Rookery South Energy from Waste Generating Station

The list below includes a record of advice we have provided for this project. For a list of non-project related advice, please go to the register of advice page.

There is a statutory duty, under section 51 of the Planning Act 2008, to record the advice that is given in relation to an application or a potential application and to make this publicly available.

Preview
Enquiry received via phone
response has attachments
The caller raised an issue with the legibility of the full set of documents that comprised the counterpart deed executed by the Marston Vale Trust, as supplied by Covanta in relation to this project and its Development Consent Order.
After confirming that legibility was an issue when viewing the above set of documents in some formats, including with the associated keys, the IPC contacted Covanta to request a fresh, easily readable version. They supplied PDF equivalents of the plans annexed to the deed plans, which were then forwarded to the caller immediately upon their receipt by the IPC. A copy of the accompany email is attached below.

20 December 2011
Nicola Ryan-Raine
Enquiry received via email
With regard a claim under the Land Compensation Act 1973 resulting from implementation of the development consent order.
If you think you might have a claim under the Land Compensation Act 1973 resulting from implementation of the development consent order, I suggest you write to the applicant Covanta (Rookery South) Limited informing them of this and requesting information from them on the appropriate time to make such a claim . The IPC has no role in respect of potential claims for compensation resulting from the implementation of a development consent order. This is a matter on which you may wish to take your own legal advice.

21 November 2011
Simon Collier
Enquiry received via phone
When is the appropriate time to challenge the decision made on Rookery South
I confirm that the time limits for judicial review are set out in section 118 of the Planning Act 2008, which indicates that such proceedings must be brought within the period of six weeks beginning with the day on which an order granting development consent is published or (if later) the day on which statement of reasons is published.
The Commission's understanding is that in cases where special parliamentary procedure applies the publication of the order, for the purposes of s118 of the Planning Act 2008, will follow the special parliamentary procedure. Information about the order's progress through the special parliamentary procedure will be placed on the Commission’s website.
We advise any party considering a legal challenge to seek legal advice.

18 November 2011
Adrian Dobson
Enquiry received via email
I am a local resident to the proposed Covanta power station in Stewartby Bedfordshire.
I would like to know if I will be able to claim for compensation under the Land and Compensation act 1973.
This law basically covers home owners for loss of value to their home caused by building of new amenities like roads, hospitals etc.
I would appreciate an answer
We provided S51 advice to Mr Collier that he would need to take his own legal advice if he wishes to make a claim for compensation.

16 November 2011
Simon Collier
Enquiry received via post
response has attachments
Notification of intention to issue judicial review proceedings to challenge the IPC’s decision relating to including compulsory purchase powers (under Section 118 of the Planning Act 2008) within the Development Consent Order.
See letter attached from Walker Morris dated 11 November 2011 for full details.
Please see IPC response letter attached dated 11 November 2011

11 November 2011
Walker Morris
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Query regarding timescales for Rookery South decision.
Please see attachment regarding timescales

8 November 2011
Fran Fry
Enquiry received via phone
Conversation to confirm the key sections of the Planning Act and the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2009 (EIA Regulations) which govern the procedure following a decision to grant development consent.
S116 (3) - the statement of reasons (for deciding to grant development consent) must be published in such manner as the IPC thinks appropriate (see London Gazette dated 27 October 2011)
EIA Regulation 23 (2) (d) - if it is EIA development the public must be informed of the decision to grant development consent (see London Gazette dated 27 October 2011)
S117 (5) - a DCO which is a statutory instrument (the Rookery DCO is in the form of a statutory instrument) must be deposited as soon as practicable in the office of the Clerk of Parliaments. The IPC will be depositing the DCO as made. Deposit in this way does not constitute a special parliamentary procedure which is a separate procedure governed by the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure ) Act 1945.
S128 (2) - a DCO is subject to a special paliamentary procedure if a representation which has been made by the local authority (whose property may be compulsorily acquired by authority of the DCO) has not been withdrawn before completion of the examination of the application. The Rookery DCO authorises compulsory acquisition of local authority land and the requirements of s128 (2) must be met. Special parliamentary procedure will not commence before the DCO is deposited in accordance with s117 (5).
S118 - the "relevant day" (for determining the period which relates to proceedings) includes calculation from the day on which the DCO is published. There is no definition in the Planning Act of "publish" in this regard. It is arguable that a DCO (to which, for example, s128 (2) applies - see above) cannot be published unless it has been subject to special parliamentary procedure.
We are unable to give you legal advice about any steps which you think may be appropriate to take but hopefully the outline above of the procedure under the Planning Act will enable you to discuss matters further with your legal colleagues.

4 November 2011
Susan Marsh
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I have been reviewing the documents associated with this application and cannot locate a Screening decision.
Could you please advise me where I can find one?
Thank you for your query in relation to the Rookery South energy from waste (EfW) facility proposal at Rookery South Pit, near Stewartby, Bedfordshire.
In this instance the applicant did not request a screening opinion, and no decision was adopted by the IPC, because an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is mandatory for proposals which fall under Schedule 1 of the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2009 (the EIA Regulations). The Rookery South EfW facility meets these criteria as a 'waste disposal installation for the incineration or chemical treatment...of non-hazardous waste with a capacity exceeding 100 tonnes per day' (Schedule 1 Paragraph 10 of the EIA Regulations).
However, the applicant did request a scoping opinion from the IPC in respect of the content of the Environmental Statement. After consultation with statutory consultees, the IPC adopted an opinion in April 2010.
The scoping opinion can be located on our website when entering a search for scoping on the Rookery South project page - [attachment 1]

9 September 2011
Clive Stallwood
Enquiry received via email
Miss Ryan-Raine queried the IPC process and the methods of involvement for non-interested parties and interested parties wishing to attend and speak at both Issue specific and Open-floor hearings.
Dear Nicola
I'm emailing further to your recent correspondence regarding the Rookery South Open Floor and Issue Specific Hearings. Next Tuesday we will be publishing an advice note with further details on how people can register and participate in the open floor hearing sessions. As in interested party you will be automatically sent a copy of this and you also will have already received letters dated 13 and 26 May from Paul Hudson, the Chair of the Examining authority, setting out details of the forthcoming issue specific hearings.

