Representation by Sandra Betts
- Date submitted
- 8 November 2022
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
I object in the strongest way possible to this DCO application as follows: 1. Lack of proper consideration by the Applicant of an alternative, more appropriate, grid connection point The Applicant claimed, falsely and continuously, through the consultation process that it was unable to change the grid connection point set by National Grid (approx. 40 miles of onshore cable needed, affecting numerous communities). The most appropriate grid connection for this project is at the Walpole substation (7 miles of onshore cable needed, affecting very few people). The applicant has failed to fully consider this option despite being repeatedly requested to do so. 2. Need for the ExA to require the attendance of National Grid at the Hearings, to be interrogated on their actions by the ExA, in public, during the examination process National Grid should be asked to explain which alternative connection points were considered in reaching a decision about the grid connection for this project and the extent to which the impact on the environment and communities was taken into account. 3. Recognition, in relation to the work of the OTNR, that SEP/DEP is not an “in-flight” project 4. The onshore in-combination, cumulative impacts of SEP/DEP’s landfall, substation and cable corridor construction are unacceptable when considered alongside the already consented Hornsea Three, Vanguard and Boreas projects We are seriously concerned about disruption to our lives caused by this project which may last for many years. The road leading to our house will be closed and the noise and pollution from the project will directly impact us. We are also concerned about the long-term impacts on the wildlife and countryside. Connection of SEP and DEP to the grid at Walpole would avoid this. 5. That the SEP/DEP application should include – as a necessary cumulative impact – the proposed East Anglia Green project, upon the consenting of which it depends 6. The cumulative impact of the possible future construction of large battery storage facilities to improve the economic viability of the project, as has happened with the Hornsea Three project 7. Unacceptable development scenarios are presented for single project and sequential development. Scenarios 1a, 1b, 1c, 3 and 4 should not be permitted Orsted's Hornsea 3 project and Vattenfall's Vanguard and Boreas projects can bring into Norfolk 2.4 GW and 3.6 GW respectively. Therefore, we cannot see the justification for the Applicant wanting to dig approximately the same width cable path through Norfolk for a mere 0.338 from SEP or 0.448 GW from DEP (scenarios 1a and 1b). Scenarios 1c, 3 and 4 involve digging up the cable path twice! The huge cost to the environment and disruption to people's lives and livelihoods of these scenarios is simply not justified. 8. The Applicant has sought to prevent objections to the project via restrictive clauses in heads of terms contract documents with landowners.