. 


doc set out in SI format 


Author – DLA Piper 

Date of Revision 04/08/10 

Reg 5(2)(b) 


No plans 

7 Schedules 

[Redacted] 

(c) 

(d) 

an explanatory memorandum explaining 

the purpose and effect of provisions in 

the draft order, including in particular any 

divergences from the model provisions 

(SI 2009 2265); 

where applicable, the book of reference 

(where the proposed application involves 


Format: 

No Summary. Given the nature of 

information presented in the 

Explanatory Memorandum the 

Secretariat does not consider it 

essential that a summary is included 

for this type of development. 


doc, content of doc begins on p3. 18 

paragraphs then articles within DCO 

are discussed in sequence. 




Reg 5(2)(c) 

No table of contents – Set out in 

Stationary Office Format/Template. 

Although over two pages, the 


necessary for this document to 

include a table of contents – the 

order of information is clearly set out 

within the document. 

No plans 



3 of 22

(e) 

(f) 

(g) 

any compulsory acquisition of land); 

where applicable a copy of any flood risk 

assessment; 

a statement whether the proposal 

engages one or more of the matters set 

out in section 79(1) of the Environmental 

Protection Act 1990 (statutory nuisances) 

and if so how the applicant proposes to 

mitigate or limit them; 

any report identifying any European site 

to which regulation 48 of the 

Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) 

Regulations 1994 (as amended) applies, 

or any Ramsar site, which may be 

affected by the proposed development, 

together with sufficient information that 

will enable the Commission to make an 

appropriate assessment of the 

implications for the site if required by 

regulation 48(1). LEGAL/EIA TEAM 

ADVICE/INPUT REQUIRED on whether 

the information provided is sufficient or 

not. 

Format: 

No Summary. Given the nature of 

information presented in the Book of 

Reference, the Secretariat does not 

consider it essential that a summary 

is included for this type of 

development. 


doc, no paras in table format. 


Author – Ardent 


Reg 5(2)(d) 

Table of Contents 

No plans 


Format: 

Summary included with broad outline 

of issues. 

Paragraphed and paginated –main 

doc p1-82, appendices p83-107 

paras 1.0-17.2.2 




Reg 5(2)(e) 

Contents included 

Plans included 


Format: 

No Summary. This is a small 

document, clearly setting out the 

information within it and is not 

considered to require a summary. 


doc, last para 3.1.2 




Reg 5(2)(f) 


No plans 


Format: 

No Summary. This is a small 

document, clearly setting out the 

information within it and is not 

considered to require a summary. 




Author – Baker Shepherd Gillespie 



Reg 5(2)(g) and (q) 

No plans 

The Secretariat considers that the 


4 of 22

(h) 

(i) 

if the proposed order would authorise the 

compulsory acquisition of land/an interest 

in land or right over land, a statement of 

reasons and a statement to indicate how 

an order that contains the authorisation 

of compulsory acquisition is proposed to 

be funded; 

a land plan identifying:- 

(i) the land required for, or affected by, the 

proposed development; 

(ii) where applicable, any land over which it 

is proposed to exercise powers of 

compulsory acquisition or any rights to 

use land; 

(iii) any land in relation to which it is 

proposed to extinguish easements, 

servitudes and other private rights; and 

(iv) where the land includes special 

category land and replacement land, 

that special category land 

information provided with the 

application is sufficient to enable the 

decision maker to determine whether 

an appropriate assessment of the 

implications for the site is required by 

Regulation 48(1). 

APP DOC REF 1.6 – 1.7 

Format: 

Statement of reasons: 

No summary. This is a small 

document and, taking account of the 

extent of the information provided 

within it, the Secretariat is of the 

opinion that it is not considered 

necessary to include a summary. 







Reg 5(2)(h) 

No plans 


No summary. Given the small length 

of this document which clearly sets 

out the information provided, the 


necessary for a summary to be 

provided. 

Paragraphed and paginated 

Title page – Yes see above 



No contents page required as only 2 

pages 

Reg 5(2)(h) 

No plans 

STANDARDS FOR ALL PLANS AS 

PER APPENDIX D 

PLANS 2.5 

(i) Plans 2.5 


Title: Land Plan 

North Sign: Yes 

Author: LDADesign 

Scale: 1:2500 

Revision: no 

PLANS 2.5 – 2.10 

(ii) Plans 2.5 – 2.10 

APP DOC REF 2.6-2.10 

Title: Extinguishments of Rights 



Scale (key plan): 1:7500 

Scale (1-4): 1:2500 

Revision: no 


5 of 22

(iii) Plans 2.5 – 2.10 (see above) 

(iv) Plan 2.5 (see above) 

APP DOC REF 1.6 (Statement of 

Reasons) chapter 7 

The CLG application form guidance 

makes it clear that it is acceptable for 

a plan to incorporate several issues, 

as long as there is sufficient clarity for 

each issue to be understood, and the 

plan and issues appropriately 

referenced throughout the application 

(para 6). The Secretariat considers 

this to be the case in this instance. 

(j) 

a works plan showing, in relation to 

existing features:- 

(i) the proposed location or (for a linear 

scheme) the proposed route and 

alignment of the development and 

works; and 

(ii) the limits within which the development 

and works may be carried out and any 

limits of deviation provided for in the 

draft order; 

PLANS 2.2 – 2.4 

(i) Plan 2.2 – 2.4 

APP DOC REF: 2.2 – 2.4 

Title: Works Plan 



Scale (1-2): 1:1250 

Scale (Key Plan): 1:3000 – Whilst 

smaller than 1:2500 this is 

considered acceptable for a Key 

Plan. 

Revision: No 

(ii) Plan 2.2 – 2.4 

Refer to the above 

As above, the CLG application form 

guidance makes it clear that it is 

acceptable for a plan to incorporate 

several issues, as long as there is 

sufficient clarity for each issue to be 

understood, and the plan and issues 

appropriately referenced throughout 

the application (para 6). The 

Secretariat considers this to be the 

case in this instance. 

(k) 

where applicable, a plan identifying any 

new or altered means of access, 

stopping up of streets or roads or any 

diversions, extinguishments or creation of 

rights of way or public rights of 

navigation; 

PLANS 2.11 & 2.26 - 2.29 


Title: Rights of Way Plan 


Author: LDA Design 

Scale: 1:2500 

Revision: No 


Title: Proposed Access Road Existing 

Footpath Width and Level Crossing 


Author: Waterman Boreham TP 

Scale: 1:500 

Revision: No 


Title: Proposed Access Road with 


6 of 22

Proposed 2.5m at Level Crossing 



Scale: 1:500 

Revision: no 


Title: Proposed Access to the 

Rookery Resource Facility 



Scale: 1:500 

Revision: No 

(l) 

(m) 

(n) 

where applicable, a plan with 

accompanying information identifying:- 

(i) any statutory/non-statutory sites/ 

features of nature conservation e.g. 

sites of geological/ landscape 

importance; 

(ii) habitats of protected species, important 

habitats or other diversity features; and 

(iii) water bodies in a river basin 

management plan, together with an 

assessment of any effects on such 

sites, features, habitats or bodies likely 

to be caused by the proposed 

development; 

where applicable, a plan with 

accompanying information identifying any 

statutory/non-statutory sites or features 

of the historic environment, (e.g. 

scheduled monuments, World Heritage 

sites, listed buildings, archaeological 

sites and registered battlefields) together 

with an assessment of any effects on 

such sites, features or structures likely to 

be caused by the proposed development; 

where applicable, a plan with any 

accompanying information identifying any 

Crown land; 


Title: Level Crossing – Group Plan 


Author: ARUP 

Scale: Varies 

Revision: No 


Application form (Box 16) refers to 

Report provided pursuant to 

Regulation 5(2)(q) – Document ref: 

4.1 which detail such sites and an 

assessment of the effects upon them. 

It states that there are no likely 

effects on the features listed and 

therefore the report is submitted 

under Reg 5(2) (q) rather than 5(2) 

(i). 

The report also cross references with 

Chapter 12 of the Environmental 

Statement which includes plans 

identifying relevant sites. As such, it 

is not necessary to duplicate them 

else where in the documentation. 


Application form (Box 17) refers to 

Report provided pursuant to 

Regulation 5(2)(q) – Document ref: 

4.3 which detail such sites and an 

assessment of the effects upon them. 

The report cross references with 

Chapter 11 of the Environmental 

Statement which includes plans 

identifying relevant sites. As such, it 

is not necessary to duplicate them 

elsewhere in the documentation. The 

applicant considers that the 

requirements of Reg 5(2)m are 

already met elsewhere in the 

application documents and that Reg 

5(2)m is not applicable in this case. 

However an assessment of the likely 

effects is set out separately in this 

report for ease of reference. 

PLAN 2.5 

Plan 2.5 and the accompanying 

information is contained in document 

reference 1.8 (book of 


7 of 22

eference)(pages 20 – 26) 


Title: Land Plan 



Scale: 1:2500 

Revision: no 

(o) 

any other plans, drawings and sections 

necessary to describe the development 

consent proposal showing details of 

design, external appearance, and the 

preferred layout of buildings/structures, 

drainage, surface water management, 

means of vehicular and pedestrian 

access, any car parking and landscaping; 

APP DOC REF 2.1, 2.12 to 25,30 to 

35 

2.1 Application Site/Order Limits 

2.12 EfW South Elevation 

2.13 EfW North Elevation 

2.14 EfW East Elevation 


2.16 EfW East Sectional Elevation 

2.17 EfW West Sectional Elevation 

2.18 Secondary Building Elevations 

2.19 RRF Tertiary Building Elevations 

2.20 RRF North and South 

Elevations 

2.21 RRF East and West Elevations 

2.22 RRF Site Sections 

2.23 RRF Boundary Details 

2.24 RRF Elevation and Section Key 

Plan 

2.25 RRF Roof Plan 

2.30 Lighting and Layout Strategy 

2.31 Landscape Strategy and Key 

Plans 

2.33 Planning Strategy Wider Site 

2.34 Operations area for Country 

Park and RRF Entrance 

2.35 Trees to be Removed/Retained 

(p) 

(q) 

any of the documents prescribed by 

Regulation 6 of the APFP Regulations. 