I have also set out the advice below in relation to the particular queries you have raised in your emails concerning both issue specific and open floor hearings.

The hearings will be held in public but priority will be given to interested parties both in terms of attendance and being able to speak. People wishing to attend any of the issue specific hearing or open floor hearing sessions are requested to write to or email the IPC (contact details below) at least a week before particular issue specific hearing or by 24 June for the open floor hearing sessions. The following information should be provided:
your name;
organisation you represent (if relevant);
your email or postal address;
your interested party reference number (if relevant);
whether you wish to speak;
the particular issue specific hearing or open floor hearing session you wish to attend; and
for issue specific hearings a very brief description of what you wish to speak about.
The contact details are as follows:
email: RookerySouth@infrastructure.gsi.gov.uk
Postal address: Infrastructure Planning Commission, Rookery South, Temple Quay House, 2 The Square, Temple Quay, Bristol, BS1 6PN.

There is no procedure We will contact people to confirm arrangements as soon as possible after they register.
Any interested party who attends an issue specific hearing or open floor hearing session is entitled to speak subject to the Examining authorities control over the conduct of the hearing. The Chair of the Examining authority will seek to be fair in allowing interested parties the opportunity to speak should they wish to do so. It remains important, however, that interested parties inform us in advance if they know at this stage that they wish to speak in order to help the Examining authority determine the running order for the meeting.
For people who are not an interested party, they may still be able to speak, but this will be at the discretion of the Commissioners and this will only be possible if time allows.
Where possible, people who share similar views or concerns about the application are encouraged to nominate a spokesperson to speak on their behalf. For example, residents from a particular village, road or locality may propose one person to make their representations. This will reduce the possibility of different people simply repeating points already made by others and will help the smooth running of the hearing.
If you register to speak in advance but then decide on the day that you do not want to, this is fine. You should just indicate this to a member of the IPC staff at the meeting.

I hope this clarifies matters but should you have any further queries then please do not hesitate to let us know.

2 June 2011
Nicola Ryan-Raine
Enquiry received via email
Questioned why Friends of the Earth have not been listed in the Examining Authorities letter as an interested party which it would particularly like to attend the hearing.
The issue specific hearings are not intended to be an opportunity for wide ranging discussions on a general topic nor for points already made in writing simply to be repeated. The hearings will focus on particular points where the Examining Authority wishes to ask questions directly of certain interested parties. The letter indicates those parties which the Examining Authority particularly wishes to ask questions of after reading their written representations. There will also be other interested parties, such as yourself, who have submitted written representations on the issue but that the ExA does not wish to ask questions of at this time. Any interested party can attend a hearing and, subject to the ExAs control over the conduct of the hearing, can speak at the hearing.

27 May 2011
MK Friends of the Earth - Andrew Lockley
Enquiry received via post
response has attachments
At the Rookery South issue specific hearing on 13 May 2011 relating to the drafting of the Development Consent Order (DCO), its requirements and proposed s106 agreement the lead Commissioner indicated that the secretariat would write to the applicant setting out a list of drafting points and other comments on the draft DCO and s106 agreement as submitted by the applicant on 9 May 2011.
Please see attached letter dated 24 May 2011.

24 May 2011
DLA Piper UK Ltd Representing Covanta
Enquiry received via email
Please can you clarify whether or not the IPC have to be notified by the 6th of June of an intention to speak at the Rookery South Open Floor Hearings, or has it now been decided that this is not necessary?
Whilst we would welcome a more flexible approach, and a deadline of the 6th of June seems very early, we really need to know so that we can put out a clear and consistent message. If there is a June 6th deadline, we need to catch the May editions of the various parish newsletters, in order to publicise this date.
The purpose of the 6th June date referred to in Paul Hudson's letter of 11 April 2011 was to remind interested parties of the deadline to confirm that they wish to be heard at an open floor hearing (this deadline had previously been made in the letter of 21st January which set out the time table for the examination). This is a statutory requirement in s93 of the Planning Act 2008 which requires that the Examining authority must 'fix a deadline by which an interested party must notify the Commission of the party's wish to be heard at an open floor hearing'. If the Commission receives such notification from at least one interested party before the deadline (which we have got in this case), then an open floor hearing must be held. Of course, I think it was very apparent that an open floor hearing would take place given the level of public interest but it is important that we follow the statutory procedures.

As explained in Paul Hudson's recent later of 13th May, details of the procedure interested parties should now follow if they wish to speak and put their case at the open floor hearing sessions will be provided at least 4 weeks in advance of these hearings.

So there is no for people to notify us of their wish to attend by the 6th June as the purpose of this deadline has already been served (ie notification that at least one person wishes to be heard at a hearing). In practice, should anyone inform us in the coming days and weeks of their wish to speak, these will be taken into account in the organisation of the meetings - but, to be clear, there is no need for them to do so by 6th June.

17 May 2011
25 Parish Councils - Sue Clark
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Query regarding the Issue Specific Hearing to be held on 13th May 2011.
- What will be discussed?
- What is the duration of the Hearing?
- Are the public allowed to speak?
An agenda for the Issue Specific Hearing will be published shortly. At the moment, I can tell you that the Hearing is scheduled to last from 10am -5pm and that it will be held in the Abbey Room of the Park Inn Hotel.

The Hearing is likely to be quite technical, with members of the Examining Authority (the IPC's Commissioners) questioning the applicant and relevant interested parties about the drafting of the Development Consent Order and the Section 106 Agreement which have been submitted. Members of the public are allowed to speak at the discretion of the Examining Authority. The Hearing will not be an opportunity to discuss general issues about the proposal.

You may be aware that several Open Floor Hearings have been arranged for the 5th and 6th July at the Forest Centre and at Stewartby Village Hall, details of which can be found on page 6 of the procedural decision letter: [attachment 1] .

