Representation by Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (Royal Society for the Protection of Birds)
- Date submitted
- 27 January 2020
- Submitted by
- Non-statutory organisations
East Anglian One North Offshore Windfarm Development Consent Order Application Planning Inspectorate Reference: EN010077 Relevant Representation from the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) 27 January 2020 1. Introduction The RSPB supports the deployment of renewable energy projects, providing that they are sited in appropriate places and designed to avoid potential adverse impacts on wildlife. We are grateful for the constructive pre-application discussions that have taken place with Scottish Power Renewables in respect of this proposal, particularly through the Evidence Plan process. Whilst some methodological concerns remain, progress towards resolving a number of issues was made during the pre-application discussions for this project. However, we continue to have significant concerns relating to project’s alone, in-combination and cumulative collision risk and displacement impacts. 2. Offshore ornithology impacts (a) Impacts from the project alone The RSPB considers that there are potential adverse effects on the integrity of the following sites and features as a result of predicted collision mortality from this project alone: • The gannet population of the Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA The RSPB recommends that the predicted impacts on this species alone are also presented as a Population Viability Analysis output in the form the Counterfactual of Population Size. (b) Collision risk from the project in-combination and cumulatively with other projects The RSPB considers that there are potential adverse effects on the integrity of the following sites and features as a result of predicted collision mortality from this project in-combination with other plans and projects: • The gannet population of the Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA; • The kittiwake population of the Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA; • The lesser black-backed gull population of the Alde-Ore Estuary SPA. We also consider that cumulative (EIA) collision risk impacts on gannet, kittiwake, great black-backed gull and lesser black-backed gull are significant. In addition, we consider the EIA cumulative collision risk impacts on greater black backed gulls are significant. (c) Displacement from this project in-combination and cumulatively with others We consider that there are potential adverse effects on the integrity of the following sites and features as a result of predicted displacement from this project in-combination with other plans and projects: • The razorbill population of the Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA; • The guillemot population of the Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA; • The red-throated diver population of the Outer Thames Estuary SPA. We also consider that cumulative (EIA) displacement impacts on red-throated diver, guillemot and razorbill are significant. (d) Impacts on the seabird assemblage feature of Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA We note, as advised by Natural England, that a breeding seabird assemblage (comprising kittiwake, gannet, guillemot and razorbill, northern fulmar, Atlantic puffin, herring gull, European shag and great cormorant) is a designated feature of this SPA but that a detailed assessment of impacts on this feature and its species has not been carried out. Given the level of in-combination collision risk to kittiwake and collision risk to gannet and displacement to razorbill and guillemot effects on the abundance of this feature are likely to result. We therefore consider that it is not possible to rule out adverse effects on the integrity of the following feature from this project in-combination with others: • The breeding seabird assemblage of the Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA (e) Conclusion This project can only be granted consent if, subsequent to the Examining Authority’s report, the Secretary of State is convinced that it will not have an adverse effect on the integrity of the European sites and their species concerned, having applied the precautionary principle and taken account of the conservation objectives (including the relevant Natural England supplementary advice on those conservation objectives) for those sites and their habitats and species. Waddenzee (CJEU Case-127/02; [2004] ECR-7405 at [56]-[57]) confirmed that where doubt remains as to the absence of adverse effects on the integrity of the site, approval should be refused, subject to the consideration of the derogation tests of alternative solutions, imperative reasons of overriding public interest and the provision of compensatory measures as set out in regulations 64 and 68 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 and regulations 29 and 36 of the Conservation of Offshore Marine Habitats and Species Regulations 2017. 3. Concerns regarding the assessment of collision risk (a) Apportioning of mortality to Alde-Ore Estuary SPA We have concerns about the methods used for apportioning of lesser black-backed gull collision mortality to the Alde-Ore Estuary SPA and the evidence used to support this. We consider the inclusion of birds from urban colonies in the apportionment calculation dilutes the potential significance of impact on the Alde-Ore Estuary SPA. (b) Gannet avoidance rate Whilst the RSPB accepts the SNCB’s recommended amendment to the gannet avoidance rate (AR) from 98% to 98.9% for non-breeding birds, we do not agree that this figure should be applied to the breeding season due to the lack of available evidence relating to breeding birds. As the BTO avoidance rate review was heavily biased to non-breeding gannets, we prefer a more precautionary AR of 98% for the breeding season. 4. Consented capacity of windfarms It is stated that many of the collision estimates for other windfarms are based on higher numbers of turbines than were actually built. This is an acceptable point for windfarms where the DCO has been amended and therefore there is legal certainty regarding the reduction. Where windfarms still have their original DCOs (and Crown Estate licences), it is not appropriate to do anything less than assess the full extent of those DCOs when considering in-combination/cumulative effects e.g. on lesser black-backed gull, gannet and kittiwake. This will also be relevant to assessing impacts on the breeding seabird assemblage feature of the Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA as mentioned in section 2(d) above. 5. Onshore ornithology impacts The proposed cable route crosses land within the Sandlings SPA and runs close to both the eastern and western sides of that SPA at either side of this crossing point. The RSPB has therefore raised concerns about potential disturbance and loss of habitat affecting breeding woodlark and nightjar of the Sandlings SPA and turtle dove and nightingale populations associated with the Leiston-Aldeburgh SSSI. The RSPB is grateful for constructive engagement during the pre-application phase with the developer, during which we engaged in discussions and shared relevant data in order to understand and attempt to reduce the potential impacts. We are therefore pleased that the application includes mitigation proposals including a breeding season restriction on work at the crossing, location of the cable route away from the SPA boundary and a mitigation area for turtle doves. We do however have some remaining concerns about the potential for disturbance to affect SPA species during the construction period due to the proximity of nightjar and woodlark territories to the proposed cable route and consider that more information is required regarding the timeline and details of the construction work within the SPA. 6. Notes Due to serious resource limitations, the RSPB regrets that it will not be able to attend the issue specific hearings covering ornithological impacts. We propose to engage with the Examination primarily through the agreement of a Statement of Common Ground with Scottish Power Renewables, setting out clearly the areas of agreement and disagreement to aid the Examining Authority. Our key concern is that the derogation tests under Habitats Regulations are properly explored and tested through the Examination and wish to focus our limited resources on any discussions surrounding these critical issues. The RSPB reserves the right to add to and/or amend its position in light of changes to or any new information submitted by the Applicant. The RSPB January 2020