Representation by Beach View Holiday Park (Beach View Holiday Park)
- Date submitted
- 27 January 2020
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
Beach View Holiday Park is a tourism business located north of Thorpeness and south of Sizewell. The onshore development requirements of energy proposals along the Suffolk Coast demands serious questions about a real discernible threat to the sustainability of the AONB & tourism economy. Scottish Power’s proposals for EA1N and National Grids role directing numerous projects into the AONB, lacks necessary justification and a commitment to minimise damage to the protected landscape and tourism industry. How is it that a protected landscape could be damaged over and over again? We are not against offshore wind; it is wild west approach to onshore development requirements by National Grid & developers that requires urgent leadership. Protected landscapes and localised tourism will be damaged forever if precedents are allowed to be set. Need for project - SASES & others during consultation questioned the need for onshore works and substations for EA1N. It’s clear cabling and connection could/should have been via the Bawdsey to Bramford route, as was originally proposed in earlier DCO’s for EA1 & EA3. Cable Landing Zone & Cable Corridor - Cable landing north of Thorpeness is at one of the most exposed stretches of coastline in the UK. Fragile sand cliffs are prone to cliff falls, in January 2017 a man was killed when walking, at this exact location by a cliff fall. - Horizontal directional cable drilling (HDD) proposals are alarming; vibrations have the potential to trigger unstable cliff falls, this poses a direct danger to the public. Any damage caused to the cliffs could result in catastrophic manmade cliff erosion. - Public rights of way, proposals will close, reroute or disrupt access to PRoW (footpaths, bridleways and the ‘Sandlings’ walk). SPR is unable to provide a cable route or assurances they will minimise impact on the ‘freedom to roam’. SPRs proposals will have considerable impact on accessibility to the Suffolk Coast & Heaths AONB. - Walking is a major draw to the AONB, it is essential to the success and viability of tourism businesses located here (including our business Beach View). - Proposals represent significantly increased danger to walkers and cyclists wishing to use PRoW. Public Safety, Health & Well Being, Noise, Light - Background ‘baseline’ noise measurements are questionably high, considering the rural location of receptor points. WHY? Is this to minimise impact of projected construction & substation operational noise? *We would ask that examiners request independent expert study of baseline background noise and projected construction noise (at the expense of the developer). This should also include baseline background noise and operational noise for substations (Friston). The proximity of substations to Friston and the 24hr nature operation of substations poses serious noise issues for those living close by – Something is wrong with noise assessments and figure provided. - Construction noise: SPR’s figures appear to be lower than those provided for EA1 & EA3 projects how can this be? - Noise from horizontal drilling (HDD) and the cable route trenching will impact on the peace and tranquilly of the immediate area. Galloper & Greater Gabbard projects required pilling. At the time this resulted in numerous complaints made by our guests holidaying during these periods. As EA1N also requires piling it is vital to understand how this noise will carry. - Emergency Planning, SPR appears to have failed to consult with the Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) & Suffolk County Councils emergency planning officials. This is a breach of the Planning Act 2008. It is extremely concerning that PINs have accepted this DCO application considering this fundamental aspect of public safety has been omitted at stages of site selection, cable route planning and statutory consultation. Transport & Roads - The road improvements and traffic measures do virtually nothing to offset HGVs and ancillary vehicles accessing inadequate country roads and lanes. - Traffic/road proposals are unacceptable and will lead to huge problems at peak times and holiday periods. Proposals represent increased danger for pedestrians, and cyclists using the roads. Socioeconomics & Tourism Scottish Power’s use of TripAdvisor as the main resource for assessing local tourism is deplorable, we have a wonderful DMO (The Suffolk Coast – Destination Management Organisation) the DMO understands tourism here and they have been forced to produce the tourism impact study that SPR should have produced. - SPR lack basic understanding of the impact their proposals are likely to have on tourism. - The surveys the DMO recently carried out into the impact of energy proposals on the coastal tourism economy, have worrying figures, a potential net loss of 25% in tourism spend. This could result in many small tourism businesses being made unviable. - SPR have failed to provide a clear picture of the actual short & medium-term damage to tourism businesses. - SPR attempt to justify proposals, quoting numbers of jobs created however this is very misleading. There are no permanent jobs at substations as they are autonomous. The nearest jobs (if any) will be over 30 miles away in Lowestoft at SPRs offices. There is actually likely to be net reduction in local employment due to the negative effects on tourism businesses and the need for them to downsize or in worst case scenarios close. Beach View has only ever been contacted by SPR or their agents about land acquisition or rights of access. We asked Dalcour Maclaren to provide more details about access requirements on a number of occasions, they did not reply. We do not consider we have been consulted with effectively, about the projects, or a potential for the proposals to have a major impact on the continued success of our business. We understand neighbouring tourism businesses Sizewell Hall & The Wardens Trust have had a similar lack of engagement by SPR. Evidence that supports concerns that SPR are not a competent developer or sympathetic to the sensitive environment that they would be operating in.