Robertson (Jane) Sent: 19 November 2019 1533 To: Robertson (Jane) Cc: Subject: RE: Dart/lneos appeals Attachments: Slgned letter to The Chlef Planner and Categories: Dart Good Jane Further to your emall at 13'" Novembery please find attached a copy of a letter that have been Instructed by the appellant to send to the Chlel Planner evening. In the or content INEOS respecllully requests that lne of the appeals be conlrnued by the Reporters lne Chlel Planner has responded to request for runner rnlorrnauon lne way ln lne would rnlend lo apply lnerr pollcy ol"no support" In and Me parues have had lne opponunrly lo consrder terms, Al that polnl, INEOS aelreves ll be able to take a more properly lnlormed declslon as regards lntenllon lor the appeals. regards Sandy Telrer Consultant I on DLA Plper Scotland LLP dlaplper will From:-- Sent: 13 November 2019 12:40 Subject:R Dart/lneosappeals Our rels: PPA-240-2032 8. PPA-390-2029 13 November 2019 Good afternoon Mr Teller Thank you for your email of 12 November in response to mine of 31 October Scottish Ministers issued a statement on 3 October 2019 which sets out the Scottish Government's finalised policy on unconventional oil and gas development (Scotland's Onshore Unconventional Oil and Gas Policy - The Scottish Government's Finalised Policy Position on Unconventional Oil and Gas Development, October 2019). On page 8 of this document it states: 1 “On this basis, the Scottish Government does not support the development of unconventional oil and gas in Scotland. This means development connected to the onshore exploration, appraisal or production of coal bed methane or shale oil or shale gas using unconventional oil and gas extraction techniques, including hydraulic fracturing and dewatering for coal bed methane. On 03 October 2019, Heads of Planning Scotland and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency were informed of the finalised policy position via letters issued by the Chief Planner (HoPS) and Scottish Government officials (SEPA). A Planning Direction has also been issued to reflect the wording of the finalised policy. This approach ensures decisions on onshore unconventional oil and gas developments will be made having regard to planning policy and procedure, and within the framework of Scottish Government policy – a policy that does not support unconventional oil and gas development in Scotland.” On page 9 of that document, in the context of transferred powers for granting and regulation of licences to search and bore for and get petroleum within the Scottish onshore area; determining the terms and conditions of licences; and regulating the licensing process, including administration of existing licences, it states: “In addition to the policy of no support for unconventional oil and gas being a material consideration for planning decisions…..” It is in that context that the reporters asked for your client’s intentions in the appeals. It is usual practice in planning appeals where Scottish Government policy is a major consideration that parties to the appeals make submissions on how the policy should be interpreted. Appeals and applications for onshore wind farms are the most obvious example of that practice. If your client decides to proceed with the appeals, the reporters envisage that your client, and all the other parties to the appeals, would make submissions on the Scottish Government’s finalised policy position on unconventional oil and gas development. In their report to Scottish Ministers, the reporters would include their summary of these submissions and make their recommendations on what should happen with the appeals, as is normal in recalled appeal cases. The reporters do not consider that DPEA should be used as an intermediary between your client and the Chief Planner and I will not forward your email of 12 November 2019 to him. It is, of course, open to your client to engage in direct discussion with the Chief Planner on this matter.   I would be grateful, therefore, if you could advise whether or not your client wishes to proceed with the appeals. Please reply within 7 days. Kind regards, Jane Robertson Specialised Case Officer Planning and Environmental Appeals Division 4 The Courtyard 2 Callendar Business Park Callendar Road FALKIRK FK1 1XR W: scotland.gov.uk mm com/d mascotland K4 gov.scot From: elfer, Sandy-- Sen 12 November 2019 11:50 To Robertsonl (Janel-- Subject. E: Dart/lneosappeals Good Jane Ahead a final on thelr lntentlon tor the appeals, INEOS to understand what It ls that operators, local authorltles and members ot the puhllc are to take trom the revlsed pollcy posltlon ot "no support". INEOS and the other partles to the appeals are aware that the have confirmed In the Court pl Sesslon that thelr new pollcy does not a ban on onshore uhconventlonal oll and gas development In Scotland. That pelng the Cases It lollows that the new pollcy lall to be categorlsed Ih law as a "materlal Conslderatlon" the he requlred to take lnto account along all other relevant materlal conslderatlons) Includlng the tested evldence, when the appeals. Agalh as a matter ot law, the welght to be attached to the new pollcy In the declslonrmaklng process be a matter forthem, subject to the usual law test of