NB:- These are documents which are 

relevant to specific types of project. 

Important to confirm in each case the 

type of project and the relevant 

documents which must be included with 

the application in each case. 

any other documents considered 

necessary to support the application; and 

All the above plans meet the 

standards required (there are no 

revisions stated for this documents). 

The other plans listed in Box 23 of 

the application form are covered 

previously within this checklist (ie 2.2 

-2.4 are Works Plans (j), 2.5–2.10 

Land Plans (i) and 2.26 -2.29 are 

included within the access and rights 

of way plans (k)). 

The applicable regulation is 6 (a)(i) 

Statement of responsibility for the 

connection to the electricity grid – 

refer to 6.1 (figure 40 – proposed grid 

connection) and document reference 

1.10 (grid connection statement). 

The Secretariat considers that these 

documents have satisfactorily 

complied with the required standards. 

APP DOC REF 1.9, 1.11, 5.1 to 5.7, 

6.1 to 6.4 

1.9 – Statement of Engagement 

1.11 – Heads of Terms 

5.1 – Planning Statement 


8 of 22

5.2 – Alternative Site Assessment 

Report 

5.3 - Need Assessment 

5.4 – WRATE, Carbon and 

Efficiencies of Scale report 

5.5 – Economic Statement 

5.6 – Health Impact Assessment 

5.7 - Sustainability Statement 

6.1 – Design and Access Statement 

6.2 – Engineering Design Statement 

6.3 – Combined Heat and Power 

Development Strategy 

6.4 – Rail Feasibility Report 

The Secretariat considers that these 

documents have satisfactorily 

complied with the standards required. 

Also refer to the submissions noted 

under (l) and (m) referred to above. 

(r) 

if requested by the Commission, three 

paper copies of the application form and 

other supporting documents and plans. 

Yes, three copies provided of all 

application documents. 

- Regulation 5(3) requires that any plans, 

drawings or sections submitted under 

Regulation 5(2) shall be no larger than AO size, 

shall be drawn to an identified scale (not smaller 

than 1:2500) and, in the case of plans, shall 

show the direction of north. 

- It is not intended that information provided in 

other documents, such as any Environmental 

Statement submitted, should be duplicated. It is 

possible therefore to cross refer to the location 

of relevant information - see CLG Guidance on 

NSIP projects Application form guidance 

paragraphs 33 - 38. 

- LEGAL ADVICE should be sought if there is 

any uncertainty as to whether the plans etc. 

submitted are in compliance. 

The plans/drawings/sections required 

to be submitted under Reg 5(3) are 

no larger than AO size, are drawn to 

an identified scale not smaller than 

1:2500 and, for plans, show the 

direction north. The only two with a 

smaller scale are plans 2.2 (1:3500) 

and 2.6 (1:7500) but these are the 

key plans and are therefore the 

Secretariat considers these to be 

appropriate. 

For clarification the interpretation of 

Reg 5(3) is those plans, drawings or 

sections identified as such under Reg 

5(2) (eg a land plan (i) or a works 

plan(j)), and not any other plans that 

have been submitted as part of 

prescribed documents such as the 

Environmental Statement (a) or the 

Flood Risk Assessment (e). 

The appended tables D, E & F detail 

the particular plans, drawings or 

sections in relation to the Regulation 

5(3) requirements (along with the 

standards set out in IPC Guidance 

Note 2 (see below for further 

information). 

Regulation 5 (4) Where a plan comprises three 

or more separate sheets a key plan must be 

provided showing the relationship between the 

different sheets. 

Yes, key plans have been provided 

for plans 2.2 and 2.6 

These plans satisfactorily meet the 

Commissions standards. 

5. Commission Guidance Note No. 2 on the preparation of application documents gives guidance about how requirements under 

subsection (3) are to be complied with. CLG have also issued guidance ‘Planning Act 2008: Nationally significant infrastructure 

projects Application Form Guidance’ (September 2008). IPC Guidance Note 2 (in paragraphs 9,10, 11 and 12) sets the following 

minimal standards for all application documents:- 

Para. 9 Summaries of documents 

Summaries have been provided for 

all documents apart from: 

APP DOC REF 1.4 (Draft DCO), 


9 of 22

APP DOC REF 1.5 (Explanatory 

Memorandum), 


APP DOC REF 1.7 (Funding 

Statement), 

APP DOC REF 1.8 (Book of 

Reference), 


Engagement), 

APP DOC REF 1.11 (Heads of 

Terms). 

In relation to summaries, IPC 

Guidance Note 2 states that “it is 

important for the IPC to be able to 

quickly identify issues that will be 

both important and relevant to its 

decision…….It is therefore essential 

that each document includes a 

summary highlighting what in the 

applicant’s view such issues might 

be. This will assist all parties 

because these issues will be fed into 

the discussion to take place at the 

preliminary meeting….” 

The documents listed above, without 

summaries, are not documents that 

raise particular issues (e.g. 

environmental, social, economic) in 

the same way as the Environmental 

Statement or Flood Risk Assessment 

for example. These documents are 

also relatively short in length, more 

legalistic in their nature and are thus 

less suited to the need for a summary 

as set out in the IPC Guidance. All 

the submitted documents that do 

raise issues contain summaries 

relating to the issues. Therefore, the 

Secretariat does not considered that 

the lack of summaries, in these 

cases, is an issue that justifies not 

accepting the application. 

Para. 10 Format of documents: 

Paginated and paragraph numbered 

Clear title page to every document identifying: 

Yes 

Yes 

- The project Yes 

- Date of revision Yes. Where no date of revision is 

given it is assumed by the Secretariat 

that the document is the original 

version and that any further versions 

will subsequently include a date of 

revision. 

- Authors Yes 

In some cases, reports and 

plans/drawings/sections state the 

name of the consultancy responsible 

for producing it rather than an 

individually named author. It is our 

view that either the consultancy 

name or a named person is an 

acceptable interpretation of what is 

an ‘author’. In either case, the 

Secretariat considers that it is clear 

who the named person or 

consultancy is in producing a 


10 of 22

particular document. 

- Appropriate regulation 5(2) paragraph to 

which the document relates 

All documents over two A4 pages in length require 

Table of Contents setting out Chapter or topic 

headings 

Yes 

There is no contents page for APP 

DOC REF 1.11 (Heads of Terms). 

This is a short document that lists the 

proposed Heads of Terms and 

therefore does not lend itself to the 

requirement for contents to be listed. 

Plans must also be clearly labelled in the bottom right hand corner with: 

“title page” information (as set out above) 

A list of revisions and identification of version 

reference 

Yes 

Yes (where applicable) 

Where plans do not indicate a list of 

revisions and identification reference, 

it is assumed that the version 

submitted is the original version. Any 

further versions would subsequently 

be expected to include the 

appropriate reference. 

The appended tables (A, B and C) 

detail how particular documents and 

plans/drawings/sections have 

complied with the relevant standards 

in IPC Guidance Note 2 along with 

the Reg 5 (3) requirements. 

Para. 11 Copies and Media: 

3 paper copies of full application Yes 

A list of all of the application documents that 

accompany the prescribed form (Schedule 

2) 

10 DVD copies (in format to be agreed in 

advance with the IPC) 

Has the IPC requested additional paper 

copies? 

Has the IPC requested additional DVD 

copies? 

Yes (Application form and attached to 

covering letter) 

Yes (ten copies of additional DVDs 

received on 17 th August which 

include Figure 3.19 of the ES 

(proposed lighting strategy). These 

were omitted from the originally 

submitted DVD’s but were included 

within the original paper copies. 

No 

No, but refer to the above note re. the 

submission of amended DVDs. 

Para. 12 Consultation report 

Consultation Report: Application must be 

accompanied by the applicants consultation 

report prepared under s37(7) of the Act. The 

consultation report should draw together: 

An account of the statutory consultation, 

publicity, deadlines set and community 

consultation activities undertaken at preapplication 

under s42, 47 & 48 

APP DOC REF 7.1 AND 

APPENDICES (7.2) 

Yes, Ref.7.1 & 7.2 (7.2 comprising 

two volumes of appendices) 


The table in section 9.2 of 

Consultation Report (doc ref 7.1) 

refers to the relevant sections of 

consultation report which go onto 

describe the pre-application activity 

for each statutory requirement. The 

Secretariat is of the view that these 

references satisfactorily refer to the 

pre-application requirements carried 

out under s42, 47 & 48. 

It is noted that the Consultation 


11 of 22

Report also includes details of the 

non statutory consultation that took 

place beforehand forming an integral 

part of the applicant’s iterative 

approach to consultation including 

mailings, exhibitions/drop in 

sessions, stakeholder groups, the 

internet and meetings. 

A summary of the relevant responses to the 

separate strands of consultation 

These have been grouped within 

issue specific headings for each 

phase of consultation, including both 

statutory and non-statutory 

consultation. Including: 

Para 8.2.7 – Summary of main issues 

raised through non-prescribed 

consultation. 

Para 8.3.1 – Summary of public 

responses received (Jan to July 

2010). This includes responses to 

s47 consultation and those received 

before this. Appendix 42 sets out a 

full list of these. 

Para 8.3.5 – Summary of responses 

to s42 highlighting the principle 

issues that were raised. 

Para 8.4.12-17 – Summary of written 

responses received at or following 

exhibitions. 

Appendix 52 – Full feedback from 

2010 exhibitions 

Appendix 58 – Further consultation 

carried out as a result of grid 

connection changes. 

Account taken of responses in developing the 

application from proposal to final form, as 

required by s49(2). 

S492(2) requires that the applicant 

must, when deciding whether the 

application that the applicant is 

actually to make should be in the 

same terms as the proposed 

application, have regard to any 

relevant responses. 

