Skip to main content
Find a National Infrastructure Project

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

Advice to Cllr David Busby

Back to list

Enquiry

From
Cllr David Busby
Date advice given
7 September 2011
Enquiry type
Email

I have some concerns about the IPC's possible ruling on the above project. The background to my concerns is as follows.

I attended an exhibition put on by Scottish Power Renewables to outline their plans re East Anglia ONE Offshore Windfarm. They happened to mention that they would not be allowed to put the infrastructure in place during phase 1 to cover all 3 phases, i.e. each phase had to be put to the IPC independently and that the reason for this was one of cost. I'm guessing that if the costs were front loaded then it might make that phase seem uneconomic. The company would prefer to 'gamble' on all 3 phases happening at sometime and put all 3 cables in place during the first phase and absorb the costs if the second and third phases don't happen.

If you look at the total costs of providing the infrastructure then it must be cheaper for us all and less disruptive to the local population to excavate the ground once and put in 3 cables rather than to do dig it up each time. However as they are planning on burying the cables it is a less sensitive issue to that of National Grid who are proposing to put the cables overhead. There is tremendous opposition to them doing this - the proposed routes traverse areas of natural beauty and would blight the views.

This made me think that the same issue might apply to National Grid as Scottish Power in that if they had the choice they would be happier to deal with the infrastructure for all three phases in one hit. This would also make burying the cables more of a palatable economic option.

My questions to you are therefore:

does the IPC insist on phased infrastructure work? if so, then why when it is not only cheaper in the long run for the country but also leads to more visually appealing solutions for the residents?

Thank you, in advance, for your efforts in unravelling this for me.

Advice given

Thank you for your recent questions regarding the Bramford to Twinstead Overhead Line and the accompanying background information.

The IPC does not insist on developers having a phased implementation of any infrastructure project. Under Section 51 (2) of the Planning Act 2008 (PA 2008) the IPC is specifically excluded from advising developers or other parties on the merits of an application for a development consent order (DCO) or commenting on the merits of any proposed details contained within such an application.

Both the Bramford to Twinstead Overhead line and the East Anglia Offshore Windfarm projects are still at pre-application and at this stage the IPC advises developers on the Planning Act 2008 process.

The cost effectiveness of the chosen solution and the impact on local residents of construction and operational phases of any proposed development are matters which can be brought to the attention of the developer during the pre application consultation. The idea being that the application is prepared with the input of the public and statutory consultees. I would therefore advise you to make these points known to the developers of Bramford to Twinstead and East Anglia Offshore schemes at the time they conduct their pre application consultation. I understand that National Grid is part way through their programme of consultation at the present time in respect of Bramford to Twinstead and you should make these views known to them.