Representation by Patrick Fincham
- Date submitted
- 27 January 2020
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
Firstly, I would like to confirm that I fully support all of the representations being made by SASES and Friston Parish Council in respect of this project. In addition, I object to the planned project for the following key reasons: 1. Site choice I cannot see the logical rational behind the site being placed where it is, 5+ kilometres from the coastline where the transmission cables will come offshore. It is well known that some of the major inefficiencies in energy production come from energy lost through transportation from generator to sub-station. Minimising distances between generator and substation should therefore be a key priority, making a costal site clearly preferable. There is ample space near the current Sizewell complex for a substation of this size (and many existing infrastructures which would aid its development and management are already in place), and from discussions with current industry players it appears that the only reason that current brownfield (or local to Sizewell greenfield) land is not being chosen for this project is because of the unwillingness of different power companies to collaborate and work together. This should clearly be addressed and resolved, instead of unspoilt greenfield in pristine East Anglian countryside being chosen. Secondly, the current (and proposed) infrastructures in the area are wholly unsuitable for a project of this scale. Whilst the planning has gone to some effort to illustrate how they will develop the area to cope with an infrastructure development of this size, these seem inadequate and do not consider the broader impacts of the project. Such impacts include, but are not limited to: - the compulsory evacuation plan relating to Sizewell Nuclear Power Plant (newly introduced following the Fukushima disaster); - The impact on the local businesses of Aldeburgh, Friston and Saxmundham that rely on the road networks that will be used for the project, and the tourism that will undoubtably be reduced following the implementation of the project; - the impact on local wildlife habitats and migrations (red deer are often seen in the proposed sight as well as barn owls); and - the local noise, light, visual and traffic pollution that will persist throughout the construction phase and during operation. It is my strongly held view that anyone who visits the proposed site would not conclude that it is a suitable location for what will be the biggest substation of this type in Europe (bigger than Wembley stadium) and I would respectfully ask those who are responsible for deciding whether or not to grant this planning application to visit the site for themselves and consider the impact of a project of this size. 2. Timing of decision It is unclear why a decision to implement a project of this scale and size is being taken whilst there are ongoing discussions surrounding the development of an offshore ring main which would connect all east coast offshore wind farms and allow for a single point of landfall as opposed to multiple. Similar offshore ring mains have been developed and introduced in the Netherlands with the effect of reducing the need of substations like this. It would be logical for a definitive decision to be taken on whether or not an offshore ring main project will go ahead for the UK east coast before a project like this is approved (especially considering the timeframe involved in the construction of a substation of this size, it cannot be right that an offshore ring main could be introduced during the construction phase of this substation that would remove the need for such a substation). Thank you for taking the time to consider my representation.