CLG Guidance on pre-application 

consultation (para 89) acknowledges 

that promoters and consultees will 

not always agree about whether or 

how particular impacts should be 

mitigated. Therefore, providing the 

IPC is able to conclude that the 

promoter has acted reasonably, the 

IPC is not expected to decide that 

pre-application consultation was 

inadequate on the basis that 

particular impacts had not been 

mitigated to a particular extent. 

The applicant’s response to 

consultation under s49 is set out in 

the Consultation Report (section 7.5, 

7.6, 7.7, 8.2, 8.3, 8.4, 8.7, 8.8 & 9.7). 

These references are supplemented 

be additional details within the 

Consultation Report appendices. 

The Consultation Report summarises 

the ‘main’ or ‘principle’ issues that 

arose from the applicant’s 

consultation and goes onto to outline 

how the responses have influenced 

the project, or where this is not 

possible, a justification of why this is 

so. For example, the report has 


12 of 22

detailed how the design has been 

influenced by consultation but also 

that some consultees have 

expressed concern at the resulting 

changes made, with an explanation 

provided of why the changes were 

made. This includes summaries and 

the results of both consultation with 

prescribed consultees and 

consultation carried out with the local 

community and other relevant 

stakeholder groups. 

Details are included within the 

Consultation Report of both iterative 

statutory and non statutory 

consultation (the application was 

originally proposed to be submitted to 

DEC before the implementation of 

the Planning Act 2008) carried out by 

the applicant and how the scheme 

has responded to the consultation 

responses. 

The report also highlights where 

additional information has been 

prepared to support the application 

following the receipt of consultation 

responses (e.g. a Health Impact 

Assessment seeking to address 

concerns on emissions, and 

photomontages to demonstrate the 

scale of the proposed buildings within 

the landscape.) 

It is recognised that the Consultation 

Report does not detail every single 

representation that has been 

received or the response made to 

each individual response, nor is it 

necessarily always the case that the 

summary of each meeting is agreed 

by all participants. However, in the 

Secretariat’s judgement, the report 

appears to provide an accurate 

summary of main issues that have 

been raised in representations, how 

the scheme has been developed as a 

result, or where it has not resulted in 

a change, a clear explanation of why 

this is so. 

It is also noted that the responses 

have not been categorised as 

recommended in Para 13 of IPC 

Guidance Note 2, but the reasons for 

doing so, based on the iterative 

consultation process carried out by 

the applicant, are accepted as being 

reasonable. 

The adequacy of consultation 

response from Bedford Borough 

Council makes reference to a formal 

consultation response not being 

reported in the applicant’s 

Consultation Report. There is no firm 

evidence to suggest that this has, or 

has not been received by the 

applicant, but the Consultation 

Report details iterative consultation, 

including meetings, with Bedford 

Borough Council throughout the preapplication 

process. The Secretariat 

is of the view that, whilst this is some 

doubt about a particular response, it 

is clear that the views of Bedford 

Borough Council were able to be 


13 of 22

provided to the applicant throughout 

the course of the pre-application 

consultation process and that there 

are not sufficient grounds for not 

accepting the application on this 

basis. 

The Secretariat concludes that taking 

into account the information 

available, including the applicant’s 

Consultation Report, the applicant 

has acted reasonably in how it has 

taken account of responses received 

to pre-application consultation. 

c) That development consent is required for any of the application development (is it required?) 

- Consent is required for development to the 

extent that the development is or forms part of a 

nationally significant infrastructure project 

(NSIP) (s.31) 

- What constitutes a NSIP is defined generally in 

s.15 with the detailed thresholds for each of the 

specified categories being set out in sections 

14-30 of the Act 

The proposal as described falls within 

s14(1) (a) and 15(b) of the Act. The 

proposal is for an on shore 

generating stating which has a 

capacity of more than 50 megawatts. 

Also refer to the comments provided 

in relation to the draft DCO above 

(list of prescribed documents). 

- The meaning of development is given in s.32 of 

the Act. 

NB: LEGAL ADVICE should be sought if there is any 

uncertainty as to whether the application is for a 

proposed NSIP development. 

d) That the application gives reasons for any IPC guidance (under 37(4)) not followed 

Para.13 of IPC Guidance Note 2 dealing with the applicant’s Consultation Report, and paras.1-8 and 14-32 of IPC Guidance Note 2, are 

guidance rather than standards. 

Para.13 - A list of the individual responses 

received should be provided and categorised in 

an appropriate way (grouped and in accordance 

with the SoCC produced under s.47). The list 

should also be split and sorted according to 

comments that have led to changes /no 

changes and responses received after the 

deadline set by the promoter 

Para 9.3.1 of covering letter 

explains.. ‘Whilst this has been 

possible to some extent, and the 

Consultation Report reveals this, 

Covanta’s iterative consultation 

approach is also set out and is not 

suitable for this type of 

approach…….’. 

IPC Guidance Note 2 is issued under 

s37 and notes that applicants should 

have regard to it under s50 of the PA 

2008. Reasons have been given by 

the applicant in its covering letter 

dated 4 August 2010 submitted with 

the application for departure from 

guidance in a number of areas, all of 

which are considered by the 

Secretariat to provide justification for 

the departure described. 

There are no reasons given for 

departure from guidance that the 

draft order should contain all 

provisions necessary (paragraph 16 

IPC Guidance Note 2) in particular in 

respect of the omission of protective 

provisions in Schedule 7. The 

Secretariat is of the opinion that it 

would be unreasonable to reject the 

application on the basis that a reason 

had not been given on this matter. 

This view is based in part of the fact 

that inclusion of such provisions 

during the examination of the 

application would not materially alter 

the proposal before the Commission; 

it is also relevant that such provisions 


14 of 22

would constrain rather than permit 

development. 

e) That the applicant in relation to the application made has complied with Chapter 2 of Part 5 (pre-application procedure) 

s42: Duty to Consult 

a) persons prescribed (set out in Schedule 1 of 

the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: 

Prescribed Forms and Procedure) 

Regulations 2009. 

These are listed in consultation report 

appendix (APP DOC REF 7.2 

Appendix 34) 

All relevant prescribed consultees are 

stated as having been consulted. 

b) each local authority (defined in s43) The list of local authorities consulted 

are listed in APP DOC REF 7.2 

Appendix 35. 

All local authorities (A and B as 

defined in s43 are stated as having 

been consulted). Refer to the boxes 

under s43 below for a list of these. 

c) Greater London Authority (if in Greater 

London area) 

d) each person in one or more of s44 

categories 

Not applicable 

A list of those consulted under s44 is 

contained in APP DOC REF 7.2 

Appendices 30 and 58. 

The applicant’s approach to 

landowner consultation is set out in 

APP DOC REF 7.1 Section 7.5. 

When development is EIA development a 

person who proposes to make an application for 

an order granting development consent must, 

before carrying out consultation under section 

42 (duty to consult) either – 

(a) Request the Commission to adopt a 

screening opinion in respect of the 

development to which the application relates; 

or 

(b) Notify the Commission in writing that the 

person proposes to provide an 

environmental statement in respect of that 

development 

a) Not applicable 

b) This notification was provided to 

the Commission at the same time 

along with the applicant’s formal 

request for a Scoping Opinion. A 

copy of this letter does not appear to 

have been provided within the 

Consultation Report or its 

appendices, but a copy of the letter 

received by the Commission and 

associated correspondence has been 

appended to the checklist (Appendix 

G). 

Was a request made prior to consultation made 

under section 42? 

Was notification given in writing prior to 

consultation under section 42? 

s43: Local Authorities for the purposes of section 

42(b) 

1) application land is in the authority’s area (is this 

identified?) 

If identified name of authority(s): 

....………………………………………………… 

…………………………………………………… 

…………………………………………………… 

…………………………………………………… 

Yes, the request was received in 

December 2009, whilst the s42 

consultation commenced in February 

2010. 

Yes, the notification was provided in 

December 2009, whilst the s42 

consultation commenced in February 


Yes, these are set out in APP DOC 

REF 7.2 Appendix 35. 

Yes 

Bedford Borough Council 

Central Bedfordshire Council 


15 of 22

…………………………………………………… 

2) a local authority (“A”) is within this section if 

a) the application land is in the area of another 

local authority (“B”) and 

b) any part of the boundary of A’s area is also a 

part of the boundary of B’s area 

Luton Borough Council (A) 

Cambridge County Council (A) 

Northamptonshire County Council (A) 

North Herts District Council (A) 

South Cambridgeshire District 

Council (A) 

St Albans City & District Council (A) 

Hertfordshire County Council (A) 

Dacorum Borough Council (A) 

Aylesbury Vale District Council (A) 

Buckinghamshire County Council (A) 

Huntingdonshire District Council (A) 

East Northamptonshire Council (A) 

Borough Council of Wellingborough 

(A) 

Milton Keynes Council (A) 

s44: Categories for purposes of section 42(d) 

1) Category 1 – known owner, lessee, tenant or 

occupier of land 

These are listed in App Doc Ref 7.2 

Appendix 30. Also refer to page 129 

of App Doc Ref 7.1 (Consultation 

Report). 

The applicant’s approach to 

landowner consultation is set out in 

App Doc Ref 7.1 Section 7.5. 

2) Category 2 

a) Known person interested in the land These are provided within APP DOC 

REF 7.2 Appendices 31 & 33. The 

approach taken is set out in the 

Consultation Report (APP DOC REF 

7.1 (paragraphs 7.5.5 – 7.5.6). 

In the Consultation report paragraph 

7.5.5, it refers to the database 

(appendix 30) which lists all 

landowners and those with rights 

over land. S44(1) of the act also 

refers to lessees and tenants which 

aren’t mentioned in the report. 

