In the second set of Sea Link questions ExQ2 (PD-021), the Examiners (ExA) have seriously picked up and acknowledged SEAS arguments against the ‘Need’ for Sea Link in question 2GEN1 (see full text below).
Due to the complexity of the issue, they have however, decided there will be no dedicated Issue Specific Hearing and they will continue with it as a ‘written process’. Thanks to those who asked for an ISH.
Despite no ISH, at least SEAS arguments against Need are now clearly in the public written examination record and we are reassured that they must now be addressed. This is a severe rapping of National Grid’s knuckles by ExA, requesting in no uncertain terms that NGET respond to SEAS ‘Need’ representations – we await NGET’s response.
ExA’s full question 2GEN1:
At deadline 3 (DL3) [REP3-144], in issue specific hearing 2 (ISH2) [REP4-156] and summarised in [REP4-238] Suffolk Energy Action Solutions (SEAS) raised concerns in relation to need. SEAS state that there is no need for the proposed development and that any shortfall in capacity could be met through reinforcement of existing infrastructure. In ISH2 the ExA specifically asked the applicant to respond to SEAS [REP3-144]. This has not been done. The ExA accepted a late DL4 submission from the applicant [REP4-236]. At paragraph 1.1.4 of this submission it states, “Some submissions are not responded to again in this document because it is the Applicant’s view that all matters raised have been responded to previously, or that no further comments are necessary.” The applicant is requested to provide appropriate responses to all submissions.
Provide a response to the SEAS submissions detailed above, and any other submissions not already responded to. In the responses either provide a detailed answer or clearly sign post to where this answer can be found using examination library references/page or paragraph numbers.