I hope that this is helpful, but please don't hesitate to come back to me if you have further queries.

12 May 2011
Neil Roy
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Letter (attached) from DLA Piper on bahalf of Covanta (Rookery South) Ltd seeking clarification on matters relating to the specific issue hearing to be held on 13 May 2011.
Please refer to attached letter from IPC dated 9 May 2011.

9 May 2011
DLA Piper UK LLP on behalf of Covanta
Enquiry received via email
As you know, we are instructed to attend the compulsory purchase hearing on behalf of our clients, Waste Recycling Group and Anti Waste Limited.
Following receipt of your email I have taken another look at the CLG Guidance for examination of applications for development consent paragraphs 99-111 as you have suggested but it doesn't seem to answer all of my outstanding queries and I wonder if you could help?
I understand the general position is that hearings will normally be conducted by way of the Commissioners taking an inquisitorial approach – a process which seems to be similar to the Examination in Public of Strategic Plans and/or the informal hearing mode of appeal for planning appeals. Having seen the ExA's second round of written questions it is reassuring to note that the Applicant has been asked to respond further on what we consider to be the key issues relating to the compulsory purchase order and whether or not it should be made.
However, it would be helpful to have some further guidance as to how the CPO hearing might be conducted, in particular is it intended to take the form of a structured debate with the Commissioners leading discussions via pre-set questions or is it anticipated to be a more presentational format?
If the latter, could further information be provided on the following: i) the order in which different parties will make their representations ii) time estimates and time to be allowed for each party to make their submissions iii) who will be permitted to speak and iv) whether or not direct cross examination is anticipated or will questions be taken by the Commissioners?
Affected persons have until 6th June to notify the Examining Authority of their wish to be heard at a Compulsory Acquisition hearing. Immediately following this deadline, it is intended that guidance will be issued to the parties on how the Examining Authority intend to run the hearing, including the matters raised in your email.

28 April 2011
for WRG and Anti Waste Ltd - Alison Ogley
Enquiry received via email
In relation to question 2 of the Examining Authority's (ExA) second round of written questions the ExA refer to 'residual waste'. Could a definition be be provided of what is meant by this?
In answering question 2 of the Examining Authority's further questions, it would be very helpful if the parties were to set out in the Statement of Common Ground the definition that they have adopted for the purposes of concluding the statement.

18 April 2011
Central Beds & Bedford Councils - Susan Marsh
Enquiry received via email
1) In relation to s121 of the Planning Act 2008, when will the draft DCO be submitted to the Secretary of State? We take the view that it should not be submitted whilst it is still being considered and that in practice this should not be until at least the examination of the application has been completed, 15th July on the current timetable.
2) What is the procedure which would be followed if the National Policy Statements are adopted before the decision of the Secretary of State on the application. Whilst this was acknowledged by the Examining Authority at the time and in the notes of the Preliminary Meeting (paragraph 3.23), and we are reassured by what is there, we would be grateful for clarification of the procedure proposed, and for the opportunity to make representations about what is suggested. We would like it to be noted that Mr Brock drew attention to the possibility of using Article 17 of the Examination Procedure Rules but that there appears to be a lacuna once the examination is complete.
1) Where the Panel of Commissioners proposes to make an order granting development consent, it is a matter for that Panel to decide when the draft DCO should be submitted to the Secretary of State. In doing so, you can be assured that the Commissioners will act within their powers and will send the draft DCO at an appropriate time within the framework.
2) The IPC is aware that the Government is considering the energy NPSs in the light of events in Japan and will be making an announcement about the timetable as soon as the situation is clarified. In the event that there are material changes made to a draft NPS on which interested parties' representations have been based, when it is designated and where those changes are relevant to the examination of an application, the IPC will endeavour to ensure interested parties are given the opportunity to make representations solely on the effect of those changes. In all cases the IPC will adhere to the Infrastructure Planning (Examination Procedure) Rules 2010 and work within its powers. Government departments are aware of the IPC's concerns to ensure such an opportunity is provided to interested parties.

5 April 2011
Beds and Central Beds Councils - Susan Marsh
Enquiry received via email
Note that additional documents have been submitted by the applicant as part of the written representations - too late for others who have made detailed representations to consider in detail before the deadline. As far as we are aware there is nothing in the IPC regulations that allow the applicant to submit new evidence in the time period between the start of consultation and the final cut-off.
The additional documents to which you refer have been submitted by the applicant as part of its written representations. The applicant is able to submit written representations in the same way as any other interested party. The Examination Timetable provides an opportunity for all interested parties to comment on other parties representations, including those of the applicant, by 28th March 2011.

The applicant has set out the reasons for submitting this additional information at the beginning of each of the documents and it does not alter the details of the development for which authorisation is sought. It is permissible for the applicant to submit further information during the course of the examination, about which the other interested parties will have the opportunity to comment. This may also include any answers provided by the applicant or any other party to questions which have been asked by the Examining authority. For clarification, s102 of the Planning Act 2010 defines an 'interested party' to include reference to the applicant.

25 February 2011
Fran Fry
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
At the Rookery South preliminary meeting several questions were asked by attendees that did not directly relate to the procedural decision required to be made.
View the questions asked and the responses from the IPC at the following link. [attachment 1]

11 February 2011
Preliminary Meeting Attendees
Enquiry received via email
Request for further information regarding the procedure to be adopted at a compulsory acquisition hearing. Including how the IPC will ensure that those whose interests may be compulsory acquired have a fair chance to put their case for resisting the grant of a CPO if the merits of an applicants scheme are not also to be tested at hearings.
Firstly, in relation to s92 of the Planning Act 2008, the previous notifications made on behalf of your clients are noted in both your relevant representation and correspondence submitted prior to the preliminary meeting, and confirm that you will not need to provide further notification of your wish for a compulsory acquisition hearing to be held.