Covanta did, however, obtain their 

information from HM Land Registry 

and Companies House. It is 

assumed, therefore, that there are no 

lessees and tenants applicable in this 

case. 

b) Has power: 

For both Category 1 and Category 2 

consultees, based upon the 

information provided in the 

application, the applicant appears to 

have gone to reasonable lengths to 

identify the relevant parties. 

i. to sell and convey the land: or Referred to in APP DOC REF 7.2 

Appendix 31. 

ii. to release the land Referred to in APP DOC REF 7.2 

Appendix 31. 

s45: Timetable for Consultation under section 42 

1) notification to person(s) under section 42 of 

deadline for receipt of response to consultation 

(check if notification apparent?) 

APP DOC REF 7.2 Appendix 36 

Letter sent on 18 February 2010 with 

a deadline for responses of 5 April 


16 of 22


2) deadline under 1 must not be earlier than 28 

days starting the day after receipt of the 

consultation documents (check period given 28 

days or over?) 

3) consultation documents mean those supplied by 

the applicant for the purpose of consultation 

(check that documents were stated to be 

supplied?) 

Yes, period given was over 28 days 

(applicant gave 45 days) 

The documents supplied were the 

Preliminary Environmental Report 

and Non Technical Summary 

(Referred to in letter contained within 

APP DOC REF 7.2 Appendix 36) 

s46: Duty to notify Commission of proposed application 

1) Did the applicant supply information to notify 

Commission of proposed application? 

2) Was the information sent to the Commission the 

same as that sent to the s.42 consultees? 

3) did notification under (1) above take place prior 

to consultation under s42?; or 

did it fall under transitional arrangements? 

Yes, letter contained within APP 

DOC REF 7.2 Appendix 57 

Yes, set out in letter referred to 

above. 

Yes, s46 notification 18 February 

2010 and s42 19 February 2010 

s47: Duty to consult local community 

1) Applicant must prepare statement on how it 

intends to consult people living in the vicinity of 

the land (has statement been prepared?) 

Yes, APP DOC REF 7.1 page 123 

If the application is for EIA development the 

consultation statement requirements set out in 

Regulation 10 of The Infrastructure Planning 

(Environmental Impact Assessment) 

Regulations 2009 SI No. 2263 require that: 

10. The consultation statement prepared under 

section 47 (duty to consult local community) 

must set out: 

(a) whether the development for which the 

applicant proposes to make an application 

for an order granting development consent 

is EIA development; and (is it?) 

(b) if that development is EIA development, 

how the applicant intends to publicise and 

consult on the preliminary environmental 

information. (is this evident?) 

Yes, refer to APP DOC REF 7.1 page 

123 

Yes, is set out in the SOCC referred 

to above. 

2) Before preparing the statement under (1) above the applicant must consult each local authority, defined in s43(1) about what is to 

be in the statement: 

Was the consultation undertaken before the 

preparation of the statement? 

Were all authorities defined in s43 (1) 

consulted? 

3) Receipt by applicant of a local authority’s 

response to consultation under (2) above, within 

28 days of receipt of the consultation documents 

(was this done?) 

Yes, APP DOC REF 7.1 pages 118 

and 119 

Yes, Bedford Borough Council and 


APP DOC REF 7.1 pages 118 and 

119. Also refer to Appendix 23 of 

Consultation Report (APP DOC REF 

7.1) 

4) In (3) above “the consultation documents” means the documents supplied to the local authority under (2) above 

5) Once statement prepared it must be published 

a. In a newspaper circulating in the vicinity of 

the land, and 

Yes, refer to APP DOC REF 7.1 page 

121 – Bedfordshire Times and 

Citizen & Bedfordshire on Sunday. 

b. In such other manner as may be prescribed No such other manner has been 

prescribed. 

6) Applicant must carry out consultation in 

accordance with the proposals set out in the 

The Consultation Report sets out 

how the applicant how the applicant 


17 of 22

statement (is this evident?) 

has complied with the SOCC (Para 

7.2.10). 

The adequacy of consultation 

representations received from local 

authorities do not, in the secretariat’s 

view, raise such concerns that would 

lead to a conclusion that the 

applicant has not adequately carried 

out the proposals for consultation as 

set out in the SOCC. 

s48: Pre-application duty to publicise the proposed application 

1) Applicant must publicise the proposed 

application in the prescribed form as set out in 

Regulation 4 of the APFP Regulations (has this 

been done? See responses set out under 

regulation 4 below) 

Yes, refer to APP DOC REF 7.1 

(Page 125 Para 7.2.9). 

Published in the Bedfordshire Times 

and Citizen (two consecutive weeks), 

The Times and the London Gazette 

(Copies within Appendix 24 of App 

Doc Ref 7.2) 

2) Under Regulation 11 of The Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2009 (SI No. 2263) where the 

proposed application is an application for EIA development, the applicant must, at the same time as publishing notice of the 

proposed application under section 48(1), send a copy of that notice to the consultation bodies and to any person notified to the 

applicant in accordance with regulation 9(1)(c). 

Has a copy of the consultation notice been sent 

to the EIA consultation bodies? 

Yes, on 18 th February 2010 (Refer to 

Appendix 36 of APP DOC REF 7.2) 

4. – (2) The applicant must publish a notice, which must include the matters prescribed by paragraph (3) of this regulation, of the 

proposed application – 

(a) 

for at least two successive weeks 

in one or more local newspapers 

circulating in the vicinity in which 

the proposed development would 

be situated; 

Yes, 18 and 25 February 2010 in the 

Bedford and Times and Citizen 

(Refer to Appendix 24 of APP DOC 

REF 7.2). 

(b) once in a national newspaper; Yes, 19 February 2010 in The Times 

Consultation Report (Refer to 

Appendix 24 of APP DOC REF 7.2). 

(c) 

(d) 

once in the London Gazette and, if 

land in Scotland is affected, the 

Edinburgh Gazette; and 

where the proposed application 

relates to offshore development – 

Yes, 19 February 2010 in the London 

Gazette. (Refer to Appendix 24 of 

APP DOC REF 7.2). 


(i) once in Lloyds List; and 

(ii) once in an appropriate fishing 

trade journal. 


(3) The matters which the notice must 

include are – 

Refer to APP DOC REF 7.2 

Appendix 24 

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

(d) 

(e) 

the name and address of the 

applicant; 

a statement that the applicant 

intends to make an application for 

development consent to the 

Commission; 

a statement as to whether the 

application is EIA development; 

a summary of the main proposals, 

specifying the location or route of 

the proposed development; 

a statement that the documents, 

plans and maps showing the 

nature and location of the 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 


18 of 22

(f) 

(g) 

(h) 

(i) 

proposed development are 

available for inspection free of 

charge at the places (including at 

least one address in the vicinity of 

the proposed development) and 

times set out in the notice; 

the latest date on which those 

documents, plans and maps will 

be available for inspection (being a 

date not earlier than the deadline 

in sub-paragraph (i)); 

whether a charge will be made for 

copies of any of the documents, 

plans or maps and the amount of 

any charge; 

details of how to respond to the 

publicity; and 

a deadline for receipt of those 

responses by the applicant, being 

not less than 28 days following the 

date when the notice is last 

published. 

Yes, 5 April 2010 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes, 5 April 2010 

3) Regulations must make provision for a deadline for receipt by the applicant of responses to publicity 

Regulation 4(3)(i) as set out above 

s49: Duty to take account of responses to consultation and publicity 

1) Subsection (2) applies where the applicant 

(a) Has complied with sections 42, 47 and 

48, and 

(b) Proposes to go ahead with making an 

application (whether or not in the same 

terms as the proposed application) 

2) Applicant must have regard to any relevant 

responses (is this evident?) NB: See Part 2 

Advice Note for Commissioner for guidance on 

this. 

Iterative process as summarised 

within the Consultation Report and 

appendices. 

3) In (2) above relevant response means: 

a. From a person consulted under section 42 received before the deadline imposed by section 45 in that person’s case 

b. response to consultation under section 47(7) received before the deadline imposed in accordance with the statement 

prepared under section 47, or 

(c) response to publicity under section 48 received by the applicant before the deadline imposed in accordance with section 

48(2) in relation to that publicity 

4) Those Local Authorities consulted by the applicant under s.42 may make representations about whether they consider the 

applicant has complied with its consultation and publicity duties under sections 42, 47 and 48. The Local Authorities in question are 

both those in which the proposed application site is situated and neighbouring authorities. 

Have all relevant local authorities made such 

representations? 

NB: The Commission must have regard to such 

representations when deciding whether or not 

to accept the application. LEGAL ADVICE may 

need to be taken on this. 

Adequacy of consultation responses 

have been received from the 

following local authorities: 


Bedford Borough Council 

East Northamptonshire Council 

Aylesbury Vale District Council 

St Albans City & District Council 

Huntingdonshire District Council 

Buckinghamshire County Council 

Copies of each response are 

appended to this checklist (Appendix 

H). 

In general, after carefully reviewing 

each of the responses, whilst several 

comments have been made in 

relation to specific areas of the pre- 


19 of 22

application consultation, no 

significant concerns have been 

raised about whether the applicant 

has adequately complied with its 

consultation and publicity duties 

under sections 42, 47 and 48, such 

that they are considered to warrant 

grounds for non-acceptance. 

The response from Central 

Bedfordshire Council highlights 

concerns raised by Parish Council’s 

(for example Apsley Guise) outside of 

the agreed 5km consultation area 

that they feel the applicant has not 

sufficiently consulted them and 

addressed their concerns (generally 

traffic routing and air emissions). It is 

noted that Apsley Guise Parish 

Council is not a prescribed s42 

consultee and that the 5km 

consultation area was agreed with 

Central Bedfordshire Council as part 

of the consultation on the Statement 

of Community Consultation. It will 

also be a matter for the examination 

to consider any effects of the 

proposal beyond the area considered 

for consultation. 

The responses from Bedford 

Borough Council and Central 

Bedfordshire Council make particular 

representations giving their views on 

whether they consider that the 

applicant has had regard to the 

responses received to the 

consultation in the development of 

the final scheme. CLG Guidance on 

Pre-Application Procedure makes it 

clear that any adequacy of 

consultation representation must be 

about how the promoter has carried 

out the consultation, and may not be 

about how the promoter has had 

regard to responses to consultation 

(Para 39). 

