Representation by Suffolk Energy Action Coalition (Suffolk Energy Action Coalition)
- Date submitted
- 27 January 2020
- Submitted by
- Non-statutory organisations
East Anglia Two Offshore Windfarm Planning Inspectorate Reference: EN010078 Relevant Representations of Suffolk Energy Action Coalition Submitted on 27th January 2020 Defined terms: Application the application for a development consent order allocated Planning Inspectorate Reference: EN010078 EA1N means the project described in the application for a development consent order allocated Planning Inspectorate Reference EN010077 EA2 means the project described in the Application EA3 means the project described in the application for a development consent order allocated Planning Inspectorate Reference EN010056 ES the environmental statement submitted as part of the Application SEAC the coalition of interested individuals known collectively as the Suffolk Energy Action Coalition on behalf of whom this relevant representation is submitted NTS non-technical summary (of the ES) submitted as part of the Application On behalf of the coalition of interested individuals known collectively as the Suffolk Energy Action Coalition ("SEAC"), we make the following relevant representations in connection with the above mentioned Application: 1 Flawed Approach to Site Selection 1.1 SEAC consider that the approach taken to site selection is flawed. Had the Applicant properly conducted the site selection process, a different site (or alternative solution) with significantly less severe impacts would have been settled upon. SEAC set out its concerns regarding site selection in its letter to Scottish Power Renewables dated 26 March 2019, and such objections have not been resolved or properly addressed in the Application. 1.2 The flaws relating to site selection can be summarised as follows: 1.2.1 Insufficient consideration has been given to alternative locations as part of the onshore site selection process. Alternative sites within the AONB have been discounted without a proper assessment of whether adverse impacts can be mitigated. 1.2.2 The RAG Red/Amber/ Green assessment for onshore substations site selection in the Sizewell area (the RAG Methodology) prepared by ScottishPower Renewables (SPR) to assess alternative sites is flawed. 1.2.3 Insufficient weight was given in the site selection process to the suitability of the road network for construction traffic. 1.2.4 Greater emphasis should have been placed on sites that could be serviced by more sustainable modes, such as sea and rail freight. 1.2.5 The landscape, archaeological and heritage impacts of the proposed development were not properly assessed. 1.2.6 The infrastructure will have a disproportionately high impact on Friston as an area fundamentally unsuitable for industrial development and this was not given appropriate weight. 1.2.7 Despite the mitigation measures proposed, the impacts have not been shown to be acceptable and thein site selection. 1.2.8 The availability of brownfield sites should have been given greater consideration. 2 Consideration of alternatives to an on-shore substation 2.1 Paragraph 4.4 of the National Policy Statement for Energy (EN-1) states that from a policy perspective there is no general requirement to consider alternatives or to establish whether the proposed project represents the best option. However, paragraph 4.4 also states that applicants are obliged to include in their ES, as a matter of fact, information about the main alternatives they have studied. This should include an indication of the main reasons for the applicant’s choice, taking into account the environmental, social and economic effects and including, where relevant, technical and commercial feasibility. EN-1 advises that in some circumstances there are specific legislative requirements for the IPC to consider alternatives, and that in such circumstances these alternatives should also be identified in the ES by the applicant. 2.2 Regulation 14(2)(d) of the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 (the EIA Regulations) states that an ES must include 'a description of the reasonable alternatives studied by the applicant, which are relevant to the proposed development and its specific characteristics, and an indication of the main reasons for the chosen option, taking into account the effects of the development on the environment.' Schedule 4(2) of the EIA Regulations elaborates on this and provides that the ES must include a description of the reasonable alternatives (for example in terms of development design, technology, location, size and scale) together with an indication of the main reasons for selecting the chosen option. This requirement is further provided in the scoping opinion for the Proposed Development, which the Applicant has disregarded. 2.3 The ES does not consider or discuss the option of an offshore ring main despite there being documented discussions regarding this option which date back many months and which show that the Applicant has studied this alternative option. The Applicant has erred in failing to mention the reasonable alternatives that it has in fact considered. 2.4 The Applicant's failure to work with National Grid, Ofgem and the Government to properly explore an offshore ring main is unreasonable given the significant harm that would be suffered as a result of the proposed on-shore development. A compelling case in the public interest for making the DCO is negated by this failing. 2.5 Not only does the ES not consider the offshore ringmain as a reasonable technological alternative, it does not consider any other alternative technologies, for example, battery storage and hydrogen which are emerging and will provide opportunities to develop combined generation and grid solutions. 