The CLG guidance for the examination of applications for development consent paras 99-111 provides guidance on the procedure to be adopted at hearings. This together with the CLG guidance relating to procedures for compulsory acquisition should enable advice to be given on the detailed written representations to be now prepared to allow the examination of the important and relevant issues connected to the proposed compulsory acquisition of land. In addition, questions raised by the Examining authority (ExA) during the examination, as well as the representations submitted by other interested parties should also assist any party when considering how to structure their own representations.

It may also be worth considering the guidance in para 74 of the examination guidance which reiterates that the ExA is expected to set and maintain an 'investigatory approach'; this underlines the procedures set out in the Planning Act 2008 and related Rules which provide a different approach to previous regimes, and on that basis a different approach to either costs or 'prejudice' arguments would be expected to be applied.

Compulsory acquisition hearings will allow the ExA to ask questions of those parties who have submitted relevant and written representations on compulsory acquisition matters and provide an opportunity for affected persons to make oral representations based on their written representations. Para 40 of the guidance on examinations makes clear that the compulsory acquisition hearing ensures affected persons are properly protected under the new regime.

It is also relevant to note that the letter accompanying the procedural decision explains that the ExA, after having considered the written representations submitted by Interested Parties, may consider additional specific issues hearing on any topic to be necessary and invites parties to put representations in writing to it about the need for any additional specific issue hearings.

7 February 2011
Walker Morris - Alison Ogley
Enquiry received via email
Mr Drew Marchant of Renaissance Bedford called for information relating to the process of changing a relevant representation to another individual and organisation due to the dissolution of the Renaissance Bedford.
Thank you for your query about the transfer of your relevant representation to another individual and organisation due to the dissolution of the Renaissance Bedford. I am sorry that I was unable to reply to you sooner.
The relevant representation process is very specific. Each representation lodged in is in the name of an individual who is able to represent themselves or be represented by an agent. Where an organisation simply changes its name this can be accommodated however it is not possible to change the organisation to a completely new body. Equally it is not possible for you to register a late relevant representation as this is governed by a specific time period.
It is possible for you personally to maintain the existing representation lodged in your name and to make whatever detailed representations you wish whether they be your own points or those likely to have been made by Renaissance Bedford had they continued. I would suggest that you make this clear in any detailed submission you make.
It is worth pointing out that it is not the source of any representation which is important. Any individual can make a point for consideration. The commissioners will consider all representations equally, making their decisions as to what is important and relevant to the examination during the course of the examination process.
In so far as the organisation to which you have referred (i.e. East West Rail Consortium) even though they did not register a relevant representation at the appropriate time they are still able to make written submissions to the panel of commissioners. They will not however have the status of an interested party as defined in the legislation. They will be able to be kept updated on the progress of the examination via the website where the procedural decisions and all application documentation is available to the public. Early submission of any information they wish to be considered should be submitted as early as possible and certainly before the close of the examination.
I hope that this is of assistance to you however if you have any queries please contact the IPC helpline on 0303 444 5000

2 February 2011
Renaissance Bedford - Drew Marchant
Enquiry received via email
Ms Hawkes has kept the IPC informed of correspondence between her, Covanta and DCLG.
In order for views on a particular scheme to be put forward to the Examining authority, interested parties must do so in the prescribed format.
Dear Ms Hawkes,
Thank you for including the IPC in your recent correspondence with the Department for Communities and Local Government and the promoter, Covanta.
As you may be aware, on the 21 January, the IPC issued the "Rule 8 timetable for examination" to all interested parties and attendees of the preliminary meeting. The letter detailed the minutes of the preliminary meeting and timetable for the six month examination.
Within this timetable, the deadline for written representations by interested parties is stated. All those who registered as an interested party now have the opportunity to expand on their initial relevant representation to be received by the IPC on 28 February 2011. As you have registered as an interested party, you have the opportunity to provide further written representations to the IPC which will be taken into account by the Examining authority when considering the application for development consent.
For convenience, I have included your registration ID: ********. Please state this number when making further written representations to the IPC which can be done in writing to the address below or via E-mail to: RookerySouth@infrastructure.gsi.gov.uk.
If you have any further queries, please feel free to contact us.

1 February 2011
Joan Hawkes
Enquiry received via email
I am writing to you on behalf of Evans & Son as we are potential interested parties in the Coventa scheme.

We have been approached by Coventa's agents, as we own land along their proposed cable route.

Unfortunately we have been unimpressed by the attitude and approach by their agents during the meetings we have had.

We are not opposed to the scheme, but wish to be treated fairly. We are willing to negotiate on a commercial basis, that reflets the value of the generated power along the cable to the sub station owned by EDF.

Please could you keep us informed as the process continues as we are unable to attend this meeting.
Thank you for your e-mail dated 16 January 2011 in regard to the Rookery South Energy from Waste facility, Bedford.

Following the preliminary meeting held in Bedford on 17 January 2011, we issued correspondence to all interested parties detailing the procedural decision which included the timetable for the examination of this application. As an identified landowner under Section 44 (1) of the Planning Act 2008, you will have received a copy of this procedural decision.

You will note that the timetable for the examination details various deadline dates for the involvement of interested parties within the process including the deadline for the receipt of written representations of 28th February 2011. As and when any further procedural decisions are made by the Examining Authority you will be kept informed of these.

If you have any other queries surrounding the process or methods of involvement, please feel free to contact us.

27 January 2011
Andrew Evans
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
To discuss arrangements for an IPC Stakeholder Outreach Meeting in connections with the proposed waste to energy power station at Rookery South.
Discussion of other matters relevant to the proposals and the operation of the IPC.
Meeting note attached.

22 January 2011
Central Bedfordshire Council - Central Bedfordshire Council Central Bedfordshire Council
Enquiry received via email
Queries relating to the examination process and post decision enforcement.
What guidance will the Panel be following in terms of Planning Policy Statements or Draft Policy statements and the relevance of regional plans to the examination?