All other representations have been 

carefully considered and, along with 

the evidence contained in the 

application documentation, have 

been taken into account in the 

Secretariat’s conclusion that the 

applicant has complied with its preapplication 

duties set out with 

Chapter 2 of Part 5 of the Act (preapplication 

procedure). 

5) s50: Guidance about pre-application procedure 

1) Guidance may be issued by the Commission or the Secretary of State 

IPC Guidance Note 1 on Pre-application stages (Chapter 2 of the Planning Act 2008 – 7 th December 2009 and CLG Guidance, The 

Planning Act 2008: Guidance on pre-application consultation 

IPC Guidance Note 1 on Pre-application stages 

(Chapter 2 of the Planning Act 2008 – Revision 1 

29 March 2010 and CLG Guidance, The Planning 

Act 2008: Guidance on pre-application consultation 

The applicant must have regard to any guidance 

under this section (is this evident?) Legal advice 

should be taken on this where there is any 

doubt. 

The secretariat is satisfied that the 

applicant has appropriately 

demonstrated that it has had regard 

to both IPC Guidance Note 1 on Preapplication 

stages and CLG 

Guidance, the Planning Act 2008: 

Guidance on pre-application 

consultation. 

IPC Guidance Note 1 (para 9) 


20 of 22

encourages applicants to submit draft 

application and supporting 

documents. The IPC received an 

earlier copy of the draft DCO 

although draft copies of other 

supporting documents were not 

provided. It is noted, however, from 

the covering letter accompanying the 

application that draft copies of some 

supporting documents were provided 

to Central Bedfordshire and Bedford 

Borough Councils and other 

information was also shared with 

relevant consultees. 

The applicants covering letter also 

acknowledges that the Preliminary 

Environmental Information was still in 

preparation at the time of the SOCC 

consultation under s47(2), but that 

sufficient information on the project 

was nonetheless available to ensure 

a good understanding of the project. 

The Secretariat considers the 

justification provided to be acceptable 

for a departure from the guidance in 

para 12 of IPC Guidance Note 1. 

Both IPC Guidance Note 1 and CLG 

Guidance on Pre-Application 

Consultation acknowledge that, 

within the bounds of the legislative 

requirements, there are various ways 

for applicants to fulfil their statutory 

pre-application obligations. The 

Secretariat considers that the 

applicant has demonstrated in the 

consultation report that its preapplication 

consultation has been 

carried out to accord with both the 

guidance and statutory requirements. 

The Secretariat concludes that the 

applicant has had due regard to the 

stated guidance and has acted 

reasonably in its approach to the preapplication 

consultation and process. 

IPC Guidance Note 2 on Preparation of application 

documents under s37 of the Planning Act 2008 – 7 

December 2009. 

The applicant must have regard to any guidance 

under this section (is this evident?) Legal advice 

should be taken on this where there is any 

doubt. 

Although there are some examples in 

the application documents of a failure 

to comply with IPC Guidance Note 2 

in some areas (noted in the BDB 

advice attached), the Secretariat 

considers that these are relatively 

minor issues and would not prejudice 

the examination of the application. 

For this reason, the Secretariat is of 

the view that application is 

acceptable with regard to compliance 

with s50 as it affects production of 

the application documents. 

The Infrastructure Planning (Fees) Regulations 2010 (SI106) 

Fees to accompany an application 

5. – (1) The Commission must charge the applicant a fee in respect of the decision by the Commission under section 55 .If the 

applicant fails to pay the fee, the Commission need not consider the application until payment is received by the Commission. 

2) The fee payable is presently £4,500 (has this 

been paid?) 

The fee must be paid at the same time that the 

Yes 

It was transferred prior to submission 


21 of 22

application is made (has it?) 

4) What date was the fee received on and 

confirmed as bankable? 

……………………………………………………… 

of the application. 

29 th July 2010 (CHAPS transfer) 

Commissioner’s Conclusions: 

I have reviewed the complete range of documents submitted as the application dated 4 August 2010 for development consent for the 

Resource Recovery Facility at Rookery South. In so doing, I have concentrated particularly on the application form, the draft DCO, 

Explanatory Memorandum, Statement of Reasons, the Environmental Statement, Planning Statement, Economic Statement and the 

Consultation Report. I have done so in the context of the criteria for acceptance under S.55 of the Planning Act, the APFP Regulations and 

the IPC Guidance Note No.2, bearing in mind that the decision at this stage is whether the application is sufficiently clear in what is being 

requested and complete the terms of the supporting documentation to enable it to be satisfactorily examined. 

The main issues I identified initially as significant in deciding whether the application should be accepted are: 

1. Whether the proposed MRF and visitors centre constitute legitimate associated development. 

2. The relationship between LLRS awaiting approval by the two Local Planning Authorities and the base line for the application 

submitted to the IPC. 

3. Whether the elements of other associated development set out at 5(c) of the application form are precisely described in the 

application documents. 

4. The precise role of the covering letter which states it is the application; plainly it is not, though it does explain why the IPC Guidance 

Notes 1 and 2 have not been followed in certain instances. 

5. The failure to provide with the application the necessary certificates of authorisation from the Secretary of State covering the 

compulsory acquisition of special category land. 

6. The wide powers being sought in the draft DCO covering maintenance of the authorised project and to override easements and 

other rights. 

7. How much of the land needed for the authorised project is actually in the control of the applicant. 

[Redacted] 

I have looked in detail at the adequacy of consultation as one of the key requirements of acceptance, both the Consultation Report 

submitted as part of the application and particularly the responses to it by the local authorities as required during this stage of the process. 

Central Bedfordshire and Bedford Borough Councils have concluded in similar terms that Covanta have undertaken pre application 

consultation to reach stakeholders, members of the public and local organisations. Central Bedfordshire consider this to be extensive and 

comprehensive. However, it is not possible for either local authority to assess the extent of effectiveness of that consultation until they see 

the full application documents. 

I have considered the detailed assessment of the application documents covered in the Secretariat’s Comments in this checklist and 

conclude on this point that the applicant has complied with the requirements of Chapter 2 Part 5 of the Act. 

My assessment of the application documents is that they are in general coherently presented and intelligible. I have noted a number of 

errors and inconsistencies in the application form, the draft DCO and EM, but in my view they do not warrant rejection of the application 

under the tests S.55 and the Regulations require to be met. 

My conclusion is that taken in the round, the application documents meet the submission requirements of the Regulations, and that the 

consultation requirements of the Act have been met. The two main issues in the application which concern me regarding acceptance, i.e. 

the MRF and visitor centre as associated development and the LLRS as the baseline for the application, together with the other issues I 

identified initially, i.e. 3 – 7 above, I conclude can be explored during the examination stage and are not fatal so as to preclude acceptance 

of the application. My decision therefore is that the application for a DCO for a Resource Recovery Facility at Rookery South is accepted 

for examination by the IPC. 

Paul Hudson 

Commissioner 

26 August 2010 


22 of 22

APPENDIX B 

EIA REVIEW CRITERIA 

Page 1 of 3

PLANNING ACT 2008 SECTION 55 ACCEPTANCE OF APPLICATIONS 

EIA REVIEW CRITERIA 

Name of Project: Rookery South 

Ref No. 

EN010011 

Date 24 August 2010 

Reviewer S Twidle 

Does the document(s) described as an 

Environmental Statement meet the 

requirements? 

*Explanation of why the ES does not meet the minimum 

requirements n/a 

Does the ES include the screening or scoping 

opinion? 

Scoping Opinion requested by letter 22 December 2009 

Mandatory elements required within the 

Environmental Statement 

(based on Part 2 of Schedule 4) 

A description of the development comprising 

information on the: 

Yes 

Yes 

Included 

- site Yes see 

section 2 

- design and Yes see 

section 3 

- size of the development Yes see 

sections 

3/4 

A description of the measures envisaged in order 

to: 

- avoid 

- reduce and 

- if possible, remedy significant adverse effects 

The data required to identify and assess the main 

effects which the development is likely to have on 

the environment 

An outline of the main alternatives studied by the 

applicant and an indication of the main reasons 

of the applicant's choice, taken into account the 

environmental effects 

A non-technical summary of the information 

provided under paragraphs above 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes see 

section 6 

Yes 

No* 

No 

Not included 

Page 2 of 3

Where a scoping opinion has been given, list 

key issues identified 

Scale of the proposals 

Establish a consistent and robust baseline 

Consideration of alternatives 

Potential traffic impacts 

Potential emissions 

Noise methodology 

Potential visual impacts 

Was either a screening opinion requested or the 

Commission notified that an ES would be 

provided? (Reg 6 EIA Regs) 

Included 

Yes see 

section 3 

Yes 

Note 

reliance on 

the Low 

Level 

Restoration 

Scheme 

see para 

2.6 

Yes 

section 6 

Yes 

section 7 

Yes 

section 8 

Yes 

section 9 

Yes 

section 10 

Yes** 

Not included 

No 

**Email sent from IPC 30 Dec 2009 confirming IPC has 

assumed Reg 6 1b notification based upon ref to provision of 

ES in scoping request letter 

Page 3 of 3

Appendix C 

Reports against Standards 

Ref# Title Page Author Date of Paragraphed and Contents Page Summary 

Revision paginated 

3.1 ES Volume 1 x 



3.4 Non-Technical x 

Summary 

1.4 Development x 

Consent Order 

1.5 Explanatory x x 

Memorandum 

1.8 Book of Reference x 

4.4 Flood Risk 

 

Assessment 

1.9 Statement of x 

Engagement 

4.2 Report as to effects x 

on European Sites 

1.6 Statement of x 

Reasons 

1.7 Funding Statement x x 

4.3 Historic 

 

Environment Report 

4.1 Report on Natural 

Features 

6.1 Design and Access

Statement 

1.11 Heads of Terms 

5.1 Planning Statement 

5.2 Alternative Site 

Assessment Report 

5.3 Need Assessment 

5.4 WRATE, Carbon 

and Efficiencies Report 

5.5 Economic 

 