3 Cumulative impacts 3.1 Planning Inspectorate Advice Note Seventeen – Cumulative Effects Assessment – provides an overview of the cumulative effects assessment process that applicants should adopt for NSIPs. Advice Note Seventeen provides advice regarding a staged approach and the use of consistent template formats for documenting the cumulative effects assessment within an ES. The Applicant has not used these templates or followed the approach suggested in the advice and subsequently the information on the outcomes from the assessment are not clearly presented making it very difficult to determine the adequacy, transparency and robustness of of the cumulative effects assessments undertaken as part of the ES. Advice Note Seventeen's recommended process focuses on establishing a long list of 'other existing development and/or approved development' likely to result in significant cumulative effects based on the Applicant's determined zone of influence for each environmental aspect considered within the ES. Following this, applicants should then apply threshold criteria to the long list in order to establish a shortlist. The criteria should be used to guide a decision as whether to include or exclude 'other existing development and/or approved development' that falls within the zone of influence from further assessment. 3.2 Given the already well-known and established 'other existing development and/or approved development' both locally and regionally, onshore and offshore, the use of the approach set out in the Advice Note should have been used. The concerns regarding the cumulative impacts of the Proposed Development have been documented and discussed for many months, including through consultation, prior to the submission of the Application. 3.3 The cumulative impact assessment for traffic and transport only considered the impacts of the proposed East Anglia ONE North project and the proposed East Anglia TWO project. This is inadequate. The zone of influence for further assessment, in particular with respect to the traffic and transport aspects of the Proposed Development should be much larger than it is due to the numerous existing and/or approved developments locally and regionally. The assessment should include the wider road network, including the Orwell Bridge which is the primary route to the Proposed Development's onshore substation and cable route, as well as being the primary route for many other developments in the region. 3.4 The Applicant has not considered cumulative impacts associated with the Nautilus Interconnector. This is at the pre-application stage and is development reasonably likely to come forward. 3.5 The Cumulative Impact Assessment for air quality, noise and vibration and traffic and transport associated with Sizewell C is qualitative and not quantitative – eg. it does not consider the increased number of HGV movements through the local road network. This is not acceptable due to the significance of these potential environmental, economic and social impacts. 3.6 It is inappropriate to have scoped out Sizewell C as overlap between the development impacts of Sizewell C and those of the Proposed Development would constitute a 'worst-case scenario' to consider, and it is not definite that there will no overlap. 3.7 Cumulative impacts between EA1N and EA2 were assessed as being not significant. This is considered to be incorrect, as whether EA2 is constructed simultaneously or sequentially, there will be increased traffic locally and regionally. It appears that the "not significant" finding is based on the landfall and cable route only and has not taken the construction of the substation into account. 4 Traffic and transport 4.1 The arrangements for construction traffic will cause substantial harm in terms of: 4.1.1 Road safety; and 4.1.2 Residential amenity; and 4.1.3 The character of the areas through which high volumes of construction traffic will pass; 4.1.4 Emissions, noise and vibration 4.2 The roads identified by the Applicant that will be used by construction traffic are old, narrow, rural roads that are not suitable for the huge volume of HGV traffic that will be generated. 4.3 The stretch of the A12 north of Woodridge in particular is a narrow single carriageway in each direction and is a key road serving Lowestoft and Great Yarmouth. This busy road passes through numerous villages as it stretches north from Woodbridge, and therefore substantial harm would be suffered to the residential amenity and character of these villages, as well as presenting road safety risks. 4.4 The 'onshore development area' is defined within the NTS as 'The area in which the landfall, onshore cable corridor, onshore substation, landscaping and ecological mitigation areas, temporary construction facilities (such as access roads and construction consolidation sites), and the National Grid Infrastructure will be located'. This definition and associated visual representation as provided in Figure 2 of the NTS is an inadequate representation of the true extent of the onshore development area as it does not detail the road network (in particular the B1121) required to access the proposed onshore substation(s) or the village of Friston which is adjacent to the onshore substation(s) and through which the B1121 runs. The exclusion of the B1121 and Friston renders understanding of the baseline and subsequent impacts on these receptors inadequate. In particular, the ES does not consider the localised impacts of traffic and transport and air quality arising from the construction of the substation(s). Further, the onshore development area does not appear to encompass the off-site works to th highway network that the Applicant proposes. 4.5 The onshore highways study area within the ES is flawed as it does not include the B1121. Given the increase in traffic required for the construction of the substation(s), this will significantly increase emissions, noise and vibration locally, including near and in the village of Friston. 