The legislation requires that, in deciding the application, the Panel of Commissioners must have regard to (amongst other matters) any national policy statement and any other matters which the Panel thinks are both important and relevant to its decision. The Panel must therefore consider the importance and relevance of any policy or plan, including any Planning Policy Statement and regional plan, along with the weight to be given to a relevant draft national policy statement . An explanation of how relevant policies have been considered by the decision maker will be set out in the statement of reasons accompanying the decision made on the application. Should you have any comments on the relevance or importance of any particular policy or plan you may wish to include these in your written representations. These should be submitted to the Commission within the deadline set out in the examination timetable that will be published shortly after the Preliminary Meeting.
Why has a mass burn incinerator been permitted to enjoy the euphemism of an Energy from waste/Resource Recovery "facility"?

The description of the application proposal is determined by the applicant in submitting its application and it is not for the Commission to make changes to this description unless there is strong justification. The application documents clearly describe the full details of the proposed development and all relevant impacts will be carefully considered in the examination of the application.
What ongoing authority the IPC will have to enforce the planning restrictions and conditions?

The enforcement of any 'requirements' (otherwise know as conditions) attached to any grant of development consent would be the responsibility of the relevant Local Authority.

13 January 2011
Beds' Councils Planning Consort' - Lesley Smith
Enquiry received via email
English Heritage confirmed they have read through the notification letters and have queries regarding the issue-specific hearings.
1. How likely would it be for the examining authority to decide to hold issue-specific hearing/s before the 13 May deadline, and will there be a deadline for notifying ExA of the wish to be heard at such a hearing (presumably not until after a hearing has been confirmed)?
2.We assume that the decision to hold a hearing will be based on the various documents presented during the earlier stages of the examination.

3. We are not sure whether the above query needs to be raised at next week's meeting or whether it can be answered by email.
Thank you for your e-mail in regard to the Rookery South energy from Waste facility, Preliminary meeting on behalf of English Heritage. I have the following information for you in relation to your questions on issue-specific hearings:

How likely would it be for the examining authority to decide to hold issue-specific hearing/s before the 13 May deadline?

You will note that the draft timetable for the examination has set aside a particular time period for any specific issue hearing should the examining authority decide that any are required. The final decision on whether any specific issues hearings are required and when they will take place will be made by the examining authority taking into account the discussions with interested parties at the preliminary meeting.

Will there be a deadline for notifying ExA of the wish to be heard at such a hearing (presumably not until after a hearing has been confirmed)?
The agenda for the preliminary meeting includes an item on whether any issue specific hearings are required. The Examining authority will give at least 21 days notice of any hearings. All interested parties will be invited to participate in any issue specific hearing and will be able, subject to the Examining authority's power of control over the conduct of the hearing, to make oral representations on the specific issue or issues being examined at the hearing.
We assume that the decision to hold a hearing will be based on the various documents presented during the earlier stages of the examination.
The decision on whether or not to hold a specific issue hearing will take into consideration the information submitted as part of the application, the representations received along with the matters raised orally at the preliminary meeting about how the application should be examined. The Examining authority will also consider whether it is necessary for a specific hearing to take place in order to ensure adequate examination of an issue or that an interested party has a fair chance to put forward its case. An open floor hearing may also be held where it has been requested by an interested party.
I hope this provides clarity on the questions raised; if you have any further queries, please do not hesitate to contact us.

12 January 2011
English-Heritage - Tom Gilbert-Wooldridge
Enquiry received via phone
Questions asked in relation to the forthcoming preliminary meeting for the application at Rookery South.
How is is possible to draw up a list of principal issues when the evidence against the application has not been submitted?
The list of principal issues has been formulated following the Examining authorities initial assessment of the issues arising through its preliminary examination of the application documents and relevant representations received from interested parties. This is intended to guide the Examining authority to form a provisional view as to how the application is to be examined.
If issues are not added to the list, will evidence concerning those issues be considered by the Commissioners?
The Examining authority will take into consideration all relevant issues raised by interested parties, regardless of whether or not they fall within its initial list of principal issues. Interested Parties should n ot therefore conclude that these are the only issues that will be taken into acount. Further issues may arise during the course of the examination that are pertinent to the determination of or the recommendation on the application.

10 January 2011
Parish Council Joint Signatories - Sue Clark
Enquiry received via phone
Asked when the preliminary meeting for the Rookery South proposal was likely to take place and how they will have an opportunity to be heard at the event.
Advised that a letter detailing the date of the forthcoming preliminary meeting will be sent out shortly to all interested parties. This correspondence will be accompanied with an agenda of the meeting and a request that you notify the IPC prior to the event should you wish to attend the meeting and wish to speak.

14 December 2010
CPRE - Alex Monroe
Enquiry received via phone
Mr Mould asked whether statutory consultees are registered as interested parties and whether a statutory consultee has to make representations on the prescribed form online.
Further to our conversation on Friday 12th November concerning making a representation as a statutory consultee, I can confirm that Section 102 (1)(b) of the 2008 Planning Act (the Act) states that a person is by default an "interested party" if they are a statutory consultee.
The interpretation of the term relevant representation is stated in S102(4)(b) of the Act. A representation is a relevant representation if it is made in the prescribed form and manner set out in regulation 4 of The Infrastructure Planning (Interested Parties) Regulations 2010. The online form has been designed to take into account this regulation, therefore we would encourage you to use this form in making your representation. We would also encourage that at this stage you summarise your concerns limiting the wording to 500 words. Further opportunity will be provided to make a more detailed representation.

15 November 2010
Natural England - Antony Mould
Enquiry received via email
Providing supplementary information following the Commission's acceptance of an application for development consent.
Further to our telephone conversation earlier this week, we've had the opportunity to consider the situation where an applicant intends to provide supplementary information following the Commission's acceptance of an application for development consent.
Our advice is that it is important that the s56 notice should publicise the application as accepted. If you wish to provide additional information to any party, then we suggest this should be done via a separate letter and not within the s56 notice. We suggest the letter should make it clear that the additional information is provided merely to give advance warning of the content which will be put forward subsequently to the Commission during the examination. Interested parties will have an opportunity to make detailed representations to the Commission on any additional information that is provided by the applicant during the examination stage.