Statement 

5.6 Health Impact 

Assessment 

5.7 Sustainability 

Assessment 

6.2 Engineering Design 

Statement 

6.3 Combined Heat and 

Power Development 

Strategy 

6.4 Rail Feasibility 

Report 

1.10 Grid Connection x 

Statement 

6.5 Transport 

 

Assessment 

6.6 Travel Plan 

7.1 Consultation Report

Appendix D 

Table to show Standards and Regulations for Key Plans 

Ref # 

Scale: 

Ticked if under 

1:2500 

List of 

revisions: 

North Scale Bar Title Paper 

Size 

2.5 Land Plan X 

2.6 Extinguishments of 1:7,500 X 

Rights Key Plan 

2.7 Extinguishments of X 

Rights (1 of 4) 







2.2 Works Plan Key 1:3,000 X 

Plan 

2.3 Works Plan (1 of 2) X 

2.4 Work Plan (2 of 2) X 

2.11 Rights of Way Plan X 

2.26 Proposed Access 

Road 

2.27 Access Road with 

Footpath 

2.28 Proposed access 

to resource facility 

X 

X 

X

2.29 Level Crossing X 

2.1 Application 

X 

Site/Order Limits 

2.12 EfW South 

Elevation 

2.13 EfW North 

Elevation 



2.16 EfW East Sectional 

Elevation 

2.17 EfW West 

Sectional Elevation 

2.18 Secondary 

Building Elevations 

2.19 RRF Tertiary 

Building Elevations 

2.20 RRF North and 

South Elevations 

2.21 RRF East and 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X

West Elevations 

2.22 RRF Site Sections 

2.23 RRF Boundary 

Details 

2.24 RRF Elevation and 

Section Key Plan 

2.25 RRF Roof Plan 

2.30 Lighting and 

Layout Strategy 

2.31 Landscape 

Strategy and Key Plans 

2.33 Planning Strategy 

Wider Site 

2.34 Operations area 

for Country Park and 

RRF Entrance 

2.35 Trees to be 

Removed/Retained 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X

Appendix E 

Plans within the Environmental Statement and Flood Risk Assessment against standards and regulations 

* All plans tend to have a status (eg Preliminary, information, Final0 Rather than revision/version No.) 

Ref # 

Code of 

Construction 

Fig 2.1 

Code of 

Construction 

Fig 13.1 

Code of 

Construction 

13.2 

Scale 

NTS: Not to 

scale. 

Version: 

List of 

revisions: 

North 

(Y/N) 

Scale Bar 

(Y/N) 

App Doc Ref 3.3 ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT Volume III Part 1 Plans 

1:50,000 TS N N N N Y 

NTS N N Y Y Y 

NTS N N Y Y Y 

APP 5.2 - 3.1 1:2000 Y Y Y N Y 

5.2 fig 8.7 1:7500 N N Y Y Y 

5.2 fig 126 1:1250 N Y Y Y Y 

Figure 1 1:25000 TS N N Y N Y 



Figure 4 Not defined N N Y Y Y 

5.3 

App Doc Ref 3.3 ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT Volume III Part 2 Plans 

Ref # Scale Version: List of North Scale Bar Title: 

Title:


revisions: (Y/N) (Y/N) 

scale. 

App 13 Fig 1 1:50000 VERSION 1 N/A Y Y Y 

Fig 2 1:10000 N Y N N Y 

Fig 3 1:25000 TS VERSION 1 N/A Y N Y 

Fig 6 NTS Y Y Y Y Y 

Fig 7 NTS Y Y N/A N Y 

Fig 8 NTS VERSION 1 N/A N/A N Y 

201 1:500 N N Y Y Y 

203 1:500 N N Y Y Y 

202 1:500 N N Y Y Y 

126 1:1250 Y Y Y Y Y 

DISC: 1:2500 N/A (Historic N/A (historic Y Y Y 

Envirocheck 

Rpt & 

Historical 

Maps 

Maps) Maps) 

(No fig no – 1:2500 N/A N/A N N “Stewartby 

Plastic wallet) 

Gary’s (Surface 

water sampling 

locations) 

App 13.3: 

Figure 1 – site 

plan. 

App 13.3: 

Figure 2. 

App 13.3: 

Figure 3. 

Estate” 

1:10,000 N N N N Y 

1:50,000. N N N N Y 

1:10,000 N N N N Y 

1:25,000 N/A N/A Y N Y

App 13.3: 1:2500 1 N/A Y N Y 

Figure 4. 

App 13.3, App 1:2000 Y Y Y N Y 

1. Drawing 3.1. 

201 1:500 N N Y Y Y 

203 1:500 N N Y Y Y 

202 1:500 N N Y Y Y 

126 1:1250 Y Y Y Y Y 

App 13.3 – 1:5000 N/A N/A Y N Y 

App5 SK.1 

App 13.3 – 1:1250 N/A N/A N N Y 

App 8 SK.1 

App 13.3 App 1:500 N N N N Y 

9 SK.1 

Technical Note 1:5000 N/A N/A Y N Y 

SK02 

App Doc Ref 3.4 ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT Executive Summary 

Fig 1.1 1:150000 N N Y Y Y 

2.1 1:120000 N N Y Y Y 

2.2 1:50000 N N Y Y Y 

3.1 NTS N N Y N Y 

3.2 1:1000 N N N N Y 

3.3 1:5000 N N N N Y 

3.4 NTS N N Y Y Y 

3.5 1:10000 N N Y Y Y 

App Doc Ref 3.1 ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT – Volume 1. 

Ref # Scale 


scale. 

Version: List of 

revisions: 

North 

(Y/N) 

Scale Bar 

(Y/N) 

Title, Version, 

Revisions.

Fig 1.1 1:150000 N N Y Y Y 

Fig 1.2 1:20000 N N Y Y Y 

Fig 2.1 1:2000 N N Y Y Y 

Fig 2.2 1:10000 N N Y Y Y 

Fig 2.3 1:10000 N N Y Y Y 

Fig 2.4 1:50000 N N Y Y Y 

Fig 3.1 – Key NTS N N Y N Y 

Components. 

(58 p). 

Fig 3.2 RRF 1:1000 N N N N Y 

Operations 

Area 

Fig 3.3 RRF NTS N N N Y Y 

Operations 

Area 

Fig 3.11 NTS N N N Y Y 


Fig 3.13 NTS N N Y Y Y 



Fig 3.16 1:10000 too N N N N Y 

small. 


Fig 3.18 1:10000 – too N N Y Y Y 

small. 

Fig 3.19 No scale N N N Y Y 

Fig 3.20 No Scale, NTS N N Y Y Y 


Fig 4.2 Too Small N N Y Y Y

(1:5000) 

Fig 5.1 Too Small N N Y Y Y 

(1:50000) 



Fig 7.2 Too small N N Y Y Y 

(1:40000) 

Fig 7.3 1:25000 (Too N N Y Y Y 

small) 

Fig 7.4 1:25000 (Too N N Y Y Y 

small) 

Fig 7.5 1:50000 (Too N N Y Y Y 

small) 

Fig 7.6 1:20000 (Too N N Y Y Y 

small) 



Fig 7.9 1:1250 N N Y Y Y 











Fig 9.6 NTS N N Y Y Y



Fig 10.1 Too Small – N N N Y Y 

1:200,000. 

Fig 10.2 Too Small N N N Y Y 

1:100,000 

Fig 10.3 Too Small N N N Y Y 

1:8500 

Fig 10.4 Too small N N N Y Y 

1:50,000 

Fig 10.6 Too small N N N Y Y 

1:50,000 


1:30,000 


1:10,000 


1:15,000 

Fig 11.4 1:30000 N N Y Y Y 

Fig 11.5 1:30000 N N Y Y Y 

Fig 11.6 1:30000 N N Y Y Y 

Fig 11.7 1:30000 N N Y Y Y 

Fig 11.8 1:30000 N N Y Y Y 

Fig 12.1 1:90000 N N Y Y Y 

Fig 12.2 1:90000 N N Y Y Y 

Fig 12.3 NTS N N Y N Y 

Fig 14.1 1:10000 N N Y Y Y 

Fig 14.2 NTS N N N N Y 

Fig 15.1 1:60000 N N Y Y Y

Fig 15.2 1:150000 N N Y Y Y 

Fig 15.3 1:150000 N N Y Y Y 

Fig 15.4 1:150000 N N Y Y Y 

Fig 15.5 1:150000 N N Y Y Y 

Fig 15.6 1:150000 N N Y Y Y 

Fig 15.7 1:150000 N N Y Y Y 

Fig 15.8 1:150000 N N Y Y Y 

Fig 15.9 1:150000 N N Y Y Y 

Fig 16.1 1:30000 N N Y Y Y 

App Doc Ref 4.4 Reports Volume II – FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT. 

*Plans do not explicitly say which versions or revisions. 

Ref # 

FRA – Site 

Location Plan. 

Appendix A. 

Appendix C 

Masterplan – 

002 

Appendix C 


004 

Appendix C 


005 

Appendix D – 

Doc Ref 2.28 

Scale 


scale. 

Version: 

List of 

revisions: 

North 

(Y/N) 

Scale Bar 

(Y/N) 

1: 250000 Y Y Y N Y 

1:2500 N N Y Y Y 

1:2500 N N Y Y Y 

1:1000 N N Y Y Y 

1:500 N N Y Y Y 

Doc Ref 2.27 1:500 N N Y Y Y 

Title.