Wednesbuly uhreasonapIeness. llthese polnts are accepted, lt lollows that thelr new pollcy ot "no support" cannot be taken as meanlng that the every onshore unconventlonal oll or gas development that comes pelore them, regardless ot ments. If that were to be the case, the new pollcy would ln practlcal (I) an eflectlve and lmmedlate ban on all onshore unconventlonal all and gas development ln Scotland (ll) preach the lundamental law that every must he treated on own merlts and, so tar as the appeals are concerned render thelr outcome a toregone concluslon. For those reasons INEOS ls keen to understand how the see thelr pollcy nl"no support" belng applled ln practlce For example, INEOS would be keen to understand ln partlcular how the see thelr new polloy the reglme tor the preventlon gas set out ln the Pollutlon Preventlon and Control (Scotland) Regulatlons 2012 (as amended). As the are aware, the PPC reglme ls lntended to prevent or the lmpact ot ln order to render them harmless, llthe evldence glveh at the appeal lnqulry showed, as INEOS would contend that It dld, that any potentlal pollutlon prohlems, lncludlng the potentlal cllmate change lmpacts trom llarlng and operatlons, could he sately left to the PFC authonsatlon process, the questlon then would be whether (all other oelng equal) lt would he lawrul ln these clrcumstances lor the to glve or no welght to that sclentmc evldence welght to thelr new polloy ot "no support" ln order to relusal. In the normal course or events, a declslon the welght to be attached by the to these apparently competlng conslderatlons 3 would be regarded as an exercrse ot ludgemenl, but, as would be the case the exercrse ot any power, a party ln the posrtron ol the would have to provrde reasons why they had concluded that rt was reasonable tor them to set asrde the screntrfic evrdence and grve werght rnstead to therr polrcy ot "no support". Put rs the new pallcy rntended to cverrlde every other relevant materral consrderatron, rncludrng screntrfic evrdence, no matter how ln vlew, matters such ol these relatrng to the ola new pallcy would have been expected to be addressed rn explanatory text had been consulted upon prror to the final polrcy posrtron belng announced. But all that the have advlsed ln relatron to new polrcy, as confirmed rn the Chret Planners letter ot am October, rs that the Government "does not support" onshore unconventronal orl and gas development In Scotland, No tunher advrce has been rssued to explarn how the would propose to apply therr polrcy ot "no support", tor example, to an was at a trme ot external threat to energy supplres and agarnst a backdrop where the screntrfic evldence demonstrated that the rssue to land, arr and water could be satrslactorrly As an otthat nature would reourre, as a matter at law, to be determrned on merrts, the ouestron ls whether ln these crrcumstances, the would be prepared to set therr polrcy ot "no support" asrde and grant the I should be gratetul rt the Reporters would lorward enqulry on to the Chrel a request that he please confirm on a wrthout preludlce basrs howthe envlsage therr polrcy ot "no support" belng applred ln practrce. I look lorward to heanng trorn you. regards Sandy Sandy Telfer Consultant MA WPER DLA Plper Scotland LLP dlaprper oorn From: Teller, Sandy Sent: 31 October 2019 11:52 Su lent: RE: Dart lneosappeals Good Jane Thank you toryour letter. I confirm that have wntten to INEOS to request and revert to you a substantrve response as soon as they are recerved. have the 14 day response regards Sandy Sandy Telfer I m. wen DLA Flper Scolland LLF dlaplper mm Sent: 31 October 2019 2 T0: Telfer, Sandy -- Subject: Dart/lneos appeals Our refs PPA--240-2032 PPA--390-2029 Planning Authority refs Copied to all inquiry parties 31 October 2019 Dear Mr Telfer APPEALS BY DART ENERGY (FORTH VALLEY) LTD CONCERNING COAL BED METHANE PRODUCTION, INCLUDING DRILLING, WELL SITE ESTABLISHMENT AT 14 LOCATIONS AND ASSOCIATED INFRASTRUCTURE AT LETHAM MOSS, FALKIRK AND POWDRAKE ROAD, NEAR AIRTH, PLEAN As you are aware, these appeals have been sisted for some time, pending finalisation of the Scottish Government's policy position on unconventional oil and gas. I last wrote to parties on 4 April 2019 confirming that it was anticipated that the finalised policy position would be known in the autumn and that I would write again once that had been announced. On 3 October the Scottish Government announced in parliament its final policy position on onshore oil and gas, as reflected in the enclosed Town and Country Planning (Notification of Applications) (Unconventional Oil and Gas) (Scotland) Direction 2019. This announcement confirmed that it does not support the development of unconventional oil and gas in Scotland and that there is no support from the Scottish Government for development connected to the onshore exploration, appraisal or production of coal-bed methane, shale oil or shale gas using unconventional oil and gas extraction techniques, including hydraulic fracturing and dewatering for coal-bed methane. Following this announcement and the making of that Direction, the reporters have asked me to seek confirmation of your client's intentions for these appeals. If it is their intention to proceed, then