It is for an applicant to determine whether it would be helpful at pre-examination stage to inform statutory consultees or others of a desire to supply additional environmental information to the Commission during the course of the examination of the application.
We consider that the IPC has no power during the pre-examination stage to substitute information forming part of the application and its supporting documents; we are limited to providing s51 advice at this stage. For this reason we will not upload any supplementary or substituted environmental information as part of the ES onto our website during the pre-examination stage.
We would also suggest that it is important for any applicant to satisfy itself whether the information to be supplied as part of the ES during the examination falls within the definition of 'any other information' in the IP (EIA) Regulations 2009.

12 November 2010
DLA Piper - Benjamin Dove-Seymour
Enquiry received via post
response has attachments
[attachment 1]
Thank you for your letter (and accompanying material) dated 26th October and received on 2nd November 2010 concerning the preparation of further information for this application. I also refer to the advice I previously provided on this matter in my email of 1st October 2010 (a copy of which is attached to this letter).
As set out in the previous advice, the IPC has no power during the pre-examination stage to substitute information forming part of the application and, for this reason we will not upload any supplementary or substituted information onto our website during the pre-examination stage. The advice also suggested that, should you wish to provide additional information to any party, any letter informing parties of this should make it clear that the additional information is provided merely to give advance warning of the content which will be put forward subsequently to the Commission during the examination. Interested parties would then have an opportunity to make detailed representations to the Commission on any additional information that is provided by the applicant during the examination stage.
I note that you have already placed copies of the further information at the locations set out in the public notices and have also provided this further information to prescribed consultees. I have not had sight of the covering letter sent to the prescribed consultees with the further information.
We have carefully considered whether or not reference should be made to the additional information on the Commission’s website. Given that, firstly the Commission cannot accept additional information at this stage, secondly that relevant representations should respond to the application as accepted, and thirdly that the website information will not be available to everyone with an interest in the application, we consider that it would not be appropriate to refer to the further information on the website.
Once the formal examination process has commenced, I suggest representations are submitted to the Examining Authority with a full explanation why the further information does not represent a material change to the application and the Examining Authority can
then make a decision whether to accept the information. After such a decision, the information can then be made available in accordance with Rule 21 of the Examination Procedure Rules.

11 November 2010
DLA Piper - Benjamin Dove-Seymour
Enquiry received via email
Darren Woodward called from the Marston Vale Trust and requested information on the process for registering as an interested party and the deadline for submissions.
thank you for your e-mail, I can confirm during the examination of the Rookery South EfW facility, the IPC will allow Marston Vale Trust to have a further opportunity to voice their say on the proposal.

Apologies for any confusion, only one application to register as an interested party (either via e-mail or hand written) can be accepted.

The initial application to register as an interested party (which you have now registered as) gives the opportunity to summarise your views on the proposal - these views will be explored in more detail during the examination of the project and you will have an opportunity to expand on the submitted summarised views, forming the evidence the IPC considers.

The closing date of submissions of relevant representations is 19 November 2010.

25 October 2010
Marston Vale Trust - Darren Woodward
Enquiry received via email
Query raised regarding the status of the National Policy Statements and what an application will be evaluated against.
The revised draft NPSs for Energy have just been released for consultation by the Government. At this time it is not possible to say when they will be designated (this is for the Secretary of State to determine rather than the IPC). However, in the event that the NPS's are not designated, the Commission would have regard to the draft versions in its consideration of the application and would give them the appropriate weight depending upon the stage the NPSs are at in the designation process.
The Planning Act also requires the Commission to have regard to any Local Impact Report produced by a relevant Local Authority and any other matters which the Commission thinks are important and relevant to its decision. These other matters could include the existing planning policy framework. Where an NPS has not been designated the Commission will make a recommendation to the Secretary of State (SoS) following the examination process and the SoS will then have the responsibility for the decision on whether or not to grant development consent.

19 October 2010
Fran Fry
Enquiry received via email
I am aware that summary representations have to be submitted by 19 November but am unclear when the more detailed representations would need to be submitted. I need to give my client who is looking to object to the application an indication of timescales. If you could also give me an indication as to when the preliminary meeting is likely to be held that would be helpful.
Following the closing date of the representation period on the 19 November 2010, the Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC) will have 21 days to make an initial assessment of the issues.
The commissioner will then set a date for a preliminary meeting. It is at this time or very soon thereafter, that the time-table for detailed representation will be set. It is unlikely that further/detailed representation will be set before January 2011.
Please be advised that only individuals that submit relevant representation at this stage will be notified to make further representation after the time table for detailed representation has been set by the commissioner.

18 October 2010
Heloise Hartley
Enquiry received via phone
The following advice follows a telephone conversation with DLA Piper in regard to the provision of additional information following acceptance by the Commission of an application for development consent.
The IPC have had the opportunity to consider the situation where an applicant intends to provide supplementary information following the Commission's acceptance of an application for development consent.
Our advice is that it is important that the s56 notice should publicise the application as accepted. If you wish to provide additional information to any party, then we suggest this should be done via a separate letter and not within the s56 notice. We suggest the letter should make it clear that the additional information is provided merely to give advance warning of the content which will be put forward subsequently to the Commission during the examination. Interested parties will have an opportunity to make detailed representations to the Commission on any additional information that is provided by the applicant during the examination stage.

It is for an applicant to determine whether it would be helpful at pre-examination stage to inform statutory consultees or others of a desire to supply additional environmental information to the Commission during the course of the examination of the application.
We consider that the IPC has no power during the pre-examination stage to substitute information forming part of the application and its supporting documents; we are limited to providing s51 advice at this stage. For this reason we will not upload any supplementary or substituted environmental information as part of the ES onto our website during the pre-examination stage.
We would also suggest that it is important for any applicant to satisfy itself whether the information to be supplied as part of the ES during the examination falls within the definition of 'any other information' in the IP (EIA) Regulations 2009.