14081/015/01 1:2000 Y Y Y N Y 

14081/015/02 1:2000 Y Y Y N Y 

14081/015/03 1:2000 Y Y Y N Y 

Appendix F – 1:2000 VERSION 1 N/A Y N Y 

21780/076/003 

Appendix H 1:2000 VERSION 1 N/A Y N Y 

21780/076/004 

Appendix I 

21780/076/002 

1:2000 Y Y Y N Y

Appendix F Table to show Standards and Regulations for Other Plans 

App Doc Ref # Scale Bar Scale: 

Ticked if under 

1:2500 

5.1 Planning 

Statement 

5.2 Alternative Site 

Assessment Report 

6.1Design and 

Access Statement 

6.3 Combined Heat 

and Power 

Development 

Strategy 

6.4 Rail Feasibility 

Report 

6.5 Transport 

Assessment 

(Appendix) 

List of 

revisions: 

North Title Paper Size 

x X 

x X 

x X 

X 

X 

/X x X /X 

6.6 Travel Plan X X 

n.b. 6.5 is marked with ‘/X’ for scale bar and North sign because although most plans meet these standards, some sketches 

included were not drawn to scale and do not show North.

APPENDIX G 

COPY OF EIA CORRESPONDENCE

APPENDIX H 

LOCAL AUTHORITY ADEQUACY OF CONSUTLATION RESPONSES 

9 th August East Northamptonshire Council 

11 th August Aylesbury Vale District Council 

17 th August Central Bedfordshire Council 

18 th August Huntingdonshire District Council 

18 th August Bedford Borough Council 

17 th August St Albans City and District Council 

23 rd August Buckinghamshire County Council

Mr David Cliff Your Ref: ENO10011 

Case Officer Our Ref: X/09/06 Covanta 

Infrastructure Planning Commission Contact: Iain Blackley 

Temple Quay House Telephone: (01234) 221721 

Temple Quay E-mail: Iain.blackley@bedford.gov.uk 

Bristol 

BS1 6PN 


Dear Mr Cliff 

PROPOSED APPLICATION FOR A DEVELOPMENT CONSENT ORDER FOR AN 

ENERGY FROM WASTE GENERATING STATION AT ROOKERY SOUTH PIT 

NEAR STEWARTBY, BEDFORDSHIRE 

PROPOSAL BY COVANTA ROOKERY SOUTH LIMITED 

PLANNING ACT 2008, SECTION 55 (ACCEPTANCE OF APPLICATION) 

I refer to your letter dated 5 th August 2010, in which you seek a formal response on 

behalf of Bedford Borough Council to the Consultation Report submitted by Covanta 

Energy Limited to the IPC as part of its application for Development Order Consent 

for an Energy from Waste Generating Station at Rookery South Pit. 

Covanta have undertaken pre-application consultation using a range of media. There 

were discussions with the local Councils on the extent of the area in which the most 

intensive consultation would be undertaken and this was agreed to be 5km. 

However, there have been concerns raised by parish councils outside this area that 

they felt that Covanta did not sufficiently consult them and address their concerns 

(generally traffic routing and air emissions). 

Covanta set up a Community Liaison Panel at an early stage and this has sought to 

ensure an interchange of views between the local community through their 

representatives and Covanta. Although Covanta consider this to have been an 

effective mechanism for an exchange of information and views between the 

company and local representatives, there have been issues with presentations being 

pitched at a too technical level (for example on noise) with some members struggling 

to understand the implications of what was being explained to them. This was 

confirmed by the report of the Panel Convenor.

There is a general issue with the Consultation Report in that Covanta often state that 

they have taken a particular matter into account, and refer to the ES or another 

document, and have amended the proposal or undertaken additional surveys etc but 

it is impossible without the actual application to check that this is the case or how the 

matter has been addressed. For example in para 1.2.4 it states that long term 

woodland screening has been expanded – but there is no clarification as to where 

this has been done or by how much. Paragraph 2.4.5 refers to the ES but this is not 

yet available. Similarly the Transport Assessment and the Lighting Assessment and 

final design have not been seen. Covanta have indicated that a copy of the 

application – or the main documents – will be supplied to the Minerals and Waste 

Team, who are working on this project on behalf of both Bedfordshire authorities, but 

this document will not be supplied until after the formal comments on the 

Consultation Report have to be submitted. 

This situation may have arisen because of the guidance issued by the IPC in respect 

to the submission and the content of the Consultation Report. Consideration will 

need to be given as to how with future submissions the applicant can demonstrate 

that the consultation has been effective and that the comments and submissions 

received have been fully considered and taken into account in the design and 

operation of the proposed facility. 

In order to provide clarity to the authority as to how the development has been 

revised to take account of consultation either a copy of the application has to be 

provided at the same time as the Consultation Report or there needs to be a ‘before 

and after’ explanation or drawings illustrating the changes made. Without these the 

statements that changes have been made to the scheme as a result of consultation 

comments can only be taken at face value. 

The following comments are made about specific parts of the Consultation Report 

and use the referencing within the Report: 

1.2 Consultation Outcomes 

1.2.1 This states that the design has been well received by CABE - but what is the 

evidence for this? 

1.2.3 The lighting assessment was not available in the PER and so there is nothing 

to compare the statement with. The detailed lighting layout has not been seen. (see 

also par 1.2.13) 

1.2.4 The land for long term woodland screening has not been identified. 

1.2.6 This does not reflect the ongoing concerns that the Environmental Health 

Officers have voiced.1.2.7 (see comment below) 

1.2.8 There are concerns about more distant traffic issues such as traffic coming 

from Buckinghamshire and the extent of the traffic impact on the wider area. No final 

assessment has been seen. 

Page - 2 -

1.2.10 The Health Impact Assessment (HIA) has not been made available and it is 

not possible to comment on the recommendations within it. 

1.2.14 The authority has not had sight of the ES or the Design and Access 

Statement and cannot comment on how climate change and sustainability have been 

addressed. 

Socio economics 

It is understood that the Economic Development Officers of both authorities and 

EEDA were consulted. However, there appears to be no reference in the logs to this. 

There is no mention of an Economic Development Assessment. 

In 1.2.22 a new entrance to the Millennium Country Park is mentioned. There has 

been no consultation with officers in respect to this and the location of this new 

entrance is currently unknown. 

2.0 Introduction 

2.4.2 and 2.4.3 set out what is included within the submission. There have been no 

discussions with Council officers about extending the attenuation pond. The pond in 

the drawings for the PER is the same as that shown for the Low Level Restoration 

Scheme for the Rookery Pits ROMP. This is also the first indication that there would 

be full automatic barriers to the level crossing although it was known that discussions 

were ongoing in respect to the level crossing and station area. 

2.4.5 The ES is not currently available to the Councils. 

3.0 Pre-Application Strategy 

3.3.6 Bedford Borough has not received a formal response to its comments on the 

PER. Covanta have been advised that there is no reference in the Consultation 

Report to its response. It is understood that they have no record of receiving it and it 

had been assumed that there had been a response because other Bedford Borough 

councillors had also responded to the PER. A copy of the consultation response to 

the PER has been provided to Covanta and Covanta will be sending a formal 

response to the issues raised shortly. 

A number of individuals and organisations have made it known recently that no 

response has been received from Covanta to questions raised. It is not known 

whether the formal responses have all been sent out by Covanta following the formal 

submission or if they have been considered and dealt with at the time they were 

raised. 

Section 8.0 Spring/Summer Consultation 

This consultation was in respect to the Preliminary Environmental Report. In 8.2.4 

there is a list of those that responded. It is noted that the formal response by Bedford 

Borough Council is not mentioned. The Council’s formal response, dated 30 th March 

2010, was e-mailed by Iain Blackley, the Head of Development Management, to 

Page - 3 -

Rachel Ness at Covanta on 1 st April 2010. There is concern that the officer 

comments set out in that response have not been fully taken into account by 

Covanta in their submission. Covanta have been advised of this omission but it is 

understood that no record can be found of the formal response dated 30 th March. 

8.3.5 The Transport Assessment has not been seen by officers 

8.4.16 (4) This states that ‘41% of respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed that 

the exhibitions provided a clear explanation of why the proposals are in Rookery 

South Pit and 40% disagreed or strongly disagreed that the exhibitions provided a 

clear explanation of changes, made to the proposal following consultation last 

summer and 40% disagreed or strongly disagreed that the exhibitions provided a 

clear explanation of preliminary environmental information.’ This is quite a high 

percentage that were not satisfied with the clarity of explanation they received from 

Covanta. 

8.4.22 There is no evidence supplied to justify the statement that ‘the scope of 

operational hours has been confirmed as critical’.8.4.37 Detailed lighting proposals 

have still not been seen. 

8.4.43 It is unclear how the catchment area can be kept under review. Changes to 

the catchment area proposed could affect the assessments that have been 

undertaken – for example in respect to traffic. 

8.4.47 This statement appears to indicate that there is no future possibility of 

transportation of waste by rail to the site. However, the report referred to has not 

been seen. 

There are logs of meetings with officers and other interested parties and 

organisations set out in the Consultation Report (section 8.8 refers). We have asked 

officers (when this has been possible due to the holiday period) whether they concur 

with the resume of the meeting and the conclusions. In almost every instance there 

is agreement that it is a reliable record. However, in respect to the meetings with the 

Environmental Health Officers (EHO’s) some comments have been made as it is felt 

that the log does not fairly reflect what occurred. For example one EHO officer has 

stated: 

‘5.4 (5-7): I was not involved in the project at this time with regards to noise and did 

not attend this meeting. Mark Hales (Public Protection Team Leader did attend). 

However, Mark Hales is on leave until next week. 

7.6 (4-8): A meeting was held on 11 December 2009, however, this merely entailed 

the presentation of a Technical Note with regard to noise from the proposed plant. 

Neither myself nor EHO's from BBC were able to comment due to not being able to 

digest the document in the meeting although requests had been made for a copy 

prior to the meeting. The report suggested that the baseline noise levels fell out of 

the scope of BS 4142 - something that we questioned in the meeting and in more 

formal responses later. 

Page - 4 -

8.8 (12-17): At the meeting in Spalding we did agree that the ACC fan bank did not 

have a tonal element and would not attract a 5dB penalty in the BS4142 

assessment. However, during further discussions a representative from the ACC fan 

manufacturer said that they could reduce the noise from these by up to 5dB. Plans 

were looked at and it was concluded that this could not be done (the fans would 

have to have been larger to maintain the same performance) as it did not fit with the 

preferred lay out. It was then stated that the internal plant noise would dominate the 

noise environment anyway. Following this meeting, I had some queries about these 

issues and so in the email dated 14 June 2010 referred to in this document - as well 

agreeing the SoCG - asked for some further clarification on the noise. I have not 

received any response yet. 

