Representation by Simon Ive
- Date submitted
- 20 January 2020
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
EAST ANGLIA 1 (NORTH) OFFSHORE WINDFARM RELEVANT REPRESENTATIONS. Be assured that I am not against proposals for offshore windfarms (better offshore than onshore) as part of the Governments renewable energy policy but reject the choice of Friston as the site for a hub of energy projects in addition to that proposed. Accordingly, I concur with the relevant representations made by: - Friston Parish Council supported by the SASES action group - Historic England - Suffolk County Council - East Suffolk Council - Other local interested parties opposed to the selection of Friston as the site for EA1(North), EA2 and National Grid substations. The proposals are acts of human and environmental vandalism. - Destroying in excess of 30 acres of historic rural and agricultural land, wild life and fauna habitats, turning the area into an industrial wasteland. - Five-mile cable route scars permanently the landscape. - In the heart of an area surrounded by areas of Specific Scientific Interest and Specially Protected and AONB. - Closing permanently and temporarily 26 footpaths and PRoWs. - Causing permanent loss of amenity to visitors and residents seeking peace and tranquillity offered by skies (day and night!), landscapes, seascapes and nature. - Loss of valuable agricultural land. - The site spreads into the social and spiritual heart of the village – the Village Hall and the Grade ll* listed Church undermining their sustainability and roles within the community. - Exposes a vulnerable ageing community to increased health and safety risks: - Flooding - Noise - Light - Air pollution - Traffic and transport arising from road alterations and increased traffic volumes (no overarching traffic management plan) and no refuge for walkers and cyclists. - Anxiety, depression, sleep deprivation and isolation. - Financial – loss of equity, funding of social and health care. - These issues are NOT ‘negligible, temporary or minor’. (SPR terms!). - Inadequate site selection planning. - Both projects were conceived to follow the Bawdsey to Bramford corridor through open countryside to an already established substation complex far from a population centre with capacity to expand. - Questionable manoeuvring by the developer and National Grid to establish a new hub for further energy projects and to avoid the NSIP process for the National Grid substation. - No accountability by/for National Grid and withholding information. - Insufficient accounting for cumulative effects of existing and proposed projects – namely Sizewell C construction – it is seeking DCO approval this year which means major disruption to the whole of this part of the coast being subject to its preparatory and construction works at the same time as these projects. Meanwhile, its viability and construction are questionable and the site could alternatively be used to accommodate these projects with much less damage to Sizewell and its community. - expansion of Greater Gabbard and Galloper offshore windfarms; two National Grid Ventures Interconnectors (Nautilus and Eurolink) and then energy storage facilities. - These exacerbate the risks of the two projects subject to examination and the extended construction periods damaging to nature, the community and visitors. - Raising the questions of lack of planning co-ordination for all the projects. - Allied to Councils’ Local Plans (subject to scrutiny and approval by the National Planning Inspectorate) for the development of 85,000 new homes within one hour’s drive of this area – total impact on local infrastructure and population, services, accessibility and then the need for new home families to have access to historic and unspoilt land and seascapes. - Sustainability of the community is threatened by the loss of new residents into the village; inward investment; loss of support of church and village hall and local events; loss of jobs arising from fall in tourism as potential residents and visitors are deterred by spread and size of these and other projects. - The DCO application, 17,000 pages is lazy and contemptuous displaying a lack of understanding and care for humans and environment. No cognisance of local issues and concerns already advised. Indeed, most of the visuals omit to show the existence of the village. - Too much key detail including that relating to safety and traffic to be subject to detail after DCO consent – who approves, monitors and enforces? - Even now the developer is drip feeding further information concerning acquiring rights of way, land and access which have sinister implications for the future of Friston. Simon Ive 20 January 2020