1 October 2010
Benjamin Dove-Seymour
Enquiry received via email
As a statutory party how will the Environment Agency be made aware of the progression of an application such as Rookery South?
The applicant must give you notice of the accepted application under s56 of the PA 2008 setting a deadline for submission of representations giving notice of an interest in or objection to the application. Once the IPC is aware of the deadline set by the applicant it will add this information to the IPC website page for the Rookery South project; we will publish information that is provided to us but there is no obligation on the applicant to let us have this deadline at the same time as it sends notices to prescribed consultees.
As you know the EA is a statutory party as defined in the Infrastructure Planning (Interested Parties) Regulations 2010 and therefore an 'interested party' under s102 of the PA 2008. This means the IPC will notify you of the preliminary meeting in accordance with s88 of the PA 2008. Although there is no statutory requirement for a statutory party to complete a relevant representation form which will be available on the IPC website in due course, you may wish to complete the same form as other interested parties and in any event we would encourage you to provide your initial comments on the application as this would assist the examining authority in its initial assessment of principal issues for the examination.

29 September 2010
The Environment Agency - Carol Bolt
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Letter from Marston Moreteyne Action Group (MMAG) concerning the application from Covanta Rookery South Ltd for Development Consent for a proposed Energy from Waste generating station at Rookery South, Bedfordshire.
A copy of this letter can be accessed via the following link:
[attachment 1]
A copy of the Commission's reply, including advice given, can be accessed via the following link:
[attachment 2]

10 August 2010
Marston Moretaine Action Group - Hugh Roberts
Enquiry received via email
I am writing to express my concerns about the proposed development of the waste incinerator at SRookery Pit, Stewartby.
My main concerns are the impact on the local environment, the increased traffic on already busy roads and the proposal to process waste from outside the County.
I am convinced that this is an ill advised development and that our focus should be on waste reduction and smaller, local disposal solutions.
Please keep me informed on developments relating to this application.
I would like to take the opportunity to update you on the current situation for the Rookery South proposal and highlight the stages at which you can engage in the process and provide your comments as an interested party.
The anticipated application submission date to the IPC is 30th July 2010. If the IPC accepts the application we will in due course make a decision or recommendation on the application. We have 28 days to decide whether or not to accept the application. We are careful not to prejudice this important role before an application is submitted to us and it is important that Commissioners have the opportunity to consider all of the evidence before them at the time the application is submitted, without having been unduly influenced during the pre application stage by any of the parties. This ensures that they remain objective and impartial, which safeguards the interests of all parties. You will therefore appreciate that we are unable to comment on the merits of an application, or the applicants consultation procedures, during the pre-application stages.
After an application has been formally accepted for consideration by the Commission, the application will be publicised and you and other stakeholders will have the opportunity to register as an interested party and subsequently make written representations to us on the merits of the proposal. These representations will be considered by the Commission when deciding whether or not to grant development consent for the proposal. Where requested by an interested party, an open floor hearing will be held to allow parties to orally present their views. In certain cases, the examining Commissioner(s) will also arrange for hearings on specific issues to take place. The procedural arrangements for such hearings will take place around the time of the preliminary hearing following the Commission's acceptance of an application.
It is important to remember that you must write to us as an interested party at the appropriate time following acceptance of an application, as any email sent to the IPC before hand cannot legally be considered for such a purpose.
In its consideration of the application, the Commission must take account of Government policy contained within any National Policy Statement (NPS's), which will set out matters that the Commission must consider in its examination of an application. The NPS's on energy are currently in draft form and have recently undergone a period of consultation. In cases where an NPS has not been formally designated, the Commission, following its examination of the application, will make a recommendation to the Secretary of State who will then have the responsibility for determining the application.
As part of the examination process, the relevant Local Authorities will also be asked to produce a Local Impact Report setting out to the Commission what they consider to be the likely impacts of the proposal, including any environmental impacts, of the proposal upon the local area. This will also be an important document in our determination of the proposals.
For more guidance and advice on the Commission's roles and procedures, I encourage you to visit the Commission's website (using the link below) which includes detailed guidance and advice on the new infrastructure planning procedures and regulations.

29 July 2010
Melanie Bryer
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Requested details of the format of the information to be provided to the Commision for the section 52 requests submitted by Covanta.
Reference was made to Advice Note 4 on (Section 52: Obtaining Information about interests in land). It was noted that this Advice Note (4) was issued after Covanta’s initial s.52 request was made to the Commission in January 2010. Discussed with DLA the format of the information to be provided for both s.52 authorisation requests.
[attachment 1].

27 May 2010
Covanta CRS Ltd - anon.
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Meeting to discuss the Covanta Rookery South Energy from Waste facility - draft Development Consent Order
Please see attached meeting note:

29 April 2010
Covanta Rookery South Energy from Waste
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
To provide an update on scheme progress and continue general liaison between the applicant and the Commission including pre-application consultation, EIA issues, draft Development Consent Order (DCO), S52 issues and application documentation.
Please see meeting notes attached:

18 March 2010
Covanta Rookery South Ltd - Covanta Rookery South Energy from Waste
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
To introduce the IPC, its role and procedures to both Central Bedfordshire Council and Bedford Borough Council
Please see attached meeting note:

17 December 2009
Covanta Rookery South EfW
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Introductory meeting to discuss proposed NSIP application for a Resource Recovery Facility project nr Stewartby in Bedfordshire
Please see attached meeting note:

2 December 2009
Covanta - Covanta Rookery South EfW
Enquiry received via email
As is clear from our client's (Network Rail) written representations, our client's concern is impact on the operation of the railway. It would therefore wish to see proper protective provisions in the DCO and would be interested in the details of the railway crossing in the DCO and any other matter in the DCO which may impact upon the railway.
Strictly subject to Network Rail's final instructions, it may not be necessary for Network Rail to appear at the hearing on 13 May 2011 as the specific issue of the drafting of the DCO in relation to the Green Lane level crossing has been raised by the Examining Authority in its second round of questions. Network Rail intends to submit a response in writing to the applicant's replies to those questions by the IPC deadline of 6 June 2011. It is not envisaged that a representation made at the hearing would differ materially from a written response to be issued in relation to the second round of questions.
Such a course of action would seem prudent and would allow the Examining Authority to make the most efficient use of the hearing time allocated on 13 May. Should Network Rail not attend the DCO drafting hearing and submit a written response to the second round of questions as proposed, it would wish to ensure the following:
That it has the ability to comment on the definition of the works in the DCO;
Protective provisions approved by Network Rail are included in the final DCO. We understand that the applicant is providing a copy of the protective provisions, however for the avoidance of doubt we will do so before Friday; and
The right to comment on any issues raised at the 13 May hearing which may affect Network Rail's position is reserved. We anticipate any amendments to the DCO will be published. Please confirm.
We anticipate reaching an agreed position on all of these matters with the applicant however, in the event that matters are outstanding, we understand that there is a provisional date for a further hearing on 13 June 2011 and outstanding matters may be heard then if not by written representations.
We would be grateful if you could confirm that this approach is acceptable to the IPC and that the above points have been noted.
It is for each party to decide whether or not it attends the the hearing. All interested parties are invited to participate in the hearing and are able, subject to the Examining Authority's powers of control over the conduct of the hearing, to make oral representations on the specific issues being examined at the hearing.

Irrespective of whether or not your client attends the hearing, written comments will be able to be made by the 6th June 2011 on the content of the draft DCO and the other responses submitted further to the Examining Authority's second round of questions. It is anticipated that further comments might be made on the draft DCO by interested parties following the hearing on 13th May and the Examining Authority has set a deadline of the 6th June for the submission of the revised draft of the DCO by the applicant, along with the completed s106 agreement. There is no provision within the examination timetable for written comments to be made on the subsequent draft of the DCO and therefore you should make all comments of relevance to the drafting of the DCO that you wish to be taken into account by 6th June. The ExA will take all representations on the issue into account when deciding whether a further hearing on these specific issues will be held on 13 June 2011 where oral representations would be able to be made.

11 May 2011
Addleshaw Goddard - Amanda Beresford
Enquiry received via phone
response has attachments
Anne Cooper called on 09 May 2011 to ask the following questions, some in relation to the Rookery South Energy from Waste facility application:
1. Does a request for authorisation concerning information about land and right of entry always need to be made?
2. In terms of handling an application approximately how many relevant days are needed for examining the application? I appreciate this will depend on the complexity of the application but any information from the Rookery application would be useful.
3. It would also be useful to know how may days have been allocated for the Rookery Hearings process - which I presume is charged for at the same daily rate as it is part of the examination process.
In response, the following was supplied to Ms Cooper:
1. Does a request for authorisation concerning information about land and right of entry always need to be made?
A - Obtaining information about interests in land under Section 52 of the Planning Act 2008 ("the Act") is available to applicants who are proposing a project of real substance. Such a request is available as a last resort to aid a promoter in identifying relevant persons with whom have interests in the proposed land. There is no statutory obligation by the applicant to make such a request to the IPC if they are satisfied they have both identified and exhausted all relevant persons relevant to Section 52 (3) of the Act. The following link will direct you to the relevant advice note on this matter: [attachment 1]
Section 53 of the Act: 'Rights of entry' again requires an applicant to propose a project of real substance and one that genuinely requires entry to the proposed development area.
As above with Section 52, such a request is to be made as a last resort with the applicant clearly demonstrating attempts to negotiate entry onto land before making such a request to the IPC. Again, such a request is not a statutory obligation to be fulfilled by the applicant. The following link will direct you to the relevant advice note on this matter: [attachment 2]
2. In terms of handling an application approximately how many relevant days are needed for examining the application? I appreciate this will depend on the complexity of the application but any information from the Rookery application would be useful.
It is after the Preliminary Meeting, which commences the 6-month Examination stage, that the Examining Authority ("ExA") - either a single commissioner or panel of commissioners (dependent on size, complexity and public interest anticipated) - will issue and circulate to all Interested Parties their procedural decision which sets out the timetable for the Examination stage. It is within this timetable that the estimated length of the application's examination is announced. I have included a link to the ExA's notice of procedural decision for the Rookery South Energy from Waste facility: [attachment 3]

3. It would also be useful to know how may days have been allocated for the Rookery Hearings process - which I presume is charged for at the same daily rate as it is part of the examination process.
The total number of days allocated for the Rookery South hearing process is provisionally 20 days. Further exact dates of either issue specific, open-floor and compulsory acquisition hearings will be detailed in Section 91, 92 and 93 notices which will be published as prescribed. In total 124 working days (excluding Bank Holidays and weekends) have been allocated for the Examination of the application. The same fee structure applies throughout the entire Examination stage and the term 'Relevant Day' is to be treated consistently throughout. As you mentioned, you have had reference to The Infrastructure Planning (Fees) Regulations 2010 which will detail and provide further information. I promote reference to CLG guidance notes available on our website which will provide further assistance to the matters raised:
[attachment 4] - fees guidance; and
[attachment 5] - examination guidance.

9 May 2011
Scott Wilson - Anne Cooper
Enquiry received via email
The Highways Agency (HA) is responding on line, regarding compulsory acquisition of land.

However I believe the HA should for completeness respond to the application with reference development impact on the A421 trunk road as the application was supported with a Transport Assessment and Travel Plan.

Can you please advise if the HA can register on line its response .
At this stage we require an outline of the principal submissions which you propose to make in respect of the application.

Therefore when completing the online relevant representation form we ask that you provide a summary of any points which you feel should be raised. At a later stage, following the Preliminary Meeting, you will have an opportunity to expand upon these comments through a detailed written representation. There may also be an opportunity to make oral representations at an Issue Specific Hearing, this being at the direction of the Examining Authority.

8 November 2010
Rio D'souza
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
To discuss general procedural matters in relation to the development consent examination process.
Please see meeting note below:
[attachment 1]

8 December 2010
Central Bedfordshire Council and Bedford Borough Council - anon.