9.7.6: Although it states in this paragraph that the 'general orientation of the main 

Energy from Waste building....has also been influenced as a result of the 

consideration of noise' there is no indication that this is the case. The 'timeline for 

rookery plant development' submitted on 4th May 2010 makes no reference to this 

fact although many other factors appear to have been considered or addressed.’ 

Whilst this comment is from an officer at Central Bedfordshire Council the comments 

are also relevant to Bedford Borough as officers were present from both authorities 

at the meetings with Covanta. 

The following comments have also been received in respect to Highway Officer 

meetings and receipt of information: 

‘With regards to 8.8.41 the TA was not sent until 29/03/10 by email not 11/03/10 as 

stated. We are not shown as having responded which is not the case, email was sent 

to Boreham's on 02/06/10. 

8.10.1 Travel Plan has not been agreed by BBC. 

9.7.8 Not all traffic concerns have been addressed to date, contrary to this 

statement. 

We have though received a revised TA from Boreham's submitted to the IPC but this 

has not been looked at as yet.’ 

9.3 Principles and Responses 

1. Allow feedback. The Council considers that there have been opportunities 

throughout the consultation process to comment on potential options by, for example 

using a comment sheet at an exhibition or e-mailing Covanta. 

2. The extent to which the consultation has informed local people about the 

process needs to be questioned. There is still considerable confusion in the locality 

about the nature of the determination process. 

3. Obtain information. It is considered that information about the proposed 

development has been made available at exhibitions, at Council offices and libraries 

and on the Covanta website. 

Page - 5 -

4. Mitigation. Covanta claim that they have considered the consultation 

responses and fed them into the project design and operation. However, it is not 

possible to comment on the extent and effectiveness of this as a copy of the ES has 

not been made available. 

5. Support of objectives. It is agreed that Covanta have identified wider 

objectives. 

6. Effective pre-application consultation. Covanta claim that pre-application 

consultation has had an impact on the final submission. However, the extent of this 

cannot be assessed until it is possible to review the submitted documents. 

Overall it is noted that Covanta have undertaken pre-application consultation using a 

range of media in order to reach stakeholders. However, it is not possible to gauge 

the effectiveness of that consultation without being provided with a comprehensive 

description of how the comments received have been addressed and either not 

accepted or accepted and incorporated into the form and content of the final 

submission to the IPC. 

Yours sincerely 

Paul Rowland 

Assistant Director (Planning and Housing Services) 

Cc 

Cllr Colleen Atkins MBE (Portfolio Holder - Planning and Housing) 

Roy Romans and Susan Marsh (Minerals & Waste Team) 

Page - 6 -

From: 

Amy Cooper 

To: 

Amy Cooper; 

Date: 25 August 2010 16:36:34 

From: Bond, Clare (Planning Serv.) [mailto:Clare.Bond@huntsdc.gov.uk] 

Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2010 3:39 PM 

To: Rookery South 

Cc: Bland, Paul (Planning) 

Subject: RE: Adequacy of consultation - Covanta Rookery South Limited. 

Dear Mr Cliff 

I am pleased to confirm that we were aware of the proposal at Rookery South pit 

through the scoping opinion consultation. The site lies some way from the district 

boundary and is not considered likely to have any significant or direct effect. As 

indictated in January we have no comments to make on this proposal. 

Regards, 

Clare Bond 

Planning Policy Team Leader 

Huntingdonshire District Council 

Pathfinder House St Marys Street Huntingdon PE29 3TN 

Tel. 01480 388 435 

Please be advised that any comments contained within this email represent 

the informal opinion of an officer of Huntingdonshire District Council. These 

comments are made without prejudice of the eventual determination of the 

planning process. 

From: Rookery South [mailto:RookerySouth@infrastructure.gsi.gov.uk] 

Sent: 05 August 2010 13:33 

To: Bland, Paul (Planning) 

Cc: Bond, Clare (Planning Serv.) 

Subject: Adequacy of consultation - Covanta Rookery South Limited. 

Importance: High 

IPC Reference: EN010011 

Dear Mr Bland, 

Further to my recent letter dated 12 July 2010, please see attached 

correspondence from the Infrastructure Planning Commission (the 

'Commission') inviting your representations on the adequacy of consultation 

undertaken by the applicant at the pre-application stage. 

The consultation report submitted by the applicant can be viewed at the 

following links: 

http://infrastructure.independent.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/Rookery- 

Consultation-Report.PDF 

http://infrastructure.independent.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/Rookery- 

Consultation-Report-Appendices.PDF

If you wish to make representations, please send them by email to 

rookerysouth@infrastructure.gsi.gov.uk or by post to: Infrastructure 

Planning Commission, Temple Quay House, Temple Quay, Bristol, BS1 6PN 

by 20 August 2010, quoting the above case reference number. 

Kind regards 

David Cliff 

Case Leader 

The Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC) 

Temple Quay House 

Temple Quay 


BS1 6PN 

Helpline: 0303 444 5000 

Website: www.independent.gov.uk/infrastructure 

The IPC gives advice about applying for an order granting development consent or 

making representations about an application (or a proposed application). The IPC 

takes care to ensure that the advice we provide is accurate. This communication 

does not however constitute legal advice upon which you can rely and you should 

note that IPC lawyers are not covered by the compulsory professional indemnity 

insurance scheme. You should obtain your own legal advice and professional advice 

as required. 

We are required by law to publish on our website a record of the advice we provide 

and to record on our website the name of the person or organisation who asked for 

the advice. We will however protect the privacy of any other personal information 

which you choose to share with us and we will not hold the information any longer 

than is necessary. 

You should note that we have a Policy Commitment to Openness and Transparency 

and you should not provide us with confidential or commercial information which you 

do not wish to be put in the public domain. 

********************************************************************** 

This email and any files transmitted with it are private and intended solely for the use 

of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If you are not the intended 

recipient the E-mail and any files have been transmitted to you in error and any 

copying, distribution or other use of the information contained in them is strictly 

prohibited. 

Nothing in this E-mail message amounts to a contractual or other legal commitment 

on the part of the Government unless confirmed by a communication signed on 

behalf of the Secretary of State. 

The Department's computer systems may be monitored and communications carried 

on them recorded, to secure the effective operation of the system and for other lawful 

purposes.

Correspondents should note that all communications from Department for 

Communities and Local Government may be automatically logged, monitored and/or 

recorded for lawful purposes. 

*********************************************************************************** 

The original of this email was scanned for viruses by the Government Secure Intranet 

virus scanning service supplied by Cable&Wireless Worldwide in partnership with 

MessageLabs. (CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.) On leaving the GSi this 

email was certified virus free. 

Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded 

for legal purposes. 

______________________________________________________________________ 

This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. 

For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email 

______________________________________________________________________ 

IMPORTANT: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential. They 

are intended for the named recipient(s) only. 

If you have received this email in error, please notify the system manager or the 

sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to anyone or make copies 

thereof. 

*** eSafe scanned this email for viruses, vandals, and malicious content. *** 

********************************************************************** 

Correspondents should note that all communications to Department for Communities 

and Local Government may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for 

lawful purposes. 

********************************************************************** 

Amy Cooper 

Assistant Case Officer 

Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC) 


Temple Quay 


BS1 6PN 

Helpline: 0303 444 5000 

E-mail: Amy.Cooper@infrastructure.gsi.gov.uk 

Website: www.independent.gov.uk/infrastructure

The IPC gives advice about applying for an order granting development consent or 

making representations about an application (or a proposed application). The IPC 

takes care to ensure that the advice we provide is accurate. This communication 

does not however constitute legal advice upon which you can rely and you should 

note that IPC lawyers are not covered by the compulsory professional indemnity 

insurance scheme. You should obtain your own legal advice and professional advice 

as required. 

We are required by law to publish on our website a record of the advice we provide 

and to record on our website the name of the person or organisation who asked for 

the advice. We will however protect the privacy of any other personal information 

which you choose to share with us and we will not hold the information any longer 

than is necessary. 

You should note that we have a Policy Commitment to Openness and Transparency 

and you should not provide us with confidential or commercial information which you 

do not wish to be put in the public domain.

Communities & 

Built Environment 

Acting Head of Planning, Environment 

& Development Marcus Rogers 

Buckinghamshire County Council 

Planning, Environment & Development 

County Hall, Walton Street 

Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire HP20 1UY 

Telephone 0845 3708090 

www.buckscc.gov.uk 

David Cliff 

Infrastructure Planning Commission 


Temple Quay 


BS1 6PN 

Dear Mr. Cliff 

Covanta Rookery South Limited 

Date: 

Ref: 


IPC Reference: 

EN010011 

Thank you for consulting Buckinghamshire County Council on the adequacy of the applicant’s 

pre application consultation. 

As you know the County Council has a number of different roles as waste planning authority and 

as waste disposal authority. The authority is currently awaiting receipt of two bids for its long 

term landfill diversion contract. One of the bidders is Covanta. 

In the circumstances the Council has decided that until the Council’s preferred bidder is selected 

in November 2010 it would not be prudent to comment on the planning applications of either 

bidder. This avoids any question of bias by the Council towards either bidder in the planning 

application process. 

The Council notes that there will, subject to the acceptance of application, be further 

opportunities to comment on the application being considered by the Infrastructure Planning 

Commission as well as to consider, through the emerging Core Strategy and future separate 

planning applications for the supporting waste transfer sites which may be required in 

Buckinghamshire. 

Yours sincerely 

Marcus Rogers 

Acting Head of Planning, Environment & Development 

Tel: 01296 387132 

E-mail: marogers@buckscc.gov.uk

IPC Disclosure Log – Response to Request Reference: FOI-2010 ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?