I should be grateful to receive your thoughts on how they consider that the appeals should be progressed, to inform the reporters' next steps. Given the revised policy position and the age of the submitted environmental information (as reflected in particular in paragraph 3 of that Direction), the reporters' preliminary view is that updated information would be required. Interested parties would need to be given the chance to respond to this. Once I have heard from you, I will issue further correspondence to all interested parties . A response within 14 days would be appreciated. I attach, for convenience, a copy at the Chief Planner's direction in respect ofthe above. Kind regards 0n behalt of Jane Robertson Mandy Mccomiskiel Section Managerl Planning and Environmental Appeals Division 4 The Courtyard Callendar Business Park Falkirk ir; 0131 244 6982 WA |gov.scot This e-mail (and any files or other attachments transmitted with it) is intended solely for the attention of the addressee(s) Unauthorised use, disclosure, storage, copying or distribution of any part of this e-mail is not permitted If you are not the intended recipient please destroy the email, remove any copies from your system and inform the sender immediately by return Communications with the Scottish Government may be monitored or recorded in order to secure the effective operation of the system and for other lawful purposes The views or opinions contained within this e-mail may not necessarily reflect those of the Scottish Government This email is from DLA Piper Scotland LLP The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient They may not be disclosed to or used by or copied in any way by anyone other than the intended recipient If this mail is received in error, please contact DLA Piper Scotland LLP on +44 (0) 20 7349 0296 quoting the name ofthe sender and the email address to which it has been sent and then delete it For more information on how we process personal data please see mm diagi yer com/3m acvgulim Please note that neither DLA Piper Scotland LLP nor the sender accepts any responsibility for Viruses and it is your responSibility to scan or otherWise check this email and any attachments DLA Piper Scotland LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in Scotland (registered number 50300365), which prowdes serVices from offices in Scotland A list of members is open for inspection at its registered office and principal place of business Rutland Square, Edinburgh, EH1 2AA Partner denotes member ofa limited liability panneiship DLA Piper Scotland LLP is regulated by the Law Society of Scotland and is part of DLA Piper, a global law firm, operating through various separate and distinct legal entities For further information, please refer to mm diagigcr cum This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security cloud sewice For more information please Visit com This e-mail (and any files or other attachments transmitted with it) is intended solely for the attention of the addressee(s) Unauthorised use, disclosure, storage, copying or distribution of any part of this e-mail is not permitted If you are not the intended recipient please destroy the email, remove any copies from your system and inform the sender immediately by return 6 Communications with the Scottish Government may be monitored or recorded in order to secure the effective operation of the system and for other lawful purposes. The views or opinions contained within this e-mail may not necessarily reflect those of the Scottish Government. ********************************************************************** This email is from DLA Piper Scotland LLP. The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient. They may not be disclosed to or used by or copied in any way by anyone other than the intended recipient. If this e mail is received in error, please contact DLA Piper Scotland LLP on +44 (0) 20 7349 0296 quoting the name of the sender and the email address to which it has been sent and then delete it. For more information on how we process personal data please see www.dlapiper.com/privacy-policy. Please note that neither DLA Piper Scotland LLP nor the sender accepts any responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan or otherwise check this email and any attachments. DLA Piper Scotland LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in Scotland (registered number SO300365), which provides services from offices in Scotland. A list of members is open for inspection at its registered office and principal place of business Rutland Square, Edinburgh, EH1 2AA. Partner denotes member of a limited liability partnership. DLA Piper Scotland LLP is regulated by the Law Society of Scotland and is part of DLA Piper, a global law firm, operating through various separate and distinct legal entities. For further information, please refer to www.dlapiper.com. ______________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com ______________________________________________________________________ 7 DLA Piper Scotland LLP Collins House Rutland Square Edinburgh EH1 2AA DX ED271 Edinburgh 1 T +44 131 242 5094 F +44 (0) 131 242 5555 W www.d lapiper.com [oLJIPER The Chief Planner Planning and Architecture