This is an HTML version of an attachment to the Freedom of Information request 'EIR request: NA LEP -DfT communication (1/10/14-6/10/15), Norwich NDR'.

From:   [DfT]
Sent:   13 July 2015 12:17
To:     [NCC]
Subject:        RE: Norwich NDR DCO
xxxx
You’ve identified correctly how the maths was done, and which item doesn’t count, but our reason is 
not quite as you have interpreted the situation.   It was perhaps slightly unfortunate that PINS lumped 
all the correspondence together on their website (though perhaps we weren’t clear enough in advising 
them on handling).
No. 6 (HA Historic Railways Estate) we wouldn’t count as a representation – we approached them during 
the decision stage to request they clarified the situation with their affected land, as the earlier 
correspondence from HA on the subject of crown land consent available to the Panel was inadequate in 
terms of the s.135 (PA 2008 as amended) tests.  Correspondence item 6 was their response to our 
request.    The issue fell away as regards Trunk Road land (for the reason in the first sentence of para. 44 
of the Decision Letter), but remained for the ex-railway land at Marriott’s Way.
All the others volunteered a view on the scheme post-examination to the Secretary of State or Planning 
Inspectorate without prompting.
[NCC]
............................................................................................  
From: [NCC] 
Sent: 13 July 2015 11:10 
To: [DfT] 
Subject: RE: Norwich NDR DCO
Dear xxxx
Can you confirm that In para 53 of decision letter we think eight representations referred 
to are 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8 and 9. Not 6 as this is referred to in para 44. Para 53 should be 
read with para 44. 
Please can you confirm this understanding is correct.
Yours sincerely
[NCC]
.........................................................................................
From: [DfT]  
Sent: 01 July 2015 09:41 
To: [NCC] 
Subject: Norwich NDR DCO
xxxx
We spoke.    

Sorry, I was wrong about there being guidance on the PINS website about making changes to DCOs – a 
guidance note is contemplated but has not yet been published, not least because the underlying 
legislation changes with effect from 14 July 2015.  Schedule 6 of the Planning Act 2008 as amended is 
the relevant part. 
There is also the procedure in Schedule 4 of the Planning Act 2008 as amended for “Correction of Errors 
in Development Consent Decisions” : I point you towards this without prejudice to any view of the 
Secretary of State as to whether the change which concerns you is properly an “error” or not.     I advise 
NCC to seek its own legal advice on what course (if any) to follow – as the people who would advise the 
Secretary of State on a Correction or Amendment Order, I’m afraid we cannot provide that advice to 
you.
[DfT]