4.6 The assessment of sensitive human and ecological receptors in proximity to the roads that will be used to access the substation has not been undertaken. This includes assessment of human receptors living in the village of Friston and assessment of Grove Wood, and also the villages through which the roads will pass. 4.7 Greenhouse gas modelling has not been undertaken for the traffic and transport assessment. 4.8 The ES does not provide any detail about the construction of the permanent access road required to access the onshore substations. 5 Biodiversity 5.1 The Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy (EN-1) states that development consent should not be granted for any development that would result in the loss or deterioration of ancient woodland unless the benefits (including need) of the development, in that location, outweigh the loss of the woodland habitat. Where such trees would be affected by development proposals, the applicant should set out proposals for their conservation or, where their loss is unavoidable, the reasons why. 5.2 Grove Wood has been identified by Natural England as an area of ancient woodland and is on the boundary of the onshore development area. The ES states that the woodland will be retained and therefore, there will be no change to this site. The ES does not include Grove Wood as a sensitive ecological receptor despite its proximity to the onshore substation. The ES is incorrect in its determination that there will be no change to Grove Wood. Due to the proximity to the onshore substation, Grove Wood will be subject to increases in dust and a decrease in air quality throughout the construction period. The air quality impacts on Grove Wood should be assessed as part of the ES and appropriate mitigation put in place. 5.3 The Application should demonstrate a biodiversity net gain in order to offset other environmental harm, but fails to do so. 6 Southern North Sea Special Area of Conservation (SAC) 6.1 The Southern North Sea SAC was designated in 2019 following a lengthy legal dispute between the UK and the European Commission. The ES does not give adequate consideration to the SAC, and the Proposed Development – and therefore the UK Government – risks being in breach of Article 6 of the Habitats Directive. The Conservation of Offshore Marine Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 and the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 have not been taken into account by the Applicant in relation to the Southern North Sea SAC. 6.2 The ES fails to acknowledge the significance of the SAC and consequently makes no attempt to propose any appropriate mitigation measures. 6.3 The avoidance of the Southern North Sea SAC was not considered at all for the positioning of the offshore development, which is at odds with the many steps taken to avoid the siting of onshore infrastructure in protected areas. No justification has been given for this approach. 7 Funding Statement 7.1 The funding statement relies entirely on a draft funding agreement between SPR and the Applicant to satisfy the SoS that funds will be in place to meet compensation claims. That funding agreement has not been entered into, but in any event could be easily extinguished by mutual consent. A funding commitment from SPR should be entered into in favour of the SoS in a legally binding form, preferably pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. 7.2 The funding statement poses significant questions as to whether SPR are committed to the project. The DCLG guidance states that the funding statement should include the degree to which other bodies (public or private sector) have agreed to make financial contributions or to underwrite the scheme, and on what basis such contributions or underwriting is to be made. No firm commitments have been secured from SPR. 7.3 The funding statement does not include copy accounts for the Applicant even though it is suggested in the funding statement that blight claims may be funded by the capital reserves of the Applicant. This represents an unacceptable risk to those who could be affected by blight. It is encumbent on the Applicant to address this issue and to provide evidence that it has sufficient resources to meet such claims. 8 Correspondence with SoS BEIS 8.1 SEAC via its legal team (Trowers & Hamlins LLP) has engaged in correspondence with Andrea Leadsom, Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy in connection with a proposed review into the possibility of an offshore ringmain. 8.2 The Rt Hon Andrea Leadsom (as SoS for BEIS) met with the Rt Hon George Freeman MP on 23 October 2019 in order to discuss the whether the anticipated Application could accommodate an off-shore ringmain in order to reduce the impacts of on-shore infrastructure. Following that meeting, the Rt Hon George Freeman MP wrote to the SoS by a letter dated 28 October 2019 setting out his recollection of the meeting. In that letter, it was recorded that the SoS for BEIS had agreed to conduct a formal review on the potential for an off-shore ringmain. On 25 November 2019 the SoS BEIS wrote back to the Rt Hon George Freeman MP denying that she had promised to conduct a review. However, we have since obtained a read out of the meeting, which records that the SoS agreed that the potential for an off-shore ringmain lent itself to consultation, and that she would be prepared to sit down in Q1 of 2020 to discuss matters further with the Rt Hon George Freeman MP. 8.3 We have today written to the Secretary of State for BEIS seeking confirmation of when she will hold a further meeting with the Rt Hom George Freeman MP during this quarter, and whether she now proposes to carry out consultation (or indeed a formal review) on the topic of an off-shore ringmain. Subject to the reply from the SoS, SEAC consider that a compelling case in the public interest for the confirmation of the DCO cannot be established until a full and proper strategy and review of Government Policy in this area has been concluded. Trowers & Hamlins LLP (on behalf of the Suffolk Energy Action Coalition)