Division Local Government and Communities Directorate Scottish Government Victoria Quay Edinburgh EH66QQ Your reference Our reference SRT/MBC/359051/29 UKM/100180318.1 19 November 2019 Dear Chief Planner APPEALS PP A-240-2032 & PP A-390-2029 We are instructed by the appellant, INEOS Upstream Limited. We enclose for your information a copy of an email that we received from the DPEA on 13th November 2019. You will note the advice from the DPEA that if the appellant required any further advice and direction from the Scottish Government on the practical application of its recently finalised policy of "no support" for onshore unconventional oil and gas development in Scotland, it should contact you directly to make the request rather than have that request sent to you via the DPEA. We have now had the opportunity to discuss this direct contact option with our clients and are instructed to write to you to request your assistance in relation to that practical application issue ahead of them providing the Reporters with their final view on their intention for the subject appeals. INEOS and the other parties to the appeals are aware that the Scottish Ministers have confinned in the Court of Session that their new policy does not constitute a ban on onshore unconventional oil and gas development in Scotland. That being the case, it follows, as you explained in your letter to HoPS dated 3rd October, that the new policy will fall to be categorised in law as a "material consideration" which the Scottish Ministers will be required to take into account along with all other relevant material considerations, including the tested scientific evidence, when determining the appeals. Again as a matter of law, the weight to be attached to the new policy in the decisionmaking process will be a matter for them, subject to the usual administrative law test of Wednesbury unreasonableness. This suggests, therefore, that the Scottish Ministers' new policy of "no support" cannot be taken as meaning that they will dismiss every onshore unconventional oil or gas development application that comes before them, regardless of its individual merits. If that were to be the case, the new policy would in its practical application (i) constitute an effective and immediate ban on all onshore unconventional oil and gas development in Scotland, (ii) breach the fundamental planning law principle that every application must be treated on its own merits and, (iii) so far as the subject appeals are concerned, DLA Piper Scotland LLP is regulated by the Law Society of Scotland. DLA Piper Scotland LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in Scotland (number 80300365) wh ich is part of DLA Piper, a global law firm, operating through various separate and distinct legal entities. A list of members is open for inspection at its registered office and principal place of business, Collins House, Rutland Square, Edinburgh EH1 2AA and at the address at the top of this letter. Partner denotes member of a limited liability partnership. A list of offices and regulatory information can be found at www.dlapiper.com. UK switchboard +44 (0) 20 7349 0296 INVESTOR IN PEOPLE rDLJIPER render their outcome a foregone conclusion. For those reasons INEOS wishes to understand, ahead of confirming to the DPEA how it would wish the Reporters to deal with the appeals, how the Scottish Ministers see their policy of "no support" being applied in practice. For example, INEOS would be keen to understand in particular how the Scottish Ministers see their new policy interacting with the regime for the prevention of fugitive gas emissions set out in the Pollution Prevention and Control (Scotland) Regulations 2012 (as amended). As the Scottish Ministers are aware, the PPC regime is intended to prevent or mitigate the impact of emissions in order to render them harmless. If the evidence given at the appeal inquiry showed, as INEOS would contend that it did, that any potential pollution problems, including the potential climate change impacts arising from drilling, flaring and venting operations, could be safely left to the PPC authorisation process, the question then arising would be whether (all other things being equal) it would be lawful in these circumstances for the Scottish Ministers to give little or no weight to that scientific evidence whilst giving overriding weight to their new policy of "no support" in order to justify refusal. In the normal course of events a decision concerning the weight to be attached by the Scottish Ministers to these apparently competing considerations would be regarded as an exercise of planning judgement, but, as would be the case with the exercise of any discretionary power, a party in the position of the Scottish Ministers would have to provide reasons explaining why they had concluded that it was reasonable for them to set aside the scientific evidence and give overriding weight instead to their policy of "no support". Put simply the fundamental issue is whether the new policy is intended to override every other relevant material consideration, including scientific evidence supporting the development, no matter how compelling? In INEOS' view, matters such of these relating to the application of a new