Representation by Dr Stuart Turner
- Date submitted
- 27 January 2020
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
I am writing to you to object to the proposed Scottish Power substation in Friston. Although I support renewable energy, the decision making process so far regarding this project is seriously flawed. I support the representations made by Friston Parish Council and by SASES (www.sases.org.uk). The title of the project registered with your organisation is “East Anglia ONE North Offshore Windfarm” and that or similar wording has been used in all the consultations and local meeting announcements to date. The part of the project to which I object is not named in this title and I maintain that the general public should have been told that this is the “East Anglia ONE North Offshore Windfarm and Associated Large Onshore Substation” from the outset. How was I to know that a large offshore windfarm would affect my village located several miles inland? Failure to include this element in the announcements for consultation has been seriously to mislead local people and has markedly affected my trust in the process. East Suffolk is currently at very real risk of being torn up in a patchwork of unrelated projects - importantly including the new Sizewell C plans with all their implications for worker accommodation and impact on roads - and the construction will inevitably have a huge impact on the local landscape. As well as the Scottish Power proposals, the southern part of Friston has separately been included in a site appraisal for the Nautilus & Eurolink Interconnectors. I understand that existing Galloper and Greater Galloper windfarms are to be expanded and I do not know what impact these will have. It is possible that the village will be circled by engineering projects, each considered separately, and without any sort of joined up planning. I consider that the local impact of the proposed Sizewell C project alone should have been sufficient to find a different solution to the onshore element of this project. Friston is an important part of my life. I enjoy the peace and tranquillity of the village. However, I am well aware, from personal experience that the village is at risk from flooding and that even relatively minor changes to farming land use can have very marked effects. I am not a habitual objector. Last year, the farmer rotated pigs to the land near our house, and this required a large drainage ditch to prevent flooding roads and housing. I consider that change in agricultural use of farmland is one of the expected features of living in the country. Having a large onshore substation nearby is not. This proposal will affect the local countryside, with loss of amenity such as loss or diversion of footpaths, with noise and pollution from the building works and lorry transport, with general transportation limitations due to traffic flow, and with light pollution during and possibly after construction. This proposal will change the character of the village. Friston is a popular tourist area with several homes available to rent and this work is bound to have an adverse effect on the local economy, with loss of jobs. Looking at the recent plans, I do not consider a single row of trees can be an effective camouflage for this development. The views from nearby properties needs to be considered from upstairs as well as ground levels. I am not convinced by the assumptions set out in mitigation planning, especially with regard to visual impact and flood risk. From my own local knowledge, I am seriously concerned that the proposals to mitigate flooding are grossly inadequate, and I am not convinced that the past history of flooding problems locally has adequately been considered. One of the consultation documents went through the protocol of the RAG (red-amber-green) assessment but without any detail. I consider that it makes no sense to give equal weight to each of the criteria. It would be like comparing airlines on several criteria and giving equal weight to safety record and the quality of food. I know which criterion would be more important in my mind. I would give much more weight to an amber score on safety than to a red score on food. This is especially important as Scottish Power have refused to disclose the detail behind their RAG assessments. I also object to the proposed landfall at Thorpeness and I am concerned that the impact of the cable route has not been fully assessed. The cable corridor is unacceptably close to residential projects and there are many problems with this cable route, such as noise and dust control, lack of commitment to restore woodland, and especially no cumulative assessment of this alongside other local projects.