Skip to main content
Find a National Infrastructure Project

This is a beta service - your feedback will help us to improve it

Back to list Dogger Bank South Offshore Wind Farms

Representation by National Trust (National Trust)

Date submitted
5 September 2024
Submitted by
Non-statutory organisations

The National Trust wishes to register as an interested party in respect of the application for a Development Consent Order for the Dogger Bank South Offshore Wind Farms project comprises the two offshore wind farms (Dogger Bank South West and Dogger Bank South East). Renewable Energy Development The Trust believes strongly in the need to grow renewable energy and reduce the UK’s and the Trust’s use of fossil fuels. We are supportive of renewable energy as a matter of principle and believe that appropriate development can play an important role. We welcome renewable schemes that are holistically designed to take into account the effects on the environment including wildlife, landscape and cultural heritage including the cumulative effects of similar schemes impacting related species and landscapes. National Trust’s Interest in the Proposal The National Trust’s interest in this proposal relates to the Flamborough and Filey Coast Special Protection Area (FFC SPA) and the Farne Islands SPA where we look after land for nature, beauty and history, for everyone, for ever. Our concern is to ensure that the scale of the impacts on the identified features of these SPAs arising from the proposed development are thoroughly tested through the Examination process and we defer to the expertise of Natural England and RSPB to do so. Should the proposals be supported by the Secretary of State it is essential that viable and deliverable compensation measures are identified and secured over an appropriate time frame to secure the long-term integrity of the bird populations that are to be impacted by both projects. Where compensation measures are identified outside of England, then the Northern Ireland Environment Agency and/or Natural Resources Wales should be consulted to assess the prospects of success. The DCO legislation does not apply in Northern Ireland and if consent is forthcoming the Examining Authority will need to assess whether the technicalities of conditions can be satisfied and/or if other consent regimes apply. Specifically, our concern relates to the Applicant’s Habitats Regulations Assessment and Document App-051 – 6.2 Habitats Regulations Derogation: Provision of Evidence-Volume 6 which provides evidence to support Stage 3 (Derogation) of the Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) Process in relation to the kittiwake, guillemot and razorbill features of the Flamborough and Filey Coast (FFC) Special Protection Area (SPA). We note that for all other sites and features assessed in App-048 - 6.1 Report to Inform Appropriate Assessment Habitats Regulations Assessment - Part 4 of 4 – Marine Ornithological Features - Volume 6, a conclusion of no adverse effect on site integrity is reached. We are not in a position to challenge this assessment and trust Natural England will scrutinise this information as necessary for SPAs such as the Farne Islands and for species where compensation is not identified such as Gannets. Volume 6 (application ref: 6.1) concludes: For the kittiwake feature of the FFC SPA, an adverse effect on site integrity cannot be ruled out due to in-combination collision risk; and for the guillemot feature of the FFC SPA, an adverse effect on site integrity cannot be ruled out due to in-combination displacement effects. For Razorbill from the FFC SPA, Volume 6,(application ref: 6.1) considers the effects of disturbance and displacement mortality and concludes that AEoI can be ruled out. However, the applicant acknowledges that ‘this is consistent with the outcome of The Crown Estate’s Plan-Level Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) (The Crown Estate, 2022) with respect to FFC SPA razorbill (see section 1.2 for further information). However, it is possible that the SoS may not agree with this conclusion and as such the Applicants have proposed ‘without prejudice’ compensation measures for razorbill.’ We support a precautionary approach being taken to compensation for impacts on Razorbill. A number of compensatory measures are then identified (within App-051) for the three species within the appendices and annexes to the document. For Kittiwake two offshore Artificial Nesting Sites (ANS) are identified to be delivered via one or a combination of mechanisms. (App-053 - 6.2.1.1 Habitats Regulations Derogation: Provision of Evidence - Round 4 Kittiwake Strategic Compensation Plan - Volume 6). We agree with the assessment that the evidence and prospects of success of onshore ANS is to date somewhat unproven and we support offshore ANS where they are in appropriate locations where they are to be effective in compensating for impacts. Predator eradication / control has been identified as the most suitable measure to achieve the compensation requirements of DBS for guillemot [and razorbill]. ( App-056 - 6.2.2 Habitats Regulations Derogation: Provision of Evidence - Appendix 2 - Guillemot [and Razorbill] Compensation Plan - Volume 6) It is understood that from an initial long list of 80 plus sites (App-058 - 6.2.2.2 Habitats Regulations Derogation: Provision of Evidence - Annex B - Guillemot [and Razorbill] Compensation Predator Eradication / Control Site Longlist - Volume 6) that this list been refined down to a list of 8 sites; four of which are owned by National Trust at Sheep Island, Gobbins, Worm’s Head and The Needles. Whilst there has been an initial discussion with the applicants to understand more about their compensation proposals, it is clear that they are at an early point of development. They need to progress detailed feasibility work to understand whether the site(s) identified are technically feasible and if they are likely to prove suitable. Whether there can be a reasonable level of certainty that there are opportunities to deliver the compensation proposed is presently unclear. Within Appendix 2( App-056) Paragraph 108 states that the applicant anticipates that a location suitable for implementation of the predator eradication compensation measure will be identified ‘prior’ to the end of DCO Examination process. We are aware that surveys are planned for winter 24/25 and have some concern that this timeframe will provide limited opportunity to discuss and agree a deliverable scheme and consider that this should have been progressed by the applicant up front to provide more certainty at the outset of the Examination process. Notwithstanding this, and without prejudice to any case we may present to the Examination, we propose to facilitate site access for the feasibility work to be undertaken. This feasibility will also need to ensure it takes into account existing projects being undertaken (Sheep Island) and that additionality is fully considered. In paragraph 17 of Volume 6 Appendix 2 - Guillemot [and Razorbill] Compensation Plan (App-056 application reference 6.2.2) the applicant states that the document demonstrates how the proposed compensatory measures can be secured and that the mechanism for delivery can be implemented. We have reservations at this point, in the absence of further work on the sites identified, that the Examining Authority can be confident this is the case. App-057 - 6.2.2.1 Habitats Regulations Derogation: Provision of Evidence - Annex A - Outline Guillemot [and Razorbill] Compensation Implementation and Monitoring Plan - Volume 6 (CIMP), outlines that the CIMP will be produced by the Applicants and approved by the SoS prior to the start of construction. Should compensation for razorbill be required, a combined Guillemot and Razorbill CIMP will be produced. The detailed implementation and monitoring of the compensatory measures identified will be agreed with the Guillemot Compensation Steering Group and it also states that the proposed monitoring will run in parallel with the eradication activity and will continue for the operational phase of the Projects at a scale and frequency to be agreed with the GCSG. If National Trust sites are involved we would want to be involved in the Steering Group. The timescale of the operational projects phase is defined as 32 years (30 years if a project is progressed in isolation) and it is important to consider and assess whether the compensation measures associated with impacts on the FFC SPA should extend beyond life of the project and decommissioning to ensure the impacted features of the SPA have sufficient time to recover. In Summary In summary, the applicant’s proposals are not yet developed enough for the Trust to be able to advise whether we would support the compensatory measures on our land on the four sites identified and whether we consider they would be securable and deliverable. The National Trust therefore wishes to register as an Interested Party and will provide updates to the Examining Authority on our position as the compensation proposals are developed in more detail.