planning policy would normally have been expected to be addressed in supporting explanatory text which had been consulted upon prior to the final policy position being announced. And as the DPEA has reminded INEOS, it is usual practice in plaiming appeals where Scottish Government policy is a major consideration that parties to the appeals make submissions on how the policy should be interpreted. But all that the Scottish Ministers have advised in relation to this new policy, as confirmed in your letter of 3rct October, is that the Scottish Govermnent "does not support" onshore unconventional oil and gas development in Scotland. No further advice has been issued to explain how the Scottish Ministers would propose to apply their policy of "no support", for example, to an application which was submitted at a time of external threat to energy supplies and against a backdrop where the scientific evidence demonstrated that the issue of emissions to land, air and water could be satisfactorily mitigated. As an application of that nature would require to be determined on its individual merits, the question arising is whether in these circumstances, the Scottish Ministers would be prepared to set their policy of "no support" aside and grant the applicant planning permission. INEOS and, doubtless, the other parties to the appeals would welcome any advice or comments that you may be able to provide to assist the interpretation process. SRT/MBC/359051 /29 UKM/100180318.1 Continuation 2 19 November 201 9 [oLJIPER We look forward to hearing from you. Yours faithfully 1)()c1\. ( v---- DLA PIPER SCOTLAND LLP Encl SRT/MBC/359051/29 UKM/100180318.1 Continuation 3 19 November 2019 Telfer, Sandy From: Sent: 13 November 201912 40 To: Telfer, Sandy CC -- Subject: RE Dart/lneos appeals Our refs' PPA--39072029 13 November 2019 Good afternoon Mr Telfer Thank you for your email of 12 November in response to mine of 31 October. Scottish Ministers Issued a statement on 3 October 2019 which sets out the Scottish Government's finalised policy on unconventional oil and gas development (Scotland's Onshore Unconventional Oil and Gas Policy The Scottish Government's Finalised Policy Position on Unconventional Oil and Gas Development, October 2019). On page 8 of this document it states "On this basis, the Scottish Government does not support the development of unconventional oil and gas in Scotland. This means development connected to the onshore exploration, appraisal or production of coal bed methane or shale oil or shale gas using unconventional oil and gas extraction techniques, including hydraulic fracturing and dewatering for coal bed methane On 03 October 2019, Heads of Planning Scotland and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency were informed of the finalised policy position via letters issued by the Chief Planner and Scottish Government officials (SEPA). A Planning Direction has also been issued to reflect the wording of the finalised policy. This approach ensures deCIsions on onshore unconventional oil and gas developments will be made having regard to planning policy and procedure, and within the framework of Scottish Government policy -- a policy that does not support unconventional oil and gas development in Scotland." On page 9 of that document, in the context of transferred powers for granting and regulation of licences to search and bore for and get petroleum Within the Scottish onshore area; determining the terms and conditions of licences, and regulating the licensing process, including administration of existing licences, it states: "In addition to the policy of no support for unconventional oil and gas being a material consideration for planning It is in that context that the reporters asked for your client's rntentions in the appeals, It is usual practice ll'l planning appeals where Scottish Government policy is a major consideration that parties to the appeals make on how the policy should be interpreted Appeals and applications for onshore Wind farms are the most obwous example of that practice if your client deer :s to pit With the appeals the reporters envisage that your Cllelit' and all the other parties to the appeals would make submissions on the Scottish Government's finalised policy position on unconventional or! and gas development In their report to Scottish Ministers the reporters would include their summary of these submissions and make their recommendations on what should happen With the appeals as is normal in recalled appeal Cases The reporters do not consider that DPEA should be used as an intermediary between your client and the Chief Planner and Will not forward your email of 12 November 2019 to him It is, of course. open to your client to engage in direct discussion With the Chief Planner on this matter lwould be grateful therefore if you could advise whether or not your client Wishes to proceed With the appeals Please reply Within 7 days Kind regards Jane Rpfiertson Specialised Case Officer Planning and Environmental Appeals Division 4 The Courtyard Callendar Business Park Callendar Road FALKIRK W. scotlandgovuk cum gov.scot From: Telfer, Saridv -- Sent: 12 NnvemherZOlq 11 '70 T0: Robertson (Jana) -- Subject: RE Darl/hreusappeels Good morning' Jarie