This document summarizes Natural England's experience with offshore wind farm projects going through the Planning Inspectorate (PINS) process. It discusses improvements in the pre-application phase through increased engagement. During examination, it notes improvements in common ground statements but sees room for more consistency. Advice provided during examination has also improved through better communication, but consistency of advice and personnel remains an issue. It identifies key issues like displacement mortality assumptions that need resolution. It stresses the importance of recognizing the weight given to Natural England's advice and providing unambiguous guidance. Finally, it notes the substantial post-consent work and resources required.

1. Natural England – Experiences in
the PINS process
GoBe Consultants Ltd
Steve Bellew

2. • Galloper OWF (504MW)
• Triton Knoll OWF (1200MW)
• Atlantic Array (1200MW)
• Burbo Bank Extension
(258MW)
• Walney Extension(750MW)
• Hornsea P1 (&P2)(1200MW)
• Navitus Bay (970MW)
• Rhiannon (2.2GW)
GoBe OWF PINS Experience

3. Overview
• Pre-application - engagement
and advice
• Examination:
• Statements of common ground
• Provision of advice during the
examination phase
• Post-consent
• NE charging

4. Caveats
• Not all NSIPS are born equal!
• Not all developers (or consultants)
are the same!
• Examinations vary (greatly) due to
Ex.A approach and interests
• The views expressed are my own –
although hopefully representative of
the broad experience of the industry

5. What do OWF developers want
from the planning process?
• Certainty of risk
• Clear targets/thresholds
• Timely decisions
• Consistency
• Proportionate approach
• Pragmatic approach
• Flexibility in the consent
• Cost reduction
• Recognition of broader Govt policy

6. Pre-application phase
• Improvements from earliest OWF NSIPS very noticeable, positive
and welcome
• Level of engagement (and resourcing)
• Timing of engagement
• Understanding of the process
• Communications and responsiveness
• Still room for improvement?
• Scoping issues out (advice to PINS) – avoid Super-EIAs!
• Signing issues off pre-application (so as not to be visible in
examination) – avoid clutter!
• Consistency of advice throughout pre-app phase – a problem of
changing faces vs an organisational view?
• Common understanding of issues, terminology etc (especially for
more subjective issues)
• Consistency between projects?
• Influence of senior policy opinion on case work

7. Pre-application phase (contd)
Some solutions?
• Recognise the national importance (but also
complexity) of NSIPs such as OWFs
• Are case officers always adequately
supported/resourced/empowered?
• Is there a need for a much more prominent (lead?) role
for principal advisers from the earliest stage and
throughout?
• Technical experts – availability, consistency, suitability to
case work? (and management of externals!)
• Role of MIEU evidence plans – positive feedback and
should help to avoid issues during examination (or focus
areas of disagreement from the outset)

8. Examination Phase
Statements of Common Ground
• Again huge improvement since earliest OWF
NSIPs
• role of SoCG now generally recognised and
valued
• Willingness to engage and resource (up to a
point!)
• Willingness to agree and set aside many
issues during the pre-exam stage
• Willingness (generally) to stick to ‘agreed
positions’ throughout the examination

9. Examination Phase
• SoCGs – room for improvement?
• Still need to ‘re-invent the wheel’ for each project? – lack of
familiarity in SoCG process between case officers, differences in
views on format/content/areas that can be agreed etc
• Some tension between ‘statutory duty’ – written rep vs
resourcing of SoCG – need for ‘bigger picture’ for examination
phase?
• Role for this pre-app? Ability of NE to ‘commit’ during pre-app?
• Some solutions?
• Establish and agree a common SoCG approach (aims, broad
format, contents, policy agreements etc)
• Increase staff knowledge of SoCG in broader ‘stat duty’ context
for NSIP projects
• Earlier SoCGs (pre-app?) – de-clutter the exam?

10. Examination Phase
Advice during examination
Again experiences much improved and feedback has been broadly positive:
• Greater appreciation of the Planning Act examination process (although could be
improved at case officer level?)
• Very much improved communications (during examinations and during hearings)
(with developers and with other stat bods)
• Willingness to work together to resolve issues or be clear on disagreements
• Willingness to share written representations as early as poss.
• Resourcing and access to technical expertise (for example in considering clarification
information etc) and attendance at meetings, discussions etc generally good
• Involvement of principal advisers alongside case officers
• Pragmatic approach to dealing with more minor issues, mitigation etc
• Helpful advice in directing further consideration of outstanding issues

11. Examination Phase
• Advice during examination – room for improvement?
• Consistency of advice (and changing faces) sometimes a problem
during examination – case officers and/or technical experts
• Bottlenecks can still occur on resourcing – esp. technical experts
• Late changes during examination in light of new information or
change of strategic position (moving goalposts?)
• Lack of certainty in advice – preference to present ‘options’ to the
ExA, lack of clear thresholds etc – not helpful in the decision making
process (too precautionary)? – need to recognise the weight placed
on NE advice by ExA (and SoS)
• Care is required in drafting written responses – awareness of
influence on ExA and interpretation of advice – seek to close down
rather than open up!
• ‘Precedent paranoia’? Fear of changing positions in light of previous
case advice?

12. Examination Phase
• Solutions?
• Adopt clear unambiguous (proportionately precautionary)
advice for the ExA
• Set a clear ‘target’ – and let developers solve issues
• Ensure all written responses are checked (or indeed drafted) at
principal adviser level to ensure the ‘right’ message is being
sent in the context of the examination process and the ‘bigger
picture’
• Accept that there is a ‘shut off’ point regardless of new
information/strategic positions?
• Better management of precedent issues – caveating of advice?
Recognition of differences in cases?

13. Overarching issues
• Urgent need to address some key issues in face of
impending R3 applications:
• CRM – Band models, avoidance rates
• Displacement – mortality assumptions etc
• Thresholds – PBR, PVA etc
• In-combination – past & future projects
• Need for a clear and agreed ‘coping strategy’ on
these areas that allow management of risk and
consistent decision making
• Article 6(4) – urgent need to address
IROPI/alternatives/compensation for OWF NSIPs and
deal with the big questions for key species - are any
of us ready!?

14. Post-consent – its only just begun!
• Is there a recognition and understanding
of the level of work required?
• Monitoring requirements (strategic options?)
• Pre-approvals
• Design details
• Mitigation plans and other documents etc
• Is there a recognition of the
timescales/compliance issues?
• Is the resourcing in place to facilitate
development programs?

15. NE Charging
• The costs of project development are increasing under the new
process
• Costs are becoming an increasing issue for all projects even at
planning stage
But:
• If charges are levied by statutory bodies then:
• Charges should be reasonable
• Should be reflected in a level of service:
• Resourcing
• Technical expertise
• Consistency of advice
• Responsiveness
• This being the case, developers are generally positive that
charging will help the PINS process

16. Final thoughts
• Already the industry has recognised great improvements
in NE resourcing and understanding of the process
• Engagement and willingness to resolve issues is generally
good
• Consistency of personnel and advice remains a concern for
some projects
• Need to recognise the weight given to NE advice in the
process and need to provide advice accordingly
• More and earlier principal adviser engagement is
beneficial for these major NSIP projects
• Progress is needed on the ‘big issues’ (and probably IROPI)
• Don’t forget the post-consent phase!

17. www.gobeconsultants.com