Representation by Richard Cooper
- Date submitted
- 26 January 2020
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
Introduction 1. I support the development of renewable energy resources and accept the role that offshore wind will play. However, I have serious concerns regarding Scottish Power Renewables’ (SPR’s) proposed onshore infrastructure associated with East Anglia One North (EA1-N) and East Anglia Two (EA2) windfarms. 2. The Planning Act 2008 provides a process for examining Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects and the purpose of the process is to weigh local impacts against national needs. I argue that the SPR Environmental Statements for the EA1-N and EA2 substations gives insufficient weight to local impacts. The complex is wholly inappropriate for a development in a rural, non-industrial setting, adjacent to a small village with notable historic buildings. For this reason and others below, I oppose the siting of the SPR substation complex in Friston. Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment 3. SPR and National Grid have a duty under Schedule 9 of the Electricity Act 1989 to consider landscape and other features including historic buildings and to do what they can to mitigate any adverse impacts. I believe that SPR has failed to demonstrate that they have applied such consideration. 4. Plans for the substation complex lack detail and visualisations are poor. SPR are relying on the Rochdale Envelope principle but in such a sensitive location I believe that more and better detail of a “worst case” scenario should be provided prior to Examination in order to allow local residents to make more relevant submissions to the Inspector. 5. Good design is a core principle within Overarching National Policy Statements for Energy EN-1 and EN-3. Only limited reference is made to design in SPR’s document “Outline Onshore Substation Design Principles Statement” and there is insufficient evidence on how SPR will achieve “good design”. Cumulative Impacts 6. The effects of cumulative impacts on East Suffolk’s roads have been inadequately addressed, which means that SPR’s highways assumptions are highly likely to be flawed: o The SPR application fails to adequately account for the possible future delivery of Sizewell C (SZC) nuclear power station and the impact that the construction of EA1-N, EA2 and SZC on a concurrent basis might have on predicted traffic flows. o The application also fails to address possible transport issues associated with EA3. SPR has announced that EA3 windfarm is likely to be built at the same time asEA1-N and EA2. o There is no account of traffic impacts associated with the proposed Nautilus and Eurolink projects. Noise 7. I have grave concerns about the methodology used to predict noise impacts from the substation complex when in operation. It is believed that the approach taken by SPR underestimates the operational noise generated by the complex. Site Selection 8. I believe that the process of site selection adopted by SPR failed to identify all reasonable alternative sites. By limiting the search area, the ability to find suitable alternative sites for the cable route and substations has been compromised. I will argue that SPR should be forced to revisit the site selection process in a transparent way prior to Examination. ENDS