Ahead of giving a final view on their intention for the appeals, INEOS wish to understand what it is that operators, local planning authorities and members of the public are to take from the Scottish Ministers rewsed policy position of 'no support" INEOS and the other parties to the appeals are aware that the Scottish Ministers have confirmed In the Court of Session that their new policy does not constitute a ban on onshore unconventional oil and gas development in Scotland. That being the Case, It follows that the new policy will fall to be categorised In law as a "material consideration" which the Scottish Ministers will be required to take into account along with all other relevant material considerations, including the tested scientific evidence when determining the appeals Again as a matter of law, the weight to be attached to the new policy in the decision-making process will be a matter for them, subject to the usual administrative law test or Wednesbury unreasonableness if these points are accepted, it follows that their new policy of "no support" cannot be taken as meaning that the Scottish Ministers will dismiss every onshore unconventional oil or gas development application that comes before them, regardless of its individual merits if that were to be the case, the new policy would in its practical application (I) constitute an effective and immediate ban on all onshore unocnventional oil and gas development in Scotland (ii) breach the fundamental planning law principle that every application must be treated on its own merits and, (in) so far as the appeals are concerned, render their outcome a foregone conclusion For those reasons INEOS is keen to understand how the Scottish Ministers see their policy of "no support" being applied in practice. For example, INEOS would be keen to understand in particular how the Scottish Ministers see their new policy interacting with the regime forthe prevention of fugitive gas emissions set out in the Pollution Prevention and Control (Scotland) Regulations 2012 (as amended), As the Scottish Ministers are aware, the PPC regime is intended to prevent or mitigate the impact otemissions in order to render them harmless if the evidence given at the appeal inquiry showed, as INEOS would contend that it did, that any potential pollution problems, including the potential climate change impacts arising from drilling, flaring and venting operations, could be safely left to the PFC authorisation process, the question then arising would be whether (all other things being equal) it would be lawful in these circumstances forihe Scottish Ministers to give little or no weight to that scientinc evidence whilst giving overriding weight to their new policy of "no support" in order to iusiify refusal In the normal course of events, a decision concerning the weight to be attached by the Scottish Ministers to these apparently competing considerations would be regarded as an exercise of planning judgement, but, as would be the case with the exercise olany discretionary power, a party in the position of the Scottish Ministers would have to provide reasons explaining why they had concluded that it was reasonable for them to set aside the scientific evidence and give overriding weight instead to their policy oi'ho support" Put simply is the new policy intended to override every other relevant material consideration, including scientific evrdence, no matter how compelling? in view, matters such of these relating to the application of a new planning policy would have been expected to be addressed in supporting explanatory text which had been consulted upon prior to the final policy position being announced But all that the Scottish Ministers have advised In relation to this new policy, as confirmed In the Chief Planner's letter of October, Is that the Scottish Government "does not support" onshore unconventional oil and gas development in Scotland NO further advice has been Issued to explain how the Scottish Ministers would propose to apply their policy of "no support", for example, to an application which was submitted at a time of external threat to energy supplies and against a backdrop where the scientific ei/iderice demonstrated that the issue of emissions to land, air and water could be satisfactorily mitigated As an application ofihat nature would require, as a matter of law. to be determined on its individual merits, the question arising is whether in these the Scottish Ministers would be prepared to set their policy of "no support" aside and grant the applicant planning permission I should be grateful if the Reporters would fonriaro this enquiry on to the Chief Planner with a request that he please contirm on a without preludioe oasis how the Scottish Ministers envisage their policy oi "no support" being applied in practice I look forward to hearing irorn you Kind regards Sandy Sandy Telfer consultant Fram: ToIfr'r, Sandy Se ZULU ll 51 Subject: RE Dart/Invoiappedl; Good Jane Thank you ror your IelIer IhaH have I0 INEOS INS mormng to request and WHI revert to you a SubSIamlve response as soon as they are received me 14 day response Kurd rcgards Sandy Sandy Telfel Subject: Darr/lnem dppeaIi Our refs PPA739072029 Pranmng Authority refs Copied IO 31' rnqurry partres 31 October 2019 Dear Mr Telfer APPEALS BY DART ENERGY (FORTH VALLEY) LTD CONCERNING COAL BED METHANE PRODUCTION, INCLUDING DRILLING, WELL SITE ESTABLISHMENT AT 14 LOCATIONS AND ASSOCIATED INFRASTRUCTURE AT LETHAM MOSS, FALKIRK AND POWDRAKE ROAD, NEAR AIRTH, PLEAN As you are aware, these appeals have been sisted for sometime. pending finalisation of the Scottish Government's policy position on unconventional oil and gas. last wrote to parties on 4 April 2019 confirming that it was anticipated that the finalised policy position would be known in the autumn and that I would write again once that had been announced On 3 October the Scottish Government announced in parliament its final policy position on onshore oil and gas, as reflected in the enclosed Town and Country Planning (Notification of Applications) (Unconventional Oil and Gas) (Scotland) Direction 2019. This announcement confirmed that it does not support the development of unconventional oil and gas in Scotland and that there is no support from the Scottish Government for development connected to the onshore exploration, appraisal or production of coal-bed methane, shale oil or shale gas using unconventional oil and gas extraction techniques, including hydraulic fracturing and dewatering for coal--bed methane. Following this announcement and the making of that Direction, the reporters have asked me to seek confirmation of your client's intentions for these appeals. If it is their intention to proceed, then I should be grateful to receive your thoughts on how they consider that the appeals should be progressed, to inform the reporters' next steps. Given the revised policy position and the age of the submitted environmental information (as reflected in particular in paragraph 3 of that Direction), the reporters' preliminary view is that updated information would be required. Interested parties would need to be given the chance to respond to this. Once I have heard from you. lwill issue further correspondence to all interested parties . A response within 14 days would be appreciated. I attach, for convenience, a copy of the Chief Planner's direction in respect of the above, Kind regards Mandy McComiskie On behalf of Jane Robertson Section Manageri Planning and EnvironmentalAppeals Division 4The Courtyard Caliendar Eusmess Park Falkirk FM in Website'WWdeea.scotland.gov uk gov.scot This e-mail (and any files or other attachments transmitted with it) is intended solely for the attention of the addressee(s). Unauthorised use, disclosure, storage, copying or distribution of any part of this e-mail is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient please destroy the email, remove any copies from your system and inform the sender immediately by return. Communications with the Scottish Government may be monitored or recorded in order to secure the effective operation of the system and for other lawful purposes. The views or opinions contained within this e-mail may not necessarily reflect those of the Scottish Government. ****.***************************************************************** This email is from DLA Piper Scotland LLP. The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient. They may not be disclosed to or used by or copied in any way by anyone other than the intended recipient. If this email is received in error, please contact DLA Piper Scotland LLP on +44 (0) 20 7349 0296 quoting the name of the sender and the email address to which it has been sent and then delete it. For more information on how we process personal data please see www.dlapiper.com/privacy-policy. Please note that neither DLA Piper Scotland LLP nor the sender accepts any responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan or otherwise check this email and any attachments. DLA Piper Scotland LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in Scotland (registered number S0300365), which provides services from offices in Scotland. A list of members is open for inspection at its registered office and principal place of business Rutland Square, Edinburgh, EHl 2AA. Partner denotes member of a limited liability partnership. DLA Piper Scotland LLP is regulated by the Law Society of Scotland and is part of DLA Piper, a global law firm, operating through various separate and distinct legal entities. For further information, please refer to www.dlapiper.com. This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com ********************************************************************** This e-mail (and any files or other attachments transmitted with it) is intended solely for the attention of the addressee(s). Unauthorised use, disclosure, storage, copying or distribution of any part of this e-mail is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient please destroy the email, remove any copies from your system and inform the sender immediately by return. Communications with the Scottish Government may be monitored or recorded in order to secure the effective operation of the system and for other lawful purposes. The views or opinions contained within this e-mail may not necessarily reflect those of the Scottish